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

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

  

50 minutes ago, Linken.6345 said:

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.

 

You are ignoring part of her argument : 

 

Hannelore.8153 said:

"...If ten players from 2014 Core game stepped foot in a raid..."

 

2015 is not 2014 core game. Raids didn't exist in 2014. The power-creep we have now didn't exist in 2014. The claim is unfalsifiable.

 

Again cherry picking the claim leads to a strawman argument, and not an attack of the actual argument...which is that it's an unfalsifiable claim.

 

 

3 minutes ago, yann.1946 said:

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

 

The purpose of doing that is to give the speaker the most powerful version (one that isn't vague) of their argument so that when you provide a counter argument, you shut down it's most powerful version, thus shutting down all subsequent weaker versions(the most vague) of the argument. The argument that her claim is unfalsifiable is a stronger counter argument than providing a video that doesn't actually address the claim which requires you to take a time machine or some other illogical thing like not addressing parts of the argument.

 

You want to cherry-pick the claim, and yet don't want the proofs to be equally scrutinized for it's precision. 

 

You want to say the proof is false? Get a video of a 2014 raid from gw2. Good luck with that it's not gonna happen...so logically what is the real assessment to the claim... *whispers* it's unfalsifiable.

[Linken.6345]

20 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

  

 

You are ignoring part of her argument : 

 

Hannelore.8153 said:

"...If ten players from 2014 Core game stepped foot in a raid..."

 

2015 is not 2014 core game. Raids didn't exist in 2014. The power-creep we have now didn't exist in 2014. The claim is unfalsifiable.

 

Again cherry picking the claim leads to a strawman argument, and not an attack of the actual argument...which is that it's an unfalsifiable claim.

 

 

 

The purpose of doing that is to give the speaker the most powerful version (one that isn't vague) of their argument so that when you provide a counter argument, you shut down it's most powerful version, thus shutting down all subsequent weaker versions(the most vague) of the argument. The argument that her claim is unfalsifiable is a stronger counter argument than providing a video that doesn't actually address the claim which requires you to take a time machine or some other illogical thing like not addressing parts of the argument.

 

You want to cherry-pick the claim, and yet don't want the proofs to be equally scrutinized for it's precision. 

 

You want to say the proof is false? Get a video of a 2014 raid from gw2. Good luck with that it's not gonna happen...so logically what is the real assessment to the claim... *whispers* it's unfalsifiable.

 

Well then how do they know that the core classes couldent do them then?

They have no proof of this claim since there is none to get.

Core elementalist with firey greatsword or ice bow could do good damage even back then.

[yann.1946]

1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 

The purpose of doing that is to give the speaker the most powerful version (one that isn't vague) of their argument so that when you provide a counter argument, you shut down it's most powerful version, thus shutting down all subsequent weaker versions(the most vague) of the argument. The argument that her claim is unfalsifiable is a stronger counter argument than providing a video that doesn't actually address the claim which requires you to take a time machine or some other illogical thing like not addressing parts of the argument.

 

Being unfalsifiable is not a stronger counter then actually being false though. And the claim is not unfalsifiable (as it is entirely possible to do the math to check how possible it is.)

 

1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

You want to cherry-pick the claim, and yet don't want the proofs to be equally scrutinized for it's precision. 

 

No not really, i"m not caring about hannelores claim or the video used to rebutal. What i care about is that schroom strawmanned the argument. That was my only contention. That also was my point from the beginning and the fact that you have not actually addressed Schrooms extreme lack of charity says enough on its own.

 

1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

You want to say the proof is false? Get a video of a 2014 raid from gw2. Good luck with that it's not gonna happen...so logically what is the real assessment to the claim... *whispers* it's unfalsifiable.

You do not need a time machine to proof the claim though. The claim is not unfalsifiable, and it would do you good to not throw that term around as willy nilly as you are doing. 

 

But tbh im done with this conversation because it seems that you are not really having an interest in having a good faith discussion about these ideas. Not addressing points i made etc. 

 

Some advice on the way out though, please actually study what logical fallacies are about and for. Because from the way you are using them it looks like you just recently learned of them and know everything looks like a nail. 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

8 hours ago, Linken.6345 said:

Well then how do they know that the core classes couldent do them then?

