Poll: Should flex mythic raiding exist?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
10
11
... LastLast
  1. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    And round and round and round we go.
    And yet, somehow, you still fail to understand.

    I recommend reading the rest of what I wrote, not just the snippets you plucked out of my explanation to make it seem like I'm saying something else.

    I wish there was a word for trying to turn people's argument into something it's not. Hmm... surely there must be...

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Normal people trying to have a normal conversation don't work so hard to redefine simple concepts like "opinion"
    Normal people also don't go on a convoluted rant to dodge having to actually prove their position.

    NORMAL people go "Here's my claim! And here's my evidence", not "Here's my claim! Evidence? Well, I'd give you some, but it's clearly a waste of time, so I won't. And besides, these are all just opinions anyway, and why are you even going on about this, it's all sophistry, CAN'T YOU JUST TAKE ME AT MY WORD WITHOUT QUESTION OR EXAMINATION I JUST WANT TO BE HEARD DAMMIT!".

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Relapses View Post
    This becomes a nightmare when ability scaling makes it 1% better to have 19 or 21 people on an encounter and now if you're a "real" guild you need to run an even larger bench than you would normally to counteract the mandatory optimization.
    i don't feel sorry for a "real" guild that can't kill the boss anymore if its 1% harder if it means a few dozen guilds don't have to cancel their raid because 1 person didn't show up.

    it's one thing if dropping people trivializes mechanics or you get an entire mechanic less, but even blizzard should be able to design bosses in a waythat won't happen just from 1-2 more/less people. (and boosters can kill bosses with 18-19 people even without them scaling down anyways, so it's clearly not fundamentally impossible or anything, the only thing stopping a regular guild from not being able to do that is numbers scaling not mechanics.)

  3. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    And yet, somehow, you still fail to understand.

    I recommend reading the rest of what I wrote, not just the snippets you plucked out of my explanation to make it seem like I'm saying something else.

    I wish there was a word for trying to turn people's argument into something it's not. Hmm... surely there must be...

    Normal people also don't go on a convoluted rant to dodge having to actually prove their position.

    NORMAL people go "Here's my claim! And here's my evidence", not "Here's my claim! Evidence? Well, I'd give you some, but it's clearly a waste of time, so I won't. And besides, these are all just opinions anyway, and why are you even going on about this, it's all sophistry, CAN'T YOU JUST TAKE ME AT MY WORD WITHOUT QUESTION OR EXAMINATION I JUST WANT TO BE HEARD DAMMIT!".
    You never answered my question. You added words to my question, answered that question instead, and then wrote an essay examining the implications of the question that I never asked. This is your favorite thing in the world to do:

    1. Willfully misinterpret, mischaracterize, or just plain strawman what someone says.
    2. Write a long essay on it.
    3. Act like the other person is unreasonable for not being interested in addressing every point you made in your essay based on something they never said.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  4. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellobolis View Post
    i don't feel sorry for a "real" guild that can't kill the boss anymore if its 1% harder if it means a few dozen guilds don't have to cancel their raid because 1 person didn't show up.

    it's one thing if dropping people trivializes mechanics or you get an entire mechanic less, but even blizzard should be able to design bosses in a waythat won't happen just from 1-2 more/less people. (and boosters can kill bosses with 18-19 people even without them scaling down anyways, so it's clearly not fundamentally impossible or anything, the only thing stopping a regular guild from not being able to do that is numbers scaling not mechanics.)
    I don't think you understand the argument I'm making. It's not just the dozens of guilds now raiding that wouldn't have previously, it's literally every single guild because Mythic raiding has always been about optimization. So now if Boss 3, 7, 9, 10 & 11 are theoretically 1% easier w/ 21 people, you're literally trolling if your guild doesn't show up w/ 21 people on those bosses. You're effectively making the very problem you're trying to solve worse. It'll also be annoying when you're running a tight roster and now have to yeet a 20th player for that sweet 19-player optimization for Boss 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6. (Blizzard somehow perfectly tuned Boss 8 for 20.) It seems, to me, that it's far easier to just leave it at 20 and not even bother introducing this scaling weirdness to the equation.
    Last edited by Relapses; 2022-08-12 at 04:08 PM.

