3Dave says I'm a robot because I play Guitar Hero II and happen to have progressed further in the medium career mode than he has. He's dumb in the face. The fact that I've played more than him makes me a robot? That's the only reason I have more 5-star songs. He has more 5-star songs overall, has progressed further in the career mode overall, and is meticulously collecting achievements, which I mostly ignore. I think poor 3Dave is just jealous of my DorkAwesomeness. His arguments do not compute.
Update: I was hoping that he would respond in his usually logically bankrupt fashion, and did he ever! In case he erases his comment, here is the text:
"It's pretty obvious I haven't touched a nerve or anything."
This is a typical tactic of the logically bankrupt. Rather than addressing the arguments (which granted aren't very eloquently stated in my original post), he resorts to logical fallacies. In this case his fits snugly in the "Red Herring" category. A quick Google search yields the definition:
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
This isn't surprising, since this is 3Dave's fallacy of choice. Virtually all of his arguments are "won" by detracting from the topic of conversation and instead poking fun in a desperate attempt to salvage credibility in an elementary-school fashion.
Stay tuned for more! I take far too much pleasure in poking holes in people's argumentation style, and for some it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Petty? Yes. DorkAwesome? Definitely.
19 comments:
It's pretty obvious I haven't touched a nerve or anything.
Speaking of logical bankruptcy, my sensors indicate that you've just used a red herring fallacy. Congratulations.
Speaking of touching a nerve, I can now confirm that I have.
And you're right... you're showing how you are much more mature by whining on a blog about how I make fun of you for being good at a videogame.
Well done.
Not more mature; just more logically sound. But thank you anyway. And congrats on continuing the evasive red herring.
And congrats to you on hiding behind a blog rather than confronting the person directly.
The blog is a perfect forum for the likes of you, because you can write whatever you want and not have to back it up face to face with a person.
Mike should also mention that we sit in an office together, roughly 6 feet from each other, yet he chooses to do this on a forum for his blog.
Good stuff.
Yes, you're so right! It's perfect for the likes of me, because on forums such as this the argumentation actually matters.
Debates aren't about who can speak the loudest or interrupt the most. They aren't about trying to make sure that you don't stutter or stumble over your words. They aren't about gathering a gaggle of troglodytes to cheer in support. They're about actually presenting a rational argument. You excel at the former, but unfortunately you could use improvement in the latter area.
This is a topic I actually wanted to write about, so thanks for the extra encouragement.
Right, and the blog is the perfect forum for people like you who think you are always the most rational person in the room, but as soon as someone questions your thoughts, you wilt like a dying flower.
Here you can express your opinion and then run away, only checking responses once you ahve assured yourself that all of the people who have written them can't possibly be as smart about the subject you have chosen as you are.
When you can learn to stand up for yourself and control your own life, rather than letting other people choose the best name for your blog, or tell you when you should replace your bed or which house you should buy for yourself, then you can preach to me about being rational.
Then and only then.
Let's examine your most recent response, shall we?
"Right, and the blog is the perfect forum for people like you who think you are always the most rational person in the room, but as soon as someone questions your thoughts, you wilt like a dying flower."
This is a logical fallacy called a Naked Assertion. This fallacy is committed when you make a claim without any substance to back it up; namely, the claim that if someone were to question my thoughts, I would metaphorically "wilt like a dying flower". What evidence do you have that I wouldn't defend my arguments? Heck, I'm doing it right now.
"Here you can express your opinion and then run away, only checking responses once you ahve assured yourself that all of the people who have written them can't possibly be as smart about the subject you have chosen as you are."
I would love to point out a logical fallacy in this statement, but I don't really understand what you're saying. If you're saying that I can post a response, then wait for a response to my response, then make a thoughtful additional response, you're absolutely correct.
"When you can learn to stand up for yourself and control your own life, rather than letting other people choose the best name for your blog, or tell you when you should replace your bed or which house you should buy for yourself, then you can preach to me about being rational."
Here's a logical fallacy called a Non-Sequitur. It essentially states that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise(s). The ability to construct a logical argument in no way depends on my ability to choose the name for my blog, choose when to buy a new bed, or my ability to color-coordinate or control my own bladder for that matter.
So, when you can formulate logically coherent arguments, then you can preach to me about when I am or am not being rational.
Then and only then.
