| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
squirrel_wrangler[spoink]
Trick Member
Joined: 21 May 2002
Location: work |
60.  Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| KoFFreaK wrote: | | squirrel_wrangler[spoink] wrote: |
He asked for our opinions. The opinion of many people who post on this site is that it would be a bad idea because of the reasons already mentioned in this thread. Why is it that just because people think it's a bad idea they are flaming him? If he/she only wanted positive feedback then he/she should have said so. These are the honest opinions of people who have already given their opinions on the subject numerous times. |
What are the reasons it would be a bad idea? I've yet to see these reasons. Is one of them "yeah lets make a sandal scoreboard too!"? |
I'm pretty sure I listed reasons why I felt it was a bad idea. Let me check.... Yes I did. Now either you haven't been reading any of the posts which have explained to you valid reasons for not including a bar section or you did read them and just don't understand. My guess is the latter but either way it would be pointless to further explain to you why it is a bad idea. I'll let cory continue to do so for now.
| KoFFreaK wrote: | You quoted AA Bob on the last part in bold, but didnt comment on it, here it is again:
| Quote: | | You could ignore it. It wouldn't affect you in any way, at all, ever. |
And thanks AA Bob for making my point readable to others. |
Apparently things in bold are easier for you to understand. OK.
| KoFFreak wrote: | | So I really want to hear what you guys think about this |
I then told you how I feel. If you're going to throw a fit after presenting an idea that gets shot down, most often by people who do so in a way that clearly explains their views on the subject, then perhaps you shouldn't ask people how they feel. Maybe you should include a disclaimer at the end of the post that asks only people who whole-hearedly agree with you and your position on this to post, and then only post in a way that clearly demonstrates that they agree with you.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KoFFreaK
Trick Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: s0caL |
| 61. Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just realized, I dont have to respond to you to make some of my points valid, because obviously other people can see them. Not that I will ignore you, but because there are things in this thread other people see that either you cant see, refuse to see, or to simply contradict no-bar players. Simple logic really: endless debating on bar/no bar threads....minimal debating on no shoe scores, that if asked for a separate section, it will not be taken seriously.
There is much history and reference to bar/no-bar debates, that it might even be taken seriously even by bar-players.
Everything else you mentioned, like shoe-less, sandal, backwards, stabbing your foot and whatnot, is not going to be taken seriously, because...c'mon, do I really need to explain myself?
EDIT:
As for "Aaron", many things to say, but I need some sleep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 62. Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KoFFreaK wrote: | | I just realized, I dont have to respond to you to make some of my points valid, because obviously other people can see them. |
So basically, we just spent a long time trying to give you sober refutations, and you just posted that you were too much of a coward to reply to them. Socrates is rolling over in his grave.
| KoFFreaK wrote: | | Not that I will ignore you, but because there are things in this thread other people see that either you cant see |
I'm probably smarter than everyone on this thread (please pardon the arrogance). I can probably see what anyone else can see.
| KoFFreaK wrote: | | refuse to see, |
I can't refuse to see something; I'm HFA.
| KoFFreaK wrote: | | or to simply contradict no-bar players. |
I refuted your position, I didn't simply contradict it.
| KoFFreaK wrote: | | Simple logic really: endless debating on bar/no bar threads....minimal debating on no shoe scores, that if asked for a separate section, it will not be taken seriously. |
Yes, we covered that already. Your argument is that if lots of people talk about something, that instantly makes it reasonable. Even if all the talk is one-sided, and the position is refuted, if people talk about it THEN BY GOSH IT MUST BE WORTH SOMETHING.