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by Relapses View Post
    I don't think you understand the argument I'm making. It's not just the dozens of guilds now raiding that wouldn't have previously, it's literally every single guild because Mythic raiding has always been about optimization. So now if Boss 3, 7, 9, 10 & 11 are theoretically 1% easier w/ 21 people, you're literally trolling if your guild doesn't show up w/ 21 people on those bosses. You're effectively making the very problem you're trying to solve worse. It'll also be annoying when you're running a tight roster and now have to yeet a 20th player for that sweet 19-player optimization for Boss 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6. (Blizzard somehow perfectly tuned Boss 8 for 20.) It seems, to me, that it's far easier to just leave it at 20 and not even bother introducing this scaling weirdness to the equation.
    ive been getting cutting edge since legion and ive never had that problem. we've had first kills on bosses with 1 person dead from the start of the pull or with someone afk. weve had first kills where a mage sits in an iceblock and the boss dies of a dot or when a holy pala in bubble kills the boss last man standing. weve had "lets do one more pull even though its the end of the raid" and then wiped at 0.5%. first kills on end bosses are rarely perfect pulls there is always a few small mistakes that easily cost 1% performance/efficiency. it's all fine, since as a cutting edge guild you will not really suffer for recruits.

    a single dps is 7-8% of your raids output, so if it's balanced to a 1-3% difficulty change from gaining/dropping people it's simply an acceptable tradeoff to reduce the barrier to entry at the lower end of mythic raiding. less and less people doing mythic raiding every expansion as it is.

    but before that i was in in a midrange mythic guild that killed 50-75% of the bosses only, and in such guilds recruitment is a perpetual struggle. kinda funny since player turnover in such guilds is often actually lower. cancelling a raid because we were only 18-19 people was a real problem there.
    Last edited by Hellobolis; 2022-08-12 at 04:48 PM.

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    You never answered my question.
    What question? Whether or not purple is the greatest color? I gave VERY DETAILLED answers on that, INCLUDING one for a general case in the vernacular understanding.

    But you apparently didn't read that, because you're not interested in engaging with people, you're just interested in hearing yourself speak.

    Or if not that, what other question are you referring to?

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    You added words to my question, answered that question instead
    No. I gave you a detailed breakdown of how that question can be parsed, given different sets of circumstances. ONE of those circumstances included a further elaboration on the CONTENT of the question by expanding it - not to CHANGE it, but to make sure it's understood AS ASKED IN THAT CONTEXT. If that context doesn't apply to what you said (I did, after all, only add it for completion's sake) then it doesn't matter, and I gave you a detailed answer for the UNCHANGED question, too.

    But all this doesn't matter to you, does it. You don't want honest debate, you want to rant about how people are mean for being precise and all inquisitive-like, and for not just shutting up and nodding in agreement with what you say.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    1. Willfully misinterpret, mischaracterize, or just plain strawman what someone says.
    *cough* That the hill you want to die on, son? Really? Given the above?

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    2. Write a long essay on it.
    Well I COULD just reply with "you're full of shit and have no clue what you're talking about", but I thought I'd, you know, make it a bit less derisive and a bit more informative. Proper arguments are complicated. Sorry I can't just condense everything into one simple statement that's beyond truth-claims or critique, that's just not what I consider honest debating. I can tell you disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    3. Act like the other person is unreasonable for not being interested in addressing every point you made in your essay based on something they never said.
    You've spent ENORMOUS energies over SEVERAL DAYS explaining to me why you don't need to answer for your claims or provide evidence.

    Arguing now that it's because it would be too much work is a little bit ironic, don't you think?

    You could just shut me up REAL QUICK by just proving your initial statements. You could pull down my metaphorical pants in front of the whole class, and show everyone how wrong I am.

    But you choose not to do that.

    Instead of ACTUALLY EXPLAINING YOURSELF, you choose to spend your time writing a dozen paragraphs about how unfair it is that someone would ask you to explain yourself.

    Could that be because you, you know, don't actually HAVE any evidence for what you're saying, and you're just throwing wild statements out there backed by nothing except "that's just what I think y'know, fuck it"?

  7. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    What question? Whether or not purple is the greatest color? I gave VERY DETAILLED answers on that, INCLUDING one for a general case in the vernacular understanding.

    But you apparently didn't read that, because you're not interested in engaging with people, you're just interested in hearing yourself speak.

    Or if not that, what other question are you referring to?

