Poll: Why do gamers discriminate other gamers???

[daftalchemist]

Just because someone has something in common with you, doesn't automatically make them as good (or bad, for that matter) of a person as you are. That's why I pick and choose the personal things I reveal about myself. But no one should ever mention their sexuality, just ever. I know it's usually a point of pride for most people, but the general population is just NOT properly mentally equipped to handle such a topic.

I've never been discriminated against, fortunately, so you won't get any "I'm a girl and people think I suck" BS. But I have garnered attention I did not otherwise want. That's why I stay off of mic chat, unless I'm playing with a community I'm apart of. I either get "discriminated" against in a way because they think I'm a prepubescent boy, or I just get general creepy attention like internet stalking.

 

[Slowpool]

"People" is too broad a subject pool for the cancer comparison, since only a subset of people (men) can develop that particular type. The largest population you can have for such a comparison is "Men", not "People". The inclusion of women, who by biological nature cannot be included, in order to provide a biased result makes the "logic" invalid.[/spoiler]

My point is, since gamers are people (and therefore subject to normal human flaws), they are capable of being biased. Since women are not men (and therefore do not have testes), they CANNOT have testicular cancer.

Logic again.

Sounds like you're trolling. Because the point I was making is really really basic formal logic. The point is, from the premisses (many people discriminate & gamers are people) you CANNOT deduce "gamers discriminate" through formal logic. It's just not a correct deduction, the formal rules do not allow it. It has nothing to do with humans, human flaws or testes. It's basic formal logic, get it?

Oh and the testes counter-example made earlier is just spot on.

It has EVERYTHING to do with humans, human flaws and testes, since they are an integral part of the examples. It is, in fact, possible for gamers to be prejudiced. It is not, in fact, possible for women to develop testicular cancer. So the logic of the counter argument is perfectly flawed.

 

[BodomBeachChild]

Welcome to the internet. It's been this way for a long time.

 

[lord.jeff]

Many people discriminate. All gamers are people. Therefore, some gamers discriminate.

[HEADING=2]Logic![/HEADING]

Spot on except for one thing "All people Discriminate" some more then others, but we all do it.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Why do protestants discriminate against Catholics?

It's the same thing essentially, just the details that differ.

It's human nature to find offense in the smallest thing, and start the stupidest conflicts over it. People hate each other basically.

If a person see's something he/she doesn't like. They will continue to not like it, and make their opinion heard.

 

[Stu35]

To make my policy clear, no one should be made fun of by any terms..

Bollocks.

Making fun of people is half of what makes living in this world even moderately possible without going insane.

Banter bonds us together, it allows us to make light of what is otherwise a bleak and horrible existence, it entertains and gives us topics for discussion, and demonstrates to those we are engaging in the banter with, that we like them and are comfortable enough to confront otherwise taboo subjects with them...


I personally need Banter in my life the same way I need sex in my life - without it I get miserable, and frustrated.

You need neither of these things, that's absolutely fine, I will tolerate it, and even support you against those who would try to deny you what makes you happy, but don't tell me not to make fun of you for it, because that's trying to deny me what makes me happy - making fun of people who aren't me and hold different views to me.

Savvy?

Why do protestants discriminate against Catholics?

Because they keep trying to fuck with our parades?

(For the Americans, I'm refering to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth])

 

[Woodsey]

That's exactly what's wrong! Your middle statement doesn't properly distribute over everyone who discriminates - just over a subsection of the people that happen to be Gamers. The parameters could be there, but by calling your reasoning "logical", you're excluding them.

Try this one:

Some cars are BMWs.
All Porsches are cars.
Therefore, some Porsches are BMWs.

[HEADING=2]Distributed Middle![/HEADING]

Well my reasoning doesn't have to be applicable to everything right?

[HEADING=2]Keeping up the tradition![/HEADING]

[HEADING=2]LOUD NOISES![/HEADING]

OT: Well, they didn't discriminate against you because you're a gamer, they did it because of your sexuality. Its (kind of) like expecting white men to not be racist to black men because they're all men. Having that one thing in common doesn't really mean much.