I refuted this with an argument from reductio to anti-semitism. Would you like me to go slower? Would you like me to write the argument in symbolic logic? Would you like me to tape the words "reductio" onto a sledgehammer and hit you in the face with it?
| KoFFreaK wrote: | | There is much history and reference to bar/no-bar debates, that it might even be taken seriously even by bar-players. |
There is much history and reference to evolution/creationism debates, that it might even be taken seriously even by evolutionary biologists.
| KoFFreaK wrote: | | Everything else you mentioned, like shoe-less, sandal, backwards, stabbing your foot and whatnot, is not going to be taken seriously, because...c'mon, do I really need to explain myself? |
Let me give you a hint buddy: your idea isn't being taken seriously by anyone either. Until you can refute something in the actual argument, it will continue not to be.
| KoFFreaK wrote: | EDIT:
As for "Aaron", I have absolutely no idea how to respond to anything he just said so I'm going to hope someone else does it for me |
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AA Bob
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Alllll right! |
| 63. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| squirrel_wrangler[spoink] wrote: | | They already have a difficult enough time making sure the scores that are listed now are legitimate, it would be nearly impossible to police a no-bar section. |
This is a valid point. I'm not entirely sure what the solution would be. Requiring everybody to provide proof for every score would be inconvenient for the players. I'm sure that something could be worked out, though.
| squirrel_wrangler[spoink] wrote: | | AA Bob wrote: | | Also - while you could say that using the bar is just limiting yourself, I say it's challenging yourself. |
I think you mean not using the bar. |
Whoops, you're right.
| squirrel_wrangler[spoink] wrote: | | AA Bob wrote: | | Sure, you won't score as well. Sure, you'd be stupid as hell to not use it on a difficult song in a tourney. But some people enjoy playing without the bar. |
What is a difficult song according to you? I would say any player would be stupid as hell to not use the bar on any song if not using it would decrease their chance of winning in a tournament they wanted to win. |
That's what I meant. I didn't say "any song" because some people actually do worse with the bar on really easy songs (like 8s and below).
| squirrel_wrangler[spoink] wrote: | | I would also say that not using the bar on a song where using the bar would most likely increase your score is stupid as hell any time you are trying to get a good score |
If you're trying to get the highest score you can, sure. But like I said before, some people enjoy no-bar play and try to improve their bar and no-bar scores, even though the no-bar scores will almost always be lower. I think that there are enough of these people to warrant a separate no-bar ranking (but not enough for, say, a separate x1.5 Hallway ranking).
| squirrel_wrangler[spoink] wrote: | | He asked for our opinions. The opinion of many people who post on this site is that it would be a bad idea because of the reasons already mentioned in this thread. |
But as I look through the thread, I see people saying that it's a bad idea because nobody should be telling anybody how to play. People immediately treated this like a bar debate, something it wasn't supposed to be.
| John Locke wrote: | | AA Bob wrote: | | Also - while you could say that using the bar is just limiting yourself, I say it's challenging yourself. |
Yknow what else is challenging yourself? Stabbing yourself in the foot before you play. I say THAT's the REAL challenge. Let's make a seperate section for that. |
Nobody would want a ranking for that.
Also, do you try to come across as an ass half the time, or do you just not realize you're doing it?
_________________
My Recall (home scores)
DDR/ITG videos
| Emptyeye wrote: | | So um, is it bad that awhile ago I was watching Family Guy, and when Quagmire came on, I thought something to the effect of "Whoa, It's AA Bob!" (I don't remember if the exact thought was "It's AA Bob" or "It's AA Bob's avatar", but I don't think it matters in this case)? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 64. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AA Bob wrote: | | Nobody would want a ranking for that. |
I want my sandals ranking.
Your argument is exactly the same: lots of people think X therefore X must have some validity. Where were you guys in 1938?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AA Bob
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Alllll right! |
| 65. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
More like "lots of people want X, it wouldn't affect the people who don't want it, therefore it's a good idea." I certainly don't think that just because an idea is popular, it must be good.
_________________
My Recall (home scores)
DDR/ITG videos
| Emptyeye wrote: | | So um, is it bad that awhile ago I was watching Family Guy, and when Quagmire came on, I thought something to the effect of "Whoa, It's AA Bob!" (I don't remember if the exact thought was "It's AA Bob" or "It's AA Bob's avatar", but I don't think it matters in this case)? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DAF
Trick Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Location: In CP |
| 66. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
The best thing to come out of this thread was the gargoyle link.
