| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
IHYD.Blake
Vivid Member
Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Location: Solar City, California |
80.  Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
itgmetrics
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
0rion
Trick Member
Joined: 02 May 2005
Location: Kirby will explain it to you. |
| 81. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:57 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? |
This is just a little off-base from the conversation, but just out of curiousity, what was the exception? I've only seen one of your essays in the past, and as you said, it did seem relatively balanced.
| Quote: | | 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 suppose what I'm saying is that if you disagree with someone, and if they don't propose something in the best way possible, that doesn't necessarily make what they say idiotic. Impractical, maybe; as is the case here. But not idiotic.
| Quote: | | 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. |
I didn't say that you didn't make a point. I'm saying that you made your point in such a way as to disregard the possibility that a contradictory point of view might have some merit. In other words, I don't know if you meant to sound that way, but you came across as somewhat crass.
| Quote: | | 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). |
Upon further rereading, I'll concede what you said here. I guess I didn't notice before. You have my apologies.
| Quote: | | 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 only takes into account the fallacy that there is no mutual ground of acceptance between X and Y. An argument Z, if you will. The problem lies when the person that defends point Y gets so caught up in defending his point that he will not allow himself to accept the possibility that neither point of view is exactly right. There's no happy meduim, there is only "Defend Y," or "Attack X."
| Quote: | | 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. |
You refuted his view on the ground that it wasn't coherent and that it wasn't workable. And that is not what I am objecting to. My objection is the way you went about it. Now, I wouldn't be so glib as to say "Let's all play nice," because I am MORE than guilty of giving people the rough edge of my tongue when it might not have been called for.
But the point you continually hammered in was not that his point of view was wrong, but that he should stop defending his point of view because he wasn't doing a good job of it.
And what I put forth to you is that it is his perrogative to decide whether or not to fight a losing battle.
| Quote: | | 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). |
That isn't precisely what I meant. What I meant is that you become too focused on the points that you're arguing. You didn't simply say, "This is why I don't like your idea." You kept sticking around and telling KoF how incoherent and - implied, not said - stupid he is for sticking to his guns.
| Quote: | | 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. |
I'll admit it, semantics are not my strong point. And you'll notice that I didn't directly disagree with you, because believe it or not, I have a lot of respect for you. But in cases like this you come off more as someone looking to score points off of someone else than someone who is legitimately intelligent (which you clearly are).
Perhaps I'm confusing intelligence with ego, and I should remind myself that someone can be both intelligent and egotistical about it. Maybe that's the problem that I'm having right now.
| Quote: | | 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? |
It's both. When you explain the way two things are similar to each other, you are comparing them (whatever else you might be doing).
| Quote: | | 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. |
I say this because In the Groove is a limited form of competition. (And on another note, for every small guy vs. big guy vale tudo match I've seen that was worth watching, there are about 30 that are a complete massacre.)
| Quote: | | 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. |
Why not?
| Quote: | | 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? |
Limitation of off-road ability, towing power, and space. And in spite of the poor gas mileage, S.U.Vs are one of the more popular type of vehicles where I live, even moreso than some sports cars.
| Quote: | | 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? |
It was a direct reference to this conversation. What I'm saying is that it'd be easier for me to simply agree with you and move on. I would - and do - have a much tougher time standing in defense of KoF, because it's not the more popularly accepted viewpoint.
Although, looking at this further, I suppose I'm really just making this tougher on both of us, so I guess this point is moot.
| Quote: | | 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. |
It makes sense because longer usernames take a few milliseconds longer to type out. It was an intentionally absurd comparison.
| Quote: | | 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. |
So, once again, does that mean it'd be better if everyone just ate out of IV strands? Even if it WERE possible, what if I decided I prefer to taste and enjoy my meals and didn't WANT to change the way I eat just because it's not the most efficient method.
| Quote: | | 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. |
Then I guess what I'm asking is, why has this become an issue?
| Quote: | | 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. |
I guess we're both good at tongue-in-cheek remarks.
| Quote: | | 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. |
Coming as someone who has read a lot Nietzche's work and tends to disagree with him on more than one occasion, I can still see your point. But are you saying that he's being incoherent in order to stand for what you're defending, or are you saying it simply to be mean? Because even though I'm guessing your intent was the former, it still came off as uncivil and disrespectful to a person that clearly had no malicious intent.
