|
On August 04 2012 19:58 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 16:18 Dracolich70 wrote:
Let's talk about ants. I have one named Adam. Can you actually keep a pet ant? Like just a single little guy? How do you feed him? Is he in a cage, or have you built a place for him to live? I've seen a couple walking about in the apartment, and I've always felt like I should get to know them better.
Your signature is genius my friend
|
On August 05 2012 09:30 DecisionTheory wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 08:28 The Final Boss wrote:On August 05 2012 07:03 DecisionTheory wrote:On August 05 2012 02:30 The Final Boss wrote:On August 04 2012 15:51 DecisionTheory wrote:On August 03 2012 21:29 Butterednuts wrote:On August 03 2012 20:37 Champloo wrote:
People care way too much about casters in Starcraft II. Yeah because people totally don't talk about John Madden. Terrible argument. Just because other people do it, doesn't make it correct. That might be true, but who are you to say that giving casters a lot of attention is incorrect? The "everybody's doing it" argument actually makes a lot of sense when you don't have an argument to go against it. In every sport you have casting personalities, whether it's American football, baseball, hockey, basketball, or whatever else. Casters are incredibly important to sports; think back to when sports were broadcasted over the radio and all there was was the caster's voice. Casters deserve attention, they get attention, getting mad that they get attention is stupid. Plus having a thread about arguably the most famous caster joining eMG deserves attention as much as if not more than some of the stuff that gets attention on this site. That's cool and all but I never stated that casters should get attention or should not. All I was stating was that argument was a fallacy, therefore invalid. And why is that argument "invalid?" Please stop posting generic statements that apply in some circumstances, but not all. Let's look at a completely different argument and try to apply the argument "everybody does it so you should do it too" When you're talking about smoking cigarettes, the argument "Well everybody smokes cigarettes" is a pretty bad argument, but there are reasons why that argument does not work in that scenario. For starters, not everybody smokes cigarettes. Therefore, the argument is inherently flawed because it is based around a statement that is simply not true. Another argument against smoking cigarettes is that it is known that there are medical drawbacks to smoking cigarettes. Regardless of whether or not the original statement "everybody smokes cigarettes" is true or not, there are reasons against doing what the hoi polloi is doing. Now let's apply this same logic to the argument of whether or not StarCraft 2 casters should get attention or not, but instead of the statement "everybody smokes cigarettes," we're going to say "every other sport gives attention to casters." First let's ask ourselves, is the statement true at all? The answer: yes; for the most part, just about every televised sport has it's various casting personalities. In American football, for example, you have John Madden. Now we come to our second point, which is to say, is there an argument against it? Is there a negative effect to giving casters like Artosis attention? Some people might say that there is a negative side effect, but as long as the players are getting as much attention (@LiquidRet), I think it's fair to say that there is no negative side effect to giving Artosis attention. There are threads about players joining teams and leaving teams all the time and this thread does not detract from those threads, so I really see no negative side effect. So this still makes me wonder, what is wrong with using the argument "everybody does it" in this scenario? Also please stop using a thesaurus when you're posting, it makes the words you look up stand out really badly lol It is invalid because it's illogical.(ad populum). "It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong." Cool once again a paragraph that means absolutely nothing towards the argument. One cannot simply defend a point by stating "others do it, so it's alright we can do it." They people could be right or wrong, it does not matter. You cannot make a logical argument by doing this. What are you talking about, "using the thesaurus"? I did not use any word in my last sentence that was even remotely foreign. Nice ad hominen though. Seriously was this a troll, or were you serious?
Did you read the quote you wrote down or just copy/paste it. It literally backs my own point. Let's actually have a look and read said quote:
It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong.
You're talking about it in hyperbolic terms of either completely correct or completely wrong. What you fail to realize is that while the belief of a group can be wrong, it can also be right. If that were not the case, then the word "can" would not be used there.
What I am saying is that there are exceptions to the rule and therefore the argument works in certain cases, including the one we are talking about. Read the quote again and pay close attention to the words that I put in bold for you. What that quote is basically saying is that you have to examine each scenario and see how the argument applies to it. You have yet to actually prove how that argument is wrong other than pointing to highly generic statements that mean literally nothing.