    No. I gave you a detailed breakdown of how that question can be parsed, given different sets of circumstances. ONE of those circumstances included a further elaboration on the CONTENT of the question by expanding it - not to CHANGE it, but to make sure it's understood AS ASKED IN THAT CONTEXT. If that context doesn't apply to what you said (I did, after all, only add it for completion's sake) then it doesn't matter, and I gave you a detailed answer for the UNCHANGED question, too.

    But all this doesn't matter to you, does it. You don't want honest debate, you want to rant about how people are mean for being precise and all inquisitive-like, and for not just shutting up and nodding in agreement with what you say.


    *cough* That the hill you want to die on, son? Really? Given the above?


    Well I COULD just reply with "you're full of shit and have no clue what you're talking about", but I thought I'd, you know, make it a bit less derisive and a bit more informative. Proper arguments are complicated. Sorry I can't just condense everything into one simple statement that's beyond truth-claims or critique, that's just not what I consider honest debating. I can tell you disagree.

    You've spent ENORMOUS energies over SEVERAL DAYS explaining to me why you don't need to answer for your claims or provide evidence.

    Arguing now that it's because it would be too much work is a little bit ironic, don't you think?

    You could just shut me up REAL QUICK by just proving your initial statements. You could pull down my metaphorical pants in front of the whole class, and show everyone how wrong I am.

    But you choose not to do that.

    Instead of ACTUALLY EXPLAINING YOURSELF, you choose to spend your time writing a dozen paragraphs about how unfair it is that someone would ask you to explain yourself.

    Could that be because you, you know, don't actually HAVE any evidence for what you're saying, and you're just throwing wild statements out there backed by nothing except "that's just what I think y'know, fuck it"?
    This is what you are saying: "Even though all I do is strawman you, put words in your mouth, willfully mischaracterize what you say, play equivocation games with terms even after they've been explained, litigate which conjunction is appropriate out of context, and analyze half sentences to death, I expect you to take a few hours of your time and provide me with a comprehensive explanation of your points, some of which I already conceded are trivially true."

    You can't even answer a simple question: Do you think "Purple is the greatest color" is either true or false?

    You respond with "Well, if I change the question to a different question, here is a six page dissertation on what it might mean".

    In reality, when normal people converse, the response is very simple. You either answer the question or you say "Can you define 'greatest' in this context?" Instead, you make a whole pile of assumptions, pile more assumptions on top of them, write a dissertation on the word "greatest" and analyze what the answer to a different question might be. And you are oblivious to how masturbatory, condescending and non-productive that is.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    "some of which I already conceded are trivially true."
    *one of which

    I also demonstrated that it's irrelevant. Feels fair to mention that.

    I thought we were anti-strawman here?

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    You can't even answer a simple question: Do you think "Purple is the greatest color" is either true or false?
    Listen here, Liar Jim. Let me just quote you from what I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    In most common vernacular definitions of "greatest" the statement would be FALSE.
    Any other lies you want to get off your chest?

    Do you, like, ACTUALLY READ what I type or do you just wait for me to respond, and then blabber on about something you wanted to say regardless of what I replied?

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    In reality, when normal people converse, the response is very simple. You either answer the question or you say "Can you define 'greatest' in this context?"
    Which I pre-empted by giving you THE OPTIONS for different definitions, explaining each one in detail. And THE FIRST ONE I GAVE (see above) was a simple, vernacular answer.

    Which you repeatedly denied, despite it being there, black-and-white, written down.

    Why lie? Like, do you think I'd just forget what I said or not remember to go back and check or something?

  9. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    *one of which

    I also demonstrated that it's irrelevant. Feels fair to mention that.

    I thought we were anti-strawman here?


    Listen here, Liar Jim. Let me just quote you from what I said:

    Any other lies you want to get off your chest?

    Do you, like, ACTUALLY READ what I type or do you just wait for me to respond, and then blabber on about something you wanted to say regardless of what I replied?

    Which I pre-empted by giving you THE OPTIONS for different definitions, explaining each one in detail. And THE FIRST ONE I GAVE (see above) was a simple, vernacular answer.

    Which you repeatedly denied, despite it being there, black-and-white, written down.

    Why lie? Like, do you think I'd just forget what I said or not remember to go back and check or something?
    Demonstrate that it is false. Demonstrate that purple is not "unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc.:"
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  10. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Demonstrate that it is false. Demonstrate that purple is not "unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc.:"
    That's easy to solve.

