Jump to content

Dear Atlas Missile Boats:

Plea

624 replies to this topic

#481 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,063 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 16 May 2014 - 02:55 PM

/facepalm. OK, first I'm going to have to break with my rule about not chopping posts, because this is very long and there are so many errors in argument. So, sorry in advance, and I shall interject into the quotation as little as possible. Quotations are spoilered because heck, this post takes up enough of the page as it is.
Spoiler
Firstly, and in order:
  • Specious assumption that players who see you doing nothing but rain LRMs - and who can see what kind of ACs you have - are going to ignore the constant stream of missiles and go for your AC torso, presumably because they are stupid, is invalid. Your counter-point also does not even address the argument I made, and contains a a minor false assumption - any Atlas brawler with SRMs is actually carrying as much or MORE of their firepower on the missile side. Pinpoint damage is simply a priority because it can create more targetted weak spots and exploit them; this doesn't actually invalidate your point - it just highlights the inaccuracy of your reasoning.
  • The numbers I'm using are based on the demonstration mockup of the 1ML/TAG LRM boat atlas - like Dave Barry, I am not making that up. The only way I could make the build without an excessively large engine is with the massive expenditure of ammunition I described. You are correct in that I did not anticipate that someone would waste tonnage on excessive engine rating - kudos to you, but it doesn't really negate the point. You're still using tonnage for mobility that you don't really need (you're still not outrunning anyone) instead of firepower that could help you.
  • The fact that one variant of the Atlas can indeed mount ECM does not invalidate the fact that the offensive capabilities of all other alternatives are superior, which was the point being made. In fact, your claim that ECM trumps all those independently quantifiable factors is subjective, not my point.
  • So the fact that using TAG requires you to expose large parts of your 'mech to enemy fire isn't a drawback, but a "compromise?" Er, no. It's still a drawback.
  • Interesting that your point of highest contention is the point I valued as least vital, and thus decided to list last. You're also offering a personal opinion that the increase in damage you expect (wrongly; I'll get to that) is enough to offset the loss of damage from increased exposure to AMS and targets being more able to seek cover before your full volley arrives. Further, your objection revolves around a bug that no longer existed by the time you wrote your first response - so kindly spare me the condescending accusation of ignorance.
As for the final paragraph, I haven't said that ECM isn't worth taking, nor can it reasonably be inferred from my statements. What I have said is that even having ECM on the Atlas D-DC isn't enough to make it a superior alternative to other missile platforms, because of the drawback of having to stick that ECM in a certain torso - interfering with your primary objective of boating missiles.


Every single objection you have raised here misses the point, relies on false information, or misconstrues my argument.

Spoiler

Your whole diatribe in the first two paragraphs here is based on one phrase, which I added to exclude demonstrably stupid tactics from my analysis. Nothing in it addresses the actual point being made, which is sadly par for the course with you.

This last bit is just rather sad. It's a fallacy of the undistributed middle: Having 20-30 launchers in a balanced build is fine; missile boats have about 30 launchers. Therefore, there is no difference between missile boats and a balanced build with 20-30 launchers. This is not even a coherent thought. You're assuming a step in logic to the effect that "the number of missile tubes is the only thing that makes a boat a missile boat," which is patently incorrect.

Spoiler

Empirical evidence is not opinion, and you should not abuse words that way. Opinion is "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." You're committing the fallacy of equivocation here - taking "experience" to mean something other than what it does, particularly in the context I've used it in this thread. As you should be aware, the first rule of hermeneutics is, "no word has a meaning outside of context." You are arguing that the distinction I have drawn between the independently verifiable characteristics of the 'mech and your personal, non-representative results with that build somehow does not exist - because of a definition you got by typing the word into Google search. This is not even remotely valid. It is however, a deliberate attempt to play games with semantics in order to win by subversion what you have lost by merit - namely, an argument.

