Warrior Glaives TBC?

WoW Classic WoW Classic General Discussion
123

World buffs removed, rage generation formula changed, boss armor values being increased and incapable of being removed entirely without substantial amounts of ArP on gear, melee in general being less desirable due to fight design.

Their rage generation is probably the biggest difference. Fury Warriors in Classic are basically full rage bar all the time because they hit so hard and crit on every swing, and the damage is basically 100% of its normal value because our debuffs totally remove any target’s armor completely. In TBC, they’re critting far less often, dealing way less damage and generating way less rage as a result.

124

Yea of course. And Archi is one of the easiest to work around, but a paladin tank is still just objectively worse than the other two options.

125

You don’t need Shield Wall to soak a Pyro because you shouldn’t be soaking anyway. Plus Nightmare Seeds exist.

Sure they can.

Holy crap… you believe in the YOU-MUST-BELIEVE-ANYTHING Monster?

HAHAHA

Oof.

Let me spell it out in crayon:

1 - Russell argues you cannot disprove the existence of a China teapot orbiting somewhere in space
2 - He then goes on to say “if you can’t disprove it, you must accept it” would be absurd
3 - He ends with likening the teapot to God and references the Inquisition

None of this works as Russell wants it to, at least logically, because the teapot-in-space has an unstated premise that “teapots in space are ridiculous so believing them to be there is irrational.” His premise assumes his conclusion, and it doesn’t even logically follow.

  1. Absurd origins obligate disbelief
  2. A teapot in space has an absurd origin
  3. You’re obligated to disbelieve a teapot in space exists

This does not follow

If we wanted to put a teapot in space, there are a host of methods but we could do it. The steps would likely be ridiculous to any reader because the cost would be silly as can be, and we’d probably find such a silly tale on a website like Cracked or Vice. But it would be possible to put it there… rendering the teapot contingent upon what came before and proving up (or disproving) those steps.

What Russell fails to do is actually address the contingency by which God is proven. He just jumps straight to “old dumb books say God is real, but you can’t prove it, because I believe it is absurd, because it is like a teapot in space.” It is an effective rhetorical ploy, but it holds zero water.

Any “philosopher” who whines and bickers about burden of proof, notably to avoid proving their own claims, is not anyone worth listening to. I enjoy the burden of proof non-argument because folks, like yourself, who never argue in good faith, get very worked up about it.

HAHAHAHA

Just skating past the special pleading fallacy eh?

Gee… can’t imagine why you have such a bias here…

126

I think this was generally a buff actually.

127

Lol ok. You’re welcome for correcting you.

Lol ok

Literally no idea what you’re on about. Are you ok? Should I alert someone?

Wow… Your love of strawmen borders on disturbing. That is not even remotely close to what is being argued. Just pure. unadulterated. nonsense. You really do believe the earth is flat dont you?

Let’s be honest. You enjoy them because like you they believe in sky daddies and flat-earths.

Seriously. If you want me to alert someone let me know. You seem to be losing it.

128

You believe in the Burden of Proof! I’ll walk you through it. You believe that the Burden of Proof protects you from having to believe nonsense because it obligates behavior of how truth is found, and if you deny this obligation, then you’re subject to just believe anything that anyone tells you because by not believing in the Burden of Proof, you don’t believe in proof at all.

Hence the YOU-MUST-BELIEVE-ANYTHING monster getting you if the Burden of Proof doesn’t save you.

This is all ridiculous because none of it is real, and yet this is how you’re treating the notion of burden of proof. It isn’t an actual burden or obligation that anyone has. I can no more compel you to prove up claims you haven’t proven than you can do me, and the burden doesn’t “lie” anywhere, because it isn’t a thing.

“That’s a strawman! Also you’re a flat-earther!”

LOL okay.

Sorry I insulted your favorite atheist, but in Russell’s own words he states that belief in God is nonsense and isn’t treated as such because God is “affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school” and enforced by the psychiatrist/Inquisitor depending on the age. His entire quip is a whine that the teapot gets rejected but God does not, despite in his mind them both being equally absurd, as absurdity is the entire crux of his analogy.

It is no different than Hitchens’ stupid addition of “extraordinary” in “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” All this does is add rhetorical flair that supplants logic for “what personally convinces a person regardless of truth.” Extraordinary is ill-defined, and plenty of arguably extraordinary truths can be explained and proven with rather mundane evidence, so what is actually being stated is that mere truth is insufficient to convince Hitchens and anyone else that follows such a mindless axiom.

1st graders have a higher conception and understanding of God than “sky daddy” so I would suggest at a minimum rising above that level.

1 Like
129

No… its one of, not THE principle by which the value of a claim can be assessed, and one that is pretty universally accepted. It’s about assessing a claim, not “finding truth,” you’re speaking in theist terms again, you just can’t help yourself apparently. You can say you have a million dollars in a bank in Antarctica. You’re right, I can’t “obligate” you to prove that to me… but that’s literally not what anyone is talking about. But if you can’t prove it to me… and I have no other evidence of it’s existence, than I can logically dismiss your claim until some further point at which new information may arise. I don’t have to concern myself with trying to “disprove” your bank in Antarctica, because LOGICALLY the onus isnt on me, and I can move on to other pursuits.