You are not a logical person because a logical person would not allow others to make decisions for them on things like those mentioned here. A logical person would use logic to make the decisions on their own.
Defining various forms of a logical fallacy doesn't make you logical, but it does mean that you retain definitions well.
Like a robot.
Not only can I define logical fallacies, I can point out your repeated use of them. Case in point: Your comment is again a red herring, completely dodging the original issue of why my guitar hero behavior makes me a "robot".
I might wear plastic wrap to keep me warm in the snow, and this would have absolutely no bearing on the soundness of criticisms made against your reasoning.
Yet for some reason you never want to actually address the subject of the post; instead, you continually 1) change the subject, and 2) attack my character in a fallacious attempt to reduce the validity of my arguments. I wonder why this is...
Okay... okay... back to the point of the topic.
Let's see what I've done since I purchased the game:
1) Had 3 different friends over at 3 different times to play the game with me.
2) Purchased all of the guitars and finishes in the shop, since I'm a guitarist and wanted to see all of the different combos.
3) Went back and played songs that I enjoy, even if I already have 5 star rating.
Now let's see what you have done, based on what you have told me:
1) Played through by yourself on medium only, focusing your attention on songs, and spending hours practicing them until you got them right, even when you admit you hate the song.
2) Told me how you'd like to build an automation tool that beats the game on Expert, which you agree would ruin the experience of the game for you.
3) Purchased songs from the shop that you admit are really hard, and that you have also admitted you enjoy playing for people just to show how difficult they are.
4) Saved your money to decide exactly what you want to purchase, making sure not to purchase any guitars, since they bring nothing to the game, other than neat things to look at.
Dave = Having fun with the game, alone and with friends, while trying to complete it.
Mike = Trying to complete the game in the quickest manner possible, and having fun along the way, should it present itself to him.
C'mon, Mike... you even said that you were glad to see that people weren't reacting to the notes on the screen, but were instead memorizing the patterns. That sounds like a ton of fun.
You've also said you strike the pick disc thing very hard on purpose because it's the only way you can be exact with your picking.
This does not sound like a person who is trying to have fun with a game. It sounds like someone trying to complete the game.
Two very different things, though they can be combined at times.
Oh my god, so much misinformation... I don't even know where to begin. But I'm at least glad that you're actually addressing the topic now.
Regarding what you claim to have done:
#1: Point being, you have friends over. Terrific. That sounds like fun. This in no way implies that I don't have fun playing on my own. I wouldn't play the game if I didn't.
#2: Great, so you purchased guitars and finishes, which easily paint you as a "completist", which is exactly one of the things you claimed made me a "robot". You're defeating your own argument.
#3: Yes, and so have I, just as I do every night, and just as I've already told you.
Let's add a #4: Got 5 stars on every song on Easy, and 5 stars on all but 3 or so stars on Medium.
And #5: Tried repeatedly to get 5 stars on Medium songs, even though you hate them (Psychobilly Freakout, anyone?)
Here's a #6: Meticulously aimed to get as many achievement points as possible.
Now let's look at me:
#1: Yes, just as you did -- in fact, *following suit* from your example, I decided to try for 5 stars on all the songs on Medium. I even started with the hardest songs because I thought it would be a good challenge. And just fyi, for some, "challenge" and "fun" are not mutually exclusive.
#2: Haha, yes, and then I proceeded to tell you that I wouldn't seriously create something like this since it would ultimately ruin the experience. I told you that I would only consider this sort of thing for games I don't want to play anyway. I think it's funny that you actually brought this up.
#3: Er, excuse me? I purchased 3 songs so far. #1 is Trogdor because I'm a fan of Strongbad and the Trogdor cartoon/song/games. I had no idea how hard the song would be until I purchased it. And no, I never once said that I enjoyed playing them for people. I *did* say that I wanted people to see how hard it was, because I thought it was funny that of all the songs, "Trogdor" would be a more challenging one; and further, I said that I was insecure about my own ability and was hoping that other people would agree that it's as challenging as I thought it was. Personality flaw? Yes. Relevant? No. The second song I purchased was Elephant Bones, because I like the song, and even added it to my music playlist at home. It's not difficult to play. The third was the Less Talk More Rokk song, because again, despite causing the metal-heads in the office to cringe, I actually like the song. You of all people should know the type of music I like. It's also a fun song to play, and nowhere near as difficult as "Trogdor".
