Forced music doesn't mean that at all. It means the music sounds unnatural. Which is a highly negative connotation and has nothing to do with a band's potential.

Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 14:37

Music is subjective. Think on that

But words like "forced" and "uninspired" are not. Think on that. At no point is "good" a synonym for these words.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 20.11.2013 at 14:38

Forced music doesn't mean that at all. It means the music is unnatural. Which is a highly negative connotation and has nothing to do with a band's potential.

It has everything to do with potential. If a musician has the potential to write better, the music would be rushed, but can still be good as a result of their skill.

Written by Guest on 20.11.2013 at 14:39

But words like "forced" and "uninspired" are not. Think on that. At no point is "good" a synonym for these words.

Never said it was, and you well know that.

I have work to attend to. Feel free to continue to "discuss".

Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 14:43

Never said it was, and you well know that.

You gave the album a 7, which is written as "good" I believe on here, then described the album as those two adjectives. You cannot both dismiss Marcel's claim of awarding a 9 to that Gallhammer album whilst calling it "crap" and maintain your defence of giving this album 7 and calling it forced and uninspired. You either realise that your own argument is incorrect or admit that Marcel's OTT, ridiculous statement is in fact true because his statement and your own are effectively the same proposition.

Yes, you had "work" to do before, but came back after 5 minutes. You seem to lack concentration

Written by Guest on 20.11.2013 at 14:47

You gave the album a 7, which is written as "good" I believe on here, then described the album as those two adjectives. You cannot both dismiss Marcel's claim of awarding a 9 to that Gallhammer album whilst calling it "crap" and maintain your defence of giving this album 7 and calling it forced and uninspired. You either realise that your own argument is incorrect or admit that Marcel's OTT, ridiculous statement is in fact true because his statement and your own are effectively the same proposition.

Yes, you had "work" to do before, but came back after 5 minutes. You seem to lack concentration

I can because "crap" directly correlates with particularly low rating - hell its pretty much a synonym of the tag associated with a 2 - while forced and uninspired have a threshold which I believe to be around an 8 despite such a rating would warrant further explanation. Our statements are hardly comparable; if you do not see that, this discussion is pointless.

I have issues with concentration which is none of your concern. This discussion is becoming personal and I suggest you change its course.

Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 15:07

I can because "crap" directly correlates with particularly low rating - hell its pretty much a synonym of the tag associated with a 2 - while forced and uninspired have a threshold which I believe to be around an 8 despite such a rating would warrant further explanation. Our statements are hardly comparable; if you do not see that, this discussion is pointless.

Then you can regard a "very good" album to be summarised as "forced" and "uninspired." You're right, I don't see that. It's preposterous and directly contradictory to the evidence at hand - that is the well documented written meanings of the terms being used here in scholarly texts, websites etc. You will never find "very good" synonymous with "forced" and "uninspired."

Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 15:07

I have issues with concentration which is none of your concern. This discussion is becoming personal and I suggest you change its course.

I redact my previous statement then. For the record you have already accused me of being "frustrated" so elements of ad hominem have already been brought into play here.

Written by Guest on 20.11.2013 at 15:15

Then you can regard a "very good" album to be summarised as "forced" and "uninspired." You're right, I don't see that. It's preposterous and directly contradictory to the evidence at hand - that is the well documented written meanings of the terms being used here in scholarly texts, websites etc. You will never find "very good" synonymous with "forced" and "uninspired."

What did I just say. If I were to rate the album an 8 my post would have been edited to include further aspects of the music You don't read my posts correctly...this is so pointless...

Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 15:20

What did I just say. If I were to rate the album an 8 my post would have been edited to include further aspects of the music You don't read my posts correctly...this is so pointless...

Not so, I still regard your original description of this album as woefully inadequate for scoring it a 7. Giving it an 8 is the same issue, just a slightly more ridiculous and extreme example. My points above still relate to a 7 score.

Written by Guest on 20.11.2013 at 15:19

I redact my previous statement then. For the record you have already accused me of being "frustrated" so elements of ad hominem have already been brought into play here.

