Ladies and gentlemen, just call me Bait Cait. Rumble chases me under the tower, I'm at maybe 20% health, but his flamethrower turns off just as I reach the center of the tower's range, I turn and fight, he dies. Jungle Jarvan shows up a little late to the party, dives in, drops like a rock. Miss Fortune tries to ult me in range of the tower, realizes her mistake after taking tons of damage but before she kills me, tries to back off, I peg her with Ace in the Hole.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, what I was "Effectively saying" is that if you can give a reason why your "creative build" is good other then just to say "hybrid Ken is good", give convincing your team a shot. Not sure why you think I would try to stifle creativity. I will how ever stifle trolls. I'll say it again. I play ranked to win, if want to be creative ranked solo que is not the place (see GJ comment). I don't care what you say. Judging by the following comments, I seem to be in the majority on that one. But you can't get over your elitist/don't stifle my creativity/I'm better then everyone else and a unique flower attitude, to see that. I'm more then open to different builds, but in a serious setting I want consistency.
Hm, "Give convicing your team a shot" and "I'll check lolking if you record isn't good I want you gone" yup those two things are 100% the same.
Changing your story when being forced to see how it sounds when someone reads it doesn't help you. If you had said "I'll give you a chance to explain to me how/why/etc something is good" this discussion wouldn't of happened, but you didn't say that you had the elitist mindset of "lolking says you haven't had success in your last 10 games I kick you." There is a gigantic difference and if you can't see that it's a shame, and if you can't see why it's bad to use someones most recent 10 games as a means of judging someones ability with a specific champ/build when many people have played well over a thousand games then there really is no helping you.
That said with the limited time in champ select there is a degree to which you would need to take my word for it. I can give you the math and playstyle to show how Kayle beats Panth, I can give you the explaination of how Shyvana destroy Hecarum but in the brief time spent before I can pick in the queue it's going to be cut to along the lines of "Kayle plays safe till lvl 2 then all in's Panth with her Q+E to push him out of lane early" because I won't have time to walk you through the mathimatical explaination that takes into account damage delt, and CDs, and resistances, and starting health, and summoners, and starting items, etc etc. This is why the principle of charity is something I pointed out to you.
Right because you and a select few are the only ones that can truly see the power of unique builds. The majority is the majority for no reason what so ever.. AD Annie is the next best thing. Right?
The majority is the majority because they are sheep. Sure there are plenty of people out there who are high level and actually understand the mechanics and math behind what makes things work, and why the meta is how it is, and have interesting theories about how to challenge it. The majority though? They are the people that watch the pros streams and LCS and the like and then do their damnest to immitate them without understanding why Sona might be maxing R/Q/E/W one game and R/W/Q/E the next and then R/Q/W/E later on. If you think the majority of people who play this game actually takes the time to sit down and math out items, builds, champ match-ups and how they can be fought to give one champ an advantage over another you are really dillusional. I'll leave you with the words of a wise man...
Comedy aside it's pretty damn accurate, the majority are often ignorant with no understanding as to why they do what they do.
Not sure why you think I'm raging, but ok. And do tell me, Whats wrong with that response. I fail to see how it's wrong (your insinuation), it's an opinion and no less of one then yours. It's just not your opinion, so it must be wrong. Right?
Deciding to "never respond to me again" acting as if "I don't exist" you're right those are things people only say when they are completely happy go lucky and there is zero trace of anger to be found in them...try again.
Here we go again..
This your opinion, it's not one I share. Most people don't want your "creativity", get over it.
As said above most people don't sit down to actually think, conceptualize, or math out things either. But you're right simply because there are more of them following the guidance of someone without understand the reasons that individual is doing it clearly makes the majority right. I mean it's not like history has ever shown an example where the majority of people followed an individual without fully knowing or understanding him led to disaster right?
Oh wait Hilter...and Stalin...and the Crusades...and well pretty much any religious war.
History is full of examples where "most people" following what "someone else does" has been shown to be complete crap. Now clearly LoL isn't on the same level as any of what I mentioned above, and my intention wasn't to compare them, but to instead show you that it's been more than proven that THE MAJORITY IS NOT RIGHT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS THE MAJORITY.