#4: You're right, I was cautious about spending my in-game money because I wanted to make sure I wouldn't screw myself over and have something I wanted to purchase but not enough money for it. I also, as you're well aware, wasn't sure if any of the downloadable content would give/cost in-game money so I wanted to hold off until I knew for sure.
You're correct that I prefer songs over guitars/finishes/characters, but exaggerated in your interpretation of my reasoning. I would love to purchase guitars and characters *after* I purchase songs, because in my opinion, the most fun part of the game is actually playing the songs, and when the time comes (rare as it may be) that I have friends over or visit friends/family, I'd much rather have more songs for them to choose from than characters/guitars. In fact, you even said today that you wish you would have purchased songs first also.
You also claim that I'm trying to complete the game in the quickest manner possible. How do you figure? The fact that I got 5 stars on all the songs in the Medium career before you did in no way implies that I'm trying to beat it "as quickly as possible". In fact, you got through the Medium career before I did, and you're further along in the Hard career.
Further, why do I spend so much time playing songs that I enjoy if all I'm trying to do is "beat the game?" Why would I even bother buying any of the songs and playing them if they aren't part of the career mode?
Let me present another interpretation of our perspectives:
Dave - Having fun with the game, by playing through the career mode, playing songs he likes, purchasing guitars/finishes, collecting achievements, and playing with friends.
Mike - Having fun with the game by playing through the career mode, playing songs that he likes, purchasing songs that he likes to play, and generally playing alone unless he's at work.
"C'mon, Mike... you even said that you were glad to see that people weren't reacting to the notes on the screen, but were instead memorizing the patterns. That sounds like a ton of fun."
The point being, I'm glad that in order to play the songs on the Hard career mode (a goal that both of us share, might I remind you), you don't have to actually dynamically react to the notes as you see them in a reactive way, because there's no way in Hell I'd ever be able to play most Hard songs if that were the case. And that's not fun, fyi. I don't think it'd be hard for you to agree with that.
I'm going to go out on a limb and make the assertion that being able to learn a song is more fun than never being able to play it. I hate to break this to you, but *gasp* memorization is involved. I am going to also go out on a limb despite my inexperience and assert that memorization is involved in playing a *real* instrument, and further venture into the hypothetical and claim that many people still enjoy this activity immensely regardless of that fact.
"You've also said you strike the pick disc thing very hard on purpose because it's the only way you can be exact with your picking."
You've got me. I do indeed make an effort to play the songs well, and that's one thing that helps me. I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that getting good at playing these songs was one of the goals of this game. If I'm wrong about this, I implore you to correct me. And if I'm not mistaken, you also regularly discuss your efforts to improve your performance. Perhaps I heard wrong?
"This does not sound like a person who is trying to have fun with a game. It sounds like someone trying to complete the game."
Really? *I'm* trying to complete the game? How so? By getting 5 stars on all the Easy and Medium songs? Oh wait, that's what you're doing, not me, and you're only 3 songs away. By trying to collect all the Xbox Achievements? Oh wait, that's you as well. You've gotten 5-stars on way more songs than me, obtained more achievements than I have, progressed further in the career mode, and purchased more in-game content. So, the fact that I've gotten 5-stars on 3 more Medium career songs than you have is what makes me simply attempting to complete the game? That doesn't sound very "complete" to me. I haven't even given half the effort that you have to the Hard career. This certainly isn't consistent with someone who is trying to "complete the game in the quickest manner possible."
Let me offer you another hypothesis, which you can feel free to reject:
Both of us enjoy the game very much, and have fun playing. Sometimes we get stressed out with the hard songs, and that's normal in any challenging game. I happened to complete the Medium career before you did (because I had more free time), and being the competitive person that you are, you desperately seeked an excuse; a way to discredit my accomplishment in order to make yourself feel less bad about not having progressed as far. This is exactly what you did when you got decimated by me in SR, so I'm inclined to believe that it's a likely possibility.
You don't seem to realize that you don't even need to do this; not for Guitar Hero and not for SR. In the case of Guitar Hero, the reason I progressed further is that I've had more time to play. As you repeatedly remind me, I live alone and don't have many commitments once I get home. You don't have to tell me that I must be a robot; you can just rub in the fact that I played the game longer and I'll have to concede. For SR, there's the simple fact that I was using a mouse/keyboard and you were using a gimped console controller. If I were you I'd be calling me cheap for playing with such a huge advantage, but instead you look for every other excuse for some reason.
The fact is, we both have fun with the game and there's nothing wrong with the way either of us plays. Our play style follows from what we each find to be fun; and frankly, we play very similarly for the most part.
Okay... as you mentioned in your previous post, I'm done here, as I could never top that long-winded response that you gave.
I will say two things and this will be my final post on the subject.
1) I struck a nerve, and you know I did. You wouldn't be this passionate about responding if I didn't. You know as well as I do that you are the way I've described, and that bothers you. Whether it's the lack of logic from someone who constantly toots their own horn as being the most logical person in the building, or the fact that you often do things simply to find the most efficient way of doing them, because that's where you find enjoyment.
2) Each time you and I met in a hallway 1:1 in SR, I'd say were 50/50. That's my honest opinion, and I don't think you proved anything.
I'll now wait for your, "HA! Now Dave does the standard write one final message and leave method, also known as the "rippled dog fart" response that I am so aware it makes me awesome," response.
P.S. - You are a robot.
"1) I struck a nerve, and you know I did."
When have I ever denied this? No doubt you did, otherwise I wouldn't be spending so much effort tearing apart your horrible reasoning. Good work, Sherlock. If you want, I can cower in the corner and yell "Waahhh you hurt my feelings!" if it'll make you feel better. Unfortunately, it's completely irrelevant with respect to the fact that your arguments have no merit.
"2) Each time you and I met in a hallway 1:1 in SR, I'd say were 50/50. That's my honest opinion, and I don't think you proved anything."
Unfortunately, we don't have the numbers, but I completely disagree. In fact, Karie played better than you most of the time and yet I still beat him at least 2/3 times we faced each other. It was also interesting that each time my score was just a little above the top scorer on your time, you'd claim that this was evidence that the controls were equal. Yet when my score was drastically above the top scorer on the opposing team, it was "too early to tell". This is called the Ad Hoc fallacy; you apply different reasoning in an ad-hoc fashion, depending on what suits the conclusion you favor.
I find it fascinating that you are actually reluctant to accept that keyboard/mouse controls are much better than console controls for FPS games. Even Matt thinks it's odd that this is even a controversy.
"I'll now wait for your, "HA! Now Dave does the standard write one final message and leave method, also known as the "rippled dog fart" response that I am so aware it makes me awesome," response."
I'm afraid you won't be getting one. I saw how long the responses have been getting and it's no doubt that it's a chore to respond to each of them. If you had bailed out immediately after I pointed out the flaws in your logic, that'd be a different story.
Exqisilarious!!!! (my word...MINE!!!) Thank you for providing intellectual entertainment for me and my friend for the past half hour. I now have an extensive knowledge of various "logical fallacies" thanks to Mike. However, seriously, how many times must you use that EXACT phrase? Have you not heard of thesaurus.com? Related to that awesome website you apparently love so much: dictionary.com.
-V-
V, thank you for your timely response. I am currently on my 171st draft of my 36-page formal argument explaining how wrong Dave is. I will be happy to have you proofread it at your earliest convenience.
To answer your question, I am happy to use the term "logical fallacy" so long as the phrase is apt. I'm making an argument, not writing an essay for English class. If you're truly interested in learning about logical fallacies (there I go again), you'll know that my repeated use of a certain word or phrase is irrelevant with respect to the argument.
Minor confession: I take a guilty pleasure in evoking people's tangential knee-jerk reactions in order to watch them veer outside the topic while I stay on point.
Mike is a dumbhead.
You say I veered off topic, but I wasn't commenting on the actual topic at hand, but rather the continuously repeated use of the phrase "logical fallacy". I made no attempt to to challenge your "I'm right, Dave is wrong" philosophy, so there was really no diversion.
I find it fascinating, and incredibly entertaining, however, to think of you and Dave sitting at your desks, (which was previously mentioned to be about six feet apart), popping your heads up over cubicle walls after sending each entry of argumentation. I think it would make a hysterical short.
Fair enough, -V-; the rest of my comment still stands.
And yes, it was amusing going back and forth with Dave, until it inevitably led to passionate love-making.
It may please you to know that we in fact weren't even in separate cubicles; we were in the same office, in plain sight of one another.
Post a Comment