_________________
Drink up baby, stay up all night
With the things you could do
You won't but you might
The potential you'll be that you'll never see
The promises you'll only make |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
squirrel_wrangler[spoink]
Trick Member
Joined: 21 May 2002
Location: work |
| 67. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AA Bob wrote: | | squirrel_wrangler[spoink] wrote: | | They already have a difficult enough time making sure the scores that are listed now are legitimate, it would be nearly impossible to police a no-bar section. |
This is a valid point. I'm not entirely sure what the solution would be. Requiring everybody to provide proof for every score would be inconvenient for the players. I'm sure that something could be worked out, though. |
I just don't think it's the kind of thing where a simple enough solution could be worked out to make an official ranking for it. Perhaps starting a thread in accomplishments on itgfreak would be better. As far as groovestats goes, though, it is up to them to decide whether or not it belongs on the site.
| AA Bob wrote: | | squirrel_wrangler[spoink] wrote: | | I would also say that not using the bar on a song where using the bar would most likely increase your score is stupid as hell any time you are trying to get a good score |
If you're trying to get the highest score you can, sure. But like I said before, some people enjoy no-bar play and try to improve their bar and no-bar scores, even though the no-bar scores will almost always be lower. I think that there are enough of these people to warrant a separate no-bar ranking (but not enough for, say, a separate x1.5 Hallway ranking). |
If you feel this is the case, which I don't, then you and those who agree with you should either email groovestats or set up your own site for it. I realize it wouldn't affect me negatively in any way but I still don't think it deserves it's own ranking system yet. I don't think anyone cares who can get a high score on any expert 9 without the bar because I'm sure people like lilq can quad them with or without the bar. The only interest would be from less than one percent of the community and only in scores obtained on songs that are relatively difficult, like the harder tens and above. This, I don't feel, is enough to warrant inclusion on groovestats, though, as I have said before, this is entirely up to the groovestats admins.
| AA Bob wrote: | | squirrel_wrangler[spoink] wrote: | | He asked for our opinions. The opinion of many people who post on this site is that it would be a bad idea because of the reasons already mentioned in this thread. |
But as I look through the thread, I see people saying that it's a bad idea because nobody should be telling anybody how to play. People immediately treated this like a bar debate, something it wasn't supposed to be. |
Nobody should be telling other people how to play unless they specifically ask for advice or are playing in such a way that it could cause injury to people or damage to the machine or surroundings. This is not the main point of most of the replies however. The major issue is that the only argument for inclusion is that "enough" people like playing no bar but "not enough" like playing in any other way (excluding with bar) to warrant inclusion of a seperate category on groovestats. This is a completely arbitrary distinction and to me it feels like you are being hypocritical when concerning inclusion of a 1.5x hallway section for example. You are dismissing the example of inclusion of a 1.5x hallway section on the same grounds that we have argued against a no-bar section.
I think the best thing is for no-bar players to make a thread either in this forum or in Accomplishments on ITGFreak. This would give you an idea of how many people are interested in actually having this sort of ranking system and if you choose to pursue convincing groovestats to create a no-bar section then it would give you some evidence to support your claims of how popular no-bar actually is.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
0rion
Trick Member
Joined: 02 May 2005
Location: Kirby will explain it to you. |
| 68. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Just when I think I'm out, they PULL ME BACK IN." Or maybe I just don't like someone being unfairly berated like this. I mean, seriously, the ego is so unbelievably THICK in here that you can cut it with a knife.
| IHYD.DukAmok wrote: | holy crap why is this even an issue any more
oh wait i know its because everyones a goddamned idiot |
| cody change your username wrote: | | koffreak, you're a pompous idiot and you need to shut the frick up. |
And of course, let's have a hand for him. You know who he is! Let's give a big hand to...
| John Locke wrote: | | What a great idea. We should also make a section for people who play in sandals. And people who play facing away from the machine. And people who play while twelve-boxing a team of parapelegic midgets with Montezuma's Revenge. |
| John Locke wrote: | | So basically your argument is: sure, there might be no argument whatsoever for no bar being less arbitrary than anything else, my entire position might be utterly ludicrous, but LOTS OF PEOPLE DEBATE IT and that makes it right. |
| John Locke wrote: | | Allow me to be plainer: your response to me wasn't even a coherent thought. I can't reply to it for the same reason I can't reply to "aughdugfhs." |
This is the kind of belittling garbage I've come to expect of you. It's never enough for you to say to someone that they're not making a good point. You have to always go that extra mile and imply that they're stupid or incapable of recognizing intelligent and coherent thoughts (read: whatever you say). Honestly, if you've ever been in a debate when you didn't dehumanize someone for saying something you don't agree with or can't see the logic in, please let me know, because I've never seen it.
| John Locke wrote: | | No, Orion is wrong. I'd be more than happy to respond to a sober argument for your position. But when you spew out BS for five pages without adding a single sentence of content, what are we supposed to do? |
Well, that's clearly a lie. AA Bob made some points in favor of his idea, and you disregarded what he said, as well.
| John Locke wrote: | | You've said nothing on this thread. You've talked for five pages without saying anything. Until you present an argument, everything you've said on this thread is just worthless. There's nothing to reply to. |
| John Locke wrote: | | So basically, we just spent a long time trying to give you sober refutations, and you just posted that you were too much of a coward to reply to them. Socrates is rolling over in his grave. |
This made me laugh. You of all people should know that Socrates played devil's advocate all the time. He would hear an idea, no matter how ridiculous or off-base, and acknowledge it. Everyone that knows anything about philosophy knows that he was a master of double-irony; in that he would tell someone to teach him because he knows nothing. He would say that in front of his students who knew that he would listen to the point being made and be able to easily refute it. The irony his students did not see, however, was that Socrates actually WAS listening to his opponent's point of view because he truly wanted to learn something and broaden his mind, whether it be directly or indirectly from what is said.
I've never seen a mind so completely compact as yours, Kiba, as intelligent as you are.
| John Locke wrote: | | I'm probably smarter than everyone on this thread (please pardon the arrogance). I can probably see what anyone else can see. |
You know, this isn't the first time you've said this. And other than being occasionally obtuse with no real necessity or purpose, you really haven't shown it.
So, yes. Let's talk about your sandals division idea, right? It really shows HIM what a stupid person he is! "Ha ha! You can't defeat my super-logic, because I've come up with an applicable comparison that's vaguely relevant!"
And who knows? You might be right! After all, we're all doing the same thing, right? So we should all be in the same division. And why not? You have a CHOICE to play using the bar, and playing in comfortable shoes, right?
So, let's take that one step further. I hereby propose that every boxer that fights a professional match should all be in the same division.
If someone comes in and says "That's not fair! My opponent is 200 pounds heavier than I am!" you can simply say, "Well, it's your choice to be a featherweight. Go ahead and gain weight so you'll be bigger."
Or maybe someone starts a flag football league and is then forced to take on the Miami Vikings. "It's okay," you tell them. "Playing using the flags is an arbitrary limitation. If you want to be competitive, you have to play tackle football."
"But I've always played flag football! I have more fun that way!" he complains. "Well, then you should have thought of that before we started playing our way, which is more competitive. There's no reason you should limit yourself when you can be so much better like we are. Your abilities count for nothing on a competitive level."
William Tell was arbitrarily limiting himself with a blindfold.
Professional baseball is arbitrarily limiting itself by not utilizing the "short field" 10th position.
I arbitrarily limited myself when I mowed my lawn using a standard lawnmower instead of a riding mower.