Let that sink in for a moment because that is what your arguement comes down to. It comes down to "more of us so we are right" mentality, it doesn't matter how much math I've done, how much theory crafting I have done, how many times I've experience it, beyond my last 10 games, all that matters to you is the amount of people willing to say "yeah I agree with you" as your means of justification. A group of people having a circle jerk with you doesn't validate anything you say.
As said above most people don't sit down to actually think, conceptualize, or math out things either. But you're right simply because there are more of them following the guidance of someone without understand the reasons that individual is doing it clearly makes the majority right. I mean it's not like history has ever shown an example where the majority of people followed an individual without fully knowing or understanding him led to disaster right?
Oh wait Hilter...and Stalin...and the Crusades...and well pretty much any religious war.
History is full of examples where "most people" following what "someone else does" has been shown to be complete crap. Now clearly LoL isn't on the same level as any of what I mentioned above, and my intention wasn't to compare them, but to instead show you that it's been more than proven that THE MAJORITY IS NOT RIGHT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS THE MAJORITY.
Let that sink in for a moment because that is what your arguement comes down to. It comes down to "more of us so we are right" mentality, it doesn't matter how much math I've done, how much theory crafting I have done, how many times I've experience it, beyond my last 10 games, all that matters to you is the amount of people willing to say "yeah I agree with you" as your means of justification. A group of people having a circle jerk with you doesn't validate anything you say.
See mesa; this is why people don't like arguing with you. Occasionally you have gems of insight but most of the time you're extremely grating. If you have to pull the Hitler card you've already lost the argument.
Even if the author is silenced, the performance is stopped, the story will not end.
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
See mesa; this is why people don't like arguing with you. Occasionally you have gems of insight but most of the time you're extremely grating. If you have to pull the Hitler card you've already lost the argument.
Except I never said anything about the ideals held by Hitler or the Nazi party. As I said my intent wasn't to compare the two but simply provide examples of the majority following a single individual being wrong.
Except I never said anything about the ideals held by Hitler or the Nazi party. As I said my intent wasn't to compare the two but simply provide examples of the majority following a single individual being wrong.
it's still a comparison to Hitler and Nazism
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Even if the author is silenced, the performance is stopped, the story will not end.
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
com·pare
[kuhm-pair] Show IPA verb, com·pared, com·par·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences: to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations.
2. to consider or describe as similar; liken: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
3. Grammar . to form or display the degrees of comparison of (an adjective or adverb).
noun, plural com·men·tar·ies.
1. a series of comments, explanations, or annotations: a commentary on the Bible; news followed by a commentary.
2. an explanatory essay or treatise: a commentary on a play; Blackstone's commentaries on law.
3. anything serving to illustrate a point, prompt a realization, or exemplify, especially in the case of something unfortunate: The dropout rate is a sad commentary on our school system.
4. Usually, commentaries. records of facts or events: Commentaries written by Roman lawyers give us information on how their courts functioned.
_______________________________________
At no point did I examine or compare any ideals of nazism or hitler, the only thing done was commentary, namely majority followed hilter majority was wrong.
Really having to post simple grammar and definitions is silly G.L.J. this should of been obvious.
Just bringing them up is trouble, SM, and best to steer away
Not really. Purpose, IE reason you bring something up, is a big deal. There is a difference in trying to compare something to someone/something else that is/was horrific and in simply pointing to said event and saying "you can learn from this."
At no point did I examine or compare any ideals of nazism or hitler, the only thing done was commentary, namely majority followed hilter majority was wrong.
Really having to post simple grammar and definitions is silly G.L.J. this should of been obvious.
From your Quote
com·pare
[kuhm-pair] Show IPA verb, com·pared, com·par·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences: to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations.
HEY, you know who ELSE followed a single leader to disaster? The people that followed Hitler. And Stalin.
But whatever, back to the ignore list you go.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Even if the author is silenced, the performance is stopped, the story will not end.
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
I think the best thing that they could do is just have individual position Queues. If you want to play as jungler, you Que up as a jungler. Works the same way as solo Q but you will get the position you want. This allows players to still do unconventional builds but stops the trolling and infighting over positions.
I'm praying for this as hard as I can. Unfortunately, there's nobody up there listening to my prayers
But really. It seems like a slam dunk win to me. Reduce rage. Reduce trolling. Eliminate games when you get stuck bored on something you don't like. Reduce rage in game because it can accurately measure how good you're likely to be *in this game*, making for less lopsided lanes, making for less rage at a badly losing teammate in game.