I mean… if the tin-foil hat fits… :man_shrugging:

And now we have the crux of your outrage. I don’t care what other people believe. I have my own system of belief, which is logically consistent, so if you want to believe in Santa Claus or whatever then go ahead. You on the other hand seem inordinately concerned with reconciling the inevitable dissonance resulting from your illogical beliefs and your desire to fit them into a logical framework. But its a square peg and a round hole so it’s just never going to work. So, you react much like a toddler presented with the same frustration… You throw a tantrum and become angry at the peg and the hole and everything between.

But getting mad at me and Hitchens and Russel and anyone else isn’t going to help you my dude. You’ve either got to update your belief system, or abandon the notion that it’s ever going to have logical underpinnings. Until then… you’re always just gonna be that angry child raging at the peg and flipping over the table because the two will never align.

So can I bill you for counseling now in addition to the aforementioned tutoring? My rates are awfully fair

130

Then prove it.

Truth finding isn’t a theist exclusive thing… LOL? Holy crap did ever even go to class?

Oh is this the part where you argue against something no one has said by peering into a crystal ball?

All I did was call your burden of proof to the floor, nothing more, and now suddenly I’m so broken and twisted you went full Psych 101 on me? HAHAHA

I have "got" to do something?! Else I have to just believe anything because I’m being illogical?!?!

Holy crap how bad do you have to be to mock my assessment of your slavish belief in the burden of proof and then turn around and do exactly what I was caricaturing!

You have made my day!

131

More solipsism

Did never class go to. Make collage. Much learn. Words good.

Your words not mine. I’d say you’re more just internally conflicted for the reasons I described previously.

Cmon Dorothy. Try harder.

132

Hunters can also use the warglaives.

133

Nope.

134

If the rule can apply to itself, and it cannot survive, then the rule violates the law of noncontradiction.

This is how the silly paradoxes get dealt with like “All statements are false” because you apply it to itself and the logical chain breaks.

Also I think you were looking for SOPHISTRY not the theory that you can only know yourself.

Don’t fall for the bait so hard next time. Your entire diatribe gave away the game. Had you stuck to one-liners you could at least have feigned denial of what I was saying, but you went all in, and whether you meant to or not, literally displayed what I caricatured.

You believe, without warrant, that burdens of proof save you from illogical belief structures, you said so yourself:

Plus, I doubt you could accurately describe anything I actually believe without resorting to Thunderf00t levels of shameless and vapid mockery, let alone grapple with them honestly.

135

No… I meant what I said.

You’re asking me to prove non-existence. That’s a logical fallacy almost as old as belief in sky-daddies. In fact, one of the most famous examples is… “God exists and until you can prove otherwise, I will continue to believe that he does.” Because while there may be reason’s to believe in a God, the inability to prove the negative is not one of them.

Solipsism states nothing is real because we can’t prove the veracity of our senses empirically. You’re effectively stating no argument is real because even logical presuppositions are just “claims” that can’t really be empirically proven. Its logical solipsism. *“How do you know 2+2 = 4 or A=B=C means A=C? What even is a 2? What if 2 isnt even a thing and we’re all just pieces of the matrix maaaan”

Yea its fun to get high and geek out about when you’re a freshman. But most of us grow out of it. Most of us…

I believe that having a logical process by which I can assess the proof of a claim saves me from illogical belief structures.
I work in a bank. Someone comes in asks for a loan and tells me they have a million dollars in a house somewhere in China. I have a structure that protects me from illogical loans, which includes assessing whether or not this money actually exists. So if you can’t provide any proof the money exists… I’m denying your request and moving on until further proof presents itself. If you double down by arguing that can any of us really know anything, and do banks really exist, and why should I actually require proof and is burden of proof even really a thing… That’s solipsism, and also I’m going to have you removed and alert the authorities…

136

TBC warglaives are catagorized as 1 handed swords. Hunters can use 1 handed swords. Therefore hunters can use the TBC warglaives of azzinoth.

137

No, I’m asking you to prove up your claim that all claims must be proven by the claimant. This has nothing to do with existence or non-existence.

No one asserts this, at least not in any serious discussion.

The inability to prove the negative just undermines someone’s belief that God doesn’t exist, nothing more, as it shows a lack of warrant for said belief.

Minds only, no brains, which has a variety of debunking counter proofs. I am not advocating this by asking you to prove why claims must be proven by the claimant. I’m asking you to prove why claims must be proven by the claimant because YOU MADE THE CLAIM.

I have said nothing about empiricism. None of this has anything to do with you substantiating your own claim, subject to the very rules within the claim you made.

Let me know when you’re done arguing against positions no one holds and are ready to actually prove up your own position according to your own rules.

138

No they cannot. It says it on the weapon…it’s listed warrior, then rogue.

2 Likes
139

Good luck with that…

1 Like
140

Warglaive of Azzinoth
Binds when picked up
Unique

Main Hand Sword

214 - 398 Damage Speed 2.80

(109.3 damage per second)
+22 Agility
+29 Stamina
Durability 125 / 125
Item level 156
Classes: Warrior, Rogue
Requires Level 70

1 Like
141

I did initially enjoy debating, however one-sided the debate was, but this is growing tiresome.

When you’re not otherwise afforded many opportunities to play chess, it’s sometimes fun to play at all, even against a child.
But after awhile you do get tired of fishing the pieces out of their mouth… and I think we’re pretty much there with this discussion. GL with your sky-daddy.

142

dam i missed that part of classes requirement. Well that sucks! Thanks for the heads up!