_________________
-Sir "O"
There's a little yellow bird on my avatar. (Brawl FC: 4640-1720-6690)
Last edited by 0rion on Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:08 pm, edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AA Bob
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Alllll right! |
| 82. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Synaesthesia wrote: | | 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. |
Maybe there are a lot of people who don't care enough to take the initiative and make their own site, but would still find such a site useful if someone decided to make 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 |
| 83. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AA Bob wrote: | WOW UR SO SMART
Is that what you were looking for? |
No. I was explaining why writing in the circumspective, intensely analytic rhetoric I craft for my work is inappropriate in lots of coversations (like this one).
| AA Bob wrote: | | - You post...whatever it was you just posted. I said you should be respectful, not convert your argument into some esoteric gibberish. |
First of all, it isn't gibberish, it's perfectly clear. Second of all, it is maximally respectful - and that's the point.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evil_pied
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
|
| 84. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| novalis wrote: |
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. |
But by using flag football, you CAN see who the best flag football player is.
The purpose of keeping track of no-bar scores is not to find out who the best dancing game players are, but who the best no-bar players are.
You're pretty much saying that you can't find out who the best are of something unless you look at only the top tier of the activity they are performing. I agree in general with this, but I also don't see what's so bad about keeping track of the lower tiers as well. Are college football rankings not kept in spite of the fact that the college teams may be using different rules and less skilled players? Of course they are, just like minor league baseball and high school wrestling and youth martial arts and EVERY SINGLE other sport know to man. Why should dancing games be any different? In denying that dancing games should be granted the common courtesy of having a lower tier/different style division, you're seperating it from every single athletic pursuit ever. Start using some common sense here. WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT HAVING A NO BAR DIVISION? DOES IT AFFECT BAR PLAYERS? NO. WOULD IT BE GOOD FOR NO BAR PLAYERS? YES. It's a win-win situation. Stop bashing it just because you think that your achievement will be considered less in comparison to a no bar achievement. It's a completely different style of gameplay and shouldn't be mixed or argued about. Seperating the two styles is the only thing that would end the bar debate.
| novalis wrote: | | Evil_pied wrote: | | It makes sense 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. |
No I didn't, I adressed the main purpose of the thread. You're the one rambling on about philosophy and a bunch of other bullshit that has nothing to do with DDR or ITG. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 85. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | This is just a little off-base from the conversation, but just out of curiousity, what was the exception? |
That anti-semitism essay was published.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | I suppose what I'm saying is that if you disagree with someone, and if they don't propose something in the best way possible, that doesn't necessarily make what they say idiotic. Impractical, maybe; as is the case here. But not idiotic. |
True. If, however, their idea is refuted, and they fail to respond, that does make their view idiotic.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | I didn't say that you didn't make a point. I'm saying that you made your point in such a way as to disregard the possibility that a contradictory point of view might have some merit. |
I'm perfectly willing to listen to any other rational argument.
| Quote: | | 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 only takes into account the fallacy that there is no mutual ground of acceptance between X and Y. An argument Z, if you will. The problem lies when the person that defends point Y gets so caught up in defending his point that he will not allow himself to accept the possibility that neither point of view is exactly right. There's no happy meduim, there is only "Defend Y," or "Attack X." |
You're missing the point of the example. Giving a reasoned argument which has as a conclusion that X is partially wrong and Z is correct is fine; not giving ANY argument at all is intellectual cowardice.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | My objection is the way you went about it. |
No interest in this at all. Focus on the function, not the form.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | but that he should stop defending his point of view because he wasn't doing a good job of it. |
Quite the opposite. I have consistently demanded he provide any reasoned defense of his view.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | What I meant is that you become too focused on the points that you're arguing. |
I would consider it vastly disrespectful to give anyone's argument less than my undivided attention.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | You didn't simply say, "This is why I don't like your idea." You kept sticking around and telling KoF how incoherent and - implied, not said - stupid he is for sticking to his guns. |
No, how incoherent he is for sticking to his guns without providing a reasoned defense.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | But in cases like this you come off more as someone looking to score points off of someone else than someone who is legitimately intelligent (which you clearly are). |
It doesn't matter to me how I come off.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | So, once again, does that mean it'd be better if everyone just ate out of IV strands? |
For the purposes of nutrition - yes.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Even if it WERE possible, what if I decided I prefer to taste and enjoy my meals and didn't WANT to change the way I eat just because it's not the most efficient method. |
Then you wouldn't be doing it for the sole purpose of nutrition (which is fine).