This is not a good idea though, because it reinforces the meta and REALLY reduces creativity. What if you don't WANT a jungler in your game, but someone is forced into the role by the system? Also, your queue time is going to be crazy long for some roles, and much less for others. Riot's said multiple times that they aren't going to do this.
I know that the way the meta is right now is supposed to be the best way to run it, but if you're forced into a role by the queue, then it doesn't let people do stuff like double-bruiser bot or double-jungle. I dunno, I just think this is worse than kicking people from queue, which I ALSO think is a terrible idea for what it's worth.
I just don't think this is true, in Ranked at least. When's the last time you saw a duo mid (not a lane swap), duo top, or double jungle, and it WASN'T because people were raging at each other and playing chicken? I've got about 250 ranked games in and I've literally never seen it, not even once. I've seen amicable kill lanes bot split cs, but *only* because nobody wanted to support and the person who got ADC generously offered a kill lane to placate the person who was getting stuck in a lane they didn't want.
I don't think the flexibility or creativity that you're referencing actually exists in solo queue ranked.
HEY, you know who ELSE followed a single leader to disaster? The people that followed Hitler. And Stalin.
But whatever, back to the ignore list you go.
*Checks posts for your italizised quote*
*Doesn't find it*
Let's see though what did I find?
I mean it's not like history has ever shown an example where the majority of people followed an individual without fully knowing or understanding him led to disaster right?
Try again G.L.J. but frankly this is getting rather depressing. This isn't the first time you tried to bring up one of these arguemental falacies without even fully understanding the meaning of it or how it would apply.
Not really. Purpose, IE reason you bring something up, is a big deal. There is a difference in trying to compare something to someone/something else that is/was horrific and in simply pointing to said event and saying "you can learn from this."
Really? It isn't? It's not trouble? Why then, good sir, are people *****ing at you over it?
As soon as you start with something like "
Oh wait Hilter...and Stalin...and the Crusades...and well pretty much any religious war."
You've gotten into a weird, tired debate category of referencing hitler. It's tired, its boring, its trite, it is, in no uncertain terms comparing things to hitler, one way or another.
Quote from Godwin"s Law »
Corollaries and usage
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[7] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful.[8]
Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as "playing the Hitler card". The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.
While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.[9] Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have been made by Glenn Greenwald.[10]
Just don't reference ****ing hitler in a discussion about, of all things, whether or not people are fully thinking through league of legends builds
This is not one of those times where you can math it out and make a case, this is you referencing mother****ing hitler in a discussion about a video game.
Stop. Stop it. Stop it now. Do you wanna say "people aren't fully thinking through X" then say "people aren't fully thinking through X" don't say "people aren't fully thinking through X, people didn't fully think through that whole hitler fiasco and look how that turned out"
That last thing? That you didn't precisely say, you might be asking yourself. That, Mesa, is the issue. Comparing otherwise trivial issues in conversation to millions of murdered individuals. It cheapens tragedy, its not comparable and there is no justified basis for it
This fallacy combines guilt by association with a bit of poisoning the well, it stifles debate and it just doesn't work. It is also bombastic to the extreme and, you are correct, you did not actually reference the policies of the nazi's or hitler. This is why people are complaining about you referencing hitler
Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.
Though it maybe hard to see from where you are sitting, but if you read back and notice, no one has bothered to actually state anything about any of my points since I offered such commentary.
Sounds a lot like a distraction/diversion does it not?
The reality is I didn't compare anything or anyone to Hitler, I made a comment that following a single individual has historicly lead to terrible things, and provided examples. I did at a means of enabling people to see that the majority isn't correct simply because it is the majority. If you actually look at how debates work there is nothing wrong with such use of this type of commentary as a means of establishing a point.
The issue comes when instead of actually seeing the point people want to bring up things such as Godwins Law, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, however inapproriate they may be, as a means of saying "oh you said Hitler you instantly lost" as if the purpose of a debate is to actually declare a winner in the first place, while also ignoring the context and purpose with which it was brought up, and ignoring every single point made in the response.
Given that this is basically a community hangout thread, is it unreasonable of me to ask people to just knock it off?
I don't mean to backseat moderate - I'm not suggesting that this needs moderation! - but it's rather obnoxious to have to read.
