Print

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

[Fniff]

In a shocking reveal, everyone's just humoring the crazy clone PC who just keeps saying their name in different inflections

Only the "main" characters will call you by name. Everyone else will slide something else in there. "Hey......buddy?" or "Sup.......guy."

This applies to your own character as well
Also of note, Terrifying Presence is still in the game
"I'm going to break your fucking face!"
"Buddy?"
"Yeah, what are you going to do about it!?"
"Buddy"
"What?"
"BUDDY!"
"OH GOD RUN"

[Trapezohedron]

How could you forget 'Ol Rexie?

oh my

he's not a d- *get shot*

i honestly forgot, my bad. :|

[Toady One]

There is a lot of fighting in this thread.  If people want to avoid consequences for their accounts and if they want to have this thread, they should pause and reflect on their posts before posting them.

[UXLZ]

I feel like you've come in after the dust has already settled Toady, but thanks for the warning anyway.

@New Guy: Well, Rex doesn't seem to be that popular anyway. I sorta liked him.
He had the BRAIN of a dog! That's close enough.

[Sergius]

Brains in Fallout are weird.

[Teneb]

@New Guy: Well, Rex doesn't seem to be that popular anyway. I sorta liked him.
He had the BRAIN of a dog! That's close enough.

Rex is most of a dog with the brains of multiple dogs that were merged somehow.

Brains in Fallout are weird.

Very much an understatement, considering what we see happen over all games.

[scriver]

Brains is the next step in human evolution.

[Graknorke]

"Paid mods will lead to paid patches!"

Sorry, gotta dig up the misapplication of logical fallacies. It's only a slippery slope if you say that A will lead to B with no real reasoning behind it (e.g. saying that it should be illegal to be gay, because otherwise paedophilia would have to be legal either, even though there is no real logical connection between the arguments between the two besides being to do with sex). However, the context here was where the argument in favour of A would also support B (that all work should be charged for).

[Sergius]

"Paid mods will lead to paid patches!"

Sorry, gotta dig up the misapplication of logical fallacies. It's only a slippery slope if you say that A will lead to B with no real reasoning behind it (e.g. saying that it should be illegal to be gay, because otherwise paedophilia would have to be legal either, even though there is no real logical connection between the arguments between the two besides being to do with sex). However, the context here was where the argument in favour of A would also support B (that all work should be charged for).

That is correct. A lot of people confuse fallacies with the term that those fallacies refer to. A "slippery slope" is just something that if A happens (is allowed), B will probably happen. A "slippery slope fallacy" is when two unrelated things are stated to follow from the other.

It's a pet peeve. It's like when people yell "Godwin! Argument over!" when someone says Hitler or Nazi. Godwin is a prediction of how long it takes to refer to Hitler or the Nazis, not a fallacy. It would be like saying that you lose the argument because your toast fell to the floor on the buttered side.

[penguinofhonor]

So it's not a slippery slope argument to say that gay marriage weakens the definition of marriage, and eventually it will be weakened to the point that people will be able to marry animals? There is a logical connection from the perspective of the people who make those arguments (though probably one you disagree with).

[Sergius]

"The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect."

For example, you would need to demonstrate first that this will result in animals being granted human rights and a status of person-hood before they can be married to humans. However, gay people already are human, and are people, and have (at least in theory) equal rights.

EDIT: At this point it would probably be easier to demonstrate that humans can marry corporations.

[penguinofhonor]

So you're saying it's a very weak argument but not a slippery slope?

[Sergius]

They're both slippery slopes. It can be a valid slippery slope, or an invalid slippery slope (a fallacy).

For example: saying that the approval of a law that lets the government ignore due process as long as they think one is a really really bad person, will inevitably be abused against other people that aren't bad or have done nothing wrong, is not necessarily a fallacy.

Slippery slope doesn't mean "your argument is invalid". The argument isn't in a slippery slope, whoever is predicted to abuse said law is the one in the slippery slope.

• In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction).
• Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid; the slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

More that the entire premise of the argument (definition of marriage, "strength" of sexual morals, inevitability of endless expansion on an issue) is bushtit to begin with.

The perspective of the person holding the argument seeing it as logical means nothing. You can perceive anything as logical if you have strong enough bias.

More on topic, this game is going straight to the boycott list for me. Maybe I'll revive the PSA thread and make this the topic of it.

[Flying Dice]

Please do. This has gotten to be rather silly at this point and I'm starting to regret contributing to it. I ain't gonna argue about it any more, at least until we get more information either way.