I Googled "ego fallacy" and it didn't come up with anything relevant.Maiev Shadowsong said:You don't actually know what a straw man is, evidently. Again you try so very hard to use someone else's argument as a launching point for mine and then go on to spew rhetoric. I'm not going to pretend you have a valid point or play into your ego fallacy.lacktheknack said:I'm using your complete disconnect with what people were whinging about in the other thread to draw attention to your incredibly obvious strawman (there, I said it). For the third time, you refuse to address the actual point of the article of Greg Tito not having any choice in whether or not he gets to do some of the more graphically awful things. You're ignoring them so you can draw him up as a spineless whiner who hates being challenged by gaming, which you in turn can have a big old laugh at.Maiev Shadowsong said:I don't care what other people were attacking him for and it's not relevant to what I said in the slightest, no matter how hard you try to make it. You can't use someone else's argument as a launching point for mine. Either try again using actual logic, or stop pretending to be making a real point.lacktheknack said:Yes, I did. I, however, did NOT claim that you said it was "just a game". Did YOU read at all?Maiev Shadowsong said:Um. I didn't say it was just a game. That's the opposite of my argument. Did you read at all?lacktheknack said:"It's just a game" is EXACTLY the same argument that people were initially trying to use.Maiev Shadowsong said:Good god. You people.
Video games are art. Video games are serious. Video games aren't just for kids, guiz. What's this? A video game that isn't happy and perfect? Violence that's horrific? Something that makes me morally uncomfortable? But I just want video games! *sadface and crying*
I can't even take this editorial seriously.
Fascinating how the exact same thing is being said to attack someone in two entirely opposite ways. That's generally the first sign that an argument has been simplified to the point of uselessness.
...And that's exactly what you did! You didn't even address the key aspect, "I want choice", that the entire editorial is based on, because it didn't fit your easy-to-attack simplification! There should be a word for that.
You claimed that he doesn't like it because he just wanted a fun, unthreatening game. In the other thread, people were attacking him BECAUSE it's "just a fun game". Clearly, there's something wrong here, and I don't think it's Greg Tito.
Now, I pointed out that you constructed a simplification of his argument and attacked it, leaving out his entire damn point of not having a choice in how awful of a person he was (man, I REALLY wish there was a common, well-known word for that). Are you going to address that, or will you just quote me with a quarter-reply over and over and hope I go away?
Yes, you are. It's completely undeniable. Go read your first post.
And it's utterly completely false, as he successfully pointed out what was bothering him and successfully explained how GTA V could have avoided it. That's not something one does upon having a temper tantrum that their game was too emotionally challenging for them.
Now, FOR THE THIRD TIME, will you or will you not address your massive fallacy, or are you going to hone in on a grammatical error or something and try to dismiss me entirely without having to be challenged on your statements? If it's the second one, please don't respond.
Stop pretending you have a point.
Also, you apparently don't know what a strawman is either, because I explained your strawman to you three times, and all three times, it's like it's invisible. You won't even attack it, you just ignore it. You cling to one aspect that you feel is weak rather than address anything around it.
I did not "spew rhetoric", I simply asked that you address the point of the article. You still will not, because you'd rather attack me with such bizarre statements such as "stop pretending you have a point." Uh... why don't you stop pretending to have a point first? Yeah, that seems like as good a rebuttal as any.
I'm not going to ask a fourth time for you to actually address the editorial's point properly, because you simply cannot. I don't understand WHY you cannot, but there we go.