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 86. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Evil_pied wrote: | | But by using flag football, you CAN see who the best flag football player is. |
Sure, nothing wrong with that.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | The purpose of keeping track of no-bar scores is not to find out who the best dancing game players are, but who the best no-bar players are. |
Yes, we figured that out. Now, if you want to follow the argument of the thread, the next point is this: Either the distinction between bar/no-bar is arbitrary (in which case nobody should care) or the distinction is principled. If the distinction is arbitrary, there is no particular reason to care about it or make it. If the distinction is principled, then there should be. Nobody has yet made an argument for the principality of the decision.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | You're pretty much saying that you can't find out who the best are of something unless you look at only the top tier of the activity they are performing. |
No, I'm not.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT HAVING A NO BAR DIVISION? |
It is impractical and has major problems (like score verification) and, if it is unprincipled, there is no reason to attempt to get over them.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | Stop bashing it just because you think that your achievement will be considered less in comparison to a no bar achievement. |
First of all: I don't play ITG.
Second of all: I'm better (comparitevely) without the bar.
Third of all: This is a fallacious use of the ad-hominem argument.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | It's a completely different style of gameplay and shouldn't be mixed or argued about. Seperating the two styles is the only thing that would end the bar debate. |
Another thing that would end it would be showing that the distinction is arbitrary and therefore meaningless.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | No I didn't, I adressed the main purpose of the thread. |
But you only went one step through the argument. You're on page one - the rest of us are on page three.
| Evil_pied wrote: | | You're the one rambling on about philosophy and a bunch of other bullshit that has nothing to do with DDR or ITG. |
Every single sentence in every single reply on this thread has an exact, specific and discreet point of content directly related to the argument of the thread. I would be more than happy to translate all of it into symbolic logic and prove it to you.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AA Bob
Trick Member
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Alllll right! |
| 87. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Novalis wrote: | | AA Bob wrote: | | - You post...whatever it was you just posted. I said you should be respectful, not convert your argument into some esoteric gibberish. |
First of all, it isn't gibberish, it's perfectly clear. Second of all, it is maximally respectful - and that's the point. |
sdflks93 _ 3 xk^2 slkwesk;
That was my reply. Only it's in a secret code that most people don't know about. Don't tell me you can't tell what it says; it's perfectly clear.
Did it occur to you that I meant it was gibberish to ME? As in, I've never studied it? So don't give me this "it's perfectly clear" nonsense when you know damn well that I wasn't saying "that's just a bunch of random letters than don't have any meaning whatsoever."
More importantly, you failed to address my point (you just attacked a trivial part of it - aren't you supposed to be incapable of ignoring an argument?). None of the above actually has anything to do with this:
| Quote: | - 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. |
_________________
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 |
| 88. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AA Bob wrote: | sdflks93 _ 3 xk^2 slkwesk;
That was my reply. Only it's in a secret code that most people don't know about. Don't tell me you can't tell what it says; it's perfectly clear. |
Is the information for parsing the code available easily at over a thousand pages? Where? Does the code ensure maximal clarity? Prove it. Otherwise, you've totally missed the point.
| AA Bob wrote: | | More importantly, you failed to address my point (you just attacked a trivial part of it - aren't you supposed to be incapable of ignoring an argument?). |
I attacked the very center of the point, which is this: different forms of rhetoric are appropriate to different contexts. Writing like a philosopher, although maximally respectful, is inappropriate to this context, and this is the other way that I write.
That being said, I couldn't care less about the form of my writing, just about the content. If you have anything to say about the content, then I'll be more than happy to take you seriously. If you just want to talk about the form, I really don't care at all.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
0rion
Trick Member
Joined: 02 May 2005
Location: Kirby will explain it to you. |
| 89. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | I suppose what I'm saying is that if you disagree with someone, and if they don't propose something in the best way possible, that doesn't necessarily make what they say idiotic. Impractical, maybe; as is the case here. But not idiotic. |
True. If, however, their idea is refuted, and they fail to respond, that does make their view idiotic. |
Let's be perfectly clear on this: do you mean "Fail to respond," or do you mean "Fail to respond the way you WANT him to,"? Be careful when you say this, because KoF clearly HAS responded to what you've said, so if you choose the former, your point is automatically nullified. And if you choose the latter, then that means AA Bob and KoF are justified in saying YOUR view is idiotic.
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | This only takes into account the fallacy that there is no mutual ground of acceptance between X and Y. An argument Z, if you will. The problem lies when the person that defends point Y gets so caught up in defending his point that he will not allow himself to accept the possibility that neither point of view is exactly right. There's no happy meduim, there is only "Defend Y," or "Attack X." |
You're missing the point of the example. Giving a reasoned argument which has as a conclusion that X is partially wrong and Z is correct is fine; not giving ANY argument at all is intellectual cowardice. |
That is a gross simplification, and it is unbecoming of you. He didn't NOT present an argument. He presented a FLAWED argument, that was perhaps not supplemented by further evidence. You should know better than that.