To be clear, I don't think you're deliberately committing most of these fallacies and errors - I think you just lack the philosophical training to engage in the kind of reasoning you're attempting here. The Undistributed Middle is a common error of amateur reasoners, for example. When you start with the assumption that since your view is (of course!) correct, then it can seem obvious that your opponent must have made grevious errors in logic or research in order to disagree with you. You set out to find them, bias confirmation sets in, and bam! You embarras yourself. I've done it myself, and it's always something you have to guard against - the question here is, will you learn from it? A word to the wise is sufficient...

#482 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,063 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 16 May 2014 - 03:05 PM

View PostShar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

Realistically? Yes, it honestly does.

When someone keeps insisting they are involved you either completely ignore them...

Or work them in.

Cimarb's insistence on heckling the subject whenever someone offers feedback on the OP is why we really have to keep dealing with his position. Laser points out that Cimarb has agreed with my reasoning and openly stated that it was how my position was phrased that induced him to endlessly offer objections for pages on end - and he has a point. But as long as Cimarb keeps on attacking, I have to defend myself, or give some poor newbie the idea that Cimarb has won the argument. In reality, Cimarb has yet to win a single point, but he's kept on repeating himself. It's called argumentum ad nauseum - simply harping on something until your opponent gets sick of it and goes away.

Edited by Void Angel, 16 May 2014 - 03:05 PM.


#483 Alaskan Nobody

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 10,358 posts
  • LocationAlaska!

Posted 16 May 2014 - 03:18 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 16 May 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

Cimarb's insistence on heckling the subject whenever someone offers feedback on the OP is why we really have to keep dealing with his position. Laser points out that Cimarb has agreed with my reasoning and openly stated that it was how my position was phrased that induced him to endlessly offer objections for pages on end - and he has a point. But as long as Cimarb keeps on attacking, I have to defend myself, or give some poor newbie the idea that Cimarb has won the argument. In reality, Cimarb has yet to win a single point, but he's kept on repeating himself. It's called argumentum ad nauseum - simply harping on something until your opponent gets sick of it and goes away.

Problem as I see it - is that while Cimarb agrees with you - he still feels somewhat picked on.
Rather like how I reacted to Victor's opinion on my CN9-A build (back at the peak of it's "zombie"hood)

While he agrees and sees your point (to a point at least) he really wants to make sure that that (brain-fart) exception to the rule (?) (terminology knowledge failing)


..... >.<

I hate it when I get started on something like that and my brain fails me (and that post before last was so good) :)

Point being (I hope?) made clear with the above comparison?
>.<

#484 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 7,063 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 16 May 2014 - 03:29 PM

I can't really satisfy his emotional needs at the expense of the guide - I've already taken an enormous amount of time and effort conscientiously trying to explain why his reasoning fails. I've even granted that sure, some people can do well with a sub-par build, and that if it works for you, don't change it over something you read on the internet until it stops working.

The problem is, he doesn't want to the be exception that proves the rule; he wants the rule to be declared arbitrary. This is really a philosophical conflict between a worldview which holds that you are the final arbiter of the validity of your beliefs, and the worldview that believes in an actual reality that can be explored through reason - a battle between post-modernism, and the truth.

#485 1453 R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 5,578 posts

Posted 16 May 2014 - 03:29 PM

Cimarb's LRM DDC is in the same bucket as my 300XL, ALRM-25-and-ERPPC Thunderbolt 5S(P) – a weird ‘Mech that Joe Everyman would do poorly with (trust me, you’d blow with my Thunder Hammer), but which somehow clicks with him in a manner that cannot be readily explained or described. It works for him very well the same way my Thunder Hammer is one of my best ‘Mechs despite being a great raging schnitpile of fail as compared to the typical body of knowledge in the playerbase.