It's an arbitrary limitation to drive down the street in anything smaller than an S.U.V.
It's an arbitrary limitation to take the less popular side in a debate.
It's an arbitrary limitation to spell out your username with anything MORE than the minimum letter requirement.
It's an arbitrary limitation to chew and swallow your food instead of using an IV.
WELL, SOME OF US DON'T MIND ARTBITRARY LIMITATIONS. THAT DOESN'T MAKE US STUPID OR NON-COMPETITIVE OR CLOSED-MINDED.
And as unworkable as his idea is, I still think it's completely unfair that you say that non-bar players shouldn't be able to see how good they are against other non-bar players, just for the hell of it. They're not playing "competitively," so they shouldn't be able to see how other people that are like them compare to them. Yes, this is a very intelligent debate we've got going on, here. You're a intelligent person, Kiba. As a matter of fact, all you have to do is agree that someone that says something unpopular is rambling incoherently, and YOU can be smart, too!
(Jesus. This is such a waste of time and effort.)
_________________
-Sir "O"
There's a little yellow bird on my avatar. (Brawl FC: 4640-1720-6690)
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GotACoolName
Trick Member
Joined: 28 May 2006
Location: Hales Corners, Wisconsin |
| 69. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
u explode
_________________
Brawl FC: 4725-7610-1200 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tweek
Trick Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2006
|
| 70. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm having trouble coming up with a better word for "Royally-pwned-in-the-buttocks" in response to Sir 0rion's post, but nothing is coming to mind.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boochypa
Trick Member
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Location: VA Tech |
| 71. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like how every time someone makes a big long post usually with some words bolded or enlarged for emphasis someone who can't think for himself comes in and says "lol pwned."
Too bad none of his examples of "arbitrary limitations" were actually arbitrary.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evil_pied
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
|
| 72. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Boochypa wrote: | | Too bad none of his examples of "arbitrary limitations" were actually arbitrary. |
Nevertheless they're still on par with not using the bar on a dancing game.
The point still stands.
It makes sence to think of DDR as a sport when you think about how many tournaments there are and how competitive people get about it. There are multiple ways to check your ability against the ability of others, so I don't see how it would be a huge stretch to add a "no bar" or "no mods" division to any of these score checking methods. In many sports there are different divisions with different rules although it's still the same sport. (I.E. College basketball as compared to pro basketball). There are seperate rankings for each of these divisions. When you think about it, it makes sense to have a seperate division for no bar players to see how they stack up against one another.
Orion...respect.
Last edited by Evil_pied on Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 73. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | This is the kind of belittling garbage I've come to expect of you. It's never enough for you to say to someone that they're not making a good point. You have to always go that extra mile and imply that they're stupid or incapable of recognizing intelligent and coherent thoughts (read: whatever you say). Honestly, if you've ever been in a debate when you didn't dehumanize someone for saying something you don't agree with or can't see the logic in, please let me know, because I've never seen it. |
You might try: every essay (except for one) I have ever published. That's about...maybe...1,300 pages?
I'm a professional philosopher. Most of the people I write to are also professional philosophers. Most of the positions I disagree with are incredibly elegant and well-reasoned. I make points very conservatively and respectfully in these contexts. If you've ever seen me debate with, say, Kilroy (a very well-educated person) you'll see that.
I'm also professionally trained in rhetoric. The same sort of language I use in say, this essay arguing against Linear Modal Semantics is innapropriate in this context.
I also make a point of never calling anyone an idiot (or believing that). I call people's positions idiotic (or poorly reasoned) but not their person. That's a big difference. I can also get a lot more fiery than you see here. Check out this published essay to see me at about the limit of my rhetorical powers.
Arguing that my rhetoric disqualifies my point is a fallacious use of the ad hominem argument - and if that is what you are trying to say then your point is bankrupt. Saying you dislike how I write is subjective and your perogative, but I'm not going to change it. Focus on the content, not the form.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Well, that's clearly a lie. AA Bob made some points in favor of his idea, and you disregarded what he said, as well. |
I addrressed every point of content on this thread. I am neurologically incapable of ignoring an argument for effect (I am HFA).