Yeah, I can't even begin to understand how someone claims to not be defending his comparison to hitler and then says,
Quote from SM »
The reality is I didn't compare anything or anyone to Hitler, I made a comment that following a single individual has historicly lead to terrible things, and provided examples. I did at a means of enabling people to see that the majority isn't correct simply because it is the majority.
What the hell is this I don't even.
Sacred Mesa.
Drop the Hitler thing, stop defending your usage of hitler, stop, stop stop. You are wrong, I don't even know how the **** to explain to you that are wrong past what I already did that you didn't actually respond to. That thing I quoted is, precisely, precisely the issue with using hitler as an object lesson.
Object lessons, by the way, are comparisons. You are using hitler as an object lesson in groupthink and you are committing the most basic blunder of internet debate.
Stop.
Doing.
It.
This is, believe it or not, for your own damn good.
Yeah, I can't even begin to understand how someone claims to not be defending his comparison to hitler and then says,
What the hell is this I don't even.
Sacred Mesa.
Drop the Hitler thing, stop defending your usage of hitler, stop, stop stop. You are wrong, I don't even know how the **** to explain to you that are wrong past what I already did that you didn't actually respond to. That thing I quoted is, precisely, precisely the issue with using hitler as an object lesson.
Object lessons, by the way, are comparisons. You are using hitler as an object lesson in groupthink and you are committing the most basic blunder of internet debate.
Stop.
Doing.
It.
This is, believe it or not, for your own damn good.
ob·ject lesson
something that serves as a practical example of a principle or abstract idea
His life story is an object lesson in how not to run a business.
Object lessons are not comparisons they are means of learning by simply viewing what someone else does, or what happens in a sense they are experience that you can gain without having to endure it yourself. They are observations held on their own not something that is achieved via comparisons.
The thing you quoted was highly relevent to what is going on, but not as much for me as you want to believe. I made valid and clear points, instead of addressing any of them people have instead hopped on the Hitler train focusing it while ignoring everything else said. That is the very definition of a distraction. What is worse is that a number of people decided to revert to the old childhood discussion method of placing their hands over their ears and shouting "blah blah blah can't hear you" ala things like "to ignore you go" instead of actually discussing it like adults.
I can't make people see what is clearly happening because of the tunnel vision on the distraction they have chosen and methods they are using. That's fine though as it doesn't really bother me when the immature remove themselves from a debate I'm having. Is a shame they choose it instead of sharing their perspective and learning from others, you know the whole purpose of a debate.
Is that you're username? Chances are you will pass me, don't play a lot of ranked when I am on and right now spending to much time beta testing Company of Heroes 2
Good luck through, at least hopefully better than my last game had the EZ on my team rage quit after his first death
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Hm, "Give convicing your team a shot" and "I'll check lolking if you record isn't good I want you gone" yup those two things are 100% the same.
Changing your story when being forced to see how it sounds when someone reads it doesn't help you. If you had said "I'll give you a chance to explain to me how/why/etc something is good" this discussion wouldn't of happened, but you didn't say that you had the elitist mindset of "lolking says you haven't had success in your last 10 games I kick you." There is a gigantic difference and if you can't see that it's a shame, and if you can't see why it's bad to use someones most recent 10 games as a means of judging someones ability with a specific champ/build when many people have played well over a thousand games then there really is no helping you.
That said with the limited time in champ select there is a degree to which you would need to take my word for it. I can give you the math and playstyle to show how Kayle beats Panth, I can give you the explaination of how Shyvana destroy Hecarum but in the brief time spent before I can pick in the queue it's going to be cut to along the lines of "Kayle plays safe till lvl 2 then all in's Panth with her Q+E to push him out of lane early" because I won't have time to walk you through the mathimatical explaination that takes into account damage delt, and CDs, and resistances, and starting health, and summoners, and starting items, etc etc. This is why the principle of charity is something I pointed out to you.
The majority is the majority because they are sheep. Sure there are plenty of people out there who are high level and actually understand the mechanics and math behind what makes things work, and why the meta is how it is, and have interesting theories about how to challenge it. The majority though? They are the people that watch the pros streams and LCS and the like and then do their damnest to immitate them without understanding why Sona might be maxing R/Q/E/W one game and R/W/Q/E the next and then R/Q/W/E later on. If you think the majority of people who play this game actually takes the time to sit down and math out items, builds, champ match-ups and how they can be fought to give one champ an advantage over another you are really dillusional. I'll leave you with the words of a wise man...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkCwFkOZoOY
Comedy aside it's pretty damn accurate, the majority are often ignorant with no understanding as to why they do what they do.