    Either a color being the greatest COULD be determined objectively AND can be known - in which case the statement is either true or false (but never anything else) and you can test it based on the criteria given. The burden of proof for which would fall on the one making the claim, as it always does. Note, however, that this case is incongruent with a general vernacular understanding of "greatest" as applied to color (we come to that in a second).

    Or a color being the greatest COULD be determined objectively but CANNOT be known - in which case the statement is either true or false (but never anything else) but we can't ever find out and so we won't ever know which it is; but it is always either true OR false.

    Or a color being the greatest CANNOT be determined objectively - in which case the statement is false, because if it cannot be determined if a color is the greatest, then claiming that it IS must be false. This is the vernacular case, as our everyday understanding of "greatest" when applied to color doesn't allow it to be objectively determined.

    Anything else you'd like to know about elementary logic?

    EDIT: and as I said in my original reply, these of course only apply if this is phrased as an argument; if it's stated as an opinion, things work differently (kindly refer to that post for the explanation).
    Last edited by Biomega; 2022-08-12 at 06:11 PM.

  11. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    That's easy to solve.

    Either a color being the greatest COULD be determined objectively AND can be known - in which case the statement is either true or false (but never anything else) and you can test it based on the criteria given. The burden of proof for which would fall on the one making the claim, as it always does. Note, however, that this case is incongruent with a general vernacular understanding of "greatest" as applied to color (we come to that in a second).

    Or a color being the greatest COULD be determined objectively but CANNOT be known - in which case the statement is either true or false (but never anything else) but we can't ever find out and so we won't ever know which it is; but it is always either true OR false.

    Or a color being the greatest CANNOT be determined objectively - in which case the statement is false, because if it cannot be determined if a color is the greatest, then claiming that it IS must be false. This is the vernacular case, as our everyday understanding of "greatest" when applied to color doesn't allow it to be objectively determined.

    Anything else you'd like to know about elementary logic?

    EDIT: and as I said in my original reply, these of course only apply if this is phrased as an argument; if it's stated as an opinion, things work differently (kindly refer to that post for the explanation).
    Demonstrate that purple is not "unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc.:"

    My argument for it is that when I look at it, it appears to be more intense and powerful than other colors.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  12. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Demonstrate that purple is not "unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc.:"

    My argument for it is that when I look at it, it appears to be more intense and powerful than other colors.
    If you make a claim, you have to provide evidence. This is called the burden of proof.

    You can't make claims and then demand OTHER PEOPLE provide evidence (either for or against it). That doesn't work, because then you could make all kinds of claims and demand them be accepted as true until disproven, which can easily be either outright impossible or so impractical it could never realistically be done. If we allowed that, all sorts of outrageous claims would stand unopposed.

    That's all I ever asked of you: if you make a claim, you have to back it up.

    EDIT: and if you want to argue PURELY from subjective preference, that's an opinion, not an argument. Opinions are fine - you can hold them as much as you like and with or without any reason. No one can argue against them, because they're not arguments. But that also means YOU can't use them to argue anything. You just state them, everyone nods in acknowledgement of your preference even if they don't share it, and then we move on to something we can actually talk about. Opinions are useless in discourse.
    Last edited by Biomega; 2022-08-12 at 07:56 PM.

  13. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    If you make a claim, you have to provide evidence. This is called the burden of proof.

    You can't make claims and then demand OTHER PEOPLE provide evidence (either for or against it). That doesn't work, because then you could make all kinds of claims and demand them be accepted as true until disproven, which can easily be either outright impossible or so impractical it could never realistically be done. If we allowed that, all sorts of outrageous claims would stand unopposed.

    That's all I ever asked of you: if you make a claim, you have to back it up.

    EDIT: and if you want to argue PURELY from subjective preference, that's an opinion, not an argument. Opinions are fine - you can hold them as much as you like and with or without any reason. No one can argue against them, because they're not arguments. But that also means YOU can't use them to argue anything. You just state them, everyone nods in acknowledgement of your preference even if they don't share it, and then we move on to something we can actually talk about. Opinions are useless in discourse.
    "X is false" is a claim. You said that the claim was false. That means the burden of proof is on you to prove it is false.

