The quality of the satire has nothing to do with the argument. Null response.
The satire is your argument, so essentially, you're stating that, "the quality of the argument has nothing to do with the argument."
You clearly don't understand that term (facade). This is a direct argument, meaning that it is directly supported by what I stated afterwards, which you decided to split in two, distorting the meaning.
Supported by what? The statement was essentially:
'Fire is fundamental because fire is fundamental'
That's obviously circular logic.
This was followed by:
'fall damage is fundamental for the same reason' (fall damage is fundamental because fall damage is fundamental) Again, circular, and also irrelevant to the case for fire.
'procedural fire is more common than torches which set fire, therefore, they are more fundamental.'
Appeal to majority- an appeal that I've been attempting to address throughout this entire thread; it's the fallacy which forms the core of your argument.
The idea is that procedural fire is much more common in real life than torch flaring, and thus has a greater chance of being imported into games.
I'm not sure how true that is, or even if that's really verifiable, but either way it is a naturalistic fallacy.
No, I'm not mad. I'm debating. Don't get it confused. I have supported many of your other ideas, 8bit.
Maybe, though an argument wroth with ad hominem attacks doesn't help to solidify that claim.
(u mad)
You just did, appealing to the majority, or "more common-ness" of "not having fall damage."
Except that I'm not opposed to fall damage. That fall damage is less common than a lack of fall damage validates my argument, and serves as an example of the invalidity of an appeal to majority.
Besides, I have already argued against your repeated attempts to place fall damage on the same level as torch damage, and shown you that fall damage is more important (as have other people)
No where have you shown that fall damage is more important. You have made two comments regarding fall damage:
a.) It is more common than the use of torches to burn items/obstacles (again, appeal to majority)
b.) It is fundamental because it is fundamental (circular logic; fundamental is not defined, nor do you explain to what means fall damage is fundamental.)
yet you still bring it up. How thick is your skull?
I have explained, and explained, and...well you get the idea. Seems like you forgot my original argument based on commonality and fundamental aspects in video games. This is the summary:
1) You brought in the comparison to fall damage, and eventually procedural fire
2) I refuted this saying that they are more important/common/fundamental than torches causing damage
3) You brought them up again.
4)Repeat 2-3. Repeatedly.
The commonality is irrelevant. (and it has not been shown that procedural fire is more common than torches which ignite anyway) Fall damage/procedural fire were explained to be fundamental because they are fundamental and because they are common. I do not recall the use of the word 'important', but it seems synonymous with 'fundamental'.
NO. ANY IS NEVER, EVER A SYNONYM FOR EVERY. EVER. The fact that you have manipulated it this way (and you have repeated this mistake throughout the argument!) is downright disappointing. When I say any, I mean any. When I say every I mean every. There is a complete and utter difference there that you don't seem to understand. It happened similarly before when I gave the example of houses with torches not burning down, which you took as "no houses with torches have burned down." THESE THINGS ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE! Once again: How old are you?
Ignoring your claim about the interchangeability of 'any' and 'every' (I will come back to it):
If you did not intend to mean 'every' your implied premise still isn't sound. It is not true that not one game has used torches in the way I described.
Beyond this, your statement is simply ham handed because, in the context used, 'any' and 'every' ARE interchangeable, and, colloquially, used in the same context, any implies every.
"b : every —used to indicate one selected without restriction, e.g. any child would know that"
Still, irrelevant, and based entirely upon an unsound premise. (that no game has implemented a similar torch system.)
An extrapolation is not necessarily a congruent analogy, it is often incongruent analogy. I am implying it as the latter (and it can be both). This is simple logic.
And I welcome that claim, but you've yet to show how they are incongruent.
Yes I did, because it was satire, and I was mimicking you.
The mimic itself is the analogy I'm referring to, not its content.
I am surprised fight hasn't ended. I completely am getting annoyed from this from this. If you are doing this just to annoy tgt, 8bit, at least do it through emails, were he can at least block them.
The satire is your argument, so essentially, you're stating that, "the quality of the argument has nothing to do with the argument."
True, the satire is the argument, but when referring the quality of satire, you are measuring its ability to make one laugh. When referring the quality of an argument, you are referring its ability at persuasion. Therefore the measure of quality is not equal. So let me rephrase with these definitions:
The ability of my satire to make you laugh has nothing to do with the argument. Saying that my satire is bad is a an ad hominem attack. Since you are now so proudly speaking with these logical fallacies, I would expect you to recognize that.
Supported by what? The statement was essentially:
'Fire is fundamental because fire is fundamental'
That's obviously circular logic.
This was followed by:
'fall damage is fundamental for the same reason' (fall damage is fundamental because fall damage is fundamental) Again, circular, and also irrelevant to the case for fire.
'procedural fire is more common than torches which set fire, therefore, they are more fundamental.'
Appeal to majority- an appeal that I've been attempting to address throughout this entire thread; it's the fallacy which forms the core of your argument.
By saying fire/falling damage is common I am referencing that it is fundamental (in video games, that is). By saying it is fundamental I am referencing that it is important. By comparing this importance to the relative importance of torches catching fire to things (using the same progression), I am refuting your extrapolation/comparison to fire and falling damage, and your argument that since fire/falling damage is a limitation it follows the same criticism as when I first called your torch idea a limitation. Get it now? Since fire/falling damage is more common, more fundamental, and more important than torch damage, based on every faculty of video game development, then your comparison of "limitations" does not hold true. Anyhow, this isn't even the point of the argument, but you seem to mistake it as such. This idea of commonality is what is tripping you up in this discussion, just don't forget that this is only a side argument to the main point, basically my response to your initial rebuttal.
The idea is that procedural fire is much more common in real life than torch flaring, and thus has a greater chance of being imported into games.
I'm not sure how true that is, or even if that's really verifiable, but either way it is a naturalistic fallacy.
Stop forgetting the point! Even though this is (kinda sorta) a naturalistic fallacy, my point in making this statement nullifies this. I was outlining the reason that fire has been more common and fundamental in games to quite simply show you why this is (because of real life), not to use that reason as a motive. You can't just pick and choose any statement and judge it based on words; you must remember the point I am making.
No, I'm not mad. I'm debating. Don't get it confused. I have supported many of your other ideas, 8bit.
Maybe, though an argument worth with ad hominem attacks doesn't help to solidify that claim.
(u mad)
No it doesn't, but you don't know me. I never get mad at things like this, but people sometimes mistake my actions as driven by anger. When I capitalize things and add "how thick is your skull" and personal phrases, I am simply trying to bolden my statements in ways not limited to syntax, by using facets of everyday speech. I am a very intense debater, and proud of it. =)
And no I'm not a master-debater...
You just did, appealing to the majority, or "more common-ness" of "not having fall damage."
Except that I'm not opposed to fall damage.
Then stop acting that way.
That fall damage is less common than a lack of fall damage validates my argument, and serves as an example of the invalidity of an appeal to majority.
Yes, lack of fall damage is more common than having fall damage, but that is not the comparison I am making, or a relevant comparison to our article. So from origination your argument is not valid.
Besides, I have already argued against your repeated attempts to place fall damage on the same level as torch damage, and shown you that fall damage is more important (as have other people)
No where have you shown that fall damage is more important. You have made two comments regarding fall damage:
a.) It is more common than the use of torches to burn items/obstacles (again, appeal to majority)
b.) It is fundamental because it is fundamental (circular logic; fundamental is not defined, nor do you explain to what means fall damage is fundamental.)
Your first sentence doesn't make sense. Your list I have already replied to above. The appeal to majority was to show that it is common, which I then transitioned into fundamental (it's common for a reason, you know), and then important (again, it's common for a reason). I used the real life example to show a reason for the common-ness, not to say "it is worth having because the majority of games have it" no, that was your interpretation.
To explain fundamental: Fundamental=essential, necessary. With falling damage, it is obvious that it is essential and necessary in survival mode. With fire not as much, but I argue (as I have already said) that it is still more essential and necessary than torch fires.
The commonality is irrelevant. (and it has not been shown that procedural fire is more common than torches which ignite anyway) Fall damage/procedural fire were explained to be fundamental because they are fundamental and because they are common. I do not recall the use of the word 'important', but it seems synonymous with 'fundamental'.
Sounds like you really didn't understand my argument. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Importance is an obvious derivation of fundamental, though it carries slightly different connotations that I was trying to add to my statement. For many reasons.
If you did not intend to mean 'every' your implied premise still isn't sound. It is not true that not one game has used torches in the way I described.
Beyond this, your statement is simply ham handed because, in the context used, 'any' and 'every' ARE interchangeable, and, colloquially, used in the same context, any implies every.
Honestly. I was saying that when fall damage is added to a game, in its nature, it becomes fundamental to that game. Stop forgetting the point.
