It's been over 5 years. Can we remove Enrage Timers already?

[Linken.6345]

30 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

 

What you are doing here is taking part of the statement, selecting what you want as basis to make a counter argument with only that part of the statement. This is again what a strawman is. Just to remind everyone the definitions for what a strawman argument is...:

 

1. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
2. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.^[2]
3. Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.
4. Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions

 

Hannelore may have said that "Raids aren't possible without power-creep." But the example she gave after that "If ten players from 2014 Core game stepped foot in a raid, they'd die in a heartbeat" makes her argument one that is not equivalent to an "All swans are white." claim. 

 

Because just as you can easily show a video of 10 players defeating the content in green gear, she can easily rebuttal your counter argument, with a video of 10 players wiping instantly in said green gear.

 

This is why Shrooms response to the counter argument is valid, and also true.

No they can not since the 10 players who did the raid boss are players of gw2 and the claim was.

 

No player could do it back then.

[LittleYoshi.2548]

Lets go with the argument that 2014 players wouldnt be able to kill a raid boss. 
I would 100% agree that they wont oneshot the boss and nobody is gonna argue against that, but given enough time they will be able to kill the boss. If it takes them 2 days, 2 weeks or even 2 months doesnt matter, cause if the players show any amount of willingness to learn and adapt, they are going to kill the boss even with oldschool builds.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

40 minutes ago, Linken.6345 said:

No they can not since the 10 players who did the raid boss are players of gw2 and the claim was.

 

No player could do it back then.

 

And like I said, this is a strawman of the argument, where you are misrepresenting the posters intentions. 

 

For example, I can make the following inconsistent statement: "that it is not possible for a human being to dash 30 mph. Take 10 human beings and make them run a marathon, they will not be able to hit 30mph."

 

Me presenting a strawman, would be saying "Usain Bolt ran 30 mph, therefor the claim is false." But by presenting this strawman, you misrepresent the claim, by only looking at half of the statement, which is that if you were to take any 10 human beings, they...more likely than not, won't be able to hit 30 mph.

 

Hannelore's intention for her claim is the following : "Raids aren't practically possible without all the power-creep to begin with." And this intention is reflected in the example she gave in that same post. 

 

So you can argue that Hannelore poorly phrased her intention with a claim that was easy to strawman because it was inconsistent. But it doesn't remove the fact that you did in fact strawman her argument with a counterargument that misrepresents her intention. This is why shrooms counter argument to the strawman was valid.

 

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

17 minutes ago, LittleYoshi.2548 said:

Lets go with the argument that 2014 players wouldnt be able to kill a raid boss. 
I would 100% agree that they wont oneshot the boss and nobody is gonna argue against that, but given enough time they will be able to kill the boss. If it takes them 2 days, 2 weeks or even 2 months doesnt matter, cause if the players show any amount of willingness to learn and adapt, they are going to kill the boss even with oldschool builds.

 

Right now I'm just here explaining why shrooms counter argument to the strawman was valid. I don't really care about the substance of this particular argument really, only because I don't think it's worth discussing. Many of these claims are unfalsifiable, hard to prove, and have no constraints.

 

We could basically say, that any content no matter how hard it is, is beatable given enough time and effort...such a statement basically doesn't mean anything because there are no real constraints on what is and isn't possible. For all we know, there can be someone out there, that can beat all the raid wings, at level 1, with no gear, and only 1 skill. The question is... does this even reflect reality? Would you use such evidence to show that raid's are easy? Or does that speak more to the level of skill of the player and not the difficulty of the content.

 

Because the argument has no constraints, there's really no way to prove anything with any true fidelity. So ya...that's my stance on this particular argument in general. 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[yann.1946]

12 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Looking back at the discussion, i think the argument was merely distorted. Take a look here at this.

 

 

Hannelore.8153 said:

Raids wouldn't even be possible without all the powercreep to begin with. If ten players from 2014 Core game stepped foot in a raid, they'd die in a heartbeat, and no amount of skill would be able to overcome the lack of tools neccessary to complete the job. Even now, the same content isn't nothing like it was during HoT release.

 

CasualElitist.8795 said:

"May I interest you with that video of 78 level core specs doing whole W1 without hitting enrage timers or gorse updrafts? It's not about the classes and power creep."