Once again, you're reading my posts incorrectly. You accused my argument of being "nauseating". Accrediting a negative emotion to my argument in an effort to debase it is a logical fallacy. Think before you write.

Written by Guest on 20.11.2013 at 15:22

Not so, I still regard your original description of this album as woefully inadequate for scoring it a 7. Giving it an 8 is the same issue, just a slightly more ridiculous and extreme example. My points above still relate to a 7 score.

Go seek adequate elsewhere, I'm not here to please you

Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 15:23

Once again, you're reading my posts incorrectly. You accused my argument of being "nauseating". Accrediting a negative emotion to my argument in an effort to debase it is a logical fallacy. Think before you write.

"Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments."

Gotta see the irony here considering you dare use terms like "logical fallacy"

[edit]

That was a poor quote. Put in a better one.

Written by Guest on 20.11.2013 at 15:25

"Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments."

Gotta see the irony here considering you dare use terms like "logical fallacy"

[edit]

That was a poor quote. Put in a better one.

I'm well aware of the logical fallacy I am, however, also aware of your motive behind your claim; you could not refute my argument so you attempted to debase it with a misguided accusation. You were, in all likelihood, frustrated - which you will now deny

Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 15:47

I'm well aware of the logical fallacy I am, however, also aware of your motive behind your claim; you could not refute my argument so you attempted to debase it with a misguided accusation. You were, in all likelihood, frustrated - which you will now deny

Ah, the strawn-man fallacy, along with argumentum ad hominem. Attempting to misrepresent my own points by disproving them with caricatured and extreme notions and attacking me rather than my statements of fact. Or in this case: totally baseless desperate swipes (so I suppose really calling it a straw man would be giving you too much credit for such a limp attack). I have already refuted your argument by showing that your use of words does not coincide with accepted uses by referring you to examples taken from sites of scholarly importance. You chose to ignore this point and are, once again, trying to falsely ascribe a level of frustration to me. I don't need to deny anything that stems from such a transparent and lamentable last stab at saving face. So, I would like to see proof of this "frustration" you speak of. Otherwise:

Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 15:23

Accrediting a negative emotion to my argument in an effort to debase it is a logical fallacy. Think before you write.

(and clearly you didn't understand the argumentum ad nauseam fallacy; that's a bald-faced lie. If you did you wouldn't have accused me of attacking you personally (ad hominem) using that as an example, saying that your arguments made me feel nauseated, because that's clearly not what it means. The fact you would lie outright with the evidence right there out in the open instead of admitting you misunderstood something says an awful lot about you).

Seriously though, I'm pretty sure Joe and Marcel have managed to introduce as much logic to this argument as possible to no avail. This argument will continue to go nowhere, so I think we should start talking about how _____ this album is. (I have no idea since I don't listen to prog.)

Written by Troy Killjoy on 20.11.2013 at 16:04



Seriously though, I'm pretty sure Joe and Marcel have managed to introduce as much logic to this argument as possible to no avail. This argument will continue to go nowhere, so I think we should start talking about how _____ this album is. (I have no idea since I don't listen to prog.)

That.

All was overall so funny I was ROFL all along.
Should we move this to the funny stuff section?

That's what Joe and my conversation with LeKiwi reminded me of, of certain parts of the lyrics to this song.

Written by Darkside Momo on 20.11.2013 at 16:12
Should we move this to the funny stuff section?

Anywhere that isn't here would be fitting. We should leave this thread to fans (or haters) of Cronian, although this back-and-forth certainly earned its stay somewhere in the forums.

Lol for terrific war between Joe and Kiwi. Before it gets deleted or something, I should save posts on my laptop. I'll read it again. BTW, I love when Joe goes for cut, copy and paste dictionary words for his redemption.

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 20.11.2013 at 16:37

Lol for terrific war between Joe and Kiwi. Before it gets deleted or something, I should save posts on my laptop. I'll read it again. BTW, I love when Joe goes for cut, copy and paste dictionary words for his redemption.