Here’s the problem – Guides cannot accommodate weird edge-case Player Customs. You can’t tell someone what their weird, only-works-for-them ‘Mech is – they have to find it themselves, and they can only really do that after they’ve gotten a good solid handle on how the game works and what they can/can’t do within it. The purpose of the Guides forum is to present solid, factual knowledge of what works for Joe Everyman, such that players can see what the conventional builds and strategies are, how they work, and in that way learn the Rules of the Game prior to figuring out how each individual player can, in their own way, break them.

They say that Picasso was a master conventional painter before he did the stuff he’s really famous for. He had to learn the rules of his craft before he could properly transcend them, and the same idea applies here. If guides aren’t written with Joe Everyman in mind as the target audience (whichever Joe Everyman applies for a given guide), then they’re worthless.

Everybody has to learn how to break the rules for themselves; the best we can do to help them is tell them what the rules are. CImarb does not seem to understand this, thus twenty-three pages of bullscheissen.

Edited by 1453 R, 16 May 2014 - 03:30 PM.


#486 Alaskan Nobody

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 10,358 posts
  • LocationAlaska!

Posted 16 May 2014 - 03:39 PM

View Post1453 R, on 16 May 2014 - 03:29 PM, said:

Thus twenty-three pages of bullscheissen.

It is very likely that I am reading it weird (I have been in a rather odd state of mind lately)- but it seemed more to me that he was standing up more for those edge cases than outright bullscheissen as you termed it.

Which would be why I suggested he work on his own guide for it.


As far as feeding emotional states (and this may be going into me reading things weird lately) but from my reading at least, you two have been getting far more emotional about this than he has.

#487 Cimarb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,912 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationA hop, skip and jump from Terra

Posted 16 May 2014 - 03:52 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 16 May 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

When you start with the assumption that since your view is (of course!) correct, then it can seem obvious that your opponent must have made grevious errors in logic or research in order to disagree with you. You set out to find them, bias confirmation sets in, and bam! You embarras yourself. I've done it myself...

Large words don't make you sound smart, they just make people tired of reading and agree out of exasperation. The snippet above is all you had to post.

Show me the STATISTICS and RESULTS that prove me wrong. Otherwise, you are just spouting opinion, and a very mistaken one at that from my perspective.

I realize that you and Laser feel I am assaulting you, but that is not the case and I feel the same way in return, especially since the two of you are tag-teaming me. Did you miss when I said these?

View PostCimarb, on 02 May 2014 - 08:29 AM, said:

Have a great vacation, and despite disagreeing with you, I do welcome the debate and your much more reasonable, if still a little irritated, responses.


View PostCimarb, on 30 April 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

I appreciate trying to educate new players on optimum builds, but I have to disagree about this build because I find it very optimal for how I play.


#488 1453 R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 5,578 posts

Posted 16 May 2014 - 03:53 PM

View PostShar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

It is very likely that I am reading it weird (I have been in a rather odd state of mind lately)- but it seemed more to me that he was standing up more for those edge cases than outright bullscheissen as you termed it.

Which would be why I suggested he work on his own guide for it.


As far as feeding emotional states (and this may be going into me reading things weird lately) but from my reading at least, you two have been getting far more emotional about this than he has.


The edge cases – the legitimate edge cases – don’t need standing up for. They know who they are, they know what they’re doing, and they know full well to ignore guides that tell them to stop. As Void and I both have said, many, many times.

As for emotional issues…yeah. One of my biggest failings as a debater is that I tend to get passionate about my positions in such a debate, and I also get very easily frustrated by what I perceive as deliberate obtuseness. These two traits combine to bring out the fire-and-brimstone in me, which helps less often than I wish it would. Especially when the solution seems so blindingly obvious to pretty much everyone else.

#489 Alaskan Nobody

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 10,358 posts
  • LocationAlaska!

Posted 16 May 2014 - 03:55 PM

View Post1453 R, on 16 May 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

The edge cases – the legitimate edge cases – don’t need standing up for. They know who they are, they know what they’re doing, and they know full well to ignore guides that tell them to stop. As Void and I both have said, many, many times.

You. Would. Be. Surprised.

The amount of negative feedback I got for being an edge case very nearly drove me from the game - and I can take a comparative lot of that. (had practice most of my life)

As for the debate issue - you will notice that this is one of the only places I have tried to mediate? :)

#490 Cimarb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,912 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationA hop, skip and jump from Terra

Posted 16 May 2014 - 03:55 PM

View Post1453 R, on 16 May 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

As for emotional issues…yeah. One of my biggest failings as a debater is that I tend to get passionate about my positions in such a debate, and I also get very easily frustrated by what I perceive as deliberate obtuseness. These two traits combine to bring out the fire-and-brimstone in me, which helps less often than I wish it would.

I'm the same way. I try to temper it as much as I can, but it happens. I do apologize for letting your comments get to me and snapping back, for what it is worth.

#491 Alaskan Nobody

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 10,358 posts
  • LocationAlaska!

Posted 16 May 2014 - 03:58 PM

View Post1453 R, on 16 May 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

Especially when the solution seems so blindingly obvious to pretty much everyone else.

Forgot to comment on this bit.

One of the biggest battles I have fought in my life has been this concept - yes it may be obvious to you, and obvious to the other people talking.

That doesn't cover "pretty much everyone else" by a large margin though. :(

For the record - I am still very much on your side of the fence, last time I dropped I had an LRM Atlas get upset that my Locust(!) was not willing to take the hits for him. :)

#492 1453 R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 5,578 posts

Posted 16 May 2014 - 04:09 PM

View PostShar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

Forgot to comment on this bit.

One of the biggest battles I have fought in my life has been this concept - yes it may be obvious to you, and obvious to the other people talking.

That doesn't cover "pretty much everyone else" by a large margin though. :(

For the record - I am still very much on your side of the fence, last time I dropped I had an LRM Atlas get upset that my Locust(!) was not willing to take the hits for him. :)


Heh…that last bit is the real kicker. I follow TiNaT and FtFA as much as I (reasonably) can when I’m out puggin’ it up, and I’m usually right there on the wing when my team’s Fatlases are ready to kick it on up over that hill. I may be a few hundred meters behind them in my Thunder Hammer, but you’d better believe I’m angling for a good field of fire on anything those Fatlases can see and doing my absolute damnedest to put up the best fire support for the frontliners I can. That 200-500m bucket Cimarb’s talking about is where Thunder Hammer lives when the battle is finally properly joined – and I’ve been known to swing in closer when things are going badly for a Fatbro somewhere and he needs some heat taken off him. What use are those colossal mutant gorilla arms on my Thunder Hammer if I don’t get them shot off in the name of victory?

(Side note: this is why the only arm-mounted weapon on ‘Hammer is its TAG. SCREW the LA ballistic slots. How people can load their primary weapons in arms even easier to shoot off than Catapult ears…@_@)

But I can’t do any of that if mah Fatbros are all six hundred meters behind me plugging LRMs from behind a cliff. I have more armor than the mediums, which often means I’m doing a lead-from-the-frontish sort of thing where I’m dancing just outside my LRM minimum range trying desperately to bait my team into springing forward and picking up the slack…but any time I need to do that, my fire support ‘Mech tends to not give as well as it gets and our team pays for the lack of frontline Fatbros. Sometimes I can squeak it out, go on a serious burn and pick up the early pressure advantage I need to convince my team to get stuck in, but most every time that happens I’m falling back from the front with an orange chest and more attention than I like.

It’s beyond frustrating, especially when you see nineteen tons of armor standing behind a cliff hucking missiles at bad targets. Heh, makes you wonder why you even bother playing sometimes.

#493 ReXspec

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 502 posts
  • LocationOrem, Utah

Posted 16 May 2014 - 05:35 PM

View PostShar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

It is very likely that I am reading it weird (I have been in a rather odd state of mind lately)- but it seemed more to me that he was standing up more for those edge cases than outright bullscheissen as you termed it.

Which would be why I suggested he work on his own guide for it.


As far as feeding emotional states (and this may be going into me reading things weird lately) but from my reading at least, you two have been getting far more emotional about this than he has.


As 1453 R said, the exception (or as you say, "Edge cases") don't need to be supported. They are the random factor in this equation that either results from chance or (the more likely scenario) results from someone who knows what they're doing and are intentionally pushing the boundaries of their 'mech.

I believe Void can agree with me when I say he is not trying to discourage the willingness to experiment, but what he is stating is that if a newbie atlas pilot decides to believe he can challenge conventional meta or tactical thinking as far as purposing an Atlas goes, he is in for a a world of hurt until he can acquire the experience and the knowledge to effectively push the tactical boundaries of his 'mech.

What Void was trying to separate (at the very beginning, I might add) was the difference between the exceptions and Joe Everyman. Joe Everyman is most likely not going to know how to effectively push the boundaries of his 'mech. Nor is he even going to know what the optimal builds for the Chassis are. Therefore, if Joe goes in guns (or in this case, missiles) blazing, he will get destroyed--mercilessly.

What the real shame is here is that Joe Everyman is most likely going to go with a missile-atlas because Cimarb made a long-winded appeal to emotion and gave the impression that he bravely went against the meta and excelled because of it. And now the newbie is going to think, "Well, if he can do that, I can do that to!" Not realizing that there are probably many factors involved in Cimarbs victories or expertise with his missile-boat atlas.

We're not bullying Cimarb here. That is not what our goal is. We are passionate about this, however, because we don't want to see Joe Everyman get destroyed. We don't want to see Joe Everyman complain about how the Atlas is "underpowered" just because his missile-boat was stomped. Nor do we want to see another exception (such as Cimarb) try to advertise or imply to brand new players that defying the "meta" in such a way with the Atlas chassis won't be a horribly painful, and arguably unnecessary, experience.

You don't have to go with a missile-boat Atlas right off the bat to be an experienced badass; an exception to the "meta." You can reduce that painful experience by playing your 'mech to its maximum technical capability.

Edited by ReXspec, 16 May 2014 - 05:43 PM.


#494 Alaskan Nobody

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 10,358 posts
  • LocationAlaska!

Posted 16 May 2014 - 05:37 PM

View PostReXspec, on 16 May 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

1453 R said, the exception (or as you say, "Edge cases") don't need to be supported.

My point was that they do need some support.

But like Cimarb, I am growing more than tired of saying it.
(again)

#495 ReXspec

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 502 posts
  • LocationOrem, Utah

Posted 16 May 2014 - 05:51 PM

View PostShar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 05:37 PM, said:

My point was that they do need some support.

But like Cimarb, I am growing more than tired of saying it.
(again)


Well... why? Their really is no short, or non-painful method of becoming an exception to a rule. Not to mention, defying chance can't exactly be taught unless you're teaching the player to be prepared... in that case, you would probably be telling that player to play his 'mech to it's maximum potential and not gimping himself by focusing on a single strategy or piece of equipment.

Kind of like what me, Void, 1453 R and other users on this thread are doing right now. lol

Edited by ReXspec, 16 May 2014 - 05:54 PM.


#496 Alaskan Nobody

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 10,358 posts
  • LocationAlaska!

Posted 16 May 2014 - 06:00 PM

View PostReXspec, on 16 May 2014 - 05:51 PM, said:

Kind of like what me, Void, 1453 R and other users on this thread are doing right now. lol

It is true that there is no short or non-painful method of become the exception.

However, not everyone chose to be so, or even wants to be so.

However - to treat them the way you treat the non-exceptions - HURTS.

As in - eventually driven to suicide type hurts.

And I am not joking or kidding about that.

I take some exception to your last sentence, as that is not what you are trying to do.

But if no one stands up for those exceptions.
Those exceptions cease to exist - and not because they are no longer exceptions.


Welcome to the very real world of intentional or otherwise cyber bullying.

#497 ReXspec

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 502 posts
  • LocationOrem, Utah

Posted 16 May 2014 - 06:05 PM

View PostShar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

It is true that there is no short or non-painful method of become the exception.

However, not everyone chose to be so, or even wants to be so.

However - to treat them the way you treat the non-exceptions - HURTS.

As in - eventually driven to suicide type hurts.

And I am not joking or kidding about that.

I take some exception to your last sentence, as that is not what you are trying to do.

But if no one stands up for those exceptions.
Those exceptions cease to exist - and not because they are no longer exceptions.


Welcome to the very real world of intentional or otherwise cyber bullying.


As I stated before, as cold as our arguments may be, WE ARE NOT OUT TO BULLY ANYONE.

We are essentially URGING the newbies not to go out and kill themselves with builds that could only work if you are an exception to the rule.

The beautiful thing about exceptions is that, because exceptions are based almost entirely on chance, they crop up on their own!

Don't get me wrong, it's AWESOME when it happens, but we don't want every newbie that is seeking advice on this this forum to come on and automatically believe that they are the exception. Especially when they haven't even played the game that much.

You can't know you're good at something until you've tried it, sure, but you can only beat your head against a wall so much before you realize that doesn't work or that it doesn't work as well as as you thought!

Edited by ReXspec, 16 May 2014 - 06:07 PM.


#498 Alaskan Nobody

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 10,358 posts
  • LocationAlaska!

Posted 16 May 2014 - 06:08 PM

View PostReXspec, on 16 May 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:


As I stated before, as cold as our arguments may be, WE ARE NOT OUT TO BULLY ANYONE.

DID I SAY YOU WERE?

No.

But intentional or not - treating the exceptions like the non-exceptions CAN BE.

Thank you for missing the point - allow me to repeat it, with added emphasis:

View PostShar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

Welcome to the very real world of intentional or otherwise cyber bullying.


Edit:
Once again - I am not arguing against your points - just the general methods.

Edited by Shar Wolf, 16 May 2014 - 06:08 PM.


#499 Alaskan Nobody

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 10,358 posts
  • LocationAlaska!

Posted 16 May 2014 - 06:17 PM

Welll now - that got kinda intense.

NO.
I do not believe anyone here is trying to cyberbully.

However - you cannot just ignore the exceptions either - if for no other reason than they help to define the laws they are the exceptions to.

#500 ReXspec

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 502 posts
  • LocationOrem, Utah

Posted 16 May 2014 - 06:18 PM

View PostShar Wolf, on 16 May 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

DID I SAY YOU WERE?

No.

But intentional or not - treating the exceptions like the non-exceptions CAN BE.

Thank you for missing the point - allow me to repeat it, with added emphasis:


Edit:
Once again - I am not arguing against your points - just the general methods.


Well, you're responding to me, so I can only assume that response was directed to me and other's who put up similar arguments.

Plus, I think you are mixing terms here...

There is a difference between bullying and public discourse; argumentation.

One attempts to insult or intentionally offend the opposite party by way of informal fallacy such as strawman making, ad hominem, and name-calling.

Public discourse (or argumentation) involving critical thinking attempts to push an ideal and oppose other opposing ideals by using reasonable analysis, evidence, and non-fallacious conclusion. I have not seen us (meaning me or the aforementioned individuals) use fallacious logic used in bullying. Sure, we were cold and passionate in that argumentation, but why should that be a reason to be offended?

And again, we were not discarding exceptions to rules. This argumentation is not directed toward exceptions. It is directed toward Joe "newbie" Everyman.

Edited by ReXspec, 16 May 2014 - 06:20 PM.






5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users