 

ShroomOneUp.6913 said:

oh nice non argument, taking 10 people who have been raiding for years, are coordinated and trained in the raids, KNOW the raids because of those years managed this WOW. whats next? gonna use a 30 years master in black smithing showing how possible it is for the most inefficient way to smith a blade and expect everyone else to do it?

 

Hannelore, which makes the first initial claim, can't be interpreted as "all swans are white." The reason is because of this line : If ten players from 2014 Core game stepped foot in a raid, they'd die in a heartbeat.

 

The statement by Hannelore is not saying "All players..." it's saying "If some players..." and she gives a specific number for some (10)

 

The counter argument was made by Casual Elitist showing a video as if Hannelore said "All players" or to think of it in the context of swans : "You said All swans are white, so I present video evidence that not all swans are white, there are black swans."

 

Shroom responds by pointing out the manipulation of the initial claim, by responding to the counter argument with the proper counter claim that "not all swans are black." 

 

It seems more or less that the initial claim was distorted (as per usual on forums) where the counter argument is a distortion of the claim to fit a specific counter argument (This is called a Straw man).

 

So ya there you have it. 

 

Well, at this moment you are distorting her claim. I have no idea why though. She specifically said "and no amount of skill would be able to overcome the lack of tools neccessary to complete the job". That is a no swans are black argument. 

And even your interpretation when you ignore that second line is still wrong, because here statement was as you said :

If ten players from 2014 Core game stepped foot in a raid, they'd die in a heartbeat.

not

If ten players from 2014 Core game stepped foot in a raid, Most groups would die in a heartbeat.

You could argue that was not what she meant, and we can not really know without her input, but what she has written was absolutely that "all swans are white".

[ShroomOneUp.6913]

And all i said was that a video from 2021 will not debunk her claim about a group being unable to do raids in 2015, cause her claim includes """a time period in which a powercreep happened""".
Cause the 2021 does not address her claim of "Only with power creep raids are possible today".

She can easily say about the 2021 video: "well of course they were able to do this, they had the powercreep backing them up" since the video was made AFTER the supposed powercreep time period.

And I want that argument to be choked out before it can even be brought up.
How is this such a hard concept too understand?

Edited July 14, 2021 by ShroomOneUp.6913

[yann.1946]

7 minutes ago, ShroomOneUp.6913 said:

And all i said was that a video from 2021 will not debunk her claim about a group being unable to do raids in 2015, cause her claim includes """a time period in which a powercreep happened""".
Cause the 2021 does not address her claim of "Only with power creep raids are possible today".

She can easily say about the 2021 video: "well of course they were able to do this, they had the powercreep backing them up" since the video was made AFTER the supposed powercreep time period.

And I want that argument to be choked out before it can even be brought up.
How is this such a hard concept too understand?

Because that is not all you said. Maybe you actually forgot what your first response to the video was, i'd suggest rereading your post.

Edited July 14, 2021 by yann.1946

[ShroomOneUp.6913]

literally over 50 replies on this account are dedicated to repeat that same flippin message over and over again to people who for some reason can not comprehend it, as if they have this tick to think "he others we must disagree"

And im quiet fed up with this. However it does reflect the majority of the active player base: Set in their mindset and as soon something rocks the boat of their bubble they protest and scream, calling murder and what not even they just been told that the noon sky on a sunny summer day without clouds is blue aka a fact.

Edited July 14, 2021 by ShroomOneUp.6913

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

4 hours ago, yann.1946 said:

Well, at this moment you are distorting her claim. I have no idea why though. She specifically said "and no amount of skill would be able to overcome the lack of tools neccessary to complete the job". That is a no swans are black argument. 

And even your interpretation when you ignore that second line is still wrong, because here statement was as you said :

If ten players from 2014 Core game stepped foot in a raid, they'd die in a heartbeat.

not

If ten players from 2014 Core game stepped foot in a raid, Most groups would die in a heartbeat.

You could argue that was not what she meant, and we can not really know without her input, but what she has written was absolutely that "all swans are white".

