How do you know you aren’t so delusional that I am literally sitting on your chair right now, typing these posts in to my smart phone, while you lay on the ground typing your responses?
Maybe I’m watching you right now while sitting a-top your chair?
Prove me wrong. Technically, you have no way of knowing if what you perceive, right now is even actual reality, and not just a mirage of consciousness.
Also, are you not the you in another reality? Maybe you’re bouncing between realities and you are all the yous in other realities, at at one time, due to time & space abnormality.
Prove me wrong.
You can’t. It’s a rhetorical question.
Yeah, and you are a free to continue kicking those rocks using your specific interpretation of Blizzard’s keynote on TBCC.
They disregarded the boost for the stated reason that people play the game to play with friends. If they have a hidden profit margin we aren’t privy to it, which makes trying to assess other changes along the lines of some profit margin speculative at best.
Supposedly a lot did, whole videos were made on the subject, streamers quit, etc. There was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth that Blizzard, in an interview, swept under the rug as “oh well, people just want to play together” and that was that.
You cut off your argument the moment you started with “alternate reality” which literally means “not this reality” which means you’re not in my home or my chair which are also in this reality.
Again, you misunderstand how negative proofs work because you’ve been educated into stupidity that “you can’t prove a negative” despite that being literally false.
Do your reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/negation/
Brain-in-a-jar? Really? The Matrix quip didn’t tip you off that going that route was going to be really stupid?
The very notion is logically self-contradictory. If this is all just a mirage of my consciousness, then in trying to think about the very thing I’m perceiving, I’m necessarily thinking about something else entirely that simply appears to be the thing I’m thinking about. Put another way:
If we are BIJ (Brain in Jar), then we necessarily cannot be a BIJ because there is no “brain”, no concept of “in”, and no “jar” for us to be. Instead we must be something that isn’t a BIJ.
All the BIJ argument does is add a step of obfuscation of language, not logic. If my “consciousness” isn’t perceiving “reality”, whatever it is perceiving is the thing I’m talking about and thus we continue right on our merry way.
By definition, no. A “me” that isn’t me can not be me. To say otherwise would violate the law of identity (A = A) and if we discard the law of identity then all things are all things necessarily with no means of distinguishing. If you want to go that route, be my guest, but then I just get to ignore the entire conundrum as a non-conundrum.
The tell is when you have to use magic to fill the gap after the words “due to”, rendering this whole line of “reasoning” invalid by its very form. Don’t commit a non sequitur and it might be more fun.
You can’t even accept the basic tenets of argumentation or the burden of proof, which means you can shape the entire structure around literally any argument to be false, or true, an assumption, bias, or whatever you see fit
You are a nothing. There is no objectivity. There is only your opinion projected as fact.
For some someone who carries so much blind faith in the American justice system, it’s strange to see you contest the existence of a concept that is the literal framework behind how our justice system functions.
Burden of proof within law is a protocol, a rule, not a matter of logic or philosophy.
Teachers demand burdens of proof on their students all the time by virtue of their authority and need to check the students’ work.
That’s not what we’re talking about.
I’m asking you to prove that the burden of proof exists at all as a logical concept. A common version asserted is the Hitchen’s Razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
Prove this razor to be true. Razors are intended to be rules-of-thumb that generally allow you to avoid extraneous or unnecessary possibilities, but for them to be good razors, they need to not lop off sound arguments, meaningful possibilities, etc. If you can prove the razor to be true (that is it never removes things it shouldn’t), then we don’t need to call it a razor anymore, we need to call it a rule of logic.
Its been asserted with evidence. You just dismiss the evidence because of your completely irrational approach to arguing (burden of proof not necessary etc).
Burden of proof is a philosophy, not sure what you’re on about there. It’s a highly regarded and accepted one too.
I mean, he is kinda RIGHT that meta didn’t exist before (still, lots of guilds would mandate classes to have both viable and ready specs for raiding).
Just like world buff meta didn’t exist in Vanilla WoW.
Just like LW Drums META didn’t exist in OG TBC.
I wonder why he keep doing the best arguments for me.
Don’t use pronouns. What has been asserted with evidence?
You sounded skeptical that I didn’t “believe” in the burden of proof.
So, if it is something I can believe in (according to you), then it is something you can prove exists. I gave you a recital of the burden of proof. You believe in that burden of proof, prove it exists.
In TBCC? No, highly unlikely until I can get non-Heavy Clefthoof gear to finally drop for me, and even then I don’t care all that much. I can’t exactly go all out on fights like Gruul when the MT can be easily overtaken.
That the likelihood of them adding dual spec in to TBC, where it never existed and where there is very little justification for doing, is low.
No, you’ve made it very much clear that you don’t believe in the burden of proof if it means you will lose an argument, but you do if it will help you win it.
I can just say “Blizzard won’t add dual spec”. Your response is “Prove it”, and I will just say “I don’t have to, there’s no burden of proof. They simply won’t”.
Oh you’re talking about your “evidence” being “Zipzo doesn’t think so”
Anyway…
…wut?
You asked if I believed in the burden of proof and now you’re going on about how I somehow believe in it and somehow don’t and all I asked you to do was prove it existed.
Focus.
You can say all of that, but none of that actually means anything, none of it proves the existence of a burden of proof, and none of it supports your claim.
Do you even understand the burden of proof at all?
EDIT: I’m out for awhile, last filing was confirmed and I won’t be at the computer.
Do a very simple thing Zipzo: prove the burden of proof exists. Don’t try to assert it in some “but things will be CRAZY if it doesn’t” way. Just prove it exists. Take time and look it up if you have to, I don’t even care if you straight up copy-paste the syllogism from somewhere else. It’ll be sometime before I get back so no need to rush it. You clearly believe in the burden of proof very fervently so I’d expect you to have some proof for why the burden of proof exists.
Blizzard won’t add Dual Spec because there wasn’t dual spec back in TBC.
Furthermore, they won’t add because dual spec is a solution to a specific problem, and we don’t have a problem right now that requires Dual Spec as a solution.
All we have is a bunch of whiners that want things they want and they won’t stop whining until they get it.
FFS, just pay the re-spec, ppl are embarrassing themselves showing up how much they are hypocrite.
They said earlier “ohhhh the gold inflation will kill us ALL” and now they don’t want to pay 50g for a re-spec.
What game are those ppl playing that they don’t have an incoming higher than 1000g per week?
I love this. The people arguing against Dual Spec are delusional psychopaths. Look at this muppet trying to act like he knows how every single player behaves. As if there aren’t thousands of examples of people doing precisely what he’s trying to say never ever happens…
He has to be trolling, right? Like no one is actually this daft…
Blizzard already said that’s not going to stop them from making changes: https://screenrant.com/wow-burning-crusade-classic-holly-longdale-patrick-dawson/
GC himself said Dual Spec isn’t a solution to any problem other than enhancing convenience.
