{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/1/2015 3:19:58 PM
1
-
Ahh yes, the ultimate authority on all things science fiction: the author of The Wandering Blog on cthreepo.com Good source material there, OP.
-
The validity of a statement is not directly related to the credibility of the author.
-
I'm just sarcastically pointing out that by using those points as a counter-argument, you recognize them as authoritative words of truth. "Cthreepo" says "P" about "Science Fiction" _ "Cthreepo" should be trusted about "science fiction" (you agree to this by citing him in argumentative reasoning) _ Therefore, "P" is correct. The problem is that this is an unfounded assertion leading to circular reasoning.
-
He's not the only one to assert similar rules onto the genre. Also, the link is used because it does a better job of explaining things than I care to attempt. You wouldn't believe how many times I've had to repeat myself in this thread...
-
Edited by freshlydunbread: 6/1/2015 4:08:11 PMYou can assert as many rules to an art-piece as you want; doesn't make them valid rules, or "law". I'm sure there's a plethora of works that don't follow these points, but have become paramount to some communities within the genre.
-
Doesn't change the fact that others are free and able to form criticism based on whichever rules they choose to follow.
-
Edited by freshlydunbread: 6/1/2015 4:16:20 PMDoesn't change the fact that others are free and able to form their own ideas, independent of the egotistical "laws" set forth by those who claim some sort of authority over lingual aesthetics. These "laws" are by no means authoritative, and have no right being tossed around like they [i]are[/i] authoritative in argumentative reasoning. "Because so-and-so likes his science fiction [i]this way[/i]", isn't an actual argument, it's fallacious.
-
Except for when the laws are commonly accepted on a basis of what is and is not "good sci fi". There are exceptions to rules, but not always. The rules are formed based on deductive reasoning of what is and is not considered "good sci fi". An example would be the "no [url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url]" rule. [url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url] are considering lazy writing by a large portion of the sci fi community. A large number of sci fi that includes [url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url] is generally viewed as "bad", therefore, [url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]-godwinslaw!-[/url] in sci fi are considered "bad sci fi". Hence the creation of the rule. A rule does not need to be enforced by an authority for it to be rule.
-
Edited by freshlydunbread: 6/1/2015 4:30:46 PM"Commonly accepted".. Looking through the comments section of "cthreepo", it would appear that these ideas are [i]commonly unaccepted[/i], or at least the subject of serious argumentation. (Nearly every comment disputes these "laws".) So much so, that the author has to specifically point out in a preface the repercussions of overly vehement rebuttals in the comments. I'd say that the divide in the community alone points out how little weight these "laws" hold.
-
No. Most of the comments reject one or two of the laws, and that is usually based on their own personal bias for something that does break those laws. Also, the possible vitriolic nature of a rebuttal does not discredit the point being made. The squeakiest wheels get the most grease.
-
Edited by freshlydunbread: 6/1/2015 4:45:11 PM"The list is just my opinion, and is not intended as absolute. I think that it is easy to write BAD SF if you ignore these rules, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t write great SF and ignore them. It is just hard to do." A comment from the author in reply to numerous commenters saying that none of these rules exist. "This is so stupid. you are listing your own picky opinion! None of these rules actually exist. this is all you trashing half of the science fiction world." The general idea behind this comment comes up every few comments. "Most comments".. You [i]really[/i] should stop generalizing in argumentative reasoning for the sake of, yaknow, an actual argument; one would think that you didn't even read through the comments, but selectively skimmed. The entire thread concludes at "anything is possible in art".
-
You're completely missing the point.
-
Edited by freshlydunbread: 6/1/2015 4:49:54 PMI see your point; I just disagree with it, as it's fallacious. You say that these laws are commonly accepted; I say that's just another unfounded assertion.
-
It's not fallacious.
-
Edited by freshlydunbread: 6/1/2015 4:58:04 PMYou use Cthreepo as an authoritative source: that's an unfounded assertion. You claim that it's authoritative because it's "commonly accepted": that's an unfounded assertion. Unfounded assertions in argumentative reasoning are fallacious.
-
Edited by JustOnePepsi: 6/1/2015 4:59:21 PMI did not claim it authoritative. I used it as a better explanation than one I could form on my own. I even stated this specifically. Yet you completely ignored that fact...
-
Edited by freshlydunbread: 6/1/2015 5:10:08 PMYou use the link to further your side in argumentative reasoning, on numerous occasions through-out this whole thread. Just by using that link to further your side [i]of an argument[/i], you accept that those words are authoritative and by no means false. That's an argument from authority. You then try to further prove the authority of the words by making the allegation that they're "commonly accepted"; just another unfounded assertion.
-
The existence of dissenters does not make them unaccepted. But I digress. I've already explained why your own assertions are incorrect, and I'm not going to continue repeating myself.
-
Edited by freshlydunbread: 6/1/2015 5:37:39 PMYou can 'show me how I'm incorrect' with fallacious claims all you'd like, that doesn't make it so! What is a dissenter but one that does not accept? It would seem that the very existence of dissenters makes it exactly that: unaccepted. You use the link in authority; that's a fallacy. You then attempt to prove its authority by saying that it's "commonly accepted"; that's a fallacy.
-
There are those who believe there should be no laws regarding legal drinking ages. This doesn't change the fact that legal drinking ages are largely accepted within the countries that have them. You're attempt to say something is not accepted because some do not accept it. [i]That's[/i] a fallacy.
-
Edited by freshlydunbread: 6/1/2015 6:10:04 PM[quote]you're attempt to say something is not accepted because some do not accept it. [i]That's[/i] a fallacy.[/quote] That's a straw-man argument if I've ever seen one. The irony is that [i]this statement[/i] is a fallacy. It purposely misrepresents my statement in a way that allows you to knock it down. In the [i]same sense[/i], you're attempting to say that something [i]is[/i] accepted because some do accept it. The difference between our two claims, is that mine never mentions a degree of 'unacceptability". What I actually said was that because something isn't accepted, it can be said that it's unaccepted. Semantically speaking, this leaves room for the duality expected to be found in the general population, IE: from the perspective of a group of people who think the drinking age should be lowered, the law can either be accepted or unaccepted. Of course, that's not even close to the argument we were just having: You use cthreepo's link in an attempt to contradict an opponent's argument: this is fallacious. You say that his idea's are commonly accepted: this is fallacious. Edit: just reread your post to find that your comparison is actually also a false equivalence fallacy. Good on ya!