And let's be honest, nobody who starts a sentence with the phrase "That's cool and all" finishes that same thought with the words fallacy and invalid. Also, it's just a poorly structured sentence. Anybody who reads that sentence aloud would realize that it just sounds weird to say. Also that was not at all the basis of my argument and as you mentioned there was a lot more to what I wrote than simply me making fun of your terrible post (also you probably took more time finding that quote than I spent writing this post haha).
Oh and you have still yet to explain to me how that argument is false. Stop pointing to quotes and phrases you have not even read or at the very least read to a point where you can understand it and--if you truly are so much more intelligent than me--actually explain why I am wrong.
|
I am curious how they will 'manage' Tasteless and Artosis "Ok, you keep talking about SC2 really really successfully"
|
On August 05 2012 13:19 Sub40APM wrote:
I am curious how they will 'manage' Tasteless and Artosis "Ok, you keep talking about SC2 really really successfully"
they will handle all the contract negotiations and endorsements that Tasteless and Artosis do. Manager in this case is more like agent.
|
On August 03 2012 21:45 StreetWise wrote:Yes, Tasteless was the first caster in their stable. He mentions this in his real talk episode. I would reccommend watching that, not just because he talks about this, but its interesting in general as there usually isnt much about the personal life of Tasteless. For instance he says that he hasn't lost his passion as many have speculated. Since he also talks about the Tastetosis brand its not surprising to see Artosis get picked up as well.
link?
Cool beans topic.
|
On August 05 2012 12:48 The Final Boss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 09:30 DecisionTheory wrote:On August 05 2012 08:28 The Final Boss wrote:On August 05 2012 07:03 DecisionTheory wrote:On August 05 2012 02:30 The Final Boss wrote:On August 04 2012 15:51 DecisionTheory wrote:On August 03 2012 21:29 Butterednuts wrote:On August 03 2012 20:37 Champloo wrote:
People care way too much about casters in Starcraft II. Yeah because people totally don't talk about John Madden. Terrible argument. Just because other people do it, doesn't make it correct. That might be true, but who are you to say that giving casters a lot of attention is incorrect? The "everybody's doing it" argument actually makes a lot of sense when you don't have an argument to go against it. In every sport you have casting personalities, whether it's American football, baseball, hockey, basketball, or whatever else. Casters are incredibly important to sports; think back to when sports were broadcasted over the radio and all there was was the caster's voice. Casters deserve attention, they get attention, getting mad that they get attention is stupid. Plus having a thread about arguably the most famous caster joining eMG deserves attention as much as if not more than some of the stuff that gets attention on this site. That's cool and all but I never stated that casters should get attention or should not. All I was stating was that argument was a fallacy, therefore invalid. And why is that argument "invalid?" Please stop posting generic statements that apply in some circumstances, but not all. Let's look at a completely different argument and try to apply the argument "everybody does it so you should do it too" When you're talking about smoking cigarettes, the argument "Well everybody smokes cigarettes" is a pretty bad argument, but there are reasons why that argument does not work in that scenario. For starters, not everybody smokes cigarettes. Therefore, the argument is inherently flawed because it is based around a statement that is simply not true. Another argument against smoking cigarettes is that it is known that there are medical drawbacks to smoking cigarettes. Regardless of whether or not the original statement "everybody smokes cigarettes" is true or not, there are reasons against doing what the hoi polloi is doing. Now let's apply this same logic to the argument of whether or not StarCraft 2 casters should get attention or not, but instead of the statement "everybody smokes cigarettes," we're going to say "every other sport gives attention to casters." First let's ask ourselves, is the statement true at all? The answer: yes; for the most part, just about every televised sport has it's various casting personalities. In American football, for example, you have John Madden. Now we come to our second point, which is to say, is there an argument against it? Is there a negative effect to giving casters like Artosis attention? Some people might say that there is a negative side effect, but as long as the players are getting as much attention (@LiquidRet), I think it's fair to say that there is no negative side effect to giving Artosis attention. There are threads about players joining teams and leaving teams all the time and this thread does not detract from those threads, so I really see no negative side effect. So this still makes me wonder, what is wrong with using the argument "everybody does it" in this scenario? Also please stop using a thesaurus when you're posting, it makes the words you look up stand out really badly lol It is invalid because it's illogical.