…you’re either right or you are not.
Good thing we don’t need to provide a need for a change to be added to TBCC…
1 Like
You really dont see how those are different do you?
Given unlimited time and energy with nothing better to do, you are correct. Congrats?
1 Like
You’re the one proposing the idea of a change, blizzard needs a reason to put the time and $$$ into making the change. So why is dual spec something blizzard should spend time on investing into? This includes development time and bug fixing it.
Why should dual spec be added. Don’t give opinions, give facts with backed evidence.
Hey now, you are claiming that that it will take time and $$$ to make the change.
How can you PROVE that they cant do it for free?
You have to prove that they cant do it for free before I have to justify anything.
2 Likes
They’re only different if you deliberately ignore or add variables to materially alter the problem.
Anytime someone wants to quibble about someone being “technically correct buuuuut…” they invariably have to add something that wasn’t present before, or treat the other speaker as having ignored something that was supposed to be considered. If in either case the original speaker is actually correct to note the missing variable, then the other person wasn’t “technically correct”, they were just wrong. If the original speaker is not correct to note the missing variable, they’re just clinging to a bad opinion due to lack of being convinced, and don’t want to admit to it or let go.
“Technically correct” is mealy-mouthed chastisement at best, and sour grapes sore loser at worst.
And that reason need not be a “need” itself, they’ve stated as much.
So all you have is opinions then? No facts, no reason it should be added outside of “I want it”?
I add it because you are obviously working from different “givens” when approaching this conversation than I am.
So, in the spirit of conversation I agreed that your stance was correct given a different set of assumptions than what I was discussing. I said technically correct because in a perfect world you are right. But we are not in a perfect world so I usually dont bother considering things from the angle of something that doesnt exist.
Share holders won’t let them intentionally waste money. There I proved it. Lol.
You could say the same thing about not harassing employees since its costing them a lot of money. Yet it happened.
If you cant tell I am taking a stab at the requirements posted in the other conversation I was having and highlighting that it seems kinda ridiculous that every single minutia has to be defended in a online forum.
1 Like
Employees don’t matter in this world. Only shareholders.
Sadly this feels more fact than opinion more often than not lol.
Yeah, I do my best to avoid responding to opinions. They are what they are. Its when people claim factual results that will occur that I ask questions.
1 Like
A want doesn’t imply opinion only. The rest does not follow.
I don’t see what perfection has to do with any of this. Arguing in good faith means following rules of logic at least. Packaging those arguments in convincing rhetoric is entirely separate, and part of good rhetoric includes calling out illogical premises, claims, and demands.
I fail to see what is confusing about any of this. If people want to support their position in favor of the status quo, they should be able to provide proof of such. If folks want to avoid having to prove their position but want to demand others not do the same, then those folks are just bad faith actors to be ignored.
First sentence.
Contradicted by the second sentence.
Further contradicted by the third sentence.
2 Likes
Yeah.
I had this whole convo already. See, nothing matters except where you stand on the matter. Pro Dual Spec = People’s Champions of Everything that is Good and Holy.
Anti DS = Evil Gatekeeping Purist Scum of the First Order.
That’s literally all they’re workin with at this point.
1 Like
You never had a conversation with anyone except whatever strawman you conjured in your head.
1 Like
Just imagine a world where everything was built under the assumption it would work and be safe and no project was halted or reworked unless it could be categorically proven beyond doubt to be dangerous …
The whole idea of onus of proof is to take a conservative “safe” position in relation to trying to establish facts. It’s not a law of nature or anything, but it is a conservative stance in relation to assessing the merits of a proposition. Like how scientists don’t assume their hypothesis is right when testing it …
1 Like
Imagine constructing a strawman that shows how absolutely ridiculous and out-of-touch you are by assuming tried and true methods don’t require proving up still.
Building a simple walkway isn’t some marvel of civil engineering no matter how you slice it, but regardless of how proven and timeless your methods may be, you still have to confirm every jot and tittle of that schematic before you even begin construction, let alone finish it.
/headdesk x1000
Prove any facet of this claim… holy crap. It isn’t even conservative.
Well at least Riger can admit BoP is a matter of protocol, not logic. I’ll take at least that much…
1 Like
I cant even begin to elaborate on why thats a monumentally bad idea
what
2 Likes
Putting a traffic signal is a tried and true method to helping regulate and even alleviate traffic. That doesnt mean that every single intersection should have a traffic light
3 Likes
And an intersection not having a traffic signal 15 years ago is not an indication that having one there today would be a bad thing.
2 Likes