So I guess I am unsure of what your point is. You are talking about logic in one format and referencing rules that are focused on an activity that emphasizes rhetoric in a moderated environment.
Are you claiming that the individuals arguing for pro-dual spec are not trying to make a convincing claim? My response was from the perspective that they are trying to be convincing. I personally do not find baseless claims convincing.
That this form of burden shifting is improper and a cheap rhetorical trick:
That’s all. Anti and pro-DS folks have equal burdens to support their own positions while refuting the other. Anything else either must be formally agreed upon (not happening LOL) or treated as the one-sided silliness that it is.
If they are anti-DS then I agree. It means they are directly in opposition to a stance.
That is a different stance from being pro-status quo or anti-changes or any other variety of reasons they are taking a stance that are not directly related to the specific thing being discussed.
It isn’t. There is no logical daylight between being anti-specific change and pro-status quo, because being for the status quo is inherently anti-change of any kind, which includes specific changes.
It most certainly is because the approach to convincing someone, which I assume is the point of debate is going to be completely different.
People advocating for change from the status quo have the uphill battle because they are competing with momentum.
Logic, not rhetoric.
There is no logical daylight between the two, which makes the rhetorical difference little more than a smokescreen.
If you are in favor of the status quo, you (presumably) have at least one leg of proof to support such a position that is applicable to ANY change, since even a single change will destroy the status quo, by definition. So folks who are merely supporting the status quo have a rather immense problem before them as they need to come up with supporting proof(s) that are universally applicable to any change applied to the status quo.
If this is too much, as it is for most people because it is a tall order, then you can set aside other changes for the time being and focus on this specific change to be opposed to… but you have to be careful not to appeal back to generalized status quo arguments since they are self-admitted not applicable in a universal manner.
Empty rhetoric, not logic.
The “momentum” you are referencing is just the is-ought fallacy, or potentially an appeal to popularity (which is also fallacious). If people are convinced because things just currently are, or because most everyone agrees, there isn’t an argument to be had, those are just people that can’t think.
So you are arguing principles not how things operate in reality?
You do know that quoting fallacies is in and of itself a fallacy right?
This debate was never one from a place of logic, it was from a place of opinions. I guess it strikes me as odd that you seem to demand people have a logical reason for why they like or dislike something.
Also logic is based on what givens we are working from, just like geometric proofs. If we have no givens to work with there is nothing to logically debate.
Just means he isn’t actually reading anything and is only interested in affirming his own presumption. He is foisting “Burden of Proof” on you as a means of rejection and not investiture in the topic at hand.
He has no idea how it works. He is using it as a means to cover for the fact that he doesn’t actually know how to substantiate his own opinions and so must therefore reach for the other party to substantiate theirs.
This is what Riger and Zipzo do as well. They don’t actually know why they don’t want it, they just know they don’t want it. Failure to substantiate means they actively rely on people who want something to create any grounds by which they can conjure up any thoughts counter to this.
Without any forethought into why they have accepted their own presumption, they must therefore work off of whatever substance supports an opinion contrary to their own regardless as to whether or not it is, in fact, contrary.
This is why on a number of occasions Riger and Zipzo have contradicted themselves or gone to hypocritical lengths to substantiate their opinions.
He gives himself permission not to argue because he can’t argue.
Case in point. “they don’t have to claim anything” is, in itself, a claim. In promoting Burden of Proof, Demoneye is actively contradicting himself with his own argument given he is making a claim without his own proof.
Just another case of someone who knows the terminology of argumentation but doesn’t actually know how it is used.
Irony being his claims about how burden of proof works are baseless.
See? He contradicts himself again. The entire discussion between you guys started with him stating “Burden of Proof.” That’s the crux of it all, and now he is saying quoting it is a fallacy?
This guy has no idea what he is talking about. He is making this stuff up on the fly and working off you to try and substantiate any of it.
These people are so utterly dishonest and disingenuous.
