Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kaimetsu
Man, he has more than one law. Did you notice that I already invoked his most famous one in dealing with Gryffon, when he likened me to a ****? Don't you think that shows that I know what it is?
|
Perhaps it would help if you didn't use it in wrong places too?
You can call a non-sequitur a non-sequitur, and then a completely different fallacy a non-sequitur as well, and it would denote a lack of understanding. I am more curious as to how exactly you feel I 'broke' Godwin's law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kaimetsu
blah
|
This is an old game, I point out the flaws in your arguments based on what you say, then you parrot them and act as if you based your retorts on something other than monkey-see.
If you really want it broken down for you here is how it works:
Concept of precedent is that by allowing an action, you are sanctioning further similar acts on the grounds it was accepted originally.
Your comparisons however, intentially skew what can be considered an 'act' and following 'similar acts' in a case of precedent.
In your case regarding the murder analogy, it was even more flawed. To sanction murder because a person was 'very very angry' is not even a case where something is acceptable in the original but can lead to a bad precedent. Of course, you went for one of the largest most emotionally charged negative too, second to say ****s and a few other things.
If you want to get back to a closer to intact argument, you could argue that while obviously Gryf's choice in race has not been a problem that it
could set a precedent by which future players are encouraged to use a similar backstory and that
that could cause problems.
However, that breaks down the same way as saying that if you allow a person to claim self defense in a murder case, that it will allow all murderers to be able to get away with murder. The reason is there are other
material factors involved. In the case of Gryffon, he has been playing the same character for several years - since 2k1. The community has in that time been happy with this character, and it has not led to any problems. If someone was to 'follow' that precedent there would still be material differences. These differences include, but are not limited to, that it is somewhat 'out of fashion' to have outlandish characters today, and they are actually discouraged. Players want to be involved with their kingdoms, and avoid RP histories that will only lead to conflicts within their kingdom.
I can also point out the specific flaws in your other arguments, but I barely even care to bother pointing these out to you. If you want to defend your murder analogy, perhaps comment on that, but I don't really see any point in this debate at all. Just don't post a series of pointless one liners, that gets pretty old pretty fast.