 

What I'm doing isn't distorting her claim, I'm using tools of debate to clear up this argument. There's something called "Charitable Interpretation" which means that in a debate you don't assume that the opponent is ill-informed, and is not an idiot. When the statement is vague, inconsistent or contradictory, you give them the most charitable interpretation. 

 

In other words, When you have a vague contradictory statement like Hannelore presented, you don't assume the worst possible aspects of their inconsistent argument. You assume the most logical interpretation for the statement as a whole (as a whole otherwise you end up straw-maning), and you also assume they are aware of the existence of evidence that contradict their statement.  "If ten players from 2014 Core game stepped foot in a raid, Most groups would die in a heartbeat." is the most charitable representation of her position that reflects the intention, it assumes through this charity, that the speaker knows about the existence of people like Teapot (That she's not ill-informed).

 

The above charitable version can still be argued about and debated. But you wouldn't treat it like an "All swan's are white" argument. You would really treat it as shroom did, and say that it's unfalsifiable...It happened in the past, there's no way to prove it. Also because there is a lack of constraints on the argument for what is and isn't possible, you can basically present any evidence to the contrary or in defense of that position, and it would still remain inconclusive. 

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Linken.6345]

1 hour ago, ShroomOneUp.6913 said:

And all i said was that a video from 2021 will not debunk her claim about a group being unable to do raids in 2015, cause her claim includes """a time period in which a powercreep happened""".
Cause the 2021 does not address her claim of "Only with power creep raids are possible today".

She can easily say about the 2021 video: "well of course they were able to do this, they had the powercreep backing them up" since the video was made AFTER the supposed powercreep time period.

And I want that argument to be choked out before it can even be brought up.
How is this such a hard concept too understand?

 

Here you go a video of people doing it in 2015

 

 

Edit

 

We are not talking about the majority of the population just that people did do raids sucessfuly back in that time and that goes totaly agains what that person claimed.

Edited July 14, 2021 by Linken.6345

[yann.1946]

29 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

What I'm doing isn't distorting her claim, I'm using tools of debate to clear up this argument. There's something called "Charitable Interpretation" which means that in a debate you don't assume that the opponent is ill-informed, and is not an idiot. When the statement is vague, inconsistent or contradictory, you give them the most charitable interpretation. 

That would be true if she did not specifically made the "no matter the skill" statement. I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

Also if their is a reasonable way for someone to be ill informed the principle of charity would not be used to assume that that person was not ill informed. 

 

For example if someone made some ridiculous quantum mechanics statement i would assume that he got it from some movie and would try to correct it. 

 

29 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

In other words, When you have a vague contradictory statement like Hannelore presented, you don't assume the worst possible aspects of their inconsistent argument. You assume the most logical interpretation for the statement as a whole (as a whole otherwise you end up straw-maning), and you also assume they are aware of the existence of evidence that contradict their statement.  "If ten players from 2014 Core game stepped foot in a raid, Most groups would die in a heartbeat." is the most charitable representation of her position that reflects the intention, it assumes through this charity, that the speaker knows about the existence of people like Teapot (That she's not ill-informed).

Only if you leave out the  "no matter the skill" part, which is where the clash came from. And their is a different between assuming the worst possible thing a person meant, and reading what they said. In this case what could have happened was after the contradictory evidence was presented the original poster could have responded with, sorry i meant this or that to clear the confusion. And nobody would have batted an eye.

 

Instead we got shroom telling people that the video does not show anything because they where not "average" people and that it does not show that raid can be done by everyone.. If he would have worked with the charitable interpretation he would have realised that A) nobody was claiming that raids could be done by everyone. and B) that the video was only used as evidence to counter a very  specific claim.

 

29 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

The above charitable version can still be argued about and debated. But you wouldn't treat it like an "All swan's are white" argument. You would really treat it as shroom did, and say that it's unfalsifiable...It happened in the past, there's no way to prove it. Also because there is a lack of constraints on what is and isn't possible, you can basically present any evidence to the contrary or in defense of that position, and it would still remain inconclusive. 

 

That is indeed true, if that was the charitable interpretation, but in this case you need to leave out an important part of the original speakers writing.

 

Also please try to apply this reasoning to all sides. Do you think the people posting the video posted it to prove that raids can/could be done by everyone?