If we’re going to just say “whelp, people are stupid and are convinced by bad logic” then there’s zero reason to talk with anyone that opposes my position. I should just talk over them, treat their positions as default ignorant, backwards, and harmful to the community, and presume my position is idealized.
I didn’t just quote them, I showed how they operated. If all I did was nominally point out fallacy names, you’d be right, but I clearly explained how is-ought actually fails to prove anything here:
This is a claim, which can be logically proven or not.
You’re mixing the support with the position itself, don’t do that.
I can want Dual Spec because I just like having more personal power. This is a claim supported by a subjective opinion, so you can’t really disprove my desire for Dual Spec here.
I can claim Dual Spec ought to be added to the game because I just like having more personal power. This is a claim unsupported by a subjective opinion, because my personal wants don’t necessarily create oughts, so I have committed a non sequitur until I can fill the gap in my reasoning.
I can claim Dual Spec ought to be added to the game because I just like having more personal power, and the Devs have stated that what players want is sufficient reason to add a change. This claim is supported by an objective combination of facts, because what I personally want is the direct input requested by the only legitimate authority in any of this discussion, Blizzard, and thus follows their own rules. HOWEVER, this has the weakness of being equally usable by someone NOT wanting something, so it doesn’t mandate the ought I desire.
And so on…
There is plenty to logically debate despite opinions and personal aesthetics being at the core of it, largely thanks to Blizzard providing us with if-then “rules” from their own posts, interviews, etc.
So I am pretty sure we are talking about different things. I never said(in the context of our interaction) it is how something SHOULD be, I said what I believe it IS. How does the fallacy listed apply then?
My original statement was in the context of someone trying to get the RESULT of making a convincing argument. Also I am pretty sure saying “Well we should just throw up our hands” is a fallacy as well since it is an extreme reaction.
If they just want to say their opinions just for the sake of saying them then that is fine. At which point there is nothing to discuss for me.
You made the claim that because the status quo presently is, that anyone defending the status quo has the advantage of not having to prove anything.
That’s a very much positive claim that because of what is, those in favor of what is ought not provide proof.
The only way you can stay away from making a claim is to state:
“TBCC currently has no dual spec.”
This is a simple statement of is. The moment you put an equivalent of “therefore” after such a statement, you’re committing to a claim based upon the statement of is and unless what follows does so necessarily, you’ve committed an is-ought fallacy. You’ve jumped the steps needed to go from what is to what ought. Also remember that oughts can be positive or negative, since they follow the same logic.
If there is no logical foundation on which people can base arguments, how can you have a logical argument?
Also they dont have to prove anything. Nobody does anything? Status quo remains. The only actions they would be required to take is in opposition to someone trying to change.
Now shifting to sophistry because he never learned how to logic or reason.
This is called circular reasoning. Basically, beginning your argument with a conclusion.
See, Fasc? He wants you to state your opinions as not being backed by anything other than your gut feeling. And then actively devalue them so that they’re meaningless.
It’s the "everything is subjective’ sophistry coming to terms with its own lack of objectivity.
Simple: if you want to make claims be prepared to prove them as well as disprove your opponents.
…wut?
“If you give me your opinion, I will write it down.”
What the opinion is here doesn’t matter, so the fact that opinions are subjective doesn’t matter, since giving an opinion at all can be determined objectively.
People who believe in the Burden of Proof Fairy really do fear the You-Must-Believe-Everything Monster will get them…
You cant disprove something that has no proof. You can say something is beyond what you personally consider reasonable, but that is not definitive proof.
This is a claim, prove it. (Remember, you called upon Hitchen’s Razor)
What I consider reasonable has no necessary bearing on what is true, as I am after all flawed and limited in wisdom. A perfectly reasonable person would necessarily find only true things to be reasonable, but we aren’t perfectly reasonable people.
Is this one of those things where you are all about being technically right versus functionally right?
3k posts in this thread and still no reason given as to why dual spec is a needed change.