Deciding to "never respond to me again" acting as if "I don't exist" you're right those are things people only say when they are completely happy go lucky and there is zero trace of anger to be found in them...try again.
As said above most people don't sit down to actually think, conceptualize, or math out things either. But you're right simply because there are more of them following the guidance of someone without understand the reasons that individual is doing it clearly makes the majority right. I mean it's not like history has ever shown an example where the majority of people followed an individual without fully knowing or understanding him led to disaster right?
Oh wait Hilter...and Stalin...and the Crusades...and well pretty much any religious war.
History is full of examples where "most people" following what "someone else does" has been shown to be complete crap. Now clearly LoL isn't on the same level as any of what I mentioned above, and my intention wasn't to compare them, but to instead show you that it's been more than proven that THE MAJORITY IS NOT RIGHT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS THE MAJORITY.
Let that sink in for a moment because that is what your arguement comes down to. It comes down to "more of us so we are right" mentality, it doesn't matter how much math I've done, how much theory crafting I have done, how many times I've experience it, beyond my last 10 games, all that matters to you is the amount of people willing to say "yeah I agree with you" as your means of justification. A group of people having a circle jerk with you doesn't validate anything you say.
See mesa; this is why people don't like arguing with you. Occasionally you have gems of insight but most of the time you're extremely grating. If you have to pull the Hitler card you've already lost the argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
Except I never said anything about the ideals held by Hitler or the Nazi party. As I said my intent wasn't to compare the two but simply provide examples of the majority following a single individual being wrong.
it's still a comparison to Hitler and Nazism
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
com·pare
[kuhm-pair] Show IPA verb, com·pared, com·par·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences: to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations.
2. to consider or describe as similar; liken: Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
3. Grammar . to form or display the degrees of comparison of (an adjective or adverb).
___________________________________-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commentary?s=t
com·men·tar·y
[kom-uhn-ter-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural com·men·tar·ies.
1. a series of comments, explanations, or annotations: a commentary on the Bible; news followed by a commentary.
2. an explanatory essay or treatise: a commentary on a play; Blackstone's commentaries on law.
3. anything serving to illustrate a point, prompt a realization, or exemplify, especially in the case of something unfortunate: The dropout rate is a sad commentary on our school system.
4. Usually, commentaries. records of facts or events: Commentaries written by Roman lawyers give us information on how their courts functioned.
_______________________________________
At no point did I examine or compare any ideals of nazism or hitler, the only thing done was commentary, namely majority followed hilter majority was wrong.
Really having to post simple grammar and definitions is silly G.L.J. this should of been obvious.
Not really. Purpose, IE reason you bring something up, is a big deal. There is a difference in trying to compare something to someone/something else that is/was horrific and in simply pointing to said event and saying "you can learn from this."
From your Quote
HEY, you know who ELSE followed a single leader to disaster? The people that followed Hitler. And Stalin.
But whatever, back to the ignore list you go.
Whether it's a comedy or a tragedy, if there is cheering, the story will continue on.
Just like the many lives.
For the us who are still in it and still in the journey, send warm blessings.
- We will continue to walk down this path until eternity.
I'm praying for this as hard as I can. Unfortunately, there's nobody up there listening to my prayers
But really. It seems like a slam dunk win to me. Reduce rage. Reduce trolling. Eliminate games when you get stuck bored on something you don't like. Reduce rage in game because it can accurately measure how good you're likely to be *in this game*, making for less lopsided lanes, making for less rage at a badly losing teammate in game.
I just don't think this is true, in Ranked at least. When's the last time you saw a duo mid (not a lane swap), duo top, or double jungle, and it WASN'T because people were raging at each other and playing chicken? I've got about 250 ranked games in and I've literally never seen it, not even once. I've seen amicable kill lanes bot split cs, but *only* because nobody wanted to support and the person who got ADC generously offered a kill lane to placate the person who was getting stuck in a lane they didn't want.
I don't think the flexibility or creativity that you're referencing actually exists in solo queue ranked.
*Checks posts for your italizised quote*
*Doesn't find it*
Let's see though what did I find?