    Opinion is at the heart of discourse, because as much as internet debate lord brain rot has led you to believe that everything can be simply boiled down to TRUE or FALSE, in the real world things are quite a bit more complicated, and we have to rely on the OPINION of experts to decide what to believe. This isn't even controversial, for people who engage in discourse in real life and don't just read lists of logical fallacies and appoint themselves arbiter of truth.

    It is my opinion as an historian that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the individual described as Jesus existed.
    It is the opinion of other historians that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the individual described as Jesus existed.

    While the conclusion is either TRUE or FALSE, it is physically impossible for us to know that. It is only possible for us to apportion belief appropriately, and we apportion belief based on a SUBJECTIVE value judgement of the evidence.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  14. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by KrayZ33 View Post
    Yeah... that sounds nice... but people would probably still dislike the fact that 10 Mythic is easier than 18 mythic or the other way around and throw a tantrum about how blizzard is unable to balance it perfectly.
    I could get behind that however, the 20 player threshold you have to "beat" is a pretty tough boss on its own... and not being able to see certain boss mechanics or a special mythic-phase because you just can't get together 20++ players seems to be such a waste. It's so freaking hard to get people to meet up regulary. At least for me and the guys I'm playing with, it is.
    Tbh, let them throw a tantrum. Blizzard (kind of) ignored it when all we had was 10 and 25m raids. People have to realize, that, in order for a lot of players to raid mythic, changing it to flex or even lowering the number of players from 20 to e.g. 15 HAS to happen.

  15. #175
    Quote Originally Posted by dopefishz View Post
    Tbh, let them throw a tantrum. Blizzard (kind of) ignored it when all we had was 10 and 25m raids. People have to realize, that, in order for a lot of players to raid mythic, changing it to flex or even lowering the number of players from 20 to e.g. 15 HAS to happen.
    Why do "a lot" of players need to raid Mythic? I don't think anybody will disagree with the notion that Mythic raiding is becoming more and more of an isolated endeavor but I really don't understand the need for it to have high population numbers. We have KSM-level M+ for the masses which allows you to get rewards roughly 95% in effectiveness as Mythic raiders, why do we have to open the flood gates for Mythic raiding?

  16. #176
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    "X is false" is a claim. You said that the claim was false. That means the burden of proof is on you to prove it is false.
    And I've shown why it's false in the vernacular case: because if "color X is the greatest" is using "greatest" in the vernacular sense, there is no way to objectively assess if one color is or isn't "the greatest". In which case the claim is necessarily false, because if X (color) can't ever be determined to actually be Y (the greatest), then "X is Y" must be false.

    But if you're defining "the greatest" in a way that DOES allow X (color) to be objectively assessed as to Y (the greatest), then the truth value of the claim "X is Y" is contingent on the evidence provided by the claimant.

    If you are saying this second one is the kind of claim you're making, then you need to provide evidence. You provided "when I look at it, it appears to be more intense and powerful than other colors", but that doesn't substantiate your claim because it doesn't prove whether "X is Y", it only proves "X appears as Y to me", since none of the elements in your evidence can be assessed outside of your own individual perception.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Opinion is at the heart of discourse, because as much as internet debate lord brain rot has led you to believe that everything can be simply boiled down to TRUE or FALSE, in the real world things are quite a bit more complicated
    Why on earth would you say that? I've never said EVERYTHING can be "simply boiled down to TRUE or FALSE". I've said something about ONE PARTICULAR EXAMPLE that was intentionally formulated as a true-or-false claim BY YOU.

    Just because I demand EVIDENCE for claims doesn't mean "everything is either true or false". The law of excluded middle doesn't say that, either; it only says either a proposition is true or its negation is true. That doesn't reduce everything in the world to a true-or-false question. It's pretty frightening that you'd even suggest that.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    and we have to rely on the OPINION of experts to decide what to believe.
    I think you're using "opinion" in a very loose sense here, which is incorrect. Experts have POSITIONS they hold for what they consider good reasons; when asked, they will provide those reasons. No Expert will ever argue based on OPINION in the sense of subjective preference, only in the sense of "the sum of positions I hold".