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | This made me laugh. You of all people should know that Socrates played devil's advocate all the time. He would hear an idea, no matter how ridiculous or off-base, and acknowledge it. Everyone that knows anything about philosophy knows that he was a master of double-irony; in that he would tell someone to teach him because he knows nothing. He would say that in front of his students who knew that he would listen to the point being made and be able to easily refute it. The irony his students did not see, however, was that Socrates actually WAS listening to his opponent's point of view because he truly wanted to learn something and broaden his mind, whether it be directly or indirectly from what is said. |
You've missed the point of the remark. It is true that Socrates is open-minded, to reasoned objection, as I am as well (more on that in a minute). Socrates, also, however identifies and defends the first definition of intellectual cowardice. Quickly reading "The Apology" you will discover that Socrates believes (as a subset of moral intellectualism, but even later as a positive virtue) that if you hold a position X and you are presented with an opposing argument Y you are morally obligated to either refute Y or change your view. This idea persists clear as a razor through the Platonic Dialogues, and is later picked up by Nietzsche in the essay "Schopenhauer as Educator" in which he identifies it by the name we still use. When the OP ignored a refutation to his view, neither refuting nor conceding the point, he offended this essentially socratic moral obligation. That was the point of the remark.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | I've never seen a mind so completely compact as yours, Kiba, as intelligent as you are. |
I have no idea what this means. I assume you mean (by compact) "close-minded." The irony of this comment is that I am (somewhat) infamous for being one of the only serious modern defenders of Pyrrhonian Skepticism (open-mindedness to literally everything).
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | You know, this isn't the first time you've said this. And other than being occasionally obtuse with no real necessity or purpose, you really haven't shown it. |
I'm making a statiscal observation. I'm smarter than most people, so the odds of one of the people in the small subclass of people smarter than I posting on this thread is extremely low. Not impossible, but extremely low. As for showing it, you might try reading that essay on Non-Linear Modal Semantics. I wrote it when I was seventeen.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | So, yes. Let's talk about your sandals division idea, right? It really shows HIM what a stupid person he is! |
It certainly does not nor is it intended to. I never try to show that someone is a stupid PERSON. It does show him that the idea is wrong, by valid instanciation of the argument by reductio ad absurdum.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | "Ha ha! You can't defeat my super-logic, because I've come up with an applicable comparison that's vaguely relevant!" |
It isn't a comparison. It's a reductio. Do you understand the distinction?
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | And who knows? You might be right! |
I can prove that refutation is sound (within the bounds of normal logic).
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | After all, we're all doing the same thing, right? So we should all be in the same division. And why not? You have a CHOICE to play using the bar, and playing in comfortable shoes, right?
So, let's take that one step further. I hereby propose that every boxer that fights a professional match should all be in the same division.
If someone comes in and says "That's not fair! My opponent is 200 pounds heavier than I am!" you can simply say, "Well, it's your choice to be a featherweight. Go ahead and gain weight so you'll be bigger."
Or maybe someone starts a flag football league and is then forced to take on the Miami Vikings. "It's okay," you tell them. "Playing using the flags is an arbitrary limitation. If you want to be competitive, you have to play tackle football."
"But I've always played flag football! I have more fun that way!" he complains. "Well, then you should have thought of that before we started playing our way, which is more competitive. There's no reason you should limit yourself when you can be so much better like we are. Your abilities count for nothing on a competitive level." |
All of those are correct continuations of the argument. I would argue that if you want to decide who the best fighter is, you can't use boxing. If you want to decide who the best football player is, you can't use flag football. I don't see, however, any claim of the same from boxing or from flag football. By contrast, I see the non-limited versions of those sports (say, Vale Tudo), properly (in my opinion) making such claims.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | William Tell was arbitrarily limiting himself with a blindfold. |
He was as a precision archer, correct. Precision archery does not have a blindfold division.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Professional baseball is arbitrarily limiting itself by not utilizing the "short field" 10th position. |
Not so, the formal definition of baseball contains only nine positions. I can elaborate here if you like, but it gets complicated very fast (and very quickly becomes philosophy of language, where I am not as skilled and most people have no skill whatsoever).
