...what's the first detail that catches your eye? The way said person dresses? Their hair, their face, how they walk? The company they keep? Their dimensions (tall, short, roundness)?

To me, how a person dresses always jumps out to me. I know that doesn't really say much about the person, but it's what jumps out the most when I see someone for the first time.

felipebo

This is a dumb thread. If she cheats.GmasterRED

When did ghostbusters become a standard in gaming? Sounds like you are really really trying, whose alts account are you?Diviniuz

[QUOTE="KittenWishes"]I can see the pictures fine. The PS3 version is a disgusting mess. The xbox 360 version looks sharp, clear and attractive.KevinButlerVP

[QUOTE="Dylan_11"]

[QUOTE="Paladin_King"]I agree that Spider-Man doesn't really need a reboot....at least, it certainly doesn't need one as badly as the X-Men franchise. That said, the last Spider-Man movie was pretty bad, especially compared to the first two movies. Not X-Men 3 bad, but bad. The dance/evil Peter musical sequence still haunts my dreams.Banjo_Kongfooie

What is this? I don't even....

It was a good movie it just didn't have the best ending

I agree; the dancing part was enjoyable. It brought a comedic flare to the movie that succeeded in making me laugh. I mean this in a good way, in case that wasn't clear.

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]

"What I said is historically accepted; therefore, it is true." is not my point. Being historically accepted as well as currently accepted means you are the one to offer evidence against the mainstream idea, not me for it. I in no way intended my mentioning of historical acceptance of the mindset to be viewed as proof of any truthfulness contained therein, and I believe my text shows this. Had I argued the way you described, I would indeed be guilty of logical fallacy.

GabuEx

No, your text does not show that. You first said the following:

"People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught."

You then said, in your recap which you titled "a logical analysis of the rational behind my assertion", the following:

"Fear of punishment has always been a motivator extraordinaire. To such a degree this is true that most religions prophecy punishment after death for those who do evil in life. Religion being the popular thing that it is, I think it's safe to assume most people are motivated by the thought of punishment. Now, the death penalty is a strong form of punishment, hence carrying a strong motivational weight. Let me illustrate: A man carrying a stick (a mild form of punishment) is less persuasive than a man carrying a gun (a strong form of punishment), for obvious reasons. The same logic applies to lawful persuasion."

In other words, your assertion is,"People will not as readily commit heinous offenses if they know they will lose their lives if they are caught," and your justification of that is:

- "Fear of punishment has always been a motivator extraordinaire."

- "I think it's safe to assume most people are motivated by the thought of punishment."

- "The same logic applies to lawful persuasion."

The first two are your fundamental premises, and they are both offered without proof, other than an allusion to historical acceptance. The third is more or less a tautology, as it effectively says "persuasion is persuasion".

Given that it is no exaggeration to say that the only evidence you have provided in favor of your premises is the allusion to historical acceptance, it is unreasonable to assume that you were not intending your allusion to historical acceptance to be taken as proof of your assertion, given that it is, indeed, the only proof you have ever attempted.

My "bare unsupported assertion" is a logical train of thought. Since when did logic become useless for supporting an argument? Additionally, you still have made no argument against it.

twitchmonkey399

You would make a great lawyer, but this is not a court of law, and it remains the case that you have still provided no evidence in favor of your assertion. I have not asserted the negation of your claim; therefore it is not incumbent on me to provide an argument against it.

-"Heavier punishments comes with heavier persuasiveness."

Not that its of much importance.

My two premises were backed not by an allusion, but by a common understanding of religion and it's effects. That being one example of the effectiveness of the threat of punishment. Perhaps I didn't make my religion example clear (ugh, I waste too much time not making what I say clear or detailed enough the first time, if you haven't caught on by now) like I did for another user: "Then why do so many people deprive themselves of the freedom that non-religious people enjoy? Surely, it is because they are convinced that there is a god, and that that god will punish them if they don't do as they are instructed. These people believe that a good short time on earth is not worth the eternity of hell, the greatest of all punishments. Eternal damnation is a strong form of punishment. So strong, in fact, that it will bend men to deny themselves things of their very nature."

This is the vastly exercised base of religions, and given the popularity of them and their existence since the beginning of recorded history, it is safe to say that the threat of punishment is both highly motivating (to the point of having complete control over and sometimes exercising denial of their naturally occurring passions) and affecting most people (again, due to religion's prevalence in the vast majority of cultures throughout time).

I hope this clarified my stance further.

You have not asserted negation of my claim, I do see that now. You were careful. Darn, you've got me beat on me telling you to provide evidence against my claim. Still, I have to mention that the specific response you quoted and responded to in the last part of your previous post was referring to my train of thought not being confronted, not that what it claimed was not being confronted. You did assert negation of my reasoning by calling it a "bare unsupported assertion."

So, now I am to reevaluate my position. You are not asserting negation of my claim, but merely asking for concrete evidence. It's a fair enough position (tricky as it is). Well, seeing that this will require research, and that my limited experience with researching will probably end with me only finding hearsay, I say I'm done. You win. For now.

[QUOTE="twitchmonkey399"]You have ignored what I said and reiterated your previous response. I have provided a logical analysis, and try as you may to not confront it, it is more than what you have. I brought up a previously traversed idea aligned with basic logic. And all you have done is bring up an inconclusive graph with a few "You don't have a graph so I'm right."'s thrown in.GabuEx

No, all you've said is basically, "What I said is historically accepted; therefore, it is true." This is either an appeal to authority fallacy if you are declaring that some unnamed historians have affirmed what you've said, or it is an appeal to common belief fallacy if you are declaring that most people accept this as true. It doesn't really matter which it is, as both are fallacies, and it remains the case that you have provided no evidence in favor of your position(s) other than bare unsupported assertions.

My "bare unsupported assertion" is a logical train of thought. Since when did logic become useless for supporting an argument? Additionally, you still have made no argument against it.

If you think it's the best FPS games, then you obviously have not played very many FPS games.

The balance of weapons in the game is terrible, very camp-friendly, perks/killstreak/deathstreak awards and map design is just bad.

Basically it's one of the most casual FPS games ever made.

Crazyguy105