They have no proof of this claim since there is none to get.

 

Exactly. That's what it means for something to be unfalsifiable. The claim be neither proven nor disproven because there's no empirically verifiable way to do this for the claim.

 

Quote

What i care about is that schroom strawmanned the argument. That was my only contention. 

 

 

Another aspect of the claim is that it's analogous to the statement

 

" All bodies of water that you step into will make you wet."

 

You know that this claim is reasonable...but it is also unfalsifiable. You can't step into every body of water and show that in each one, you will always get wet. Likewise, presenting a proof that shows someone entering a body of water and doesn't get wet, will falsify the claim...but you still understand that the claim is not unreasonable because more likely than not, you will get wet when stepping into a body of water.

 

To avoid someone making the opposing counter statement based on the previous claim's counter argument that : "Stepping into a body of water will not make you wet." Someone then can provide counter proof showing someone stepping into a body of water and getting wet to counter that proof. This is essentially what Shroom's counter argument was, and you can see why such a counter argument is valid.

 

In essence, the claim and it's subsequent counter argument were too vague, because they suffer from there existing an entire space of possible things that can prove it wrong (the paradox as mentioned before), even if those possible things are astronomically small in probability.

 

 

Should you always keep your camera on because you don't want to miss the macroscopic quantum event? 

 

There's a chance it can happen so that would seem logical right? quantum mechanics proves that it's true...so we know that it's true. Except the chances are astronomically low....10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 10 order of magnitude in years low. So how do you address the logic in such a statement? You can counter the argument by saying that macroscopic quantum events are highly improbable, or not the average reflection of the macroscopic world. Again this is the form of shroom's argument... and it's valid. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Sobx.1758]

2 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

" All bodies of water that you step into will make you wet."

 

You know that this claim is reasonable...but it is also unfalsifiable. You can't step into every body of water and show that in each one, you will always get wet. Likewise, presenting a proof that shows someone entering a body of water and doesn't get wet, will falsify the claim...but you still understand that the claim is not unreasonable because more likely than not, you will get wet when stepping into a body of water.

Nice strawman, but this is the opposite of the way the claim in question that was made. To make your example relevant, the sentence would need to say something like "no body of water will make you wet", except after seeing the proof that indeed stepping into body of water makes you wet, you'd revert into "but it's not every/average body of water". No, it's not and it was never relevant for it to be "every" or "average". Your example is in not way related to what was said in this thread. But then you'll pretend it was too vague of a claim. But it wasn't, it's absolutely clear what the claim said and it's absolutely clear it's false.

 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

 

16 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

after seeing the proof that indeed stepping into body of water makes you wet...

 

 

and "stepping into body of water makes you wet," isn't true ....because like the video linked above shows, you can step into a body of water and not get wet. 

 

Like said previously, you falsify the initial claim with an argument that can be countered with a valid counter argument.... Shrooms counter argument is valid.

Edited July 16, 2021 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Krzysztof.5973]

Arguing about semantics on gw2 forums. Is this contest for "Best way to waste your time"? 

[Sobx.1758]

On 7/15/2021 at 8:46 PM, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

and "stepping into body of water makes you wet," isn't true ....because like the video linked above shows, you can step into a body of water and not get wet. 

 

Like said previously, you falsify the initial claim with an argument that can be countered with a valid counter argument.... Shrooms counter argument is valid.

Cool, so instead of setting up yet another strawman, judge the actual claim in question which you know is false. 🙃

 

Nobody "falsified initial claim", it was not misrepresented or vague. Stop lying because you want to debate about the ways to debate, lmao. And no, his "counter argument" isn't "valid", because he consistently repeated that "it doesn't count because these are top players and you'd need average ones to prove it", when the claim was about "no amount of skill being enough". The fact that you want to take 5 pages of what he kept consistently repeating and pretend he was saying something different is a hilarious attempt, but it's also not valid and changes nothing about what was actually said.

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Sobx.1758

[ShroomOneUp.6913]

On 7/14/2021 at 3:56 PM, Linken.6345 said:

 

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.

THANK YOU took you long enough