Would the EH not work for Kael? Or pally with 102 avoidance on Illidan? and fear ward/tremor?
You are quite literally arguing against Bertrands Teapot which is widely accepted as a logical argument. There have been a few philosophers such as Ingawen who have argued against its use in some applications, but those are always theists arguing in defense of their religion rather than in good faith, and even they only take issue with its application, not its general use as a logical form.
Are we done here yet or are you going to start paying me for the tutoring?
I gave up. His own argument against mine was because I was using actual evidence instead of what I recall from TBC.
Thereâs no fixing stupid, sadly. For the rest of us that are on planet earth, we all know you can tank without a warrior. That was never the question. What weâre saying is it makes things a lot harder, gets you nothing in benefit, and aggravates everyone on raid night.
but you are sayin rogues are also terrible in TBC so whatâs the difference? However like I said before I think this time around in classic people are gonna play rogue much differently PvE wise. Just how people showed how good fury wars were when in vanilla they werenât used
In the words of that great philosopher R. White.
Rogues are stronger single target dps than fury warriors in tbc by a mile for most of the content.
Rogues arenât as beneficial as stacking another hunter, or warlock, or mage. They donât bring utility like a shaman, or druid.
So good dps, but compared to other dps? Thereâs more reason to bring them over the rogue
⌠thatâs not what I said, at all.
Please reread it very carefully.
In Classic: Rogue good. Giving Thunderfury makes sense.
In TBC: Fury bad. Giving Warglaives makes no sense.
People knew Fury was good in the private server scene, though.
Weâre not basing our opinions on 15 year old memories of raids filled with noobs that didnât know how to keybind their abilities.
1 Like
Canât Spell Reflect this.
Paladins can avoid it, Druids can eat it.
This is true.
Neither of these are problems, especially for Druids since getting hit in our backside or while feared doesnât change our survival profile an iota. Plus Fear Wards and Tremor Totems exist.
Insomuch as a practical exercise is concerned, yes.
But specifically, the usual burden-of-proof argument goes as follows, in no particular order:
1 - If you make the claim, you have to prove it up
2 - My negation of a claim doesnât warrant the same proof standard
3 - Without the burden of proof all is equally believable
4 - You canât prove a negative
None of these statements are true.
1 is incorrect because thereâs no REASON to support why proving up a claim must lie in any particular place. As a matter of convention we put the burden on accusers in court with an assumption of innocence otherwise, and in formal philosophical debates, the two debaters pick their side and the burdens of their respective positions, but otherwise thereâs nothing there regarding burden of proof.
2 is just flat out logically incorrect. It fails special pleading as it treats like things as unlike (claims) simply because it is rhetorically convenient to be a contrarian that never has to actually support their contrarian quips. It also tends to get into the âshifting the burdenâ fallacy where they claim that if you canât prove X, then Y must be true, which is just a non-sequitur unless you can prove no other possibilities can exist.
3 is my favorite nonsense regarding burden of proof. People that argue burden of proof is a thing that must exist that also compels or morally obligates behavior always end up with this bogeyman, whether they imply it or they outright state it. Burden of proof is a compulsion, but it one you have to agree to, but folks will act like if you reject the compulsion theyâre trying to enforce upon you, then you MUST (more compulsion) believe anything anyone tells you⌠for reasons. This is what spawns the forehead slapping groans when you question the burden of proof because to them, you might as well be committing a mortal sin for violating such an all-powerful intangible rule that holds up the very fabric of civilized society! (And without a hint of irony when this comes from a very entrenched theological skeptic)
4 is plainly false for two easy reasons. First, every positive claim can be restated as a negative claim, and vice versa. Second, negative claims are simply harder to prove at times, not impossible. The whole teapot in space quip only works effectively as a rhetorical device because it utilizes an absurd and unstated premise: a teapot in space. The same quip loses all its steam when you replace teapot with asteroid, dust, etc, and reveals some of the flaws. It also plays fast and loose with PROBABILITY in place of TRUTH, which is a significant error because it treats unlike things as alike.