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

58 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

For example if someone made some ridiculous quantum mechanics statement i would assume that he got it from some movie and would try to correct it. 

 

Unfortunately this is not how that works, if you want a logically consistent discussion.

 

Firstly you don't actually know the level of knowledge of an opponent. An opponents statement about quantum mechanics might actually be correct...and they might even have evidence to support that claim. That's why "assuming that he got it from some movie and would try to correct it." is a logical fallacy.

 

Likewise, you don't know if you  have full information on a subject either. You assume that the opponent is always informed, knowing that you yourself might not be...this brings out the best interpretation of an argument so that you're not fighting over semantics half of the time.

 

Example:

If I said something vague like : "The flowers are pretty, and eating lunch under the blue sky on a summer day is always nice"... and then you "correct it" by saying that "The sky isn't blue It's actually a shade of Admiral Blue"... Then by this fallacy you assumed you had all the information and that the opponent did not.

 

As you could have guessed, someone else comes along and says "well the sky has variable color based on the time of day." and then someone else says "Well the sky has no color, it's just a diffraction of pure white sunlight reflecting off of particles in the atmosphere..." 

 

This is why charitable interpretation exists...otherwise you get fallacies that don't attack the real argument (The real argument being, that eating lunch on a summer day under a blue sky is always nice) , but instead are attacking the wording of the argument (That the sky might not actually be blue). You should assume that the speaker already knows that information, and you interpret that statement charitably so that you aren't spending half the day bickering over semantics, which almost always lead to strawmen arguments.

Edited July 14, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[yann.1946]

16 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Unfortunately this is not how that works, if you want a logically consistent discussion.

 

Lets take a step back for a moment, The principle of charity has noting to do with being logical consistent.

It is actually completely the opposite. Its making the reasonable claim that not everyone can formulate everything 100 correct of the time so some logical fallacies and wording might be forgiven. It is advocating for allowing a more fallacious dialogue.

 

16 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Firstly you don't actually know the level of knowledge of an opponent. An opponents statement about quantum mechanics might actually be correct...and they might even have evidence to support that claim. That's why "assuming that he got it from some movie and would try to correct it." is a logical fallacy.

I indeed do not know the level of a persons knowledge, but that is not the point. It is about what is the most likely outcome.

 

I am not saying you should just assume that you are right 100 percent of the time (i feel strongely against that mentality.) But that their are cases where the most reasonable (not garantueed) observation is that a person is ill informed and it is counter productive to assume that they are not in that situation. 

 

16 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Likewise, you don't know if you  have full information on a subject either. You assume that the opponent is always informed, knowing that you yourself might not be...this brings out the best interpretation of an argument so that you're not fighting over semantics half of the time.

 

Not all the time, that is the point. And im not saying you should assume that you are guaranteed correct. Just that their are moment where assuming the other person might miss some piece of information is reasonable. The situation can then easily be resolved by asking whether they meant something different or did not know some detail which is important.

16 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Example:

If I said something vague like : "The flowers are pretty, and eating lunch under the blue sky on a summer day is always nice"... and then you "correct it" by saying that "The sky isn't blue It's actually a shade of Admiral Blue"... Then by this fallacy you assumed you had all the information and that the opponent did not.

 

As you could have guessed, someone else comes along and says "well the sky has variable color based on the time of day." and then someone else says "Well the sky has no color, it's just a diffraction of pure white sunlight reflecting off of particles in the atmosphere..." 

 

This is why charitable interpretation exists...otherwise you get fallacies that don't attack the real argument (The real argument being, that eating lunch on a summer day under a blue sky is always nice) , but instead are attacking the wording of the argument (That the sky might not actually be blue). You should assume that the speaker already knows that information, and you interpret that statement charitably so that you aren't spending half the day bickering over semantics, which almost always lead to strawmen arguments.

Here is an interesting part and something to consider, arguing against what someone has said is not a strawmen. Now it might be that they did not mean what they said and you are not arguing against what they meant to use as an argument, but you are not strawmaning the person. The opposite is true, The principle of charity is advocating for steel manning the arguments, which is also a logical fallacy (although it does not really get looked at that way because it does not favors one own opinion.)

