Welcome to Open Carnage

A resource for gamers and technology enthusiasts, with unique means of rewarding content creation and support. Have a wander to see why we're worth the time!


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Raffle Tickets


About tarikja

Extra Information

  • Gender

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

14,390 profile views
  1. I am not arguing particulars and semantics but questioning the logic behind your statements. If I am using semantics, then only so far as I'm using words. Not true. Just look at my last post. Half of it is just stating an example. No, I simply had no idea what you actually meant with 'correlative' in that context (if you're referring to that as "belittling me for using colloquial vocabulary"). I am questioning your methods of acquiring cognition/ data. Once we have cleared that, then we may carry on to developing a valid method probability. Otherwise I can see us both backpedaling in argumentations and getting nowhere as the basic principles on which these methods stand on are fundamentally flawed. The example itself was insufficient in pointing out inductive reasoning as both, the particular case and the given precondition, were based on empirical circumstances ('observations'). A (known) mistake on my side. Yet, the insight about that logic is still unflawed and abstractable. I would reply somewhere along the lines of: "Well, when I was living in city X and was doing my observations about bears shitting, I could perceive that it would happen most of the time in the nearby forest Y and not in city X." But I somehow don't see me ending up in such a bizarre situation... On a side note: I would prefer it if we stopped talking about subjective perceptions and opinions of me and instead could go on with the topic at hand. This is btw the second time that these unasked remarks about myself happened and tbh I find your emotional outbursts tiresome.
  2. Do you come to that conclusion by don't letting you get affected by the details of causation? And yes, I would reject 'causation'-related evidence (provided it is actually of causative origin and not, as you like to put it, correlative) if the argument is based on inductive reasoning. Concluding from the particular case to the given precondition. Inductive reasoning per example, when it should be the other way around.
  3. >:v
  4. Leaving out the details of causation, aka the factual evidence, will not give one an objective(ly enough) picture of a situation. Your presumptions will be heavily subjectively influenced and in the end be indistinguishable from prejudices.
  5. Where is the heat? Where is the sun? I want my summer and I want it now! >:v
  6. "MU69 appears to be either a binary orbiting pair or a contact (stuck together) pair of nearly like-sized bodies with diameters near 20 and 18 kilometers (12 and 11 miles)." - Alan Stern, New Horizons Mission PI Similar to the comet 67P/C-G visited by the Rosetta probe.
  7. I was wondering why the threads about each months voting gets locked after the result is out. Because it is still possible to vote even after the lock (I just voted for mine (#3) after lock) and there might be some interest in discussing screenshots or asking questions about game mods without interfering with that months vote at hand.
  8. Babylon A.D. Unlike in the movie, Siberian Tigers didn't die out this year.
  9. +++BREAKING NEWS+++ But seriously? Well, it reminds one in what glorious times of hygiene/ borderline-opulence we live in. Or at least in those first world countries...
  10. Doesn't music usually trigger some emotional feedback? Like, isn't its main purpose to set a specific mood or atmosphere as opposed to transmit some information or a message? Sure, most songs usually carry a message but that's not the reason why I hear music. So, this track inflicts upon the listener a feeling of relaxation. Uh, big deal? Further, it reduces anxiety by 65%? How would one measure that? How does one measure emotions? Just by monitoring "brain activity, heart rate, blood pressure, and rate of breathing"? What about, for example, blood levels of hormones or pupil width? That sounds like curing an illness by only treating the symptoms. Also, what about long-time effectiveness? I guess all those participants heard that song there for the first time. What happens when they hear it the second time or the 100th time? Does it still "reduce anxiety by 65%" or does it somehow wear off? I can tell from my experience that listening to a song the 100th time doesn't hold that much of an effect as it did the first (couple of) time(s). Sorry, but that story seems a bit overhyped.