And pick up a thesaurus, find "any". Then find "every". They are not synonyms. You are correct, however, that in this context they can be used interchangeably, and I'm sorry I had a fuss about it. What I was really referring to was some other occasional word mix-ups you have done that have changed the meaning of some of my statements, or more importantly your interpretation of them (and once you interpret it one way I can't get you to change your interpretation to what I meant by it).
Still, irrelevant, and based entirely upon an unsound premise. (that no game has implemented a similar torch system.)
I never once said that. The point is, more games, no matter what the numbers are, have implemented fall damage and procedural fire. Like I said, this argument is no longer about the torch idea, but you not understanding what I meant when I was refuting your comparison to fall damage and procedural fire.
An extrapolation is not necessarily a congruent analogy, it is often incongruent analogy. I am implying it as the latter (and it can be both). This is simple logic.
And I welcome that claim, but you've yet to show how they are incongruent.
Actually, that's what I've been doing this whole time.
Yes I did, because it was satire, and I was mimicking you.
The mimic itself is the analogy I'm referring to, not its content.
I know. And I was mimicking an incongruent analogy, similar to ones you have already made. I thought I made myself clear.
True, the satire is the argument, but when referring the quality of satire, you are measuring its ability to make one laugh.
When referring the quality of an argument, you are referring its ability at persuasion. Therefore the measure of quality is not equal. So let me rephrase with these definitions:
The ability of my satire to make you laugh has nothing to do with the argument. Saying that my satire is bad is a an ad hominem attack. Since you are now so proudly speaking with these logical fallacies, I would expect you to recognize that.
I thought rain damage was cute, but that's not what I meant by 'quality'. I meant the ability for the satire to convey an argument. You failed, in that respect, as 'rain damage' was left vague, and not breathing is awesome.
By saying fire/falling damage is common I am referencing that it is fundamental (in video games, that is). By saying it is fundamental I am referencing that it is important. By comparing this importance to the relative importance of torches catching fire to things (using the same progression), I am refuting your extrapolation/comparison to fire and falling damage, and your argument that since fire/falling damage is a limitation it follows the same criticism as when I first called your torch idea a limitation. Get it now? Since fire/falling damage is more common, more fundamental, and more important than torch damage, based on every faculty of video game development, then your comparison of "limitations" does not hold true.
Ah, but what constitutes 'importance'? Is importance quantifiable? Why is it that procedural fire is more important torches which ignite?
Stop forgetting the point! Even though this is (kinda sorta) a naturalistic fallacy
Indeed, kind of. Push for realism in fiction, specifically the vidya, has become increasingly common, and the false conclusion that realism is wholly positive is seemingly infectious. I used to call this a 'realism fallacy', essentially inventing my own term, but I then realized that naturalistic fallacy already applies to the situation, if in a roundabout way.
my point in making this statement nullifies this. I was outlining the reason that fire has been more common and fundamental in games to quite simply show you why this is (because of real life), not to use that reason as a motive. You can't just pick and choose any statement and judge it based on words; you must remember the point I am making.
Sure, but this doesn't mean that what is common is necessarily good. Fire is common in games because fire is realistic, though again, you're appealing to majority, and justifying this with a naturalistic fallacy.
No it doesn't, but you don't know me. I never get mad at things like this, but people sometimes mistake my actions as driven by anger. When I capitalize things and add "how thick is your skull" and personal phrases, I am simply trying to bolden my statements in ways not limited to syntax, by using facets of everyday speech. I am a very intense debater, and proud of it. =)
An ad hominem obfuscates your point, it does not enhance your point. You're still a bro, bro, but you might try to avoid them.
Then stop acting that way.
I thought I made it clear that the argument against fall damage was analogous to your argument against torch ignition.
Yes, lack of fall damage is more common than having fall damage, but that is not the comparison I am making, or a relevant comparison to our article. So from origination your argument is not valid.
You stated that "By saying fire/falling damage is common I am referencing that it is fundamental (in video games, that is)."
Thus, as a lack of fall damage is more common than fall damage, it must be more fundamental to the vidya.
Your first sentence doesn't make sense. Your list I have already replied to above. The appeal to majority was to show that it is common, which I then transitioned into fundamental (it's common for a reason, you know), and then important (again, it's common for a reason). I used the real life example to show a reason for the common-ness, not to say "it is worth having because the majority of games have it" no, that was your interpretation.
And that reason is that it's realistic? Ultimately, then, you're committing a naturalistic fallacy.
To explain fundamental: Fundamental=essential, necessary. With falling damage, it is obvious that it is essential and necessary in survival mode. With fire not as much, but I argue (as I have already said) that it is still more essential and necessary than torch fires.