 

I am a strong proponent for the principle of charity but the way you are using it is butchering it pretty badly. To places where it does not apply. Also you still have not addressed my main critique which is that to get to the charitable interpretation you gave, you need to purposely leave out parts of the original statement.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 hour ago, yann.1946 said:

I am not saying you should just assume that you are right 100 percent of the time (i feel strongely against that mentality.) But that their are cases where the most reasonable (not garantueed) observation is that a person is ill informed and it is counter productive to assume that they are not in that situation. 

 

Logic doesn't care for how you feel. 

 

I can ask you this...at what point is it reasonable then, to assume that a person is not ill-informed. This sounds like an Appealing to an Authority...where you are the authority judging whether someone is informed or not on a subject or set of information. 

 

Quote

I am not saying you should just assume that you are right 100 percent of the time

 

And this is not what the Principle of Charity is. You don't assume that the speaker is right (which is what steelmaning is)...you assume that they aren't stupid, and that they have the same or more information as you do, so that when you devise a counter argument, you are attacking the real argument, and not attacking the strawman.

 

Another way to look at the difference between Charity and Steelmaning, is you look at artwork of  H.R. Giger or Picasso. When you look at these artworks, a steelman, is basically the equivalent of being pretentious where they would say "every skull symbolizes the death of humanity, and the color pallet represents the struggle in his soul!" 

 

Where as, a charitable interpretation of the artwork, is to assume that the author made this painting with intention...what that intention is...you don't know for sure...but you assume that there is intention there and not accidental or with no purpose....not just him spilling paint on his canvas by accident every hour until the painting came to be. 

 

So if someone comes up to you and says "HR Giger paintings suck and have no meaning" Then you would say they are not being charitable to the author....that's not steelmaning.

 

Another good example...Do you walk into an art museum and before seeing any artwork, automatically assume that none of the paintings there, have meaning or were made without any purpose?

Edited July 14, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Sobx.1758]

On 7/13/2021 at 6:20 PM, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

So i get the argument here.

It's hilarious, beacuse you clearly don't.

...and now you're arguing against the meaning of the words for the sake of pretending "this is not what someone meant" (except yes, it is and there's no basis to claim otherwise). If you actually read the thread (tbh, at this point, I probably wouldn't read it, because oof, but then I also wouldn't pretend "I get the argument"),  at least at the last pages it gets pretty apparent that despite quoting the relevant sentence multiple times, the shroom doesn't understand what the phrase means. 🙃

 

If you want "logic", first make sure you understand the sentence you're trying to comment on. And the sentence in question is really pretty clear as well as already dismissed as false whether you (or shroom) like it or not.

 

9 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

What I'm doing isn't distorting her claim, I'm using tools of debate to clear up this argument. There's something called "Charitable Interpretation" which means that in a debate you don't assume that the opponent is ill-informed, and is not an idiot. When the statement is vague, inconsistent or contradictory, you give them the most charitable interpretation.

Nobody assumed the person making that claim is ill-informed or an idiot. People saw a false claim (which wasn't vague), commented on a false claim (which wasn't vague) and proven it wrong. Whether you want to represent what someone said in a way that completely changes what they said or not, is irrelevant. The relevant thing is that the claim is false and if THAT one person didn't mean that, then they're free to come up and say "oops, ok, that's not what I mean, what I actually meant is...". If they were trying to talk about average player, then there probably wouldn't be a way to prove it either way, so the claim itself would be deceptive and pointless to make in the first place. But the claim clearly talks about "no amount of skill being enough", at which point it's only logical to understand that no matter who succeeded, just one case is absolutely enough to deem the claim false -it doesn't even matter if they were the best raiders in the world or not (they weren't) and since you like spamming "logic" left and right, you should really understand this, at which point you're just arguing for the sake of arguing while knowing you're wrong.

But nah, here you are, pretending you know what they said better than they do, by using trying to use irrelevant debate tactics and concepts as if that changes anything about the words that were written. But they don't change absolutely anything. Person making that claim is free to think what they want, but they're also still as incorrect as they were the moment that claim was made.

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Whether you want to represent what someone said in a way that completely changes what they said or not, is irrelevant.