(ad populum). "It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong." Cool once again a paragraph that means absolutely nothing towards the argument. One cannot simply defend a point by stating "others do it, so it's alright we can do it." They people could be right or wrong, it does not matter. You cannot make a logical argument by doing this. What are you talking about, "using the thesaurus"? I did not use any word in my last sentence that was even remotely foreign. Nice ad hominen though. Seriously was this a troll, or were you serious? Did you read the quote you wrote down or just copy/paste it. It literally backs my own point. Let's actually have a look and read said quote: Show nested quote +It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. You're talking about it in hyperbolic terms of either completely correct or completely wrong. What you fail to realize is that while the belief of a group can be wrong, it can also be right. If that were not the case, then the word "can" would not be used there. What I am saying is that there are exceptions to the rule and therefore the argument works in certain cases, including the one we are talking about. Read the quote again and pay close attention to the words that I put in bold for you. What that quote is basically saying is that you have to examine each scenario and see how the argument applies to it. You have yet to actually prove how that argument is wrong other than pointing to highly generic statements that mean literally nothing. And let's be honest, nobody who starts a sentence with the phrase "That's cool and all" finishes that same thought with the words fallacy and invalid. Also, it's just a poorly structured sentence. Anybody who reads that sentence aloud would realize that it just sounds weird to say. Also that was not at all the basis of my argument and as you mentioned there was a lot more to what I wrote than simply me making fun of your terrible post (also you probably took more time finding that quote than I spent writing this post haha). Oh and you have still yet to explain to me how that argument is false. Stop pointing to quotes and phrases you have not even read or at the very least read to a point where you can understand it and--if you truly are so much more intelligent than me--actually explain why I am wrong.
Where did I state once that I was more intelligent than you, or anything of that nature?
I will attempt to organize this in a more coherent fashion.
"The "everybody's doing it" argument actually makes a lot of sense when you don't have an argument to go against it. " It may make sense to you, but it is sure invalid to thy. "ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true. In some domains, however, it is popularity rather than other strengths that makes a choice the preferred one."
"It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A, this argument fails, because if opinion did determine truth, then there be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small the percentage of those polled is distributed among any remaining answers, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers."
"it. In every sport you have casting personalities, whether it's American football, baseball, hockey, basketball, or whatever else. Casters are incredibly important to sports; think back to when sports were broadcasted over the radio and all there was was the caster's voice. Casters deserve attention, they get attention, getting mad that they get attention is stupid. Plus having a thread about arguably the most famous caster joining eMG deserves attention as much as if not more than some of the stuff that gets attention on this site" Awesome. I never stated that I had an opinion whether they should be given attention or they shouldn't, all I was stating was that argument was invalid.
"When you're talking about smoking cigarettes, the argument "Well everybody smokes cigarettes" is a pretty bad argument, but there are reasons why that argument does not work in that scenario. For starters, not everybody smokes cigarettes." Agreed, it's a terrible argument.
"Is there a negative effect to giving casters like Artosis attention? Some people might say that there is a negative side effect, but as long as the players are getting as much attention (@LiquidRet), I think it's fair to say that there is no negative side effect to giving Artosis attention" You think it's fair? That's not the best evidence for an argument.
"...so I really see no negative side effect" Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that there are not negative side effects. (Once again don't assume anything. I have not stated that there are negative, positive, side effects, or even a mixture of both)
" Also please stop using a thesaurus when you're posting, it makes the words you look up stand out really badly lol" Alright, don't know how you came to that conclusion.
"What you fail to realize is that while the belief of a group can be wrong, it can also be right" Never failed to realize that. Can you stop putting words in my mouth?
"What I am saying is that there are exceptions to the rule and therefore the argument works in certain cases" You can make exceptions to the rule if you want, but that doesn't make it a valid argument or less falliiou
"What that quote is basically saying is that you have to examine each scenario and see how the argument applies to it. You have yet to actually prove how that argument is wrong other than pointing to highly generic statements that mean literally nothing." My goal was never to prove the argument right or wrong for the premise of "should casters be given attention." My goal was simply to state that argument way back, was bad.
""That's cool and all" finishes that same thought with the words fallacy and invalid." Sorry, didn't feel like typing all that much, and nor did I feel like making a properly form response.
"Anybody who reads that sentence aloud would realize that it just sounds weird to say." That's simply not true.
"(also you probably took more time finding that quote than I spent writing this post haha)." Nice assumption.
I think we may have had some miscommunication. You definitely had some decent argument of why casters should receive some fame, but I was not arguing that. I was simply stating that argument was invalid in proving why casters should receive attention. I believe, if I am mistaken, you were using that argument in an inductive way, while I was interpreting it in a deductive manner.
"The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 90% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also prefer that brand, and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other."
|
wow some people have alot of time on their hands....
|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 05 2012 17:58 DecisionTheory wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 12:48 The Final Boss wrote:On August 05 2012 09:30 DecisionTheory wrote:On August 05 2012 08:28 The Final Boss wrote:On August 05 2012 07:03 DecisionTheory wrote:On August 05 2012 02:30 The Final Boss wrote:On August 04 2012 15:51 DecisionTheory wrote:On August 03 2012 21:29 Butterednuts wrote:On August 03 2012 20:37 Champloo wrote:
People care way too much about casters in Starcraft II. Yeah because people totally don't talk about John Madden. Terrible argument. Just because other people do it, doesn't make it correct. That might be true, but who are you to say that giving casters a lot of attention is incorrect? The "everybody's doing it" argument actually makes a lot of sense when you don't have an argument to go against it. In every sport you have casting personalities, whether it's American football, baseball, hockey, basketball, or whatever else. Casters are incredibly important to sports; think back to when sports were broadcasted over the radio and all there was was the caster's voice. Casters deserve attention, they get attention, getting mad that they get attention is stupid. Plus having a thread about arguably the most famous caster joining eMG deserves attention as much as if not more than some of the stuff that gets attention on this site. That's cool and all but I never stated that casters should get attention or should not. All I was stating was that argument was a fallacy, therefore invalid. And why is that argument "invalid?" Please stop posting generic statements that apply in some circumstances, but not all. Let's look at a completely different argument and try to apply the argument "everybody does it so you should do it too" When you're talking about smoking cigarettes, the argument "Well everybody smokes cigarettes" is a pretty bad argument, but there are reasons why that argument does not work in that scenario. For starters, not everybody smokes cigarettes. Therefore, the argument is inherently flawed because it is based around a statement that is simply not true. Another argument against smoking cigarettes is that it is known that there are medical drawbacks to smoking cigarettes. Regardless of whether or not the original statement "everybody smokes cigarettes" is true or not, there are reasons against doing what the hoi polloi is doing. Now let's apply this same logic to the argument of whether or not StarCraft 2 casters should get attention or not, but instead of the statement "everybody smokes cigarettes," we're going to say "every other sport gives attention to casters." First let's ask ourselves, is the statement true at all? The answer: yes; for the most part, just about every televised sport has it's various casting personalities. In American football, for example, you have John Madden. Now we come to our second point, which is to say, is there an argument against it? Is there a negative effect to giving casters like Artosis attention? Some people might say that there is a negative side effect, but as long as the players are getting as much attention (@LiquidRet), I think it's fair to say that there is no negative side effect to giving Artosis attention. There are threads about players joining teams and leaving teams all the time and this thread does not detract from those threads, so I really see no negative side effect. So this still makes me wonder, what is wrong with using the argument "everybody does it" in this scenario? Also please stop using a thesaurus when you're posting, it makes the words you look up stand out really badly lol It is invalid because it's illogical.(ad populum). "It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong." Cool once again a paragraph that means absolutely nothing towards the argument. One cannot simply defend a point by stating "others do it, so it's alright we can do it." They people could be right or wrong, it does not matter. You cannot make a logical argument by doing this. What are you talking about, "using the thesaurus"? I did not use any word in my last sentence that was even remotely foreign. Nice ad hominen though. Seriously was this a troll, or were you serious? Did you read the quote you wrote down or just copy/paste it. It literally backs my own point. Let's actually have a look and read said quote: It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. You're talking about it in hyperbolic terms of either completely correct or completely wrong. What you fail to realize is that while the belief of a group can be wrong, it can also be right. If that were not the case, then the word "can" would not be used there. What I am saying is that there are exceptions to the rule and therefore the argument works in certain cases, including the one we are talking about. Read the quote again and pay close attention to the words that I put in bold for you. What that quote is basically saying is that you have to examine each scenario and see how the argument applies to it. You have yet to actually prove how that argument is wrong other than pointing to highly generic statements that mean literally nothing. And let's be honest, nobody who starts a sentence with the phrase "That's cool and all" finishes that same thought with the words fallacy and invalid. Also, it's just a poorly structured sentence. Anybody who reads that sentence aloud would realize that it just sounds weird to say. Also that was not at all the basis of my argument and as you mentioned there was a lot more to what I wrote than simply me making fun of your terrible post (also you probably took more time finding that quote than I spent writing this post haha). Oh and you have still yet to explain to me how that argument is false. Stop pointing to quotes and phrases you have not even read or at the very least read to a point where you can understand it and--if you truly are so much more intelligent than me--actually explain why I am wrong. Where did I state once that I was more intelligent than you, or anything of that nature? I will attempt to organize this in a more coherent fashion. "The "everybody's doing it" argument actually makes a lot of sense when you don't have an argument to go against it. " It may make sense to you, but it is sure invalid to thy. "ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true. In some domains, however, it is popularity rather than other strengths that makes a choice the preferred one." "It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A, this argument fails, because if opinion did determine truth, then there be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small the percentage of those polled is distributed among any remaining answers, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers." "it. In every sport you have casting personalities, whether it's American football, baseball, hockey, basketball, or whatever else. Casters are incredibly important to sports; think back to when sports were broadcasted over the radio and all there was was the caster's voice. Casters deserve attention, they get attention, getting mad that they get attention is stupid. Plus having a thread about arguably the most famous caster joining eMG deserves attention as much as if not more than some of the stuff that gets attention on this site" Awesome. I never stated that I had an opinion whether they should be given attention or they shouldn't, all I was stating was that argument was invalid.