I initially wanted to start this argument but since LeKiwi's language is somehow advance and hard for me, especially in vocabulary department, I gave up. Also, I exactly had Marcel and Joe as people who will bring up this discussion

Edit: I forgot to complete this sentence. This was mean to have this form :" I exactly had....in my mind"

Written by mz on 20.11.2013 at 17:17

I initially wanted to start this argument but since LeKiwi's language is somehow advance and hard for me, especially in vocabulary department, I gave up. Also, I exactly had Marcel and Joe as people who will bring up this discussion

Advanced in appearance, yet fails to understand basic meanings of words as well as apparently chopping and changing meanings for himself to use against other people and then accusing them of misunderstanding those words.

Written by Guest on 20.11.2013 at 17:22

Advanced in appearance, yet fails to understand basic meanings of words as well as apparently chopping and changing meanings for himself to use against other people and then accusing them of misunderstanding those words.

I think I agree with you here.

Written by Guest on 20.11.2013 at 15:53

Ah, the strawn-man fallacy, along with argumentum ad hominem. Attempting to misrepresent my own points by disproving them with caricatured and extreme notions and attacking me rather than my statements of fact. Or in this case: totally baseless desperate swipes (so I suppose really calling it a straw man would be giving you too much credit for such a limp attack). I have already refuted your argument by showing that your use of words does not coincide with accepted uses by referring you to examples taken from sites of scholarly importance. You chose to ignore this point and are, once again, trying to falsely ascribe a level of frustration to me. I don't need to deny anything that stems from such a transparent and lamentable last stab at saving face. So, I would like to see proof of this "frustration" you speak of. Otherwise:

As you will see below, it was clear that your use of ad nauseam was completely inappropriate and simply an attempt to discredit my claims. You have continuously failed to provide proof with implications that use of "uninspired" and "forced" would be inharmonious with "good", and for good reason - there is none

Quote:

(and clearly you didn't understand the argumentum ad nauseam fallacy; that's a bald-faced lie. If you did you wouldn't have accused me of attacking you personally (ad hominem) using that as an example, saying that your arguments made me feel nauseated, because that's clearly not what it means. The fact you would lie outright with the evidence right there out in the open instead of admitting you misunderstood something says an awful lot about you).

As I pointed out before, I was well aware of the terminology and even confirmed its definition before replying. I noted that you accused my argument to be nauseating as a negative connotation in an attempt to debase my argument. I did not point that out because I believed I physically made you feel nauseated. The fact that you would use the term ad nauseam implies that you believed I was simply reiterating my argument to no avail, yet you refused to acknowledge what I pointed out: your endless misinterpretation the definition of overall. You continued to argue despite this fact - the reason why I continued to argue the point. Thus, your labeling of my argument as ad nauseam was an attempt to debase a perfectly valid claim. Ad nauseam is only appropriate when an argument has no proof, yet I've presented all the proof on the matter that was necessary. You've done a decent job of ensuring your arguments were the subject of as many logical fallacies as possible

Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 19:09

Ad nauseam is only appropriate when an argument has no proof, yet I've presented all the proof on the matter that was necessary.

What proof? Please write it here, so I know what exactly what it is. I've given you primary dictionary definitions that directly contradict what you've said. What proof have you offered? Please refrain from argumentum ad nauseam as well. Proof is hard evidence, not reiteration.

You haven't given me proof that my arguments were born of frustration either, I want that proof here too.

Written by Guest on 20.11.2013 at 19:15

What proof? Please write it here, so I know what exactly it is. I've given you primary dictionary definitions that directly contradict what you've said. What proof have you offered? Please refrain from argumentum ad nauseam as well. Proof is hard evidence, not reiteration.

You haven't given me proof that my arguments were born of frustration either, I want that proof here too.

Well, language is partially interpretive, so no one can offer you said hard evidence. I don't see any dictionary definitions that contradict any of my statements, otherwise I would have noticed them.

Regarding your frustration, of course I have. You wouldn't have claimed ad nauseam had you not been fed up of my argument for whatever reason. The only conclusion to this is that we will simply agree to disagree since it is clear that neither side has significant evidence to prove their claims, or am I wrong?

Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 19:26

Well, language is partially interpretive, so no one can offer you said hard evidence. I don't see any dictionary definitions that contradict any of my statements, otherwise I would have noticed them.