 

I already spent 16 or so comments explaining how taking one sentence of a claim in isolation of the rest of the comment is a strawman. This is the very definition for what that is.

 

1. The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

2. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
3. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

4. This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

   For example:

1. Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).^[3]

Using a principle of charity, when given a vague statement, you try to see what the opponents intention is, and you take that as the argument so that when you address the argument you are addressing it's intention (the best form of the argument), and not some part of it that leads to irrelevant conclusions (ie, conclusions that people already have information about or about semantics).

 

Shroom actually addresses the relevant part of the intention of that post, where everyone else failed to do so. A) It's unfalsifiable and B) There are no constraints on what is and isn't possible which makes the statement a Sorites Paradox.

 

With Principle of Charity, it has the feature that you can ask the speaker whether the charitable interpretation is a reflection of their intention, and they can agree or disagree with that interpretation. Shroom seems to agree that this is what he said or was trying to say, and I quote from his post above.

 

ShroomOneUp.6913

" all i said was that a video from 2021 will not debunk her claim about a group being unable to do raids in 2015, cause her claim includes """a time period in which a powercreep happened""".
Cause the 2021 does not address her claim of "Only with power creep raids are possible today".

She can easily say about the 2021 video: "well of course they were able to do this, they had the powercreep backing them up" since the video was made AFTER the supposed powercreep time period.

And I want that argument to be choked out before it can even be brought up."

 

Shroom in the discussion on page 3 initially attacked the strawman to the claim too, which was perfectly valid.. The strawman is basically a non-argument because just as you could show a video of someone doing the raids in level 78 green gear, you could have showed a video of full ascended casual players wiping 100 times at VG to circle mechanics, or someone soloing the raid as a level 1 with a single button, and come to no conclusion about whether the statement is true or not. 

 

Anyway, this is the last comment you are going to see from me on this subject here...it really doesn't interest me enough to talk about it any further, but feel free to feel how you feel...it's a free world.

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Sobx.1758]

36 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I already spent 16 or so comments explaining how taking one sentence of a claim in isolation of the rest of the comment is a strawman. This is the very definition for what that is.

 

1. The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

2. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
3. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

4. This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

   For example:

1. Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).^[3]

Taking someone's false claim and proving it wrong is not a strawman. It wasn't out of context and in no way misrepresented the intent of that sentence, the entirity of it was just wrong. You are here to pretend that what he said was totally not what he said, when it clearly was. 🙄

 

Quote

Using a principle of charity,

Apparently using a principle of charity is supposed to allow you to take any clearly false claim and keep pretending that despite it being false, it meant the total opposite of what it said, so it's now not false. This is why I said you're trying to use irrelevant debate tactics and concepts, because that's exactly what you're doing and it's hilarious that you think it can work. Too bad it doesn't.

 

Quote

when given a vague statement

The statement was not vague at all, despite you trying to repeatedly pretend it was, because that's the only road you can try to take to wiggle your way into your unsubstantiated debate theory crafting.

 

Quote

Shroom in the discussion on page 3 initially attacked the strawman to the claim too, which was perfectly valid

See, now it's just hilarious again because what you've done here... well, THAT's what strawman is. Bringing up something completely irrelevant to the discussed matter for the sole sake of presenting "your side" in the positive light to somehow imply they must be correct here as well (IF they were correct there, which I won't bother with, because -again- 100% irrelevant)

"Solid" effort, but also didn't work.

 

Ah and shroom also repeatedly claimed that to disprove "no amount of skill would be able to overcome" claim, you'd need to bring and average group of players, which was never anything relevant to the claim, but I don't see you focusing on that. Probably, because you understand it's wrong, but you really wanted to apply your pointless hypotheticals to something, so here we are: repeating "vague" when it's not and "principle of charity" to make false claims not false. 🙃

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

 

2 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

...to make false claims not false. 🙃

 

I think you don't know what unfalsifiable means. You should probably go look it up.

 

Let me put it like this. There are no video's you can make to prove that this vague claim is false nor true...because the claim itself is unfalsifiable. It happened in the past, nobody can test it. Even if it could be tested (which you need a time machine for) it would be inconclusive because for any conclusion you could draw about power-creep or the difficulty of raids, you can make an equally valid conclusion about the level of player skill. In this way shrooms attack on the strawman was valid....pointing out that it is a non-argument...which it would be on an unfalsifiable claim.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Sobx.1758]

27 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I think you don't know what unfalsifiable means. You should probably go look it up.

No worries, I do know what it means, but the alternative choice of words changes absolutely nothing about what I said and the fact that you're still wrong.

You've already tried pulling out a silly strawman after linking to it in the very same post. Now you're doing... this? 🙃 Better keep dodging. 

 

2 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Anyway, this is the last comment you are going to see from me on this subject here...it really doesn't interest me enough to talk about it any further, but feel free to feel how you feel...it's a free world.

I guess trying to have the last word also didn't work out how you hoped, how many failed online debating tactics will you present one after another? 😄

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 minute ago, Sobx.1758 said:

No worries, I do know what it means, but the alternative choice of words changes absolutely nothing about what I said and the fact that you're still wrong.

You've already tried pulling out a silly strawman after linking to it in the very same post. Now you're doing... this? 🙃 Better keep dodging.

 

lol

 

Here is a very simple example for what unfalsifiable means: 

 

If I said

 

"All swans were white in the 1720's"

 

There is no way you can prove that claim true or false. You can show me a video of black swan's existing in the year 2021. But this does not prove the above claim is false. Likewise, I can show you a video after video of white swan's from 2021...again this doesn't prove the claim true either. The claim is unfalsifiable because It can't be tested. Presenting a video from 2021 is a strawman, because the claim is about  the 1720's. Understand?

[Sobx.1758]

11 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

lol

 

Here is a very simple example for what unfalsifiable means:

lol

I said I know what it means, because I know what it means. It changes nothing about what was said above. It changes nothing about you NOW using another line of defence 🙃 And it changes nothing about the shroom actually repeatedly claiming you'd need "average player group" to prove anything 🙃

 

lol

Keep dodging and moving goalposts. 😄 

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

 

21 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

lol

I said I know what it means, because I know what it means. It changes nothing about what was said above. It changes nothing about you NOW using another lane of defence 🙃 And it changes nothing about the shroom actually repeatedly claiming you'd need "average player" to prove anything 🙃

 

lol

Keep dodging and moving goalposts. 😄 

 

Feel free to think whatever you want to think.

 

For some reason you believe I'm defending the claim...I don't understand that. You say you know what unfalsifiable means...and yet...Unfalsifiable claim's are just as bad if not worse than false claims...except they can't even be proven false...like talking about multiverses, gods and unicorns.

 

Stepping away from logic and into my personal opinion because I'm pretty much done with this conversation...I think you need to really step back and listen to what others have to say... and not just me but to anyone here in general. You're actually throwing strawman's and ad-hominem left and right, and I'm not gonna fall for those. Something to understand about logic...is that logic is not about debating and arguing...it's about what is true. The purpose of talking about principles of charity and other debating devices is to avoid debate so that you can reach logical true conclusions... If the conclusion is true, or where all parties can at least agree on the truth, then there is no debate. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Sobx.1758]

16 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Feel free to think whatever you want to think.

 

For some reason you believe I'm defending the claim...I don't understand that. You say you know what unfalsifiable means...and yet...Unfalsifiable claim's are just as bad if not worse than false claims...except they can't even be proven false...like talking about multiverses, gods and unicorns.

If you don't understand that then keep rereading until you're bored of sidestepping:

Not sure what else to tell you, you've tried to use so many silly fallacies and failed debate tactics that it's hard to believe you're not doing it intentionally.

 

And maybe this part too:

Quote

Ah and shroom also repeatedly claimed that to disprove "no amount of skill would be able to overcome" claim, you'd need to bring and average group of players, which was never anything relevant to the claim, but I don't see you focusing on that. Probably, because you understand it's wrong, but you really wanted to apply your pointless hypotheticals to something, so here we are: repeating "vague" when it's not and "principle of charity" to make false claims not false.

Your constant efforts to bring debating terminology where it's irrelevant just looks hilariously misguided, almost as if it's an attempt to drown out what you were actually supposed to be responding to, but who knows for sure.

