{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/14/2017 4:24:51 AM
1
The analogy is apt. Yes I am employing Reductio Ad Absurdem yet the analogy is nevertheless apt. I respect your right to do as you wish but do not try to convince the masses that it is wisdom.
Indicating to a company that one is willing to buy before they have even pitched the product shows one to be either foolish or desperate.
English
-
[quote] Yes I am employing Reductio Ad Absurdem yet the analogy is nevertheless apt.[/quote] So, you're admitting that your analogy is a fallacy (Reductio Ad Absurdem), but nonetheless claim it's a [i]valid[/i] analogy. A fallacy, by definition, is not valid. Just as I can't admittedly use a variation of the No True Scotsman argument and then claim that it proves my point. Such as "no TRUE Destiny fan has anything against pre-orders." I use that merely as an example, I don't really care whether you order in advance or not. But I do have a quibble with your logic chain.
-
Reductio Ad Absurdem is a fully logical form of classical argumentation. You are confused with a Straw Man logical fallacy which is not at all what I am employing. What I describe with the car is exactly what the OP argues for with pre-ordering a game that has released almost no details whatsoever. Depending solely on the hype of the company to make your buying decisions is not wise. Established companies make duds all the time.
-
People who actually name logical fallacies in arguments are pathetic. It's like they took one logic class in college or read part of one book and now they think they are master logicians, when really it is quite the opposite. Actually explain why the other party's argument is necessarily invalid, why their deductive or inductive reasoning is at least problematic if not clearly erroneous. Do not simply suppose his or her argument to be fallacious and therefore invalid in part or in whole because it seems to correspond to one item in a list of many supposed logical fallacies. The attainment of the truth in any matter has everything to do with inquiry and explanation, and not with memorization, recognition, defense of presupposition, or assumption.
-
Or maybe college is for suckers who want to start life with a mortgage worth of loans.
-
On that at least we can agree. College is a very specific career vehicle that is not for everyone and we have done a disservice as a society by telling people they MUST have a degree at ANY cost.
-
Edited by UltraCon79: 4/14/2017 3:23:16 PMI support College both of my in-laws have been teachers for well over 30 years but when government guaranteed student loans would not allow people to go bankrupt on their student loans that gave all the banks a free pass to increase tuition rates gradually every year. Sorry for all the edits text to speech doesn't work well from my semi truck
-
Edited by Dog_Of_War_1138: 4/14/2017 7:34:11 AMI explained why his analogy is not apt in the previous comment. Repeated here for your convenience. [quote]I'm not prepared to drop $35K in your lap for a product, sight unseen. I am, however, prepared to drop $20 to reserve 2 copies of the Limited Edition disc, and pay the rest when I pick them up. Your analogy is not apt. The risk/reward equation is substantially different in those two cases. It's the difference between buying a $2 lottery ticket and betting $1000 on a hand of poker. I'll buy a lottery ticket from time to time, but unless I have a royal flush (in spades) I'm not risking the money on the card game.[/quote] There's no such thing as a "supposed" logical fallacy; logic is LOGIC or else it is a fallacy. Making a deliberately absurd comparison, such as comparing purchasing a $35,000 car sight unseen to ordering a $60 video game, is such a fallacy. OBVIOUSLY I would not buy a car sight unseen, but it doesn't logically follow that I wouldn't make a substantially lesser purchase on a pre-order; yet the fallacious "logic" assumes that if one would not blindly purchase a car, one shouldn't pre-order a video game either. The comparison does not stand up. And in case you missed it? Jayne of Canton called HIMSELF out for using this Reductio ad Absurdem; so, you're saying he is "pathetic" for having actually named his own logical fallacy, or what?
-
The hate flows strongly through you. Just because YOU didn't understand the valid argument form, Reductio Ad Absurdem, which you have obviously confused as a straw man, does nothing to invalidate its validity. You have not presented any evidence to refute my argument therefore you need no response other than dismissal.
-
Actually, you made an appeal to extremes, not a Reductio Ad Absurdum. You assumed that if someone were willing to spend $60 on a game, they would also be willing to spend $35K on a car. While absurd, this was not a proper Reductio argument. Do whatever you want with your money. But don't criticize the choices of others, or imagine that you're so much wiser than them. You think that Bungie made so many mistakes in Destiny that you need to reserve judgement before committing to buy the sequel- fine. Your choice. Others enjoyed the game just fine and based on that experience, expect D2 to be the same if not better. That's our choice. Thing is, most threads here (except this one) are of the nature "You're idiots if you preorder!" Nobody is going around criticizing people who DON'T preorder, except inasmuch as y'all keep blaming us for the death of the game industry and we keep saying "It wasn't us!" I think that's basically what the OP is saying; we're spending our own money, not yours, and it's nobody else's business.
-
It's valid. It fits the very definition of the logical form. The op posited fallaciously that those who don't preorder are either children, poor or stupid. He needed to be informed otherwise and judging by the number of likes, I'm not the only one opposed to pre-orders. I respect your position and agree 100% percent that you can spend your money how you see fit. However you won't convince me that giving a company an indication that your going to purchase their product when they have released no substantial details on the product is a good idea. I think it makes for lazy companies. Yes you can cancel your preorder but statistically speaking, once people have made a purchasing decision, they nearly always proceed even when having second thoughts. I just don't think it's wise to give that kind of power to a company for an unreleased product.