 

[ultimateownage]

That's not discrimination as much as it's just you hanging out with idiots.

Fun fact: Sharing a hobby does not make us all best friends.

 

[flatten_the_skyline]

I tolerate homosexuals. I find the whole notion extremely odd, but love is love. I simply find it difficult to believe in human asexuality, and personally put it down to people lying about how the feel about sex. Perhaps I feel this way only because my own sexuality is such an integral part of who and what I am, and thinking that people who never experience it must have a horribly broken and empty life by comparison. I'm probably wrong, but part of me feels that way.

Is there one good reason why people would deny their existing sexuality in general? I mean seriously, when you're not pressed, why lie about it, why? Sex might be needed to keep our species alive, but is not a vital part of our life. And try to look at it from an outsider's perspective. We have art, games, sports, food, science, politics, so many things you can devote your life to, so many opportunities, only to be dominated by sex. And the asexual I know isn't unable to love or anything, just not interested in the intercourse part. Imagine you could love objectively, without being fooled by physical attraction.

A life without sex doesn't need to be boring or empty at all!

 

[zilatel]

"People" is too broad a subject pool for the cancer comparison, since only a subset of people (men) can develop that particular type. The largest population you can have for such a comparison is "Men", not "People". The inclusion of women, who by biological nature cannot be included, in order to provide a biased result makes the "logic" invalid.[/spoiler]

My point is, since gamers are people (and therefore subject to normal human flaws), they are capable of being biased. Since women are not men (and therefore do not have testes), they CANNOT have testicular cancer.

Logic again.

Sounds like you're trolling. Because the point I was making is really really basic formal logic. The point is, from the premisses (many people discriminate & gamers are people) you CANNOT deduce "gamers discriminate" through formal logic. It's just not a correct deduction, the formal rules do not allow it. It has nothing to do with humans, human flaws or testes. It's basic formal logic, get it?

Oh and the testes counter-example made earlier is just spot on.

It has EVERYTHING to do with humans, human flaws and testes, since they are an integral part of the examples. It is, in fact, possible for gamers to be prejudiced. It is not, in fact, possible for women to develop testicular cancer. So the logic of the counter argument is perfectly flawed.

There's two sides to the discussion.
One the one hand, theres the more intuitive discussion if you agree with the claim that gamers discriminate. This has to do with human flaws, character, prejudices, etc.

On the other hand, theres the logical side of the discussion. Formal logic has 'rules' that tell you which deductions are valid and which ones are not. In my counter-example, theres a situation where the premisses do not allow you to deduce the conclusion (I sketch a situation where the premisses are true, but the conclusion is not). Formal logic is a guide book in this works, it won't allow you to make claims stonger than your premisses allow. This the point i'm making, the two premisses the guy made will not allow him to deduce his conclusion (while he made a big point that it did). This is a formal argument and has nothing to do with if i personally agree with the conclusion.

I hate it when i have to spell things out.

 

[Boba Frag]

To make my policy clear, no one should be made fun of by any terms..

Why do protestants discriminate against Catholics?

Because they keep trying to fuck with our parades?

(For the Americans, I'm refering to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth])

Just a tad inflammatory and over simplifying, don't you think?

 

[Stu35]

To make my policy clear, no one should be made fun of by any terms..

Why do protestants discriminate against Catholics?

Because they keep trying to fuck with our parades?

(For the Americans, I'm refering to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth])

Just a tad inflammatory and over simplifying, don't you think?

Deliberately so.

I was joking. I thought my playful little '' would have made that clear.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

To make my policy clear, no one should be made fun of by any terms..

Bollocks.

Making fun of people is half of what makes living in this world even moderately possible without going insane.

Banter bonds us together, it allows us to make light of what is otherwise a bleak and horrible existence, it entertains and gives us topics for discussion, and demonstrates to those we are engaging in the banter with, that we like them and are comfortable enough to confront otherwise taboo subjects with them...


I personally need Banter in my life the same way I need sex in my life - without it I get miserable, and frustrated.

You need neither of these things, that's absolutely fine, I will tolerate it, and even support you against those who would try to deny you what makes you happy, but don't tell me not to make fun of you for it, because that's trying to deny me what makes me happy - making fun of people who aren't me and hold different views to me.

Savvy?

Why do protestants discriminate against Catholics?

Because they keep trying to fuck with our parades?

(For the Americans, I'm refering to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth])

hah couldn't agree more. this is exactly how i feel (roughly 90% of my day is spent making fun of something/someone.)

 

[Fledge]

Asexual

a·sex·u·al /āˈsekSHo͞oəl/
Adjective:

1.Without sex or sexuality, in particular.
2.(of reproduction) Not involving the fusion of gametes.


Are you sure you're asexual?

 

[Slowpool]

"People" is too broad a subject pool for the cancer comparison, since only a subset of people (men) can develop that particular type. The largest population you can have for such a comparison is "Men", not "People". The inclusion of women, who by biological nature cannot be included, in order to provide a biased result makes the "logic" invalid.[/spoiler]

My point is, since gamers are people (and therefore subject to normal human flaws), they are capable of being biased. Since women are not men (and therefore do not have testes), they CANNOT have testicular cancer.

Logic again.

Sounds like you're trolling. Because the point I was making is really really basic formal logic. The point is, from the premisses (many people discriminate & gamers are people) you CANNOT deduce "gamers discriminate" through formal logic. It's just not a correct deduction, the formal rules do not allow it. It has nothing to do with humans, human flaws or testes. It's basic formal logic, get it?

Oh and the testes counter-example made earlier is just spot on.

It has EVERYTHING to do with humans, human flaws and testes, since they are an integral part of the examples. It is, in fact, possible for gamers to be prejudiced. It is not, in fact, possible for women to develop testicular cancer. So the logic of the counter argument is perfectly flawed.

There's two sides to the discussion.
One the one hand, theres the more intuitive discussion if you agree with the claim that gamers discriminate. This has to do with human flaws, character, prejudices, etc.

On the other hand, theres the logical side of the discussion. Formal logic has 'rules' that tell you which deductions are valid and which ones are not. In my counter-example, theres a situation where the premisses do not allow you to deduce the conclusion (I sketch a situation where the premisses are true, but the conclusion is not). Formal logic is a guide book in this works, it won't allow you to make claims stonger than your premisses allow. This the point i'm making, the two premisses the guy made will not allow him to deduce his conclusion (while he made a big point that it did). This is a formal argument and has nothing to do with if i personally agree with the conclusion.

I hate it when i have to spell things out.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the original point was perfect from a purely theoretical standpoint. But the counter example doesn't apply, since the apparent result is impossible, whereas the original's is entirely possible. Formal logic, as you use it, isn't enough to come to the facts- you HAVE to consider possibilities to make a factual statement. Unless formal logic doesn't require the consideration of possibilities? If this is the case, formal logic itself is not enough to come to a factual conclusion to the issue at hand, and this whole discussion is an exercise in futility and I'm surprised it took me this long to figure it out.

If that is the case, let's discuss baby hedgehogs.

 

[Firehound]

Let me explain this to you. Anonymity Plus normal person plus audience equals total fuckwad. And the scientist who discovered this.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/

For the question posed in the thread title: Most people assume anyone who doesn't play the same or for the same reasons are wrong. For example, I have a friend who can't wrap his head around games that are impossible to win. He berates anyone(including yours truly) for playing games like minecraft, even when such games are being used as an example for reasons other then gameplay.

Likewise, I know people who think any game that you don't get a AR of some sort and the ability to magnetically stick to walls and knee high-fences are not a real game. Some vehementally hate games that involve strategic or tactical aspects, such as many games produced by Paradox studios. It's silly, but gamers tend to feel that their method is the only right way to enjoy games, and it is something that can turn people away from games.

 

[Twad]

.. Why would i discriminate other gamers? Its hard enough to get guenuine helpfull/good players in MP games, im not gonna waste a potential teamate for stupid reasons.

The only time i dont want to play with others is when they are being trolls/griefers on purpose. I tolerate pretty much everything else, at worst they act as bait. At best they make for one heck of a fun game. Ya know, "that one game" where everything just went perfectly well, when you didnt really need to communicate and yet everything and everyone did their thing flawlessly. Fun times.

THe only thing remotely like "discrimination" i saw was when my friends happened to talk french on a L4D2 game and some idiot kicked one out "just 'cause he talked french". We chewed him out real good, he quit, got our buddy back, played and had a fun time.

 

[zilatel]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the original point was perfect from a purely theoretical standpoint. But the counter example doesn't apply, since the apparent result is impossible, whereas the original's is entirely possible. Formal logic, as you use it, isn't enough to come to the facts- you HAVE to consider possibilities to make a factual statement. Unless formal logic doesn't require the consideration of possibilities? If this is the case, formal logic itself is not enough to come to a factual conclusion to the issue at hand, and this whole discussion is an exercise in futility and I'm surprised it took me this long to figure it out.

The counter example shows that IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAS TO BE THE CASE that IF many people discriminate AND gamers are people THEN gamers discriminate. Since there are situations where thats not true (the counter example shows that).
If it doesn't ALWAYS hold (it doesnt hold in the counter example), then you can't just say it's true on the basis of the argument (which is what the point was of the original guy, with the logic in caps).
And formal logic is just formal logic, it's not how i use it, thats just how it is. And it can account for factual statements. If its morning, the sun comes up. It's morning. So what can we deduce? The sun comes up. Thats pretty factual (you see the same pattern as in the argument we were having?).
Formal logic deals with deduction. If you hold something to be true (fact or assumption) and you have formal rules that can deduce other truths from that initial fact, then you have new deduced truths. But in the 'gamers will discriminate' argument, the new facts were wrongly deduced, and thus are not fact. So you cannot deduce from those initial facts, that gamers will discriminate, purely on the logical form. Regardless of if we personally agree with the statement or what's up with humans, flaws or even testes!

 

[darkfox85]

Hello everyone

I?d like to throw my hat in with the interesting logic-chopping discussion going on here. I hope no one gets cross, but I feel the OP has been adequately answered in his distress and much of the arguments involve people who just disagree on the use of words such as ?discrimination?, ?asexual? etc.

I?ve only just realised how rusty I am when it comes to logic and I think I need a bit of help. So I?m coming forward with very low confidence.

Let me put forward a proposition.

?All elephants are pink. Nellie is an elephant. Therefore Nellie is pink.?

As far as I can see, this statement is logically sound (hypothetical syllogism.) But, as a comparative to others who have had problems with the propositions put forward in this thread, there is a problem with the premise ? elephants aren?t pink.

Of course elephants aren?t pink. But the accuracy of the information presented in the premise is not for the field of logic to (entirely) bother itself with. There?s a fallacy going on certainly, but I?m not sure to what extent logic can be used to help us.

e.g.

?All attenzies are toropptik. Urriweq is an attenzies. Therefore Urriweq is a toropptik.?

Logically sound, complete nonsense. Logic is about the reasoning and argument structure (amongst other things) not about the information presented. This is a criticism of logic in that it might not be too effective at determining truth.

I see many ways I have this wrong and I?m very worried about it. This is especially true if you wish to bring in ?deductive reasoning?, or mention that logic is much more expansive than my silly examples, or perhaps I?ve mistaken ?soundness? for ?validity.?

By all means, I welcome corrections and only hope I don?t degrade the debate.

 

[Hoplon]

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

Also, people are dicks.