An argument and an opinion are not fundamentally the same thing. As I’ve already said, I’m not confident you understand the difference.
I’m still waiting for an argument. I haven’t seen one. I don’t understand how sky riding is more difficult than other fundamental end game activities. If you can quest, you can dragon ride. I’m waiting for an actual argument or reason that this would not be the case.
This is not the same thing as me saying I believe static flight should be kept behind pathfinder. I don’t believe that. I think the present implementation of flight is stupid.
What people take issue with is disingenuous posters who are here to virtue signal and derail threads.
Pathfinder’s dumb. People who disingenuously grand-stand are also dumb.
And I already told you that skyriding is not comparable in difficulty to any of these things. It just isn’t. Using the hardest content in the game as an example, when I never even provided them as an example, is disingenuous and bad-faith.
And these aren’t arguments. They’re opinions that you’ve propagated as an argument, but they don’t explain anything about what makes skyriding harder.
Homie, who cares. I don’t know who made this argument, but this just screams of hair-splitting. I genuinely don’t care how you want to categorize skyriding.
You have not explained how dragon riding is more difficult than questing. Questing has more components to it than dragon riding.
Of course disabilities affect one’s ability to sky ride. A disability would affect a person’s ability to do pretty much everything in the game.
As the definition of argument is, an argument is a method of give your point of view (opinion). Stating something is an argument does not make it fact.
The reason I believe Skyriding is a problem for some that have disabilities was given here.
Can you not read? Like, I’m sorry to be so confrontational but I literally just agreed they were your opinion. Where I disagreed is that you’ve provided any form of an argument as a framework to your opinion.
Your “argument” is chalked up to “I disagree” and then a failure to elaborate on anything else. That’s not an argument. You haven’t given reason for why you feel this way.
At this point, I can’t help but assume that Haugs is right, and that you don’t know the difference between an argument and an opinion.
I don’t think he’s trolling, but maybe I’m just too gullible.
I pity him either way, because if he’s trolling, then that’s a sad existence to encompass. If he’s not, then it’s embarrassing that he can’t discern the differences between an opinion and an argument. It’s like the lad has never written an essay to completion and stops just short of explaining the thesis.
The fundamental problem here is pathfinder and the reality that static flying is gatekept behind it while sky-riding is not.
You’re (for whatever reason) unnecessarily fixated on disabilities and accessibility.
The reality is we don’t need to care about that. Everyone agrees that pathfinder is dumb and if sky riding is available, static flight should be available alongside it.
Why this can be agreed upon but you insist on accessibility / disabled issues is beyond me.