"When you're talking about smoking cigarettes, the argument "Well everybody smokes cigarettes" is a pretty bad argument, but there are reasons why that argument does not work in that scenario. For starters, not everybody smokes cigarettes." Agreed, it's a terrible argument.
"Is there a negative effect to giving casters like Artosis attention? Some people might say that there is a negative side effect, but as long as the players are getting as much attention (@LiquidRet), I think it's fair to say that there is no negative side effect to giving Artosis attention" You think it's fair? That's not the best evidence for an argument. "...so I really see no negative side effect" Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that there are not negative side effects. (Once again don't assume anything. I have not stated that there are negative, positive, side effects, or even a mixture of both) " Also please stop using a thesaurus when you're posting, it makes the words you look up stand out really badly lol" Alright, don't know how you came to that conclusion. "What you fail to realize is that while the belief of a group can be wrong, it can also be right" Never failed to realize that. Can you stop putting words in my mouth? "What I am saying is that there are exceptions to the rule and therefore the argument works in certain cases" You can make exceptions to the rule if you want, but that doesn't make it a valid argument or less falliiou "What that quote is basically saying is that you have to examine each scenario and see how the argument applies to it. You have yet to actually prove how that argument is wrong other than pointing to highly generic statements that mean literally nothing." My goal was never to prove the argument right or wrong for the premise of "should casters be given attention." My goal was simply to state that argument way back, was bad. Oh and you're still wrong. Simply put, you can use that argument so long as you analyze the situation in which you are using it. ""That's cool and all" finishes that same thought with the words fallacy and invalid." Sorry, didn't feel like typing all that much, and nor did I feel like making a properly form response.
"Anybody who reads that sentence aloud would realize that it just sounds weird to say." That's simply not true. "(also you probably took more time finding that quote than I spent writing this post haha)." Nice assumption. I think we may have had some miscommunication. You definitely had some decent argument of why casters should receive some fame, but I was not arguing that. I was simply stating that argument was invalid in proving why casters should receive attention. I believe, if I am mistaken, you were using that argument in an inductive way, while I was interpreting it in a deductive manner. "The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 90% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also prefer that brand, and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other."
It's painfully easy to tell what you copy/paste and what you actually write yourself because what you write yourself is written like an 8th grader. Simple put, that argument can actually be used and make sense so long as you analyze the situation in which you are using it. So please stop pasting quotes of stuff that you clearly don't even understand and also refrain from posting. Thanks! ^^
|
On August 05 2012 16:49 TRaFFiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 21:45 StreetWise wrote:On August 03 2012 20:15 SMMN wrote:
tasteless is in there too? Yes, Tasteless was the first caster in their stable. He mentions this in his real talk episode. I would reccommend watching that, not just because he talks about this, but its interesting in general as there usually isnt much about the personal life of Tasteless. For instance he says that he hasn't lost his passion as many have speculated. Since he also talks about the Tastetosis brand its not surprising to see Artosis get picked up as well. link? Cool beans topic.