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | I arbitrarily limited myself when I mowed my lawn using a standard lawnmower instead of a riding mower. |
In the context of a speed-mower, you did, that's correct. Speed-Mowing, if it exists, ought not to make a seperate division for standard lawnmowers.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | It's an arbitrary limitation to drive down the street in anything smaller than an S.U.V. |
That doesn't make any sense. Limitation of what?
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | It's an arbitrary limitation to take the less popular side in a debate. |
That also doesn't make any sense. What if you actually believe that side? Did you mean formal debate? What are you talking about?
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | It's an arbitrary limitation to spell out your username with anything MORE than the minimum letter requirement. |
Also makes no sense, it depends on the reason for the username.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | It's an arbitrary limitation to chew and swallow your food instead of using an IV. |
For the purposes of nutrition, that's correct, it is.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | WELL, SOME OF US DON'T MIND ARTBITRARY LIMITATIONS. THAT DOESN'T MAKE US STUPID OR NON-COMPETITIVE OR CLOSED-MINDED. |
Of course not. Play with whatever arbitrary limitations you like, I couldn't care less.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | And as unworkable as his idea is, I still think it's completely unfair that you say that non-bar players shouldn't be able to see how good they are against other non-bar players, just for the hell of it. |
I'm not saying they shouldn't. I never say that throughout the thread. I said his specific proposal (modifying GS in that way) is impractical for the reasons Aaron (amongst others) have given. If he wants to make his own no-bar website, he is more than welcome.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Yes, this is a very intelligent debate we've got going on, here. |
No, it isn't. The debate between John Rawls and Robert Nozick was a very intelligent debate.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | You're a intelligent person, Kiba. |
Yes, I am.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | As a matter of fact, all you have to do is agree that someone that says something unpopular is rambling incoherently, and YOU can be smart, too! |
Nietzsche, Socrates and Jefferson all said things that were once unpopular as well. They also had very good reasons, and that's the point.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | (Jesus. This is such a waste of time and effort.) |
I certainly don't think of it as such, I just think you're wrong.
| Izzy^2 wrote: | | I'm having trouble coming up with a better word for "Royally-pwned-in-the-buttocks" in response to Sir 0rion's post, but nothing is coming to mind. |
Feel free to defend his argument.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | It makes since to think of DDR as a sport when you think about how many tournaments there are and how competitive people get about it. There are multiple ways to check your ability against the ability of others, so I don't see how it would be a huge stretch to add a "no bar" or "no mods" division to any of these score checking methods. In many sports there are different divisions with different rules although it's still the same sport. (I.E. College basketball as compared to pro basketball). There are seperate rankings for each of these divisions. When you think about it, it makes sense to have a seperate division for no bar players to see how they stack up against one another. |
You've totally missed the entire point of the argument.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IHYD.Blake
Vivid Member
Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Location: Solar City, California |
| 74. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So about that 5x invisible groovstats, eh?
I cant think of a better word for that response than,
PWNED IN THE FATHOLE!!!!!
Such intelligence.
