Straw man doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
It's not a catch-all phrase for every type of cliched argument or logical fallacy. It's one particular type of low brow debating gimmick where you attribute an easily-defeated imaginary argument to your opponent so you can defeat it easily.
It IS frequently used in these forums, just not in this thread
Sometimes you over think these discussions, right?
Are you saying that we should check in our brains at the door before discussing things here?
See what I did there?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Straw man doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
It's not a catch-all phrase for every type of cliched argument or logical fallacy. It's one particular type of low brow debating gimmick where you attribute an easily-defeated imaginary argument to your opponent so you can defeat it easily.
It IS frequently used in these forums, just not in this thread
So you're saying that just because I don't agree with that "definition" of "strawman" that my opinion is wrong?
I think were talking about the different types of gaming snobs.
The new cool thing to do is to promote Indie games endlessly while
bashing the triple A titles that generate the most money for the
industry.
i TOTALLY do that.
and will continue until I start seeing people give some of these indie titles at least about 1/2 the credit they deserve. Its absolutly mind blowing to me what these small teams are doing compared to the crap AAA is pumping out.
basically I am being exactly what you just said...lol but yeah..yup
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Straw man doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
It's not a catch-all phrase for every type of cliched argument or logical fallacy. It's one particular type of low brow debating gimmick where you attribute an easily-defeated imaginary argument to your opponent so you can defeat it easily.
It IS frequently used in these forums, just not in this thread
Sometimes you over think these discussions, right?
Are you saying that we should check in our brains at the door before discussing things here?
I think were talking about the different types of gaming snobs.
The new cool thing to do is to promote Indie games endlessly while
bashing the triple A titles that generate the most money for the
industry.
i TOTALLY do that.
and will continue until I start seeing people give some of these indie titles at least about 1/2 the credit they deserve. Its absolutly mind blowing to me what these small teams are doing compared to the crap AAA is pumping out.
basically I am being exactly what you just said...lol but yeah..yup
I think were talking about the different types of gaming snobs.
The new cool thing to do is to promote Indie games endlessly while
bashing the triple A titles that generate the most money for the
industry.
i TOTALLY do that.
and will continue until I start seeing people give some of these indie titles at least about 1/2 the credit they deserve. Its absolutly mind blowing to me what these small teams are doing compared to the crap AAA is pumping out.
basically I am being exactly what you just said...lol but yeah..yup
But the way you do it is fun to read
like
'my new baseline standard in any pvp games is that players should be able to destroy structures, if they cant do that then the game is still living in 2001 and/or is a AAA title'
ha!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Straw man doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
It's not a catch-all phrase for every type of cliched argument or logical fallacy. It's one particular type of low brow debating gimmick where you attribute an easily-defeated imaginary argument to your opponent so you can defeat it easily.
It IS frequently used in these forums, just not in this thread
I tapped it out on my phone while on the train, but if it truly is necessary to elaborate:
The first strawman would occur thus: -
Person A: "I am concerned that a lot of the early work in SC proved redundant due to the changing scope." Person B: "You only want SC to fail because you are a hater and -something-something- Derek Smart."
The second strawman would occur thus, and please note the absence of any subtlety in creating the strawman, as witnessed in a recent thread: -
Person A: "I don't like the combat in TSW." Person B: "You only dislike the quests because you are too stupid to understand them."
I've come to conclude that those who have the most post counts on a forum tend to be all over the threads, posting in almost every one of them with offensive, trolling and short posts that basically say they don't agree, but then fall short to back up their argument, because that actually takes more than 1-2 sentences in a msg.
2. If you are in any way critical of The Secret World, you are clearly too stupid to understand the quests. 1. If you are in any way critical of Star Citizen you are clearly part of a grand conspiracy to destroy CIG through slander and innuendo penned by your exalted leader, Derek Smart.
Don't think either of those games has ever had enough Thread Presence on this site to make the top ten.
You couldn't possibly actually like a feature from an old game because it was good; it must be rose colored glasses or nostalgia overwhelming your objectivity!
What you are still playing those games on an emulator? That doesn't matter because you still don't really like the game, only your memories of it!
And sorry but I don't agree with the last bit at all. I've been on here criticizing SC continually...
Wait, what?
No offense, but as someone who only is aware of the SC squabbles because a few threads keep jumping up a bunch and only recently decided to start reading them to figure out why, this comment just ran counter to what I'd kinda gotten out of those threads...
EDIT: Granted, the fact I haven't been paying attention to that stuff until recently could very well mean I'm missing the picture any ways.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
3. If you have not been playing since the earliest MUD, you lack the experience to opine on almost any subject. 2. If you are in any way critical of The Secret World, you are clearly too stupid to understand the quests. 1. If you are in any way critical of Star Citizen you are clearly part of a grand conspiracy to destroy CIG through slander and innuendo penned by your exalted leader, Derek Smart.
Yes #1 has been way too obvious,imo i have no respect for anyone that supports that shotty business operation,imo a very corrupt business that is stealing money from naive people. Luckily for that shyster Robert's there is not yet law to stop this sort of BS,eventually there will be,just not yet.All governments seem to care about is getting their tax dollars,they don't care much how it was attained. I can't speak for others but to me there is no "cool thing" or some idea of trashing any other type of game or whatever thoughts are going through people's heads.Personally i just give my true heartfelt feeling on games or matters and from many years of experience in gaming and just dealing with people in general. Every single person on this planet will get smarter with age,they will learn more about everything in life ,including people,it is just a fact of life.
Point being that someone having been from the MUD era likely does have a VAST knowledge of gaming in general.Trying to discredit that person to simply make yourself seem more relevant or correct is not acting in good faith.Point being that we all should realize that is doesn't make it factual that just because someone comes from the MUD era that he knows more,however it does make it all the more likely. It is pretty much like a teen anarchy stage of life,trying to pretend that you just started your first day of work and already feel you know more than every other employee that has been there for 20 years and yes some people are like that.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
A lot of strawman arguments here also come with framing the argument with something nobody was arguing that's obvious. People are saying Coke is bad for you and they are retortig that Coke is the number one drink.
Hasty Generalization is quite common in all kinds of rhetoric. Post Hoc is pretty popular on this site. (I just demonstrated the first point...heh.)
But ad hominem is far and away number one. Ur rong cuz I don't like u and u suck. Posters who are far too familiar with each other's favorite tactics... Those two guys whose appearance in the same thread together means it's going down the toilet.
Threads like this one, introducing laymen to the Latin don't help. Because you need to introduce them to the Fallacy Fallacy as well (argumentum ad logicam).
You presume that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong. Remember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.
This presents quite a problem for the "but I'm never wrong" fellows, particularly on page eight of a thread. By page eight, the verbal bludgeon technique clearly isn't working. Frustrating.
And for the love of Mike, drop the Antiquitatem. ALL of you.
Hasty Generalization is quite common in all kinds of rhetoric. Post Hoc is pretty popular on this site.
But ad hominem is far and away number one. Ur rong cuz I don't like u and u suck.
Threads like this one, introducing laymen to the Latin don't help. Because you need to introduce them to the Fallacy Fallacy as well (argumentum ad logicam).
You presume that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong. Remember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.
This presents quite a problem for the "but I'm never wrong" fellows, particularly on page eight of a thread.
Your penultimate paragraph gives credence to the sort of intellectual dishonesty that presumes correlation equals causation. In fact gamers as a vast group have been on the receiving end of this intellectual dishonesty for years, when some correlation is made between a crime and the playing of games and reported in the media as causation. Never is it reported that the criminal also drank coffee.
Comments
Poster#2: UR wrong
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
I see false analogy arguments pop up a lot too.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
See what I did there?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
and will continue until I start seeing people give some of these indie titles at least about 1/2 the credit they deserve. Its absolutly mind blowing to me what these small teams are doing compared to the crap AAA is pumping out.
basically I am being exactly what you just said...lol but yeah..yup
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
'my new baseline standard in any pvp games is that players should be able to destroy structures, if they cant do that then the game is still living in 2001 and/or is a AAA title'
ha!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The first strawman would occur thus: -
Person A: "I am concerned that a lot of the early work in SC proved redundant due to the changing scope."
Person B: "You only want SC to fail because you are a hater and -something-something- Derek Smart."
The second strawman would occur thus, and please note the absence of any subtlety in creating the strawman, as witnessed in a recent thread: -
Person A: "I don't like the combat in TSW."
Person B: "You only dislike the quests because you are too stupid to understand them."
Second one is simply ad hominem.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You couldn't possibly actually like a feature from an old game because it was good; it must be rose colored glasses or nostalgia overwhelming your objectivity!
What you are still playing those games on an emulator? That doesn't matter because you still don't really like the game, only your memories of it!
No offense, but as someone who only is aware of the SC squabbles because a few threads keep jumping up a bunch and only recently decided to start reading them to figure out why, this comment just ran counter to what I'd kinda gotten out of those threads...
EDIT: Granted, the fact I haven't been paying attention to that stuff until recently could very well mean I'm missing the picture any ways.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Luckily for that shyster Robert's there is not yet law to stop this sort of BS,eventually there will be,just not yet.All governments seem to care about is getting their tax dollars,they don't care much how it was attained.
I can't speak for others but to me there is no "cool thing" or some idea of trashing any other type of game or whatever thoughts are going through people's heads.Personally i just give my true heartfelt feeling on games or matters and from many years of experience in gaming and just dealing with people in general.
Every single person on this planet will get smarter with age,they will learn more about everything in life ,including people,it is just a fact of life.
Point being that someone having been from the MUD era likely does have a VAST knowledge of gaming in general.Trying to discredit that person to simply make yourself seem more relevant or correct is not acting in good faith.Point being that we all should realize that is doesn't make it factual that just because someone comes from the MUD era that he knows more,however it does make it all the more likely.
It is pretty much like a teen anarchy stage of life,trying to pretend that you just started your first day of work and already feel you know more than every other employee that has been there for 20 years and yes some people are like that.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
But ad hominem is far and away number one. Ur rong cuz I don't like u and u suck. Posters who are far too familiar with each other's favorite tactics... Those two guys whose appearance in the same thread together means it's going down the toilet.
Threads like this one, introducing laymen to the Latin don't help. Because you need to introduce them to the Fallacy Fallacy as well (argumentum ad logicam).
You presume that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong. Remember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.
This presents quite a problem for the "but I'm never wrong" fellows, particularly on page eight of a thread. By page eight, the verbal bludgeon technique clearly isn't working. Frustrating.
And for the love of Mike, drop the Antiquitatem. ALL of you.