The contradiction lies in the total omission of synonyms between "good," (from the 7 score) and the adjectives "uninspired" and "forced." The argument "language is partially interpretive" is purely anecdotal which is superseded by the definitions present on a variety of websites. In summary: you haven't presented proof of any kind.

Quote:

Regarding your frustration, of course I have. You wouldn't have claimed ad nauseam had you not been fed up of my argument for whatever reason. The only conclusion to this is that we will simply agree to disagree since it is clear that neither side has significant evidence to prove their claims, or am I wrong?

This is also anecdotal and at best, speculative. You reiterate the same points, make fallacious statements like "I have presented all the proof I need" yet present no proof, as evident here. Once again, accusing someone of argumentum ad nauseam is nothing to do with emotion and me being "fed up," it is from simple observation. This is a misunderstanding of the idea, or a lie. In either sense you haven't presented evidence of any kind. I won't bother asking you again.

Written by Guest on 20.11.2013 at 19:34

The contradiction lies in the total omission of synonyms between "good," (from the 7 score) and the adjectives "uninspired" and "forced." The argument "language is partially interpretive" is purely anecdotal which is superseded by the definitions present on a variety of websites. In summary: you haven't presented proof of any kind.

Enlighten me as to the rationale behind such a contradiction, please.

Quote:

This is also anecdotal and at best, speculative. You reiterate the same points, make fallacious statements like "I have presented all the proof I need" yet present no proof, as evident here. Once again, accusing someone of argumentum ad nauseam is nothing to do with emotion and me being "fed up," it is from simply observation. This is a misunderstanding of the idea, or a lie. In either sense you haven't presented evidence of any kind. I won't bother asking you again.

Any "proof" on the matter is subjective. Ad nauseam was not an appropriate accusation considering that I did not make the same claim over and over. Read back through the posts where I discussed the definition of the word and the related implications to see that I hardly stated the same argument twice. For a lengthy portion of the discussion, you failed to acknowledge that the definition of the word overall was vital to the discussion and contrived arguments on the basis that the word was not present in my original post.

Additionally, it should be noted that there are several reputable sources which associate ad nauseam with being "fed up". I'm well aware you went out of your way to find a definition that suited your needs

Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 19:58

Enlighten me as to the rationale behind such a contradiction, please.

Sorry, I'm not going to buy into your circular bating. The evidence is there, I'm not going to break down every single point I make just so you can stretch this debate ad infinitum.

Quote:
Any "proof" on the matter is subjective. Ad nauseam was not an appropriate accusation considering that I did not make the same claim over and over. Read back through the posts where I discussed the definition of the word and the related implications to see that I hardly stated the same argument twice. For a lengthy portion of the discussion, you failed to acknowledge that the definition of the word overall was vital to the discussion and contrived arguments on the basis that the word was not present in my original post.

Actually, if you notice, I used the term prescriptively: "which no matter how much argumentum ad nauseam you commit yourself to" because I understand your one and only debating tool is indeed argumentum ad nauseam; to continue to draw out the same circular points, using the "I've shown all the proof I need" tropes combined with the same proofless points with no evidence to show for it. I said it in an effort to try to stop you doing exactly what you're doing right now so clearly I failed. You are the very definition of argumentum ad nauseam and prove so with every pointless response designed to leach out every detail by going back an forth again and again without actually admitting your judgements were incorrect. Quite frankly, you're a farce when it comes to the idea of debate. You can take that how you want as I simply have no respect for someone of your calibre. Someone who only cares about having the last word, even if it is brought about by total boneheadedness. That's obviously enough for you.

Quote:

Additionally, it should be noted that there are several reputable sources which associate ad nauseam with being "fed up". I'm well aware you went out of your way to find a definition that suited your needs

You're confusing argumentum ad nauseam with simply "ad nauseam". The entire idea of a logical fallacy is to point out when someone is using logic fallaciously. Ascribing logical fallacies as an emotion attack is to misunderstand the term, which you consistently do with every response about it.

Once again you've used the term "I'm well aware you went out of your way to find a definition that suited your needs" once again a proofless point. The burden of proof lies on you to prove these things. Saying you're "well aware" is not proof.