You guys should all go play a dancing game or something.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AA Bob
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Alllll right! |
| 75. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Novalis wrote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | This is the kind of belittling garbage I've come to expect of you. It's never enough for you to say to someone that they're not making a good point. You have to always go that extra mile and imply that they're stupid or incapable of recognizing intelligent and coherent thoughts (read: whatever you say). Honestly, if you've ever been in a debate when you didn't dehumanize someone for saying something you don't agree with or can't see the logic in, please let me know, because I've never seen it. |
You might try: every essay (except for one) I have ever published. That's about...maybe...1,300 pages? |
Okay then...but how many debates have had on this forum without implying that the other person is idiotic? Very few, or none. I think it's either because you like getting a reaction out of people by subtly insulting them, or because you really can't tell you're doing it. Based on the "I didn't call him an idiot, I just said that his comment was idiotic" incident in a recent thread, I think it's the latter.
| Novalis wrote: | | I'm a professional philosopher. Most of the people I write to are also professional philosophers. Most of the positions I disagree with are incredibly elegant and well-reasoned. I make points very conservatively and respectfully in these contexts. |
You should do that no matter who you're arguing with.
| Novalis wrote: | | Evil_pied wrote: | | It makes since to think of DDR as a sport when you think about how many tournaments there are and how competitive people get about it. There are multiple ways to check your ability against the ability of others, so I don't see how it would be a huge stretch to add a "no bar" or "no mods" division to any of these score checking methods. In many sports there are different divisions with different rules although it's still the same sport. (I.E. College basketball as compared to pro basketball). There are seperate rankings for each of these divisions. When you think about it, it makes sense to have a seperate division for no bar players to see how they stack up against one another. |
You've totally missed the entire point of the argument. |
Actually, he hit the nail right on the head. What's wrong with his post?
P.S. to George W. Bush and everybody else who feels that it's their job to be Kiba's personal cheerleader every time he makes a long post: keep it to yourself, nobody wants to hear it.
_________________
My Recall (home scores)
DDR/ITG videos
| Emptyeye wrote: | | So um, is it bad that awhile ago I was watching Family Guy, and when Quagmire came on, I thought something to the effect of "Whoa, It's AA Bob!" (I don't remember if the exact thought was "It's AA Bob" or "It's AA Bob's avatar", but I don't think it matters in this case)? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IHYD.Blake
Vivid Member
Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Location: Solar City, California |
| 76. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm the president, you dont mess with me.
We must fight for freedom.
~Pay your taxes
George W. Bush
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 77. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AA Bob wrote: | | You should do that no matter who you're arguing with. |
Alright, for one post, I'll post as I do when I write serious philosophy:
| AA Bob wrote: | | Actually, he hit the nail right on the head. What's wrong with his post? |
Vx(Dx^~Ax -> Lx), (PR)
Vx(Dx^Ax -> ~Lx), (PR)
Vx(Nx <-> Ax) (AR)
Evil: ~(~Ax), Lx
1-3-4 Contradict, 1-3, therefore not 4. [Normality Preserved]
-------------------------
D: division
A: arbitrary
L: legitimate
N: no-bar
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AA Bob
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Alllll right! |
| 78. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WOW UR SO SMART
Is that what you were looking for? Because this (I'm sure you realize) is what happened:
- Orion says that he's never seen you debate something without implying that the person you disagree with is an idiot.
- You say that you're a professional philosopher and that when talking to other professional philosophers, you make your points respectfully.
- I say that you should do that (be respectful) regardless of who you're talking to.
- You post...whatever it was you just posted. I said you should be respectful, not convert your argument into some esoteric gibberish.
_________________
My Recall (home scores)
DDR/ITG videos
| Emptyeye wrote: | | So um, is it bad that awhile ago I was watching Family Guy, and when Quagmire came on, I thought something to the effect of "Whoa, It's AA Bob!" (I don't remember if the exact thought was "It's AA Bob" or "It's AA Bob's avatar", but I don't think it matters in this case)? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Synaesthesia
Trick Member
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Location: Crushing all deceivers, smashing non-believers |
| 79. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's symbolic logic, it makes perfect sense. If no-bar player really wanted their own ranking, why don't they just create their own ranking site? Unless there are too few of them to care, which I think is the likely case.
_________________
im a lasagna whale
G_G
Last edited by Synaesthesia on Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
Forums FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
