Yes you - you are the one taking it completely out of context and using it as a debating prop. You’re the one not addressing the actual point but rather pitching an asinine point about an out of context comment for no other purpose than to throw mud at your opponent.
How you think me simply using the term autism is offensive but then think it’s perfectly fine to throw it at me as an insult - “you must be autistic” is beyond me. That level of double standards is what I am calling out as cognitive dissonance.
I did address your actual point, I pointed out that everyone without a rational or convincing argument claims their opinion is just common sense to avoid the need to defend it. You decided to reply by claiming that autistic people lack common sense and the ability to understand inference. I get that you would like to run as fast and as far away from that insult as you can but I’m not the one who brought up the “core issue” for people on the autism spectrum, in a thread on dual spec. I’m just reminding you of what you so much would like to forget you posted
This is immensely true. I particularly just like proposing the opposite statement and citing conventional wisdom.
No argument in the history of debate was ever won because one side cite “common sense.” No academic paper ever submitted in the history of essays was given an A+ because it cited “common sense.”
My point was that you are making the request - not me. I’m not making a proposition - you are. I think your proposition is not a common-sense one so I am demanding evidence from you.
You seem to think that if you believe in unicorns its on me to disprove it.
It’s on you to present and argue why your change is necessary. I have nothing to defend - I simply don’t want the change you’re demanding and don’t see why it’s necessary.
What I am claiming as common sense is the idea that the least amount of change required to solve the problem is the better approach. Is that not a common sense position? Or is a peer reviewed study required to make such a claim? If we can’t make basic claims that we can assume are a given then we can’t have a constructive discussion can we?
It’s you who are being evasive in not accepting basic points of fact. You don’t accept the principles of the burden of proof, you refuse to acknowledge Ockham’s razor. At every step you move the goal posts.
You’re lying again. At no point in the discussion when you decided to claim autistic people lack common sense and the ability to understand inference did you ever make the claim that the least amount of change required to solve the problem is the better approach. That was simply not a part of the discussion at all. I have the thread up in another tab right now and I checked. You’re embarrassed by your claims about autistic people and you’re trying to run away from it in any way you can. So you’re moving to some other claim you may have made at some other time to avoid the issue. Lying is pretty much your modus operandi so no surprise there.
You use that term a lot - ironic for someone engaged in complete misrepresentation of my comments. I’m not lying at all. I have not lied once. Again the only way you can counter my position is to a “play the man”.
If you spent as much time defending your proposition as you do on throwing mud at opponents you may actually get some people agreeing with you.
The onus is on you to show why dual spec if needed.
My opinion is that until you can do that I will have the view that the less impactful change of reducing respec costs is enough to resolve the core issue.
Throw mud all you like - it just shows you lack class and have no basis for your position.
Then quote the sentence in our discussion where you said, “what I am claiming is common sense is the idea that the least amount of change required to solve the problem is the better approach,” or any thing close to that. You may have said it somewhere at some time but not in the post where you claimed autistic people can’t understand inferences or have common sense. Our dialog was only a couple of posts long so it shouldn’t take you long to find it. If you can’t you should admit you lied.
It’s already been explained in detail by many people dozens of times. You may disagree with the reasoning but to claim it hasn’t been done shows a lack of reading comprehension, or you’re lying again.
But… you are playing the game, there is no forcing anything. you chose to play with outdated game because you like it and all it was. you do read the title yes “Classic burning crusade” does not say classic remasterd or or any other name. your best bet is hope they do this classic+ bs they sent survey for
and kinda on the same note. blizzard subs have dropped by half since the bcc release and mention of boost (i am not against boost but it was a change not needed) still dropping. HvH bg happened… more people quit. now you think DS will magically save wow. when they removed it cause it did not work the first time? mite as well add it kill the game more. changes are not working. but hey as long as the 10% change everything to retail vibe crowd is happy right.
Do you have any evidence to back this up? I mean, beyond “oh my guild” or “oh my best friends roommate said”…
I dont really care either way if they add it or not, just curious if the game is dying without dual spec crowd is ever gonna bring anything beyond anecdotes to the table.