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    It is my opinion as an historian that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the individual described as Jesus existed.
    This is an opinion only in the vernacular sense, not in an epistemological sense. You have the POSITION that Jesus didn't exist BECAUSE OF a lack of evidence (which is, strictly speaking, the null hypothesis here). If it was just your OPINION, you wouldn't need to bring in evidence at all - the fact that you're doing it already demonstrates it's not an (epistemological) opinion, it's just using the word "opinion" haphazardly in an everyday, vernacular use that is not the same as its use in discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    While the conclusion is either TRUE or FALSE, it is physically impossible for us to know that.
    That's not true. It's entirely conceivable someone could e.g. discover the skeleton of Jesus one day, and prove physically that he did exist. That doesn't mean that someone ever WILL, but it also doesn't mean it's impossible for us to determine it in some physical way.

    Something that would be physically impossible to know would be something like e.g. "the number of electrons in the universe at time X is even" - we know it must necessarily be either odd OR even, but the laws of physics as we know them prevent us from ever finding out which it is at any given moment. Therefore we know this statement must either be true or false, but there is no physical way to ever determine which it is. (EDIT: for any time >10^-3 s after the Big Bang, I should say, since before that it was likely 0).

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    It is only possible for us to apportion belief appropriately, and we apportion belief based on a SUBJECTIVE value judgement of the evidence.
    You're trying to smuggle in an epistemological red herring here. Yes, 100% objective knowledge is impossible for various epistemological reasons, but that doesn't mean we can't approach a standard of objectivity that allows for reasoned discourse WITHOUT resorting to a level of subjectivity that is beyond demonstration. There is no solution to the problem of hard solipsism, but if we let that derail our discourse we can't have any to begin with. It's effectively just a variation of Gödel incompleteness, which doesn't really matter in practice.

    In any event, we can still distinguish between as-objective-as-axiomatic-presuppositions-ever-allow-it evidence, and subjective-as-in-not-demonstrable-to-others evidence.

    Whether or not that evidence CONVINCES you of a proposition is a different matter. That's a discussion for each case, as there's many types of evidence. But none of them are "I just feel that it is" or "I just choose to believe so".

    I've never denied this, nor have I ever denied the importance of evidence. In fact, I've specifically ASKED for evidence. One might even say that's all I've asked for. But "this is true because I say it is, and that's just my opinion" isn't evidence.
    Last edited by Biomega; 2022-08-12 at 08:41 PM.

  17. #177
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    And I've shown why it's false in the vernacular case: because if "color X is the greatest" is using "greatest" in the vernacular sense, there is no way to objectively assess if one color is or isn't "the greatest". In which case the claim is necessarily false, because if X (color) can't ever be determined to actually be Y (the greatest), then "X is Y" must be false.

    But if you're defining "the greatest" in a way that DOES allow X (color) to be objectively assessed as to Y (the greatest), then the truth value of the claim "X is Y" is contingent on the evidence provided by the claimant.
    By this logic, any opinion is objectively false. "Pasta is delicious" is an objectively false statement according to you.

    If you are saying this second one is the kind of claim you're making, then you need to provide evidence. You provided "when I look at it, it appears to be more intense and powerful than other colors", but that doesn't substantiate your claim because it doesn't prove whether "X is Y", it only proves "X appears as Y to me", since none of the elements in your evidence can be assessed outside of your own individual perception.
    Look at how many words it just took you to say "It's an opinion so it can't be assessed factually."

    Why on earth would you say that? I've never said EVERYTHING can be "simply boiled down to TRUE or FALSE". I've said something about ONE PARTICULAR EXAMPLE that was intentionally formulated as a true-or-false claim BY YOU.

    Just because I demand EVIDENCE for claims doesn't mean "everything is either true or false". The law of excluded middle doesn't say that, either; it only says either a proposition is true or its negation is true. That doesn't reduce everything in the world to a true-or-false question. It's pretty frightening that you'd even suggest that.

    I think you're using "opinion" in a very loose sense here, which is incorrect. Experts have POSITIONS they hold for what they consider good reasons; when asked, they will provide those reasons. No Expert will ever argue based on OPINION in the sense of subjective preference, only in the sense of "the sum of positions I hold".

    This is an opinion only in the vernacular sense, not in an epistemological sense. You have the POSITION that Jesus didn't exist BECAUSE OF a lack of evidence (which is, strictly speaking, the null hypothesis here). If it was just your OPINION, you wouldn't need to bring in evidence at all - the fact that you're doing it already demonstrates it's not an (epistemological) opinion, it's just using the word "opinion" haphazardly in an everyday, vernacular use that is not the same as its use in discourse.
    Opinion: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion
    a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
    belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
    a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert

    You are working so hard to redefine the term here to conform to this completely incoherent way you are approaching the world. The way that I am using "opinion" is clearly in line with the definition of the term in multiple ways, most prominently the last one there.