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[Linken.6345]

15 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Unfortunately this is not how that works, if you want a logically consistent discussion.

 

Firstly you don't actually know the level of knowledge of an opponent. An opponents statement about quantum mechanics might actually be correct...and they might even have evidence to support that claim. That's why "assuming that he got it from some movie and would try to correct it." is a logical fallacy.

 

Likewise, you don't know if you  have full information on a subject either. You assume that the opponent is always informed, knowing that you yourself might not be...this brings out the best interpretation of an argument so that you're not fighting over semantics half of the time.

 

Example:

If I said something vague like : "The flowers are pretty, and eating lunch under the blue sky on a summer day is always nice"... and then you "correct it" by saying that "The sky isn't blue It's actually a shade of Admiral Blue"... Then by this fallacy you assumed you had all the information and that the opponent did not.

 

As you could have guessed, someone else comes along and says "well the sky has variable color based on the time of day." and then someone else says "Well the sky has no color, it's just a diffraction of pure white sunlight reflecting off of particles in the atmosphere..." 

 

This is why charitable interpretation exists...otherwise you get fallacies that don't attack the real argument (The real argument being, that eating lunch on a summer day under a blue sky is always nice) , but instead are attacking the wording of the argument (That the sky might not actually be blue). You should assume that the speaker already knows that information, and you interpret that statement charitably so that you aren't spending half the day bickering over semantics, which almost always lead to strawmen arguments.

 

How can you say that eating food under a blue sky is always nice?

 

Pretty sure people with this would disagree.

 

https://www.aad.org/public/diseases/a-z/xeroderma-pigmentosum-sensitivity-to-sunlight

 

Edit

 

Incase you missed it youtube existed in 2015 and a video from that time was linked to show that raids were possible with skill so the claim is false.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Linken.6345

[yann.1946]

13 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

Logic doesn't care for how you feel. 

 

I can ask you this...at what point is it reasonable then, to assume that a person is not ill-informed. This sounds like an Appealing to an Authority...where you are the authority judging whether someone is informed or not on a subject or set of information. 

I really hate it when people do not seem to understand what logical fallacies are. 

So first: The principle of charity is the opposite of being logical. it is a usefull tool, but do not bring it up in combination with logical fallacies.

 

But because you like logical fallacies so much, what you are doing is the continuum fallacy. Because the line is difficult to draw you assume that the line does not exist. 

 

I gave an example earlier where it was more reasonable to assume ill-informed, you claimed that it was not an example because i could not guarantee that the person spouting false quantum mechanical information was actually misinformed. Which is obviously true, but that is not the point of the principle of charity. It is not about finding guaranteed truth, its about having more productive discussions.

 

Also while yes this judging what seems reasonable be caused by ill information is subjective, so is the principle of charity. The argument you are actually are arguing against is not what the person said or what they meant, but what you think is the most reasonable thing they could have meant.

13 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

And this is not what the Principle of Charity is. You don't assume that the speaker is right (which is what steelmaning is)...you assume that they aren't stupid, and that they have the same or more information as you do, so that when you devise a counter argument, you are attacking the real argument, and not attacking the strawman.

 

It is not about attacking the real argument, it is about attacking what seems a more reasonable argument. That is not the same.

 

13 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Another way to look at the difference between Charity and Steelmaning, is you look at artwork of  H.R. Giger or Picasso. When you look at these artworks, a steelman, is basically the equivalent of being pretentious where they would say "every skull symbolizes the death of humanity, and the color pallet represents the struggle in his soul!" 

 

Your example is not a steelman because it is not easier to defend. 

 

13 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Where as, a charitable interpretation of the artwork, is to assume that the author made this painting with intention...what that intention is...you don't know for sure...but you assume that there is intention there and not accidental or with no purpose....not just him spilling paint on his canvas by accident every hour until the painting came to be. 

 

So if someone comes up to you and says "HR Giger paintings suck and have no meaning" Then you would say they are not being charitable to the author....that's not steelmaning.

OFcourse saying someone should steelman is not the same as actually steel manning.

 

 

13 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Another good example...Do you walk into an art museum and before seeing any artwork, automatically assume that none of the paintings there, have meaning or were made without any purpose?

THis has nothing to do with the conversation.