And again, why is it that fire is more essential than torches which ignite? Neither seem essential.
Sounds like you really didn't understand my argument. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Importance is an obvious derivation of fundamental, though it carries slightly different connotations that I was trying to add to my statement. For many reasons.
Such as?
Honestly. I was saying that when fall damage is added to a game, in its nature, it becomes fundamental to that game. Stop forgetting the point.
How so?
And pick up a thesaurus, find "any". Then find "every". They are not synonyms.
You are correct, however, that in this context they can be used interchangeably, and I'm sorry I had a fuss about it.
It's cool.
What I was really referring to was some other occasional word mix-ups you have done that have changed the meaning of some of my statements, or more importantly your interpretation of them (and once you interpret it one way I can't get you to change your interpretation to what I meant by it).
If you're referring to the house burning statement, my interpretation shifted as soon as you clarified.
I never once said that.
No, but it's implied. Without that implication your statement is pointless. To point out that one or more games have implemented fall damage is pointless if you did not mean to imply that not one game has implemented torch ignition.
The point is, more games, no matter what the numbers are, have implemented fall damage and procedural fire. Like I said, this argument is no longer about the torch idea, but you not understanding what I meant when I was refuting your comparison to fall damage and procedural fire.
And again, this is an argument by consensus.
I know. And I was mimicking an incongruent analogy, similar to ones you have already made. I thought I made myself clear.
You're missing my point. In that you were mimicking me, forming a satire, you were forming the same type of argument I was. (an analogy, or a meta-analogy, if you will.)
The satire is your argument, so essentially, you're stating that, "the quality of the argument has nothing to do with the argument."
Supported by what? The statement was essentially:
'Fire is fundamental because fire is fundamental'
That's obviously circular logic.
This was followed by:
'fall damage is fundamental for the same reason' (fall damage is fundamental because fall damage is fundamental) Again, circular, and also irrelevant to the case for fire.
'procedural fire is more common than torches which set fire, therefore, they are more fundamental.'
Appeal to majority- an appeal that I've been attempting to address throughout this entire thread; it's the fallacy which forms the core of your argument.
I'm not sure how true that is, or even if that's really verifiable, but either way it is a naturalistic fallacy.
Maybe, though an argument wroth with ad hominem attacks doesn't help to solidify that claim.
(u mad)
Except that I'm not opposed to fall damage. That fall damage is less common than a lack of fall damage validates my argument, and serves as an example of the invalidity of an appeal to majority.
No where have you shown that fall damage is more important. You have made two comments regarding fall damage:
a.) It is more common than the use of torches to burn items/obstacles (again, appeal to majority)
b.) It is fundamental because it is fundamental (circular logic; fundamental is not defined, nor do you explain to what means fall damage is fundamental.)
The commonality is irrelevant. (and it has not been shown that procedural fire is more common than torches which ignite anyway) Fall damage/procedural fire were explained to be fundamental because they are fundamental and because they are common. I do not recall the use of the word 'important', but it seems synonymous with 'fundamental'.
Ignoring your claim about the interchangeability of 'any' and 'every' (I will come back to it):
If you did not intend to mean 'every' your implied premise still isn't sound. It is not true that not one game has used torches in the way I described.
Beyond this, your statement is simply ham handed because, in the context used, 'any' and 'every' ARE interchangeable, and, colloquially, used in the same context, any implies every.
Still, irrelevant, and based entirely upon an unsound premise. (that no game has implemented a similar torch system.)
And I welcome that claim, but you've yet to show how they are incongruent.
The mimic itself is the analogy I'm referring to, not its content.
True, the satire is the argument, but when referring the quality of satire, you are measuring its ability to make one laugh. When referring the quality of an argument, you are referring its ability at persuasion. Therefore the measure of quality is not equal. So let me rephrase with these definitions:
The ability of my satire to make you laugh has nothing to do with the argument. Saying that my satire is bad is a an ad hominem attack. Since you are now so proudly speaking with these logical fallacies, I would expect you to recognize that.
By saying fire/falling damage is common I am referencing that it is fundamental (in video games, that is). By saying it is fundamental I am referencing that it is important. By comparing this importance to the relative importance of torches catching fire to things (using the same progression), I am refuting your extrapolation/comparison to fire and falling damage, and your argument that since fire/falling damage is a limitation it follows the same criticism as when I first called your torch idea a limitation. Get it now? Since fire/falling damage is more common, more fundamental, and more important than torch damage, based on every faculty of video game development, then your comparison of "limitations" does not hold true. Anyhow, this isn't even the point of the argument, but you seem to mistake it as such. This idea of commonality is what is tripping you up in this discussion, just don't forget that this is only a side argument to the main point, basically my response to your initial rebuttal.