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | My objection is the way you went about it. |
No interest in this at all. Focus on the function, not the form. |
Form follows function. If you're allowed to tell someone that they're not making their position known in a proper manner, I'm allowed to say the same of you.
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | You didn't simply say, "This is why I don't like your idea." You kept sticking around and telling KoF how incoherent and - implied, not said - stupid he is for sticking to his guns. |
No, how incoherent he is for sticking to his guns without providing a reasoned defense. |
His defense was quite reasonable. He wanted to find a way of giving no-bar players their moment in the sun without taking anything away from the people that play on a competitive level. How is that not reasonable?
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | But in cases like this you come off more as someone looking to score points off of someone else than someone who is legitimately intelligent (which you clearly are). |
It doesn't matter to me how I come off. |
If you say so.
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | So, once again, does that mean it'd be better if everyone just ate out of IV strands? |
For the purposes of nutrition - yes.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Even if it WERE possible, what if I decided I prefer to taste and enjoy my meals and didn't WANT to change the way I eat just because it's not the most efficient method. |
Then you wouldn't be doing it for the sole purpose of nutrition (which is fine). |
Ah. So you're saying that if someone is trying to accomplish something OTHER than the immediate goal pertinent to the activity - in this case, sustenance - the extra effort can be acknowledged and accepted? That is good to hear.
_________________
-Sir "O"
There's a little yellow bird on my avatar. (Brawl FC: 4640-1720-6690)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 90. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Let's be perfectly clear on this: do you mean "Fail to respond," or do you mean "Fail to respond the way you WANT him to,"? |
Neither. I mean "fail to respond with argumentative content."
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | That is a gross simplification, and it is unbecoming of you. He didn't NOT present an argument. He presented a FLAWED argument, that was perhaps not supplemented by further evidence. You should know better than that. |
What argument, flawed or unflawed, has he presented that aims to refute my criticism of his argument for principled differentiation of bar/no-bar?
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Form follows function. If you're allowed to tell someone that they're not making their position known in a proper manner, I'm allowed to say the same of you. |
You're allowed to say it, I just don't care. I'm only interested in content.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | His defense was quite reasonable. He wanted to find a way of giving no-bar players their moment in the sun without taking anything away from the people that play on a competitive level. How is that not reasonable? |
See above. He hasn't presented a response to the refutation of principality in the bar/no-bar differentiation.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Ah. So you're saying that if someone is trying to accomplish something OTHER than the immediate goal pertinent to the activity - in this case, sustenance - the extra effort can be acknowledged and accepted? That is good to hear. |
Sure. For instance, if the goal was culinary excellence, then it would not be aribtrary to eat rather than use an IV (although it would, unless principled, be arbitrary to use an earthern cooking set instead of a more advanced modern one). If the goal was cullinary culture, using an earthern cooking set might not be arbitrary and pointless.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
0rion
Trick Member
Joined: 02 May 2005
Location: Kirby will explain it to you. |
| 91. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Novalis wrote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Let's be perfectly clear on this: do you mean "Fail to respond," or do you mean "Fail to respond the way you WANT him to,"? |
Neither. I mean "fail to respond with argumentative content." |
Meaning that rather than defend himself or agreeing with you, he hemmed and hawed, is that right? Does is response HAVE to be one or the other? And what happens if he NEVER adds anything else, but rather simply says "Well, I still don't agree with what you said." How is that intellectual cowardice? No one said this HAS to be a debate. He is no less redundant for not furthering his points than you are for posting simply to point that out.
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | That is a gross simplification, and it is unbecoming of you. He didn't NOT present an argument. He presented a FLAWED argument, that was perhaps not supplemented by further evidence. You should know better than that. |
What argument, flawed or unflawed, has he presented that aims to refute my criticism of his argument for principled differentiation of bar/no-bar? |
Once again, his argument was that there is no reason not to do it because it wouldn't effect bar players in any way. He also said that it would be nice for no-bar players to see how they compare with others.
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Form follows function. If you're allowed to tell someone that they're not making their position known in a proper manner, I'm allowed to say the same of you. |
You're allowed to say it, I just don't care. I'm only interested in content. |
Then I guess I'm just curious... does being apathetic toward other people and acting like a petulant jerk help persuade people to acknowledge your point of view, or do you do that for effect?
And just why, if you're only interested in content, do you even bother telling me all of this? Because the point now is NOT whether KoF's proposal is acceptable. It's whether your constant verbal abuse was justified.
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | His defense was quite reasonable. He wanted to find a way of giving no-bar players their moment in the sun without taking anything away from the people that play on a competitive level. How is that not reasonable? |
See above. He hasn't presented a response to the refutation of principality in the bar/no-bar differentiation. |
See above. Yes he has.
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Ah. So you're saying that if someone is trying to accomplish something OTHER than the immediate goal pertinent to the activity - in this case, sustenance - the extra effort can be acknowledged and accepted? That is good to hear. |
Sure. For instance, if the goal was culinary excellence, then it would not be aribtrary to eat rather than use an IV (although it would, unless principled, be arbitrary to use an earthern cooking set instead of a more advanced modern one). If the goal was cullinary culture, using an earthern cooking set might not be arbitrary and pointless. |
So, if the goal were to play In The Groove and challenge yourself with the additional handicap of playing without the bar, that means playing without the bar is no longer an arbitrary handicap.
_________________
-Sir "O"
There's a little yellow bird on my avatar. (Brawl FC: 4640-1720-6690)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. S. Mill
Maniac Member
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Location: New York, New York |
| 92. Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Does is response HAVE to be one or the other? |
To have content, yes. Those options exhaust the logical space of replies.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | And what happens if he NEVER adds anything else, but rather simply says "Well, I still don't agree with what you said." How is that intellectual cowardice? |
The short answer is "by definition." The long answer depends on whether you are using the normative or existential meanings of intellectual cowardice. It is both, but for different reasons. It's a pretty long explanation.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Once again, his argument was that there is no reason not to do it because it wouldn't effect bar players in any way. |
There are lots of reasons not to do it; Aaron presented some of them.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Then I guess I'm just curious... does being apathetic toward other people and acting like a petulant jerk help persuade people to acknowledge your point of view, or do you do that for effect? |
I'm not interested in whether other people acknowledge my point of view. I'm interested in whether my point of view is correct.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Because the point now is NOT whether KoF's proposal is acceptable. It's whether your constant verbal abuse was justified. |
I'm not interested in that question, unless you are asking whether or not it violated the forum rules (in which case I am interested as a moderator).
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | See above. Yes he has. |
Show me.
| Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | So, if the goal were to play In The Groove and challenge yourself with the additional handicap of playing without the bar, that means playing without the bar is no longer an arbitrary handicap. |
Yes, it does. Now you need to show that there is a principled reason that desire (handicapping yourself by not using the bar) is different from the desire to handicap yourself with sandals.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
0rion
Trick Member
Joined: 02 May 2005
Location: Kirby will explain it to you. |
| 93. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Novalis wrote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Does is response HAVE to be one or the other? |
To have content, yes. Those options exhaust the logical space of replies. |
No, it doesn't. Someone says "I don't agree with you." At that point it is their CHOICE whether or not they say WHY they don't agree with you. If they don't add anything to that, it does NOT mean that they didn't say something relevant to the discussion.
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | And what happens if he NEVER adds anything else, but rather simply says "Well, I still don't agree with what you said." How is that intellectual cowardice? |
The short answer is "by definition." The long answer depends on whether you are using the normative or existential meanings of intellectual cowardice. It is both, but for different reasons. It's a pretty long explanation. |
No, it's neither. He didn't back down from his standpoint, so from YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION of Socrates' teachings, he is still standing up for his point of view, albeit passively. If he were exhibiting cowardice, he would have instantly conceded and admitted that his claim had no merit. He doesn't believe that, and neither do I. Only a fool is incapable of seeing the merit of an argument simply because it isn't fleshed out thoroughly.
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Once again, his argument was that there is no reason not to do it because it wouldn't effect bar players in any way. |
There are lots of reasons not to do it; Aaron presented some of them. |
And there are also reasons to do it, as AA Bob presented.
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Then I guess I'm just curious... does being apathetic toward other people and acting like a petulant jerk help persuade people to acknowledge your point of view, or do you do that for effect? |
I'm not interested in whether other people acknowledge my point of view. I'm interested in whether my point of view is correct. |
In a subjective conversation!? What the hell IS this, anyway?
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | Because the point now is NOT whether KoF's proposal is acceptable. It's whether your constant verbal abuse was justified. |
I'm not interested in that question, unless you are asking whether or not it violated the forum rules (in which case I am interested as a moderator). |
I think I understand, now. You're saying that it is acceptable and possibly even commendable to be contradictory simply for the sake of being contradictory, and not because it has any real relevance. I'm glad we cleared that up.
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | See above. Yes he has. |
Show me. |
He said that it wouldn't effect bar players' standings, and that it would be fun for non-bar players to see how they compare to other non-bar players, and he said that it would help ease the tension between the two factions... blah, blah, blah, et cetera, et cetera... didn't we just go OVER this?
| Quote: | | Sir 0rion {DMC} wrote: | | So, if the goal were to play In The Groove and challenge yourself with the additional handicap of playing without the bar, that means playing without the bar is no longer an arbitrary handicap. |
Yes, it does. Now you need to show that there is a principled reason that desire (handicapping yourself by not using the bar) is different from the desire to handicap yourself with sandals. |
No, I don't, because it's not a principle. It's a preference. If someone prefers to use the bar because it's a tougher way to play, it adds to their experience - just like being able to chew and swallow their own food adds to the experience of eating, even though it's not the most effecient method - and is therefore to be accepted and commended, by this very same logic.
I will not explain why it's different than playing wearing sandals unless you explain why it's different than chewing and swallowing your own food. And the reason is that both explanations are the same explanation. It's the same comparison, really. One just goes one way, and the other supports another point of view. You know it, and I know it. And if you don't know it, then TELL me how it's different. I am MORE than willing to listen.
_________________
-Sir "O"
There's a little yellow bird on my avatar. (Brawl FC: 4640-1720-6690)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
squirrel_wrangler[spoink]
Trick Member
Joined: 21 May 2002
Location: work |
| 94. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok so this discussion between cory and his new friend has been going on for the better portion of two pages now and neither has really added anything to either side of the argument. Cory has simply reiterated what he already said and Orion has just been arguing philosophy and other things with him. I have enjoyed reading it though so by all means guys carry on.
I'd just like to point a few things out:
KoFFreak originally suggested that a seperate no-bar section be added to groovestats.
Many people then replied with a number of reasons why a seperate section should not be added. Among these reasons were:
1. It would be too difficult to verify the scores people posted in the no bar section.
2. Playing no-bar is an arbitrary handicap and as such does not warrant a seperate section.
I don't think anyone has given a valid reason why either of these arguments is not evidence enough that there should not be a no-bar section on groovestats.
Unless someone presents valid arguments for the inclusion of a no-bar section on groovestats then this whole thread has lost it's meaning.
Now I'm not trying to pick on no-bar players but I don't see any way for an accurate no-bar section to be included on groovestats and I really don't feel there is enough interest in it to warrant it's creation. If you really want a no-bar ranking system then make one yourself. If you really want to have one on groovestats then you would need to talk to the administrators on groovestats rather than argue with cory. If you are unwilling to do either then you can easily start a no-bar thread in the appropriate forum on either ddrfreak or itgfreak.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KoFFreaK
Trick Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Location: s0caL |
| 95. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I'd just like to point a few things out:
KoFFreak originally suggested that a seperate no-bar section be added to groovestats.
Many people then replied with a number of reasons why a seperate section should not be added. Among these reasons were:
1. It would be too difficult to verify the scores people posted in the no bar section.
2. Playing no-bar is an arbitrary handicap and as such does not warrant a seperate section. |
Ok, theres two main reasons. I agree with the first one, because it will be somewhat difficult for some to submitt thier scores, but then this way you wouldnt have countless fake scores submitted like in the other section. Of course there will be a slow start in submitted scores, but within time you'll have records for almost all songs and enjoy watching them in the process.
For the second reason, I think its fair to say that in the early years of DDR, using the bar was considered handicap. Why? well because there werent high scores to beat around like now, people just wanted to pass the songs. Then later on ITG came along, creating more acceptance for the bar because there were high scores to beat, leaving out those who no-bar play on the side. Therefore, creating endless debates among both sides up until now... and I have a feeling this will ease the tension on both sides.
Why is "both" sides bolded? Well because Kiba insist on his sandals section, when clearly there has always, always, always been only two sides to the argument.
| Quote: | | If you really want a no-bar ranking system then make one yourself. If you really want to have one on groovestats then you would need to talk to the administrators on groovestats rather than argue with cory. If you are unwilling to do either then you can easily start a no-bar thread in the appropriate forum on either ddrfreak or itgfreak. |
Good points. I have thought of making one myself, but then it wouldnt sparkle much interest even to the no bar players becuase its unofficial and the site unknown, know what I mean? As for talking to the admins, I didnt want to go empty handed. I have to show both sides of the argument, each one has to get its chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evil_pied
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
|
| 96. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Novalis wrote: | | Evil_pied wrote: | | But by using flag football, you CAN see who the best flag football player is. |
Sure, nothing wrong with that. |
Then what's so wrong with using no bar scores to find out who the best no bar players are?
