Search Posts
Wikipedia is not a valid source.The idea that "appeal to authority" is somehow a fallacy is an invention of the Internet.Would you like to know more? (Serious points for source, though.)
The idea that "appeal to authority" is somehow a fallacy is an invention of the Internet.Would you like to know more? I should know better than to try to use hyperbole in a post like that, but I keep doing it anyway. Fair enough. Here's another way of putting it: It's a recent development (compared to ~300BC) with an unfortunate name, since "appeal to authority" is also the most common English translation of "ethos." The trouble is that people these days read "appeal to authority is a fallacy," then link to the Wikipedia entry without having a full understanding of its meaning. An "appeal to authority" is not inherently fallacious--sometimes it's simply a matter of a source of information identifying itself (or being identified) as having credibility in the matter. As seemed to be the case in the post to which I was responding.
The idea that "appeal to authority" is somehow a fallacy is an invention of the Internet.Would you like to know more? Wikipedia is not a valid source.
I have a masters degree in socio-economic history. Cheap appeals to authority like yours are just as meaningless as me mentioning that title. The idea that "appeal to authority" is somehow a fallacy is an invention of the Internet. The original appeals, laid out by Aristotle, are logos, pathos, and ethos. Loosely translated, they are appeals to logic, appeals to emotion, and appeals based on the character of the speaker. Ethos is given extensive treatment in his works, and has been an important aspect for understanding persuasion throughout the millennia since. On a more practical note, I'm confused by your statement. You seem to be rejecting the idea that authority gives credibility while claiming your own ("playing and tinkering ... for close to 14 years"). Either you're even because you have the same authority--you both understand the system--or that doesn't matter at all, which discarding "appeals to authority" would seem to imply.
That's not what that says. Yes, the sentence is poorly constructed--and this has been pointed out several times, though it remains unfixed--but its meaning is not actually particularly ambiguous.
Petitions are an established function of a democratic society that allow the community to voice their support for, among other things, a policy change. In a situation where petitions are legally delineated--such as, for instance, legal systems that require petitions achieve a certain amount of signatures before its issue will be considered in a voting situation--a petition might be seen as forcing something, but the existence of the provisions for how that works essentially invite the petition to occur. In a situation like this, where the petition is information, it merely shows the presence (or absence, depending on the quantity of signatories) of public support for an idea.
Sir, I salute you.
No where in his comment did be state that.You're totally right, dude. The existence of some scantily-clad fictional female characters is absolutely an excuse to abuse actual women trying to play a game and enjoy themselves. I think its a little hypocritical to complain about the sexist behavior of some players while overlooking the sexism inherent in the game itself. In debate generally, accusations of hypocrisy are most often utilized for the purpose of weakening the position of one's opponent. In this case specifically, labeling people who "complain about the sexist behavior of some players while overlooking the sexism inherent in the game itself" as "hypocritical" essentially says that complaints about the narrower issue should stop until the broader problem is resolved. In the current sociopolitical climate in which a debate about sexist behavior takes place, silencing complainers is seen as a way of preserving the status quo. Therefore, the complaint of hypocrisy is most readily interpreted as an attempt to maintain the status quo, to wit, sexist behavior at the game table. If that was not the poster's intent, I contend that the fault lies with the phrasing, not with the way it was interpreted.
I have a character that eats babies. Oh Mr Paladin? This offends you? Tough! Mwahaha! It's legal baby! Cannibalism is explicitly prohibited, per Mike Brock. Therefore the baby is not legal. Therefore your analogy is not relevant to the conversation. Maybe you could try it without resorting to reductio ad absurdum.
If you are going to post something then it might help if you actually read the description. Enduring hardship without complaint suggests nothing whatsoever about the manner of speech. No, but "without showing emotions" sure does. If you are going to complain about a post it might help if you actually read the whole thing.
/ˈstō-ik/What about the Oread race in general, as most of described as having a rock like appearance and as having a stoic demeanor, do they get penalties to bluff and diplomacy? If not, why not, as their face looks like stone and have a fairly monotone voice? noun 1. a person who can endure pain or hardship without showing their feelings or complaining.
So all npcs in pfs are mindless robots programmed to follow if x>y then x is true. What you're engaging in here is "reductio ad absurdum." Essentially, you are making the proposition ("this mask helps you lie") seem odd by taking it to an extreme that seems absurd ("all NPCs are mindless robots"). It's problematic because it doesn't actually address the content of the argument. In this case, you aren't disputing that if the mask doesn't help you lie, it serves no purpose--instead, you're just trying to make that statement look absurd. If you have a legitimate counterargument to the idea that the mask needs to accomplish its purpose, I would love to see it. If not, please don't expect people to fall for such a simplistic technique. Pop culture note: Fans of The Big Bang Theory may recognize the name of this particular phenomenon from an early episode in regards to Sheldon's earthquake preparedness kit.
Where are you finding the restriction to bladed weapons Paz? I'm interested in the legal PFS rules on this. In the dictionary definition of the word "scabbard."
Yes, FAQs mean what they say. The best way to get leadership to revisit your question is to make a separate thread saying something very specific like "arbiter familiars should be allowed to use wands for the following reasons" and then list some good reasons. For an example, dig into the archives and find the exact same post made about Mephits a few months back. It was well reasoned and very effective. Edit: But wait until GenCon is over.
It certainly does seem to be. Ah! Well, that's a horse of a different color. My advice, feel free to ignore:
Were I you, I would post a new thread with a title like "Concern re: six level 3 characters having to play up in S4." Then, in the first post, say something like "I believe this will lead to bad situations for that party. Could we revisit this concept? I am concerned that <specifics> and I believe we can fix it by <specifics>."
I would be prepared for the possibility that they actually playtested it and are comfortable with it, but I think an explicit approach like that would lead to more coordinator response. Further reasoning, feel free to ignore:
I would argue that the thread we're actually in right now comes at the query from an overly oblique angle--first you ask if Text X from Section A applies to Event B which is covered in Section Y; the answer is obviously no. Then you asked if it was intentional, which implies concern, but it doesn't spell it out or cover the whys. The coordinators are a lot more likely to respond to a concern that's explicitly voiced and made readily available to them, at least in my experience. And finally: Explosive runes!
Because apparently that's how we roll around here.
Doesn't actually say one or two or 3 or eleventeen. Just says must pick "a deity". Not really that clear, but anyways... The fact that "deity" is singular, rather than the plural "deities," means that you only choose one. This is further supported by the use of the indefinite article "a," which is inherently singular. To quote a certain online resource, "'A' and 'an' signal that the noun modified is indefinite, referring to any member of a group." Note that "member" is also singular. "A deity" is one deity. Not "two or 3 or eleventeen."
Don't tell me that just because I'm a Venture-Lieutenant I'm setting a bad example by choosing not to participate in a legal table. Jeff, this is an excellent example of a straw man argument. I'm not saying you're using it deliberately, but that's definitely what's occurring here. The topic at hand is that GMs can't ban legal play options from their tables; you're countering with the idea that players have the right to leave a table for whatever reason they want. That's true, but not relevant. There is also a false equivalence at work here in the presence of rank--in the original argument, it is noted that a VO is setting bad precedent by espousing an incorrect idea, to wit, that GMs should ban legal options based on their own whim. In your response, you are equating that--again, I'm not saying deliberately--to a VO being accused of setting bad precedent for doing something that is totally acceptable, in this case, choosing not to play at a table. Since these cases are essentially opposites, the equating of them only serves to muddy the waters. To clarify: Anyone--including the GM, regardless of that GM's rank within the campaign--has the right at any time to not want to play at a table. However, while playing at a table, everyone is expected to abide by the rules of the campaign--all the rules--whether they like them or not. |
