Semantics matter when we’re quibbling about what is meant and not meant in various speech, as we are here.
Appeals to authority are not inherently fallacious because an appeal to authority is only an informal fallacy (that is it isn’t a fallacy of form). Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when you appeal to something that isn’t an actual authority. GC during TBC/WotLK was an authorized designer and mouthpiece for Blizzard, and this is Blizzard’s game, so authority is rightfully placed.
If you’re going to just be vapid and name what you think are fallacies and do nothing else, you aren’t equipped for this conversation in the slightest.
Said argument concludes inherently that some players are naturally more powerful than others, so power differentials aren’t inherently bad.
Said argument also concludes that “power” is just about anything we want it to be within the game making it synonymous with any thing “I just like or want or enjoy” which is more or less useless.
Taken together, an increase in player “power” via Dual Spec wouldn’t do much of anything.
Sorry I didn’t elaborate. A semantic argument occurs when an argument changes phrasing without actually changing the meaning. For example, when I say that dual spec reduces cost, and you reply saying that dual spec increases convenience, we are both stating the same idea. I have a problem with the idea itself and not with the way that the idea is phrased. If I am misunderstanding the goal of dual spec and the objective is not to reduce the cost at all, then I am open to that correction.
An appeal to (false) authority occurs when an argument is given weight or value purely because it is a position shared by somebody falsely perceived being an authority figure on that topic. In this case, your argument is an appeal to false authority because Ghostcrawler has no authority over my decision on what makes the game more or less fun for me.
I did not mean to be vapid, I simply respected your intelligence enough to either know what these references are, to look them up if you don’t, or to ask me to elaborate if it’s unclear why I made these observations.
In any case, once the personal attacks start flying, that just about closes the door on any chance of a productive and civil discussion.
You have yet. Emphasis on the pronoun usage here. Meanwhile others offer different stories opposite to your own experience so far. Good job saying “No they don’t” and following that up with a personal anecdote!
Corpseknife has been getting pretty clown-world too. Seems the Dual Spec conversation attracts the maddening crowd.
Case in point, a comment like this:
Assumes you, Ziryus, Delimicus, or anyone else who is arguing for Dual Spec has somehow claimed that because we want this, somehow our poop don’t stink. None of us has ever made anything remotely close to that kind of claim.
Exactly, but they never acknowledge that. Just like Zipzo will say wanting Dual Spec is selfish, but not wanting it is not selfish.
Correct.
Level 58 boost? Check!
Rift Stalker mount? Check!
HvH BGs? Check!
Paladin Seals? Check!
So, you wanna ask where the line is? You tell me.
You’re already forced to play with people who boosted to level 58. You’re forced to play with Paladins who have each others’ Seals. You’re forced to run around Azeroth watching people ride Rift Stalker mounts that they bought with their credit cards. You’re forced to fight your own faction in BGs…
Maybe you should stop whining about people making request and consider the fact that you’re already under new management and this is how the game is. The restaurant is named “TBC Classic” and #SomeChanges is on the menu.
Exactly. Given the way #SomeChanges was promoted, Blizzard was essentially asking players how they wanted to improve the game for an older, more evolved generation. Stagnation is not the answer.
This is what he thinks when a developer talks about the game he helped develop? It’s “a purely semantic argument” ?
I think you mean the “majority”
Don’t take my word for it. That’s what the data is telling me:
Count the s on that baby. Also this:
That has over 500 s on it. Tell me, what do the anti-Dual Spec threads look like in comparison.
They have been. On several websites including this one. It’s a net positive for pro-Dual Spec.
Which cancels yours out if that’s the amount of value you place in an anecdote. If I say, “My friend says X is true” and you say “My friend says the opposite” then neither one holds any more weight than the other.
Dual spec will come in Wrath Classic. Adding it now is stealing from the experience of Wrath. It is unfair to add it now just to cater to a portion of the player base because they lack patience. You have no right to steal the joy and anticipation from the rest of us, that want to experience Wrath features being released in Wrath Classic.
Why is everyone so fixated on dual spec? Why not infinite spec? Do so many people only swap between two specs with no desire to try out other specs/talent combinations for different situations?
Yes. Holly Lonsdale at Blizzconline said “The servers will always be progression servers” thus confirming a long term plan to continue capitalizing on the current popularity of old games.
Disagreed. The convenience is agnostic to the cost.
/headdesk
My quote was “Dual Spec is about convenience, GC said so himself in WotLK” and you are now redirecting to “well that doesn’t matter about how I have fun!!”
I didn’t use GC to refute what you find fun, I used GC to describe what Dual Spec is.
You named two fallacies and said there was nothing to discuss. Do you own a mirror?
Yeah that was a bit mind boggling. I guess us smiling in the face of their disapproval somehow means we think we’re better than them? Is this why some folks of an activist bent get so apoplectic when you don’t match their emotional state?
It’s known as “misology.” It’s a real term, you can look it up. Defined as “hatred of argument, reasoning, or enlightenment.”
Just as there are misanthropists (those who hate other people), there are also misologists–those who hate ideas. Both spring from the same cause: ignorance of the world.
I wonder if it is truly a hatred of knowledge though…
I want to say it has more to do with empathy now that I think about it. When someone is sad, you become sad with them (to a point) in order to form relationships, assist, etc. When someone is fired up and angry, you get fired up with them. If you get way too invested in your friend’s emotional state, it isn’t healthy empathy any longer although I’m not sure if there is a key word for that kind of toxic empathy.
But when you’re on the other side of a divide, this empathy doesn’t actually turn off. Person A starts shouting, Person B gets just as riled and shouts back. Person A does things quietly and calmly and Person B may very well approach things with a bit more serenity. However, I think we’re more prone to toxic empathy when dealing with someone we’re antagonistic to already. In the case of folks we see here, they’re actually viscerally angry that we’re not matching them emotionally. We’re being apathetic, so we’re triggering something in their heads that says “These people don’t care about people!!!”
I don’t know what to call that, but I think that is the root cause of the misology you mentioned. It isn’t even our argument that makes them mad (Zipzo agreeing with Riger who said exactly as I did is handily proof of that), it is that we’re not minding our P’s and Q’s regarding their emotional state which is a much graver sin.
It’s not hatred of “knowledge.” It’s hatred of reason or logic. Generally-speaking, people are okay with the attainment of knowledge. But it’s what you do with knowledge is what matters. A lot of kids today are highly educated, but haven’t been given any wherewithal for how to use that knowledge.
Remember that most politicians today have college educations at esteemed universities. It’s a wonder why we still put so much value in higher education given so many of the most intelligent people in the world are also the most immoral people in the world. Intelligence has no intrinsic moral value.
Knowledge is not power. Rather, what you’re able do with knowledge is power.
Modern education has instilled is this idea that you can do whatever you want with knowledge and it’s fine. The world will comply with whatever you feel like.
But then someone like you comes along and start talking about how the real world woks and functions. That when certain folks get nervous.
It’s why group-think is so attractive and it’s why there’s an over-reliance on cliches in modern media. It’s why these folks can’t abide by your clinical outlook on the lawsuit and law in general. It’s because you’re essentially showing how the world is, in fact, grounded in some form of objective reality.
It’s why they use the term “bootlicker.” Because any adherence to any form of authority is anathema to those who want to look at everything as being absolutely subjective.
Ironically, the only objective reality accepted is that everything is subjective.
Assumes actual engagement in the topic. I think there’s a small but vocal subsection of commenters that are driven more by narcissism and attention seeking than by anger. But that’s the nature of unmoderated opinion forums …
s on that baby. Also this: