PCs out of Balance - Need some Help

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> <chris.spol@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1113856651.257636.233690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> > "Examples of Poisoning the Well -- Don't listen to him, he's a
scoundrel."
> > That's it -- no formal syllogism need apply. The "therefore his
> > argument is wrong" is just as evident in the above example as in
MSB's
> > "[shun him, he's boring and unable to learn]". One does NOT need
to
> > EXPLICITLY state a conclusion to present an ad hominem fallacy.

> <Argument>
> What about the part where a fallacy only appears *if and only if*
a
> discussion of the speaker is used as 'evidence' *against his
arguments* DO
> YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
> </Argument>

You mean argument, not evidence. Anyway, why do you keep evading the
point that that's exactly what you do!

> The suggestion to shun Cope is *not* based on the claim that
"Everything
> Cope posts will be incorrect".
> It is based on the *conclusion* that Cope does not display the
qualities
> that make a discussion with him anything other than a waste of time.
It
> takes *no position whatsoever* on the correctness of any of his
arguments

Bullshit. Because it isn't quotable doesn't mean you don't do it.

> If suggesting someone be shunned is a fallacy, then so is
suggesting
> someone be specifically read!

You mean like an appeal to authority? It sure can be a fallacy.

> Your argument, boiled down, has some more very interesting things
to say
> about Usenet.
> You claim: suggesting someone be shunned is ad hominem fallacy.
> I observe: shunning is equivalent to killfiling.

The distinctions are numerous, but nonetheless...

> Therefore your claim is equivalent to suggesting someone be
killfiled is
> ad hominem fallacy.

I can be, yes. Just as insulting can be an ad hominem.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6qOdndPuY4AcAsLfRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd5uqsb.14g.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> > Jeff Goslin wrote:
> > > I've already said it was a good idea, but that doesn't make it any
> > > less hamfisted ....
> >
> > You're contradicting yourself again.
>
> I don't see how it's a contradiction to note that an idea is hamfisted
AND
> cool at the same time... ???

You wouldn't.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> <arivne@cox.net> wrote in message
>>Gary has had this opinion for at least 25 years. In Dragon magazine #38
>>(June 1980) on pp. 22-23, he said that a paladin could, without
>>violating his alignment, force a captured Evil creature to convert to
>>Good alignment and then execute it so it couldn't backslide later.
> That is pretty sick, quite frankly.

Their soul is now going to heaven instead of hell, all is right in the
multiverse.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "David Serhienko" <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote in message
>>4 - begin foreshadowing an odor/discoloration on the berries, leading up
>>to them hatching Rage Demons at some point.
> It sounds like you have a good proposed system for achieving your goals. As
> for #4, you could turn that into a full-blown plot. For example, what if
> some evil sect of Orcs was keeping a hatchery going, so that all their clan
> could essentially Rage at will? Scary thought. Perhaps long-term use
> slowly makes the recipient more and more in tune with Rage Demons, and less
> and less in control of their "humanity," eventually resulting in their
> enslavement to Chaos and Evil. This hatchery could actually be part of a
> long-term plot on the part of a Demon Prince to corrupt souls, unbeknownst
> to the Orcs.

I was thinking that if they are only given to folks who can't rage so that they
can rage, maybe it also drains away a rage from folks who do rage, so it takes
away 1 Rage/day if they are kept too long. Maybe a part of their creation is
that they hold barbarians under prisoner and tie it to their life (to drain a
rage) to make them.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 18 Apr 2005 13:49:51 +1200, Robert Singers
<rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Rupert Boleyn said
>
> > On 17 Apr 2005 07:05:11 -0700, "madafro@sbcglobal.net"
> > <madafro@sbcglobal.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:
> >
> >> Nothing against Eddings, really. His stuff and early TSR novels like
> >> "Crystal Shard" are what opened the door to fantasy reading for me. In
> >> all fairness, I did enjoy the Elenium quite a bit; even with the
> >> repetition of plot elements and character types, I thought it was his
> >> strongest series.
> >
> > It's my favourite. He's got his style down, so it's a bit better
> > written than the Belgariad, but he hasn't yet got tired, or used up
> > his supply of archetypes (or rather combinations of archetypes).
>
> "HE"? _Polgara the Sorceress_ is my favourite. They'd both matured as a
> writing duet by that point, and I can only conclude that Leigh is the one
> with the better feel for characterisation.

Yeah, I know it's a team, but only David is credited for the earlier
works. As for _Polgara_, I liked it, but didn't finish it, which
suggests I found it dragged towards the end.


--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<chris.spol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113828601.713421.246230@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > The second is rhetoric, you *moron*.
>
> Here is a perfect example of an enthymeme, constructed from MSB's one
> sentence, in which he concludes his statement is not an ad hominem
> fallacy.
>
> P1: All "You are a moron" statements are rhetorical statements.
> P2: No rhetorical statements are ad hominem fallacies. (Implied)
> C: No "You are a moron" statements are ad hominem fallacies.
> (Implied)
>
> Not a fallacy, but the second premise is wrong -- indeed, the use of
> logicial fallacies in rhetoric can be very effective.

Why are you railing against men of straw?

Did you fail to notice the rather trivially arranged demonstration of
exactly *why* rhetorical comments need not be fallacies, GORGEOUS?
I *really* like puppies.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Qs2dnazupZPldP7fRVn-jA@comcast.com...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > Yes, many berries aren't round, but many ARE round, which would lead to
the
> > only possible generality that might be misleading. I, for one, have
NEVER
> > eaten a berry that had an even REMOTELY egg-like shell,
>
> You are apparently unaware that many eggs do not have shells. Educate
> yourself immediately.

You'd think the fish-muncher would have realized that much... ahh, sweet
ignorance.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

MSB wrote:
>>> If your ARGUMENTS go to the speaker rather than what he said, then
>>> this is a fallacy. If you make STATEMENTS about the speaker AND
>>> address what he says, THERE IS NO FALLACY.
>>
>> Irrelevant personal attacks carry no logical weight and therefore cannot
>> support a conclusion. Therefore, they are fallacious premises.
^^^^^^^^
||||||||
Chipacabra wrote:
> There's your error. Personal attacks can only be fallacious premises
> _if they are used as premises_.

Attacks on an interlocutor's credibility are always premises, because
they imply (whether you intend it or not) that he's not to be trusted.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> But attacking the interlocutor's credibility is an argument, because it
>> always implies the claim that you can't trust what the other guy says.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Presuming that mocking the interlocutor is "attacking their
> credibility" is a strawman.

Are you really that stupid, or just that scummy?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
>> Strawman. I have never said he was plain about his ad hominem. In
>> fact I have explicitly stated the opposite!

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> The fallacy is either there, or it isn't --

It's there. You just go to great lengths trying to cover it up. Just
like Chris said.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd67rs8.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> MSB wrote:
> Chipacabra wrote:
> > There's your error. Personal attacks can only be fallacious premises
> > _if they are used as premises_.
>
> Attacks on an interlocutor's credibility are always premises, because
> they imply (whether you intend it or not) that he's not to be trusted.

Not all comments about an interlocutor are "attacks on their
credibility"

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4MS8e.8133$yq6.5437@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnd67rs8.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> > MSB wrote:
> > Chipacabra wrote:
> > > There's your error. Personal attacks can only be fallacious premises
> > > _if they are used as premises_.
> >
> > Attacks on an interlocutor's credibility are always premises, because
> > they imply (whether you intend it or not) that he's not to be trusted.
>
> Not all comments about an interlocutor are "attacks on their
> credibility"

What are the ones that aren't?

At least you admit that sometimes you do intend to attack credibility. Now
we just need to get you to admit that it's the ONLY reason you insult people
all the time.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd67sc6.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> Bradd wrote:
> >> But attacking the interlocutor's credibility is an argument, because it
> >> always implies the claim that you can't trust what the other guy says.
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > Presuming that mocking the interlocutor is "attacking their
> > credibility" is a strawman.
>
> Are you really that stupid, or just that scummy?

What about "entertainment" do you fail to understand, you gibbering
*sod*?

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> Attacks on an interlocutor's credibility are always premises, because
>> they imply (whether you intend it or not) that he's not to be trusted.

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> Not all comments about an interlocutor are "attacks on their
> credibility"

But your comments are: You call people idiots (attacking competence) and
liars (attacking honesty).

You claim that these attacks are "in addition to" your argument and not
intended to support it. If true, you should buy a new brand of lemon
juice, because audiences interpret such comments differently than you
intend them. If false, you should own up to your lie. Either way, it's
intellectual dishonesty.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:UbW8e.8553$An2.7793@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> <argument>
> The incorrect things you argue, and the things you blatantly
> misunderstand, prove you are a moron.

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating the ad hominem fallacy. Inside your
delineated argument tags, no less.

> </argument>
--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd67sl2.7r3.bradd+news@szonye.com...
> chris.spol@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Strawman. I have never said he was plain about his ad hominem. In
> >> fact I have explicitly stated the opposite!
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > The fallacy is either there, or it isn't --
>
> It's there. You just go to great lengths trying to cover it up. Just
> like Chris said.

Then why can't you prove it, Bradd? WHY CAN'T YOU *SHOW* EXAMPLES OF
*FLAWED* *REASONING*, *gorgeous*? You've been dead wrong each time you
declared an example ad hominem fallacy ("You are a moron" - remember?
oops!). I don't like you, by the way. Ad hominem fallacy is not the same
as "argument styles you find distasteful". I like you a *lot*, by the way.
Why do you insist on this utterly ridiculous attempt to take statements
*blatantly* out of their intended context, you strawmanning bitch?

Then why can't you prove it, Bradd? Why can't you show examples of
flawed reasoning? You've been dead wrong each time you declared an example
of ad hominem fallacy ("You are a moron" - remember?). Ad hominem fallacy
is not the same as "argument styles you find distasteful". Why do you
insist on this utterly ridiculous attempt to take statements blatantly out
of their intended context?

We have, by the way, just disproven your entire argument. My opinions
about the speaker have nothing to do with my vivisection of their position -
the argument is the same with and without them. It's just more ... dull.
They are not offered - nor are they *necessary* - to support the
counterargument. True facts and correct reasoning speak for themselves.
It's a shame you can't indulge such things any longer, yourself, you
discredited ass.

Your accusations do not hold water. They do not survive scrutiny. You
cannot demonstrate your position. Instead you just slink about the
sidelines, making up bullshit and *lying* about what is said. You're as
much of a pussy as Goslin - but you're doing it on purpose, which makes you,
arguably, the worse of the two. How repellent. And you call MSB a scumbag?
At least he's honest about his spite.

-Michael

PS: You don't suppose it's just a little bit silly to accuse someone who is
the group's reason police of "going to great lengths" to COVER UP bad
reasoning?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege.usenet@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:873btou0vf.fsf@angua.ankh-morpork.lan...
> I agree that Michael can be obnoxious as hell, but you are letting
> yourself be blinded by your dislike of him. Don't do that, it makes
> you look stupid.

Oh, we're *way* past that. Stupid, dishonest, corrupt, sleazy,
spineless, cowardly ... Bradd is now second pussy to Goslin. How pathetic.
Bradd could have taken a stand for decency - but instead, he has waged a
campaign of slander and strawmanning; he is now guilty of worse than that of
which he accuses others.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> Remember all those times you've called on RGFD to "shun" somebody?
>> That's one of the most common forms of ad hominem fallacy:

Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> *Bullshit*. It is not a LOGICAL FALLACY to decide that someone does
> not deserve the courtesy of communication!

Here's an example of ad hominem fallacy from Wikipedia:

Fallacymonger: "You are wrong to argue with me about matters of
logic because I am an expert in this field. Because you lack this
expertise yourself, I refuse to waste my time arguing with you at
all about this matter." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

Does that sound familiar? Let's compare this example to your article
<9D6vc.19570$be.5927@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, posted 01 Jun
2004:

I thought, perhaps, as part of a public service announcement, that
we should conduct the following:

(1) Resolve to shun him [Brandon Cope], on account of his Nth repeat
of the same moronic troll has gotten terrible boring. He will not
learn from his mistakes, and so there is little point in discussing
his misperceptions with him. He certainly will not grasp that his
opinions are not the same as relevant critiques.

This "call for shunning" is a classic example of ad hominem fallacy.
Rational people do not need the warning, because Cope's incompetence is
self-evident.

Why don't you just own up to the fallacy? Everyone resorts to fallacy on
occasion, because humans are emotional creatures, and sometimes reason
just isn't as compelling as rhetoric.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Rupert Boleyn said

> Yeah, I know it's a team, but only David is credited for the earlier
> works. As for _Polgara_, I liked it, but didn't finish it, which
> suggests I found it dragged towards the end.

or that you were too busy going to parties n stuff.

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Here's a funny. On the same website where Goslin mungled his definition of
Ad Hominem, there appears ...

"Appeal To Pity (Appeal to Sympathy, The Galileo Argument): ..... There is a
strange variant which shows up on Usenet. Somebody refuses to answer
questions about their claims, on the grounds that the asker is mean and has
hurt their feelings..."

And lookie, lookie! Goslin is refusing to confront the argument (that he can
"destroy"), because his wittle feewings are hurt. Boo, hoo! The newsgroup
is such an *awful* place! All these people keep demanding that I know what I
am talking about and learn from my mistakes and be intellectually honest and
I just *can't*! Those BASTARDS! They are shattering my fantasy delusion of
being an infallible genius with washboard abs!

Here's a hint, Goslin. *You* are ruining the newgroup for everyone *else*
with your decisions to behave dishonestly. Imagine what would happen if you
were an honest seeker of knowledge, rather than an ignorant blowhard with a
learning disability and a negative charisma score.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Jeff Goslin said

> There are generalities that apply, and the characters would be able to
> apply the generalities. There are, of course, exceptions to the
> general rules, but there is a reason they are called "exceptions".

[snip drivel]

Could I possibly convince you to look up the meaning of the word fantasy in
a dictionary?

--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Robert Singers" <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns963CBECDBF460rsingers@IP-Hidden...
> Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Jeff Goslin said
>
> > There are generalities that apply, and the characters would be able to
> > apply the generalities. There are, of course, exceptions to the
> > general rules, but there is a reason they are called "exceptions".
>
> [snip drivel]
>
> Could I possibly convince you to look up the meaning of the word fantasy
in
> a dictionary?

*sigh* Yes, I know, it's a fantasy world, and there are lots of wierd and
wacky stuff that CAN happen. But in *MY* fantasy campaign world, there is a
level of "normalness" that is based at least somewhat on reality. Steel is
hard, wood splinters, water is refreshing, food tastes just like it does to
us if it's made of the same basic stuff, up is up, down is down, and yes,
berries taste like berries, and eggs taste like eggs.

I understand that some things must be "fantastic" in a fantasy world, but
the taste of berries and eggs is not in that subset of fantastically odd
things.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Is-dnTMTsKWExv7fRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> *sigh* Yes, I know, it's a fantasy world, and there are lots of wierd and
> wacky stuff that CAN happen. But in *MY* fantasy campaign world, there is
a
> level of "normalness" that is based at least somewhat on reality.

Would this be the same "reality" where Jeffie is infallible, a genius,
and ad hominem is any insult?

Methinks Jeffie is already living in a fantasy world.

-Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:59:24 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net>
scribed into the ether:

>"Robert Singers" <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns963CBECDBF460rsingers@IP-Hidden...
>> Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Jeff Goslin said
>>
>> > There are generalities that apply, and the characters would be able to
>> > apply the generalities. There are, of course, exceptions to the
>> > general rules, but there is a reason they are called "exceptions".
>>
>> [snip drivel]
>>
>> Could I possibly convince you to look up the meaning of the word fantasy
>in
>> a dictionary?
>
>*sigh* Yes, I know, it's a fantasy world, and there are lots of wierd and
>wacky stuff that CAN happen. But in *MY* fantasy campaign world, there is a
>level of "normalness" that is based at least somewhat on reality. Steel is
>hard, wood splinters, water is refreshing, food tastes just like it does to
>us if it's made of the same basic stuff, up is up, down is down, and yes,
>berries taste like berries,

Strawberry?
Blueberry?
Boisenberry?
Raspberry?
Blackberry?
Cranberry?

None of those things tastes even remotely like the other. Of that list,
only boisenberries and blackberries even remotely resemble each other or
anything else. Distinct in form, distinct in flavor, distinct in
texture...even a fairly wide variety of color.

> and eggs taste like eggs.

Most of the eggs in the real world are not chicken eggs, why do you expect
a D&D universe to be so radically different?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Bradd wrote:
>> Some sources claim that it's only ad hominem fallacy if a personal
>> attack replaces all reasoning; others claim that it's ad hominem
>> fallacy even if the personal attack merely bolsters the argument
>> (i.e., even when it appears alongside valid reasoning).

Chipacabra wrote:
> It still has to bolster the argument! That's the point you're not
> getting. Michael's insults are not replacing his argument, they're not
> bolstering his argument. Half of them are just pure vitriol as
> punctuation, which is logically neutral, and the other half are
> CONCLUSIONS. "You are wrong, therefore you are stupid."

But that's pretty much the definition of a red herring fallacy: Rhetoric
that does not support the conclusion but nonetheless serves "to
intentionally confuse or distract someone else."[1] Ad hominem fallacy
is simply the subset of red herrings that use personal attacks to
confuse and distract.

Do you disagree that MSB uses insults to troll his opponents?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd