Posts: 2,122
Threads: 244
Joined: Oct 2007
Staff roles:
' Wrote:Refresh yourself on the definition and use of hyperbole. It is but a figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally.
I'm not a mind reader, and I took what you said at face value. You presented your post as a series of arguments, not as a literary satire in which one would expect figurative language. I expect that you are no novice to debate, and should know that the affirmative's case depends on his ability to demonstrate a Harm in the status quo. Your description of the Harm is so over-the-top that it is ridiculous. In fact, by using it you failed to establish the existence of any Harm at all.
' Wrote:If you have a problem with my opinions, whether they are extreme or too right-sided, say so directly instead of picking at the way I write. Prejudice me based on my thoughts, not how I convey my thoughts.
The way one convey's his thoughts is integral to interpreting the meaning of those thoughts. I can say the exact same words while screaming and whispering, and the method of conveying them results in wildly different interpretations. You consciously chose your words; it's not up to the rest of us to reformulate a poor argument into a solid one when you chose not to do so yourself out of some sense of lyrical flair.
' Wrote:I'm really surprised that you of all the people here are more concerned about what has been written than what is being conveyed.
You just used synonyms to apparently describe opposites. How can anyone know what you are trying to say without paying attention to the way you say it and the words you use to describe it? Again, no mind readers here.
' Wrote:For those of you posting empty posts such as the quoted one in this thread, think about what is exactly going on here.
To which I quote yourself back to you :
"Prejudice me based on my thoughts, not how I convey my thoughts."
So you've gone from relying on exaggeration to make a point, to using insults in an attempt to discredit those who point out your exaggeration. You just committed the very same sin that you accused me of. But don't fret; I don't grant anyone the power to offend me, no matter how hard they try. I learned that secret a long time ago.
You want to know why I protested? Because I categorically assume that people offer up their strongest arguments when attempting to persuade, and exaggeration is a universal sign of a position's intellectual bankruptcy and/or the rhetorical laziness of the debater.
Rather than submitting such an exaggeration as the foundation of your argument, how about actually demonstrating practical negative effects of the rule you object to?
What stellar roleplaying is eliminated by requiring a sentence before attacking?
What opportunities for player interaction are infringed upon by requiring verbal interaction prior to hostile gun-play?
What gameplay experience is enhanced by total comm silence prior to attacks?
How is anyone's experience harmed by being required to announce an attack?
How is anyone's experience enhanced by encouraging unannounced attacks?
Of course, it's easier and simpler to take the easy way out of proclaiming that the sun is on fire as the basis for your position while directing a fire hose at anyone who points out how ridiculous your statement is.
Check out my Trade Development Blog
for all the latest news on Nerfs and Final Nails, or to request trade changes.