+ Show Spoiler +
Table of Contents: http://reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/wr1j3/real_talk_with_nick_tasteless_plott/c5fp3kq
I hope EMG picks up. The SC2 scene has needed some moderation for quite some time, imo.
|
On August 06 2012 00:22 The Final Boss wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 05 2012 17:58 DecisionTheory wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2012 12:48 The Final Boss wrote:On August 05 2012 09:30 DecisionTheory wrote:On August 05 2012 08:28 The Final Boss wrote:On August 05 2012 07:03 DecisionTheory wrote:On August 05 2012 02:30 The Final Boss wrote:On August 04 2012 15:51 DecisionTheory wrote:On August 03 2012 21:29 Butterednuts wrote:On August 03 2012 20:37 Champloo wrote:
People care way too much about casters in Starcraft II. Yeah because people totally don't talk about John Madden. Terrible argument. Just because other people do it, doesn't make it correct. That might be true, but who are you to say that giving casters a lot of attention is incorrect? The "everybody's doing it" argument actually makes a lot of sense when you don't have an argument to go against it. In every sport you have casting personalities, whether it's American football, baseball, hockey, basketball, or whatever else. Casters are incredibly important to sports; think back to when sports were broadcasted over the radio and all there was was the caster's voice. Casters deserve attention, they get attention, getting mad that they get attention is stupid. Plus having a thread about arguably the most famous caster joining eMG deserves attention as much as if not more than some of the stuff that gets attention on this site. That's cool and all but I never stated that casters should get attention or should not. All I was stating was that argument was a fallacy, therefore invalid. And why is that argument "invalid?" Please stop posting generic statements that apply in some circumstances, but not all. Let's look at a completely different argument and try to apply the argument "everybody does it so you should do it too" When you're talking about smoking cigarettes, the argument "Well everybody smokes cigarettes" is a pretty bad argument, but there are reasons why that argument does not work in that scenario. For starters, not everybody smokes cigarettes. Therefore, the argument is inherently flawed because it is based around a statement that is simply not true. Another argument against smoking cigarettes is that it is known that there are medical drawbacks to smoking cigarettes. Regardless of whether or not the original statement "everybody smokes cigarettes" is true or not, there are reasons against doing what the hoi polloi is doing. Now let's apply this same logic to the argument of whether or not StarCraft 2 casters should get attention or not, but instead of the statement "everybody smokes cigarettes," we're going to say "every other sport gives attention to casters." First let's ask ourselves, is the statement true at all? The answer: yes; for the most part, just about every televised sport has it's various casting personalities. In American football, for example, you have John Madden. Now we come to our second point, which is to say, is there an argument against it? Is there a negative effect to giving casters like Artosis attention? Some people might say that there is a negative side effect, but as long as the players are getting as much attention (@LiquidRet), I think it's fair to say that there is no negative side effect to giving Artosis attention. There are threads about players joining teams and leaving teams all the time and this thread does not detract from those threads, so I really see no negative side effect. So this still makes me wonder, what is wrong with using the argument "everybody does it" in this scenario? Also please stop using a thesaurus when you're posting, it makes the words you look up stand out really badly lol It is invalid because it's illogical.(ad populum). "It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong." Cool once again a paragraph that means absolutely nothing towards the argument. One cannot simply defend a point by stating "others do it, so it's alright we can do it." They people could be right or wrong, it does not matter. You cannot make a logical argument by doing this. What are you talking about, "using the thesaurus"? I did not use any word in my last sentence that was even remotely foreign. Nice ad hominen though. Seriously was this a troll, or were you serious? Did you read the quote you wrote down or just copy/paste it. It literally backs my own point. Let's actually have a look and read said quote: It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. You're talking about it in hyperbolic terms of either completely correct or completely wrong. What you fail to realize is that while the belief of a group can be wrong, it can also be right. If that were not the case, then the word "can" would not be used there. What I am saying is that there are exceptions to the rule and therefore the argument works in certain cases, including the one we are talking about. Read the quote again and pay close attention to the words that I put in bold for you. What that quote is basically saying is that you have to examine each scenario and see how the argument applies to it. You have yet to actually prove how that argument is wrong other than pointing to highly generic statements that mean literally nothing. And let's be honest, nobody who starts a sentence with the phrase "That's cool and all" finishes that same thought with the words fallacy and invalid. Also, it's just a poorly structured sentence. Anybody who reads that sentence aloud would realize that it just sounds weird to say. Also that was not at all the basis of my argument and as you mentioned there was a lot more to what I wrote than simply me making fun of your terrible post (also you probably took more time finding that quote than I spent writing this post haha). Oh and you have still yet to explain to me how that argument is false. Stop pointing to quotes and phrases you have not even read or at the very least read to a point where you can understand it and--if you truly are so much more intelligent than me--actually explain why I am wrong. Where did I state once that I was more intelligent than you, or anything of that nature? I will attempt to organize this in a more coherent fashion. "The "everybody's doing it" argument actually makes a lot of sense when you don't have an argument to go against it. " It may make sense to you, but it is sure invalid to thy. "ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true. In some domains, however, it is popularity rather than other strengths that makes a choice the preferred one." "It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A, this argument fails, because if opinion did determine truth, then there be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small the percentage of those polled is distributed among any remaining answers, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers." "it. In every sport you have casting personalities, whether it's American football, baseball, hockey, basketball, or whatever else. Casters are incredibly important to sports; think back to when sports were broadcasted over the radio and all there was was the caster's voice. Casters deserve attention, they get attention, getting mad that they get attention is stupid. Plus having a thread about arguably the most famous caster joining eMG deserves attention as much as if not more than some of the stuff that gets attention on this site" Awesome. I never stated that I had an opinion whether they should be given attention or they shouldn't, all I was stating was that argument was invalid.
"When you're talking about smoking cigarettes, the argument "Well everybody smokes cigarettes" is a pretty bad argument, but there are reasons why that argument does not work in that scenario. For starters, not everybody smokes cigarettes." Agreed, it's a terrible argument.
"Is there a negative effect to giving casters like Artosis attention? Some people might say that there is a negative side effect, but as long as the players are getting as much attention (@LiquidRet), I think it's fair to say that there is no negative side effect to giving Artosis attention" You think it's fair? That's not the best evidence for an argument. "...so I really see no negative side effect" Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that there are not negative side effects. (Once again don't assume anything. I have not stated that there are negative, positive, side effects, or even a mixture of both) " Also please stop using a thesaurus when you're posting, it makes the words you look up stand out really badly lol" Alright, don't know how you came to that conclusion. "What you fail to realize is that while the belief of a group can be wrong, it can also be right" Never failed to realize that. Can you stop putting words in my mouth? "What I am saying is that there are exceptions to the rule and therefore the argument works in certain cases" You can make exceptions to the rule if you want, but that doesn't make it a valid argument or less falliiou "What that quote is basically saying is that you have to examine each scenario and see how the argument applies to it. You have yet to actually prove how that argument is wrong other than pointing to highly generic statements that mean literally nothing." My goal was never to prove the argument right or wrong for the premise of "should casters be given attention." My goal was simply to state that argument way back, was bad. Oh and you're still wrong. Simply put, you can use that argument so long as you analyze the situation in which you are using it. ""That's cool and all" finishes that same thought with the words fallacy and invalid." Sorry, didn't feel like typing all that much, and nor did I feel like making a properly form response.
"Anybody who reads that sentence aloud would realize that it just sounds weird to say." That's simply not true. "(also you probably took more time finding that quote than I spent writing this post haha)." Nice assumption. I think we may have had some miscommunication. You definitely had some decent argument of why casters should receive some fame, but I was not arguing that. I was simply stating that argument was invalid in proving why casters should receive attention. I believe, if I am mistaken, you were using that argument in an inductive way, while I was interpreting it in a deductive manner. "The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 90% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also prefer that brand, and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other." It's painfully easy to tell what you copy/paste and what you actually write yourself because what you write yourself is written like an 8th grader. Simple put, that argument can actually be used and make sense so long as you analyze the situation in which you are using it. So please stop pasting quotes of stuff that you clearly don't even understand and also refrain from posting. Thanks! ^^
No shit sherlock. Those sentences are quoted for a reason;because I didn't write them. Funny how you write like you are some superior being, while being wrong on almost everything stated. And the time your weren't wrong was miscommication on my part or both out parts. It seems that do not understand anything that I have posted, nor have you ever studied logic. Go grab a logic textbook, and indulge yourself. Also, your really good at ad hominem arguments.
Then go read the original argument from which we started from and not tell me that, that is terrible argument for trying to prove something true.
"On August 03 2012 20:37 Champloo wrote:
People care way too much about casters in Starcraft II.
"Yeah because people totally don't talk about John Madden."
|
next up... tasteless and artosis are signed by Ari Gold, Trimaster will be their Turtle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