    That's not true. It's entirely conceivable someone could e.g. discover the skeleton of Jesus one day, and prove physically that he did exist. That doesn't mean that someone ever WILL, but it also doesn't mean it's impossible for us to determine it in some physical way.

    Something that would be physically impossible to know would be something like e.g. "the number of electrons in the universe at time X is even" - we know it must necessarily be either odd OR even, but the laws of physics as we know them prevent us from ever finding out which it is at any given moment. Therefore we know this statement must either be true or false, but there is no physical way to ever determine which it is. (EDIT: for any time >10^-3 s after the Big Bang, I should say, since before that it was likely 0).
    It would not be physically possible to prove that a skeleton from 2000 years ago was Jesus. This kind of meaningless sophistry is infuriating. You are so up your own ass.

    You're trying to smuggle in an epistemological red herring here. Yes, 100% objective knowledge is impossible for various epistemological reasons, but that doesn't mean we can't approach a standard of objectivity that allows for reasoned discourse WITHOUT resorting to a level of subjectivity that is beyond demonstration. There is no solution to the problem of hard solipsism, but if we let that derail our discourse we can't have any to begin with. It's effectively just a variation of Gödel incompleteness, which doesn't really matter in practice.
    There should be a unit of measurement for how long an internet debate lord takes to bring up hard solipsism like it is some deep and profound insight. Thank you for the community college level lesson on philosophy.

    In any event, we can still distinguish between as-objective-as-axiomatic-presuppositions-ever-allow-it evidence, and subjective-as-in-not-demonstrable-to-others evidence.

    Whether or not that evidence CONVINCES you of a proposition is a different matter. That's a discussion for each case, as there's many types of evidence. But none of them are "I just feel that it is" or "I just choose to believe so".

    I've never denied this, nor have I ever denied the importance of evidence. In fact, I've specifically ASKED for evidence. One might even say that's all I've asked for. But "this is true because I say it is, and that's just my opinion" isn't evidence.
    It is perfectly normal and reasonable for two people to see the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions. What would you call that? Perhaps you would call it their... opinion.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  18. #178
    Quote Originally Posted by Depakote View Post
    This game was better when it catered to the casuals instead of the try hards.
    I cant even comprehend what this means lol

    Back in the day, you had to raid (or mega poopsock pvp) to get anywhere, and now you don't! Even back in the days of WoD, I couldn't imagine having more than 2 geared characters at the absolutely most, and usually just 1 unless you had so much free time you could raid in multiple guilds. Now people have like 3-4-5 alts fully geared by the end of a season lol

  19. #179
    Brewmaster Depakote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alpha Quadrant
    Posts
    1,468
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashana Darkmoon View Post
    I cant even comprehend what this means lol

    Back in the day, you had to raid (or mega poopsock pvp) to get anywhere, and now you don't! Even back in the days of WoD, I couldn't imagine having more than 2 geared characters at the absolutely most, and usually just 1 unless you had so much free time you could raid in multiple guilds. Now people have like 3-4-5 alts fully geared by the end of a season lol
    Sure you do.

  20. #180
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashana Darkmoon View Post
    I cant even comprehend what this means lol

    Back in the day, you had to raid (or mega poopsock pvp) to get anywhere, and now you don't! Even back in the days of WoD, I couldn't imagine having more than 2 geared characters at the absolutely most, and usually just 1 unless you had so much free time you could raid in multiple guilds. Now people have like 3-4-5 alts fully geared by the end of a season lol
    Back in the day casuals had:

    1. A lot of leveling to do.
    2. Random dungeons that took a long time to become obsolete for progression.
    3. Random BGs that took a long time to become obsolete for progression.
    4. Reputations that provided substantive progression rewards and could be targeted.
    5. Professions that provided substantive progression rewards.

    The game currently has none of that. To the extent that any of those things still exist, you are done with any progression you could get from them in maybe a week. The point is that there used to be pretty long progression paths for people that didn't do challenging endgame content. Now, those progression paths are just gone.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •