Steam and Linux Are Now an Item

[Lukeje]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

 

[Clearing the Eye]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

 

[Lukeje]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

 

[MorganL4]

Interested gamer here

<----------------


I have been waiting for this announcement for years!!!

 

[Clearing the Eye]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

 

[Lukeje]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Are you saying that logic is not part of philosophy? (Why yes, that is a straw man... > )

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

So after three, maybe four (I can't be bothered to count) definitions you finally found one that supports your position. Well done you.

 

[Twilight_guy]

That's interesting. I honestly don't see Unbuntu as having the user base of gamers to support this but if Valve can port games on the cheap then it might still be profitable. It'd be interesting to see how gaming changes if PC gaming wasn't limited to apples and windows.

Also, both sides of the OS argument need to stop being pretentious douches and realize that everyone is old enough to choose there own OS and don't need you argue why there decision is wrong.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Are you saying that logic is not part of philosophy? (Why yes, that is a straw man... > )

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

So after three, maybe four (I can't be bothered to count) definitions you finally found one that supports your position. Well done you.

Actually, I quoted one definition. Nice straw man.

"A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

"An argument, claim or opponent which is invented in order to defeat or create an argument" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/straw-man_2

"A sham argument set up to be defeated" -
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/straw+man

 

[Lukeje]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Are you saying that logic is not part of philosophy? (Why yes, that is a straw man... > )

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

So after three, maybe four (I can't be bothered to count) definitions you finally found one that supports your position. Well done you.

Actually, I quoted one definition. Nice straw man.

Two. You referenced wikipedia as well. My apologies, I apparently misremembered one of the definitions you presumed as actually being sourced. (And thus by your definition is not a straw man).

"A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

"An argument, claim or opponent which is invented in order to defeat or create an argument" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/straw-man_2

"A sham argument set up to be defeated" -
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/straw+man

Fine; I'll agree that the straw man usually has malice behind it.

So shall we go back to the original argument then? You agree that the straw man is separate from the attack? This is evident in all your quotations.

(Edit: leaving aside the `appeal to authority' )

 

[Clearing the Eye]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Are you saying that logic is not part of philosophy? (Why yes, that is a straw man... > )

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

So after three, maybe four (I can't be bothered to count) definitions you finally found one that supports your position. Well done you.

Actually, I quoted one definition. Nice straw man.

Two. You referenced wikipedia as well. My apologies, I apparently misremembered one of the definitions you presumed as actually being sourced. (And thus by your definition is not a straw man).

"A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

"An argument, claim or opponent which is invented in order to defeat or create an argument" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/straw-man_2

"A sham argument set up to be defeated" -
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/straw+man

Fine; I'll agree that the straw man usually has malice behind it.

So shall we go back to the original argument then? You agree that the straw man is separate from the attack? This is evident in all your quotations.

(Edit: leaving aside the `appeal to authority' )

Actually, the only definition I quoted before you said that (besides Merriam, which you attempted to ignore) was Wikipedia.

No, I won't agree that a straw man usually has malice behind it, because it always has malice behind it.

No, I won't agree that a straw man is separate from an attack.

"A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

"An argument, claim or opponent which is invented in order to defeat or create an argument" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/straw-man_2

"A sham argument set up to be defeated" -
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/straw+man

"A weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted" -
Merriam Webster

They all clearly state a straw man is the creation of a fallacy to be refuted. You're either trolling or purposefully ignoring the facts at this point.

 

[Lukeje]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Are you saying that logic is not part of philosophy? (Why yes, that is a straw man... > )

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

So after three, maybe four (I can't be bothered to count) definitions you finally found one that supports your position. Well done you.

Actually, I quoted one definition. Nice straw man.

Two. You referenced wikipedia as well. My apologies, I apparently misremembered one of the definitions you presumed as actually being sourced. (And thus by your definition is not a straw man).

"A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

"An argument, claim or opponent which is invented in order to defeat or create an argument" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/straw-man_2

"A sham argument set up to be defeated" -
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/straw+man

Fine; I'll agree that the straw man usually has malice behind it.

So shall we go back to the original argument then? You agree that the straw man is separate from the attack? This is evident in all your quotations.

(Edit: leaving aside the `appeal to authority' )

Actually, the only definition I quoted before you said that (besides Merriam, which you attempted to ignore) was Wikipedia.

No, I won't agree that a straw man usually has malice behind it, because it always has malice behind it.

No, I won't agree that a straw man is separate from an attack.

Then what was your original argument? That the straw man made by the poster wasn't an attack?

 

[Steve the Pocket]

I can't be bothered to directly quote everyone here, but to all those who said this would convince them to abandon Windows... you do realize that Steam isn't an emulator or a game engine, right? And games aren't like music or videos where all you need is a simple piece of software to make them work on any platform. If the way Steam for Mac worked out is any indication, 90% of the games will never be ported over, even some the ones that have (*cough* Doom and Quake series *cough*) won't actually get on Steam, and even Valve will be too lazy to port over their entire library. All you're getting is a glorified app store and half of one developer's library.

EDIT: Oh, and apparently they're only targeting one distribution even? How does that even work? I thought the whole point of Linux is that every app can run on any distro. Have they really become so fragmented that you can't do that anymore? Good lord.

 

[Yuri Albuquerque]

I can't be bothered to directly quote everyone here, but to all those who said this would convince them to abandon Windows... you do realize that Steam isn't an emulator or a game engine, right? And games aren't like music or videos where all you need is a simple piece of software to make them work on any platform. If the way Steam for Mac worked out is any indication, 90% of the games will never be ported over, even some the ones that have (*cough* Doom and Quake series *cough*) won't actually get on Steam, and even Valve will be too lazy to port over their entire library. All you're getting is a glorified app store and half of one developer's library.

Yes, we do realize all that, but this is a start. A glimpse of hope for Linux users that only use Windows because of games.

 

[RicoADF]

Other than the aforementioned better usage of resources of Linux, I will never understand why people prefer it. I ran it on my laptop for a while, Unbuntu, it was pretty crappy frankly. And my PC is powerful to handle anything I throw it, without windows holding it back.. As are most people's gaming PCs..

I just.. Fail to see any upside of using it rather than windows.

The better usage of resources is a big point, yes your PC can run games easily but think about how much smoother games would run and how much longer you PC would still run them top graphical setting if you didnt have all the bloatware.

For example, my netbook I have (Toshiba NB200) came with Win 7 Starter Edition, and frankly ran crap, just simple tasks felt painfully slow, but I left it for the year or so as I wanted to play gaming on the go. Well finally I had enough and installed Lubuntu on it, and boy is there a change in performance, it feels as smooth as my i7 8GB PC running Win 7 64bit. Sadly that means gaming on the go is limited, but the fact it now runs smoothly is worth it (and before u ask what gaming, Simcity 4, Dark Reign, C&C1-Tiberian Sun and other older games would run on it).

I'm not saying Windows is crap, but if Linux did get running for gaming as well, it'd give people choices, and competition is the best motivator for change and improvement. So it'd be good for windows users as well as those that like Linux.

Btw, it took me 45mins to get this thing running, 2mins to install chrome, and it was fully ready to use as is. Movies play out of the box (via USB DVD drive), flash etc all up and running perfectly. It took less effort and knowledge of IT than windows takes to get running. On a netbook. So anyone says that its complicated, either hasn't tried, has picked the wrong distro, or has chosen the wrong hardware/had some really bad luck. Frankly theres nothing wrong with Linux as a general purpose OS.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Are you saying that logic is not part of philosophy? (Why yes, that is a straw man... > )

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

So after three, maybe four (I can't be bothered to count) definitions you finally found one that supports your position. Well done you.

Actually, I quoted one definition. Nice straw man.

Two. You referenced wikipedia as well. My apologies, I apparently misremembered one of the definitions you presumed as actually being sourced. (And thus by your definition is not a straw man).

"A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

"An argument, claim or opponent which is invented in order to defeat or create an argument" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/straw-man_2

"A sham argument set up to be defeated" -
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/straw+man

Fine; I'll agree that the straw man usually has malice behind it.

So shall we go back to the original argument then? You agree that the straw man is separate from the attack? This is evident in all your quotations.

(Edit: leaving aside the `appeal to authority' )

Actually, the only definition I quoted before you said that (besides Merriam, which you attempted to ignore) was Wikipedia.

No, I won't agree that a straw man usually has malice behind it, because it always has malice behind it.

No, I won't agree that a straw man is separate from an attack.

Then what was your original argument? That the straw man made by the poster wasn't an attack?

I meant exactly what I said; it was an opinion piece. They didn't create a fallacy to rebuke and they weren't in an argument. They used sardonic humor to suggest Linux users are hipsters. That has nothing at all to do with a straw man.

 

[Lukeje]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Are you saying that logic is not part of philosophy? (Why yes, that is a straw man... > )

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

So after three, maybe four (I can't be bothered to count) definitions you finally found one that supports your position. Well done you.

Actually, I quoted one definition. Nice straw man.

Two. You referenced wikipedia as well. My apologies, I apparently misremembered one of the definitions you presumed as actually being sourced. (And thus by your definition is not a straw man).

"A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

"An argument, claim or opponent which is invented in order to defeat or create an argument" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/straw-man_2

"A sham argument set up to be defeated" -
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/straw+man

Fine; I'll agree that the straw man usually has malice behind it.

So shall we go back to the original argument then? You agree that the straw man is separate from the attack? This is evident in all your quotations.

(Edit: leaving aside the `appeal to authority' )

Actually, the only definition I quoted before you said that (besides Merriam, which you attempted to ignore) was Wikipedia.

No, I won't agree that a straw man usually has malice behind it, because it always has malice behind it.

No, I won't agree that a straw man is separate from an attack.

Then what was your original argument? That the straw man made by the poster wasn't an attack?

I meant exactly what I said; it was an opinion piece. They didn't create a fallacy to rebuke and they weren't in an argument. They used sardonic humor to suggest Linux users are hipsters. That has nothing at all to do with a straw man.

So you agree that it was a misrepresentation?

 

[Clearing the Eye]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Are you saying that logic is not part of philosophy? (Why yes, that is a straw man... > )

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

So after three, maybe four (I can't be bothered to count) definitions you finally found one that supports your position. Well done you.

Actually, I quoted one definition. Nice straw man.

Two. You referenced wikipedia as well. My apologies, I apparently misremembered one of the definitions you presumed as actually being sourced. (And thus by your definition is not a straw man).

"A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

"An argument, claim or opponent which is invented in order to defeat or create an argument" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/straw-man_2

"A sham argument set up to be defeated" -
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/straw+man

Fine; I'll agree that the straw man usually has malice behind it.

So shall we go back to the original argument then? You agree that the straw man is separate from the attack? This is evident in all your quotations.

(Edit: leaving aside the `appeal to authority' )

Actually, the only definition I quoted before you said that (besides Merriam, which you attempted to ignore) was Wikipedia.

No, I won't agree that a straw man usually has malice behind it, because it always has malice behind it.

No, I won't agree that a straw man is separate from an attack.

Then what was your original argument? That the straw man made by the poster wasn't an attack?

I meant exactly what I said; it was an opinion piece. They didn't create a fallacy to rebuke and they weren't in an argument. They used sardonic humor to suggest Linux users are hipsters. That has nothing at all to do with a straw man.

So you agree that it was a misrepresentation?

No, I don't. No argument was made to misrepresent. They stated (through "humor") that Linux users are hipsters. That's an opinion.

 

[Lukeje]

So you agree that it was a misrepresentation?

No, I don't. No argument was made to misrepresent. They stated (through "humor") that Linux users are hipsters. That's an opinion.

Now I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

So you agree that it was a misrepresentation?

No, I don't. No argument was made to misrepresent. They stated (through "humor") that Linux users are hipsters. That's an opinion.

Now I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension.

If you've nothing save limp insults and insist on offering nothing at all to the argument besides aforementioned (limp) insults, I suggest you stop. Replying to dictionary definitions and a solid argument with a one line jab is trolling--that is, vacuous comments made solely for the sake of offense.

 

[Lukeje]

So you agree that it was a misrepresentation?

No, I don't. No argument was made to misrepresent. They stated (through "humor") that Linux users are hipsters. That's an opinion.

Now I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension.

If you've nothing save limp insults and insist on offering nothing at all to the argument besides aforementioned (limp) insults, I suggest you stop. Replying to dictionary definitions and a solid argument with a one line jab is trolling--that is, vacuous comments made solely for the sake of offense.

Alright, I'll bite. What's your definition of argument then?