Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

It is part of and a contributor to a sexist cultural narrative. It is an example of a sexist trope. But the only thing that is actually wrong with the game is the context within which it falls. When people complain about negative tropes, they are complaining about the trend, the context, the greater cultural forces at play that make this particularly representation, which wouldn't be bad in and of itself, into something negative on a larger scale.

What larger scale? Are you saying video games are contributing to rape statistics? What?

Some people have been trying to find connection between violence in media and school shootings for a long time. No success. Why would this be any different?

How in the world did you get to rape from that?

[Hiiri]

How in the world did you get to rape from that?

I didn't, it was just one large scale consequence I chose at random.

Relevant well-sourced Palsch post:

Thanks, that's pretty interesting information, actually.

Edit: Wording.

[DJ]

So I guess Jack Thompson was right all along.

[GlyphGryph]

You really are incapable of anything but hyperbole and mischaracterization, aren't you? I honestly wouldn't be surprised at some point if someone suggested we should try to better support female game developers and help increase their industry presence, and you responded by suggesting "Welp, I guess we've got to fire all the male developers to make room for ladies!"

Seriously, talking to you is incredibly frustrating. Mostly because, as I pointed out before, you seem unwilling to hold a conversation with anyone but yourself and the strawmen you've created. >_<

[Hiiri]

You really are incapable of anything but hyperbole and mischaracterization, aren't you? I honestly wouldn't be surprised at some point if someone suggested we should try to better support female game developers and help increase their industry presence, and you responded by suggesting "Welp, I guess we've got to fire all the male developers to make room for ladies!"

Seriously, talking to you is incredibly frustrating. Mostly because, as I pointed out before, you seem unwilling to hold a conversation with anyone but yourself and the strawmen you've created. >_<

It's hard to know who you're responding to, when your post is empty of content and filled with accusations. Quotes would be nice.

[GlyphGryph]

DJ. Your rape hyperbole was pretty bad, but I've honestly no idea if you make as much a habit of strawmanning as he does.

[DJ]

I'm just doing what everyone else is.

[nenjin]

Stay classy, Bay12 debaters.

[Neonivek]

I'm just doing what everyone else is.

There is kinda a difference between intentionally doing what people do by mistake and making a mistake.

The difference mainly that people cannot correct you because you are not wrong you are just, essentially, intentionally annoying people for the sake of annoying them.

[DJ]

Reductio ad absurdum is a valid debate technique.

[Neonivek]

Reductio ad absurdum is a valid debate technique.

True... If you used it.

[DJ]

It has been asserted that games have significant influence on people's behaviour. If that is true, than Jack Thompson is correct.

[Neonivek]

It has been asserted that games have significant influence on people's behaviour. If that is true, than Jack Thompson is correct.

Well no, because the scope is also important.

Games have always had a significant influence on people's behavior. The difference is that games do not turn you into gun totting maniacs.

[GlyphGryph]

Straw Man argument

An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:

    Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
    Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"

Here is a valid example:
There is no smallest positive rational number, because if there were, it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.

Notice how reductio ad absurdum requires an actual logical link. Which you never both to provide. You have basically admitted to intentionally straw-manning. You're dishonesty is unappealing, and straw manning does not a valid argument make.

[GlyphGryph]

Case in point:

It has been asserted that games have significant influence on people's behaviour. If that is true, than Jack Thompson is correct.

Except, of course, that you're both mischaracterizing the argument being made (that games and media as a whole influence perceptions of self-worth), AND counting on on us to assume that because Thompson is right about some things (and most people are right about at least a few things) that he is, by virtue of our argument, right about a variety of claims from which you cannot logically arrive through what we've presented.

In essence, you are intentionally misleading people. That is not a logical argument. That is not reductio ad absurdum.

Yes, Thompson is right about the fact that games can have influences on people. He is not right about what those influences are, or how powerful they are, or the behaviour the invoke, or how they do it, or even the fucking content of the games he criticizes. But you are clearly insinuating that if he's right (by misconstruing both his stance, in degree, and the stance your comparing it to, in kind) about anything then BY GOD he must be right about everything and aren't we stupid!

You're a lying, deceptive asshole, and you've admitted that you're doing it intentionally. Shape up, or shove off, and stop ... trolling? Is this actually trolling, for once? I guess it depends on what you're actually hoping to get out of your bullshit 'arguments', though...

What DO you hope to get out of mischaracterizing other people's arguments and intentionally applying erroneous hyperbole? Is this supposed to serve a purpose other than pissing people off?