Try again G.L.J. but frankly this is getting rather depressing. This isn't the first time you tried to bring up one of these arguemental falacies without even fully understanding the meaning of it or how it would apply.
Really? It isn't? It's not trouble? Why then, good sir, are people *****ing at you over it?
As soon as you start with something like "
Oh wait Hilter...and Stalin...and the Crusades...and well pretty much any religious war."
You've gotten into a weird, tired debate category of referencing hitler. It's tired, its boring, its trite, it is, in no uncertain terms comparing things to hitler, one way or another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Just don't reference ****ing hitler in a discussion about, of all things, whether or not people are fully thinking through league of legends builds
This is not one of those times where you can math it out and make a case, this is you referencing mother****ing hitler in a discussion about a video game.
Stop. Stop it. Stop it now. Do you wanna say "people aren't fully thinking through X" then say "people aren't fully thinking through X" don't say "people aren't fully thinking through X, people didn't fully think through that whole hitler fiasco and look how that turned out"
That last thing? That you didn't precisely say, you might be asking yourself. That, Mesa, is the issue. Comparing otherwise trivial issues in conversation to millions of murdered individuals. It cheapens tragedy, its not comparable and there is no justified basis for it
This fallacy combines guilt by association with a bit of poisoning the well, it stifles debate and it just doesn't work. It is also bombastic to the extreme and, you are correct, you did not actually reference the policies of the nazi's or hitler. This is why people are complaining about you referencing hitler
I don't mean to backseat moderate - I'm not suggesting that this needs moderation! - but it's rather obnoxious to have to read.
Though it maybe hard to see from where you are sitting, but if you read back and notice, no one has bothered to actually state anything about any of my points since I offered such commentary.
Sounds a lot like a distraction/diversion does it not?
The reality is I didn't compare anything or anyone to Hitler, I made a comment that following a single individual has historicly lead to terrible things, and provided examples. I did at a means of enabling people to see that the majority isn't correct simply because it is the majority. If you actually look at how debates work there is nothing wrong with such use of this type of commentary as a means of establishing a point.
The issue comes when instead of actually seeing the point people want to bring up things such as Godwins Law, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, however inapproriate they may be, as a means of saying "oh you said Hitler you instantly lost" as if the purpose of a debate is to actually declare a winner in the first place, while also ignoring the context and purpose with which it was brought up, and ignoring every single point made in the response.
Yeah, I can't even begin to understand how someone claims to not be defending his comparison to hitler and then says,
What the hell is this I don't even.
Sacred Mesa.
Drop the Hitler thing, stop defending your usage of hitler, stop, stop stop. You are wrong, I don't even know how the **** to explain to you that are wrong past what I already did that you didn't actually respond to. That thing I quoted is, precisely, precisely the issue with using hitler as an object lesson.
Object lessons, by the way, are comparisons. You are using hitler as an object lesson in groupthink and you are committing the most basic blunder of internet debate.
Stop.
Doing.
It.
This is, believe it or not, for your own damn good.
smoke_Killah
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/object%20lesson
ob·ject lesson
something that serves as a practical example of a principle or abstract idea
His life story is an object lesson in how not to run a business.
Object lessons are not comparisons they are means of learning by simply viewing what someone else does, or what happens in a sense they are experience that you can gain without having to endure it yourself. They are observations held on their own not something that is achieved via comparisons.
The thing you quoted was highly relevent to what is going on, but not as much for me as you want to believe. I made valid and clear points, instead of addressing any of them people have instead hopped on the Hitler train focusing it while ignoring everything else said. That is the very definition of a distraction. What is worse is that a number of people decided to revert to the old childhood discussion method of placing their hands over their ears and shouting "blah blah blah can't hear you" ala things like "to ignore you go" instead of actually discussing it like adults.
I can't make people see what is clearly happening because of the tunnel vision on the distraction they have chosen and methods they are using. That's fine though as it doesn't really bother me when the immature remove themselves from a debate I'm having. Is a shame they choose it instead of sharing their perspective and learning from others, you know the whole purpose of a debate.
(look at the picture)
Is that you're username? Chances are you will pass me, don't play a lot of ranked when I am on and right now spending to much time beta testing Company of Heroes 2
Good luck through, at least hopefully better than my last game had the EZ on my team rage quit after his first death