| novalis wrote: | | Evil_pied wrote: | | The purpose of keeping track of no-bar scores is not to find out who the best dancing game players are, but who the best no-bar players are. |
Yes, we figured that out. Now, if you want to follow the argument of the thread, the next point is this: Either the distinction between bar/no-bar is arbitrary (in which case nobody should care) or the distinction is principled. If the distinction is arbitrary, there is no particular reason to care about it or make it. If the distinction is principled, then there should be. Nobody has yet made an argument for the principality of the decision. |
The principality has already been argued. Is the difference between college football and pro football arbitrary because they're playing the same sport? No it isn't. I noticed that you didn't address my point of DDR being a sport and every other sport in the world having multiple divisions. The purpose of keeping track of no bar scores is the same as keeping track of the standings of college football. As for verification, I don't think that many bar players would submit their scores as no bar because it wouldn't keep them in the most competitive division. You wouldn't need a video to prove that you got an 80 on boogie down no bar. Anyone stupid enough to lie about a score like that is very dumb. IF someone posted a 99 on pandy, I think that video or photo or eyewitness proof would be needed in order to let the score stand. My point, your reasons for not wanting a no bar division are miniscule and easily overcome.
| novalis wrote: | | Evil_pied wrote: | | You're pretty much saying that you can't find out who the best are of something unless you look at only the top tier of the activity they are performing. |
No, I'm not. |
Erm, did you not say that we could never use flag football to see who the best football players are? I interperet that as how I took it.
| novalis wrote: | | Evil_pied wrote: | | WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT HAVING A NO BAR DIVISION? |
It is impractical and has major problems (like score verification) and, if it is unprincipled, there is no reason to attempt to get over them. |
See my comment above. There is a clear and practical principle. Add a new division to an already existing score tracking method for the purpose of finding out who the best no bar players are. This is on par to every single other sport known to man.
| novalis wrote: | | Evil_pied wrote: | | Stop bashing it just because you think that your achievement will be considered less in comparison to a no bar achievement. |
First of all: I don't play ITG.
Second of all: I'm better (comparitevely) without the bar.
Third of all: This is a fallacious use of the ad-hominem argument. |
This comment wasn't directed to you, it was directed to every person who is against a new division and has not presented any valid arguments for their reasons of opposing it.
| novalis wrote: | | Evil_pied wrote: | | It's a completely different style of gameplay and shouldn't be mixed or argued about. Seperating the two styles is the only thing that would end the bar debate. |
Another thing that would end it would be showing that the distinction is arbitrary and therefore meaningless. |
You could never show that because the distinction is none of those things.
You may as well call the distinction between the olympics and the "special" olympics arbitrary. And think about all those poor retards having their accomplishments taken away.
| novalis wrote: | | Evil_pied wrote: | | No I didn't, I adressed the main purpose of the thread. |
But you only went one step through the argument. You're on page one - the rest of us are on page three. |
There is only one step of the argument. "Why shouldn't there be a seperate division for no bar players?"
I have addressed this.
| novalis wrote: | | Evil_pied wrote: | | You're the one rambling on about philosophy and a bunch of other bullshit that has nothing to do with DDR or ITG. |
Every single sentence in every single reply on this thread has an exact, specific and discreet point of content directly related to the argument of the thread. I would be more than happy to translate all of it into symbolic logic and prove it to you. |
Not every single one. How about addressing the fact that entering a "sandal" division is not the same thing as a no bar division. By saying..."I pwn is sandals, I want a sandal division". Where is your point backing up that statement?
You may be the most educated erm... "philosopher" in this thread, but your reasons for denying a no bar division are flawed and your arguments are flawed as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boochypa
Trick Member
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Location: VA Tech |
| 97. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
The purpose of groovestats is to provide a site where people can track their scores and competete with others. For the purpose of this competition, there is absolutely no reason not to use the bar if it would help your score. Choosing not to use the bar is no more meaningful than choosing to play barefoot, or choosing to play blindfolded, or choosing to play any way imaginable that hinders you. It's an arbitrary handicap to your ability to compete.
If, for example, all dedicabs were produced without bars, then a separate, competitive no-bar division of groovestats would be warranted. Those who play on upgraded cabinets would still use the bar on them, but the decision of dedicab players to not use the bar would no longer be arbitrary, so a separate groovestats section would make sense.
That example is analogous to the "special olympics" idea. Competitors in the special olympics are not arbitrarily choosing to not do as well as people in the real olympics.
The purpose of college football isn't to see who the best football players in the country are. Its purpose is to see who the best college football players (and team) are in the country. However there is significant enough demand and popularity for it to exist. But even if there weren't, it would still exist as a "minor leagues" for professional football, since that's an ulterior purpose for college football. If it were the case that the best no-bar players in the country could be recruited to join the league of bar-users, and people of less skill were somehow forbidden from using the bar, then a no-bar division would make sense since the decision to not use the bar would no longer be arbitrary.
No one is saying that a no-bar groovestats is wrong; they're saying that it's impractical and not worth the effort.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psychopat
Trick Member
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Location: Ottawa, Ontario |
| 98. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I liken it to Olympic swimming. There's multiple divisions, such as breast stroke, butterfly, back stroke, front crawl, freestyle and so forth. The whole point of those divisions is not to see who the fatest overall swimmer is, it's to determine who's the best at that particular discipline.
These distinctions are no less arbitrary than bar/no bar categories. Are they all valid? Yes. Are they all competitive? Of course. Is one division's record time on par with all of the other divisions'? Of course not. That's not the point.
No bar players, for the most part, accept that their scores aren't as good as bar scores. To do otherwise would be like hoping to win the race against a freestyler by doggie paddling, to continue the swimming analogy. It's possible, but it's freaking hard. Having a seperate division would do nothing but satisfy part of the population and not affect the other part whatsoever.
As for the whole "fake scores" thing... NNR & DDRecall both thrived without a whole verification process. Sure, there's going to be a couple idiots who have fun raining on others' parades but the overall result would still be a positive one.
I'm WAY too lazy to make a no-bar score tracker myself or to try to persuade others to make one, but I'd use it. For sites that already have the whole infrastructure up, it would take relatively little effort; just clone a few pages here and there, add a checkbox on the score submit page, add a couple links and the underlying functionality behind these elements and voila. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evil_pied
Trick Member
![]()
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
|
| 99. Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Boochypa wrote: | The purpose of groovestats is to provide a site where people can track their scores and competete with others. For the purpose of this competition, there is absolutely no reason not to use the bar if it would help your score. Choosing not to use the bar is no more meaningful than choosing to play barefoot, or choosing to play blindfolded, or choosing to play any way imaginable that hinders you. It's an arbitrary handicap to your ability to compete.
If, for example, all dedicabs were produced without bars, then a separate, competitive no-bar division of groovestats would be warranted. Those who play on upgraded cabinets would still use the bar on them, but the decision of dedicab players to not use the bar would no longer be arbitrary, so a separate groovestats section would make sense.
That example is analogous to the "special olympics" idea. Competitors in the special olympics are not arbitrarily choosing to not do as well as people in the real olympics.
The purpose of college football isn't to see who the best football players in the country are. Its purpose is to see who the best college football players (and team) are in the country. However there is significant enough demand and popularity for it to exist. But even if there weren't, it would still exist as a "minor leagues" for professional football, since that's an ulterior purpose for college football. If it were the case that the best no-bar players in the country could be recruited to join the league of bar-users, and people of less skill were somehow forbidden from using the bar, then a no-bar division would make sense since the decision to not use the bar would no longer be arbitrary.
No one is saying that a no-bar groovestats is wrong; they're saying that it's impractical and not worth the effort. |
People in the special olympics are not choosing for themselves, but the choice has still been made by nature or evolution. Whether someone makes a choice to do something or the choice is made by something out of their control, it's still a choice. Just as playing no bar is, just as playing flag football is, just as staying in college to play your senior year is, just as playing 8 ball pool instead of 9 ball pool is, just as any other choice is.
The choice is not arbitrary, it's voluntary.
If a dedicab were produced without a bar, how would that make playing no bar any different? In either scenario, no bar players are still playing no bar. How does that change anything? This discussion has nothing to do with bar players. They have nothing to do with whether a no bar division should exist or not because they do not effect how no bar players perform.
I believe that there is enough demand and popularity to make a no bar section of groovestats feasable. It would add a whole new competitive section and would only be good for groovestats and no bar players.
It would not be difficult to pull off, so I don't see how it could "not be worth it". That's like saying "it's not worth it to drive to the store so I can feed myself". Of course it would be worth it. The benefits FAR outway the cost.
For fucks sake, is college football impractical? NO. Is a no bar division for ITG impractical? NO. THEY'RE THE EXACT SAME THING. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NO BAR DIVISION AND EVERY OTHER AMATUER OR MINOR LEAGUE SPORT EVER PLAYED. Get over it. |
|
| 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