Stop forgetting the point! Even though this is (kinda sorta) a naturalistic fallacy, my point in making this statement nullifies this. I was outlining the reason that fire has been more common and fundamental in games to quite simply show you why this is (because of real life), not to use that reason as a motive. You can't just pick and choose any statement and judge it based on words; you must remember the point I am making.
No it doesn't, but you don't know me. I never get mad at things like this, but people sometimes mistake my actions as driven by anger. When I capitalize things and add "how thick is your skull" and personal phrases, I am simply trying to bolden my statements in ways not limited to syntax, by using facets of everyday speech. I am a very intense debater, and proud of it. =)
And no I'm not a master-debater...
Then stop acting that way.
Yes, lack of fall damage is more common than having fall damage, but that is not the comparison I am making, or a relevant comparison to our article. So from origination your argument is not valid.
Your first sentence doesn't make sense. Your list I have already replied to above. The appeal to majority was to show that it is common, which I then transitioned into fundamental (it's common for a reason, you know), and then important (again, it's common for a reason). I used the real life example to show a reason for the common-ness, not to say "it is worth having because the majority of games have it" no, that was your interpretation.
To explain fundamental: Fundamental=essential, necessary. With falling damage, it is obvious that it is essential and necessary in survival mode. With fire not as much, but I argue (as I have already said) that it is still more essential and necessary than torch fires.
K.
Sounds like you really didn't understand my argument. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Importance is an obvious derivation of fundamental, though it carries slightly different connotations that I was trying to add to my statement. For many reasons.
Honestly. I was saying that when fall damage is added to a game, in its nature, it becomes fundamental to that game. Stop forgetting the point.
And pick up a thesaurus, find "any". Then find "every". They are not synonyms. You are correct, however, that in this context they can be used interchangeably, and I'm sorry I had a fuss about it. What I was really referring to was some other occasional word mix-ups you have done that have changed the meaning of some of my statements, or more importantly your interpretation of them (and once you interpret it one way I can't get you to change your interpretation to what I meant by it).
I never once said that. The point is, more games, no matter what the numbers are, have implemented fall damage and procedural fire. Like I said, this argument is no longer about the torch idea, but you not understanding what I meant when I was refuting your comparison to fall damage and procedural fire.
Actually, that's what I've been doing this whole time.
I know. And I was mimicking an incongruent analogy, similar to ones you have already made. I thought I made myself clear.
And it's getting annoying. I really don't have time for this 5 times a day.
Who is winning?
I thought rain damage was cute, but that's not what I meant by 'quality'. I meant the ability for the satire to convey an argument. You failed, in that respect, as 'rain damage' was left vague, and not breathing is awesome.
Ah, but what constitutes 'importance'? Is importance quantifiable? Why is it that procedural fire is more important torches which ignite?
Indeed, kind of. Push for realism in fiction, specifically the vidya, has become increasingly common, and the false conclusion that realism is wholly positive is seemingly infectious. I used to call this a 'realism fallacy', essentially inventing my own term, but I then realized that naturalistic fallacy already applies to the situation, if in a roundabout way.
Sure, but this doesn't mean that what is common is necessarily good. Fire is common in games because fire is realistic, though again, you're appealing to majority, and justifying this with a naturalistic fallacy.
An ad hominem obfuscates your point, it does not enhance your point. You're still a bro, bro, but you might try to avoid them.
I thought I made it clear that the argument against fall damage was analogous to your argument against torch ignition.
You stated that "By saying fire/falling damage is common I am referencing that it is fundamental (in video games, that is)."
Thus, as a lack of fall damage is more common than fall damage, it must be more fundamental to the vidya.
And that reason is that it's realistic? Ultimately, then, you're committing a naturalistic fallacy.
And again, why is it that fire is more essential than torches which ignite? Neither seem essential.
Such as?
How so?
Are you sure about that?
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/any
It's cool.
If you're referring to the house burning statement, my interpretation shifted as soon as you clarified.
No, but it's implied. Without that implication your statement is pointless. To point out that one or more games have implemented fall damage is pointless if you did not mean to imply that not one game has implemented torch ignition.
And again, this is an argument by consensus.
You're missing my point. In that you were mimicking me, forming a satire, you were forming the same type of argument I was. (an analogy, or a meta-analogy, if you will.)
Droqen. He convinced me that my suggestion wasn't very good a while ago.