âŚby people that donât actually want to engage in debates they canât grasp very well. It isnât a sound argument.
LOL as opposed to Russell arguing in defense of his atheism? Oh I forgot⌠special pleading is only for the other guysâŚ
âLook at the max health pool of a Tank we know nothing about!!â is not evidence.
No you didnât directly say it but you kinda did with
Now while you didnât say it, it kinda implies they are for TBC
Both are possible but its very difficult for a paladin to hit consistent 102 avoidance without sacrificing other stats until later tiers.
Archi is actually debatable. You can use trinkets and FW (totem isnt as viable because positioning is really important but if you miss one itâs a pretty big issue whereas the warrior always has a pocket break if needed. BUT, because he doesnât crush, if you can figure out the fear rotation a druid tank is a fairly viable option.
No, youâre misunderstanding. Iâm saying FURY is terrible in TBC, so giving them Warglaives makes no sense.
This is in stark contrast to Rogue, which is GOOD in Classic, so giving them Thunderfury at least makes some sense.
Your argument is that âpeople gave Rogues Thunderfury in Classic, therefore people will give Warglaives to Warriors in TBC.â My argument is that people are more willing to give a Rogue Thunderfury in Classic because Rogue is good, and will not be willing to give a Fury Warrior the Warglaives in TBC because Fury is bad.
Our pally MT on Archi. It was a pain in the bum but it worked. He was super SUPER skilled though.
Why are the glaives keeping you from staying warrior?
Cmon man⌠You gotta try at least. Iâm literally the one who told you Kael doesnât spell reflect because like 5 threads ago you thought it did. How come I remember that⌠but you canât remember when I corrected you and pointed out that itâs Shield Wall not Spell Reflect that makes the difference?
Not in progression gear they cant.
You love strawmen more than Dorothy
This is the key point, and the crux of Russelâs Teapot⌠and you completely avoid the topic with just pure unadulterated nonsense. Literally gish-galloping in a forum post.
Wow⌠Maybe neutron stars got nothing on you. You were that guy arguing that âTHIS MATH PROBLEM IS UNSOLVABLE BECAUSE CLEARLY SULU FIRES THE PHASERS NOT CHECKOV!1!â werent you? SAD!
Or you know⌠the vast majority of philosophers for the last century. What do they have on âFasciae-Fairbanksâ though.
Particularly in the early 19th century arguing against atheism was generally a defense of logic and reason⌠And just in general⌠in a logical argument if you continually find yourself on the side of the theists you may want to seriously rethink your position.
Ok gotcha. Also I just looked up the item and it has war/rogue class restriction which by default canât go anywhere else. Iâm guess Iâm just more curious on how fury goes from being one of the top dps to being terrible in tbc.
Frostmage on Fenris in TBC tanked Archimonde as a prot paladin. Rotating fear wards - doable just not as easy as a warrior tank.
You could probably tank all of TBC without a prot warrior if you wanted to, as long as you were willing to wipe when learning work arounds
Theyâre not terrible⌠Its just that some other classes got a LOT better while warriors donât get a ton of improvements, and also early tiers are always rough for warriors until they start to gear up and get the rage-feedback machine going.
Warriors are still solid dps. Theyâre just generally worse for TBC content than Hunters, mages and locks. Theyâre a hair behind rogues depending on gear, and generally superior to every other dps class, though some bring additional tertiary benefits like Heroism and other buffs/debuffs etc.
Thatâs all quantifiable though, so youâre still more likely to bring a dps warrior than a ret because though Retâs bring buffs, even accounting for those the net dps is still inferior.
OP just wants them because they are orange items that look unique.
There is nothing you can tell me that will change my mind about OP chasing pixels.
Who cares if heâs chasing pixels. If he can get 24 other people to roll with him more power to him.
And if he can organize a raid for the sole motivation of him getting glaives then I hope him the best.
1 Like