High sec should be.. more safe

[Knowledgeminer]

@Anderson_Geten

You did. Your only argument for me not knowing what a strawman is, was that the terms I used did not match the definition of wikipedia - which they actually do.

You’re wrong if not outright lying again:

@Knowledgeminer

For something to be a strawan, it has to be (1) a misrepresentation of the opponent’s argument, that is then (2) argued against, and (3) used as if refuting the misrepresentation was a refutal of the actual opponent’s argument as well when in fact it isn’t.

If you compare that explanation of what a strawman is with the one I gave the first time, you’ll see that I made points #2 and #3 explicit this time, precisely to make it clearer that they were missing from your definition.

You simply ignored what I said there because you weren’t interested in anything that could make your definition look different, but that’s your problem, not mine. You cannot ignore everything I said that made clear what was missing from your definition, because you didn’t want your definition to look different, and then blame me for you having done that…

@Anderson_Geten

My definition was correct - unless you now affirm that the definition you used was also wrong.

No, your definition is wrong because it completely ignores how the strawman has to be used for it to be considered a strawman. That explanation is in the Wikipedia article too, it’s just worded differently than the way I did, but you would have been able to see it if (1) you didn’t have the comprehension issues that you pretend I have and (2) you were more interested in understanding than in playing word games to try to make it look like you’re right when you’re wrong.

Again, that you chose to only take into consideration the part of that definition that most closely resembled yours, ignore the rest, and dismiss as irrelevant the significant differences in the meaning of some of the words used, so you could make it look like it was the same, is your problem, not mine…

@Anderson_Geten

You claim “I did this” - but you are not providing any evidence.

Except I did, in the replies to the posts where you claimed I was making a strawman. That you chose to dodge what I said there and even flagged those posts to try to keep them hidden for as long as possible is your problem, not mine…

@Anderson_Geten

[…]

[Bunch of nonsense, omitted for brevity, about how she thinks it’s me who has all the issues she has and does all the wrong things she does, to try to justify continuing ignoring the facts.]

[Anderson_Geten]

@Knowledgeminer

precisely to make it clearer that they were missing from your definition.

But they are not.
part 2 and 3 are contained in “answers to an argument by making it say something else that it meant in the first place.”
#2 “argued against” is present with “answer to”. How do you even claim it is missing from my definition.
#3 the whole sentence for “refuting the misrepresentation”. if it’s used as an answer to an argument, it’s used to refute the argument - by actually refuting what it is not.

And EVEN IF they were missing, my definition does hold for the first one you linked, and therefore when you claim it is incorrect, YOU ARE WRONG. Your 1,2,3 is just complete BS again. It does not prove anything at all. That’s why I was correct to not answer it : it had ZERO sense.

The only thing you show, is that you are not able to understand my posts.

@Knowledgeminer

No, your definition is wrong because it completely ignores how the strawman has to be used for it to be considered a strawman.

No, it does take into account how it is used.

@Knowledgeminer

Again, that you chose to only take into consideration the part of that definition that most closely resembled yours, ignore the rest, and dismiss as irrelevant the significant differences in the meaning of some of the words used, so you could make it look like it was the same, is your problem, not mine…

No, it’s YOUR comprehension problem.
Your claim, that my definition does not contain the three part you are asking for, and that as such I did not know what a strawman was, is false.
What’s more you are actually the one dodging the issue of you doing strawman by trolling about the strawman definition.
Therefore your whole interpretation of what I did or not makes zero sense.

You have zero understanding of what I actually posted. You just enjoy bitching about thing you will never be able to understand.

@Knowledgeminer

Except I did,

No you did not. You just showed more of your comprehension issues.
You keep blaberring that something you don’t understand does not mean something else, except it does. It’s completely absurd.
You are wrong. And you are pathetic.

[Anderson_Geten]

Let’s be very clear :
You claimed the terms I used, that were a general and simple explanation, do not conform to the first definition you gave, while they actually do.
You therefore proved that you don’t have the ability to appreciate if the terms I used were correct or not.

You then come with another definition to try and prove the same thing again.
But from the first step you proved your opinion on the topic is worth NOTHING at all.

It is just a useless series of words that you align to try to make a sentence, while actually dodging the point I made because you were wrong.

[Knowledgeminer]

@Anderson_Geten

part 2 and 3 are contained in “answers to an argument by making it say something else that it meant in the first place.”

No, sorry, but merely answering or replying to something is not the same as refuting or arguing against it, much less refuting or arguing against a different (misrepresented) argument.

I really shouldn’t have to say anything else here to prove my point if you were honest, but I’m gonna do it precisely to show how dishonest you are and how all you’re capable of is playing word games and nothing else…

Both your example and the use you made of the term “strawman” throughout this thread perfectly illustrate how you pretended that merely replying was enough for you to call it a strawman, when in fact it wasn’t:

@Anderson_Geten

For example, when you are claiming that I linked the article to prove my point, even though I explicitly wrote it was for explanations of a part that was misunderstood, you are making a strawman.

That’s not a strawman. That may be a correct or incorrect assumption about the reasons you linked the article, but nothing is being refuted there at all, much less misrepresented to try to refute something else.

@Anderson_Geten

You want to make Eve a PVP centric game ?

@Knowledgeminer

I don’t want to make EvE anything. If I didn’t like EvE or wanted it to be something else, I’d simply go play some other game I liked more instead.

@Anderson_Geten

Again with strawman. You can like something ans still want it to evolve for the best.

This is the most amazing of all the examples. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to support the idea that I made a strawman there. Not a single element needed for something to be a strawman is present. I was merely answering a question that you asked, period. Your claim that I made a strawman there is total ■■■■■■■■ and perfectly illustrates your utter ignorance on the matter.

Interestingly enough, this was also your most repeated claim of me having made a strawman throughout the thread, and the one that led to you making a big deal of the mistake that I acknowledged, even though I had explained how that couldn’t be a strawman at all in my reply to that post already, which of course you completely dodged as always…

@Anderson_Geten

@Knowledgeminer

You’ve decided that 10 years is too much for it to remain valid and that’s all we should care about.

Nope I did not affirm such a thing.
Again, you have issues reading things.
That’s literally a strawman - again.

Again not a strawman. You did not even understand what I was saying there, as I explained in my reply to that post, but let’s assume for the sake of the argument that you did and were right about whatever you thought I was claiming. How is saying what I said there trying to refute anything? You claimed that was a strawman based solely on your belief that I was claiming you said something you didn’t say. There is nothing else to support your claim that it was a strawman.

@Anderson_Geten

You claimed the terms I used, that were a general and simple explanation, do not conform to the first definition you gave, while they actually do.

You’re trying to make it look as if the problem here is that I’ve been picky about your definition but that you did know what a strawman is, and that’s not the case. I wouldn’t have called you out on your definition, even if it wasn’t accurate, if you had shown you knew what you were talking about. But the fact is that you simply didn’t, as evidenced above.

The real issue here is that you’ve been repeatedly using the term “strawman” throughout this thread to try to denigrate others without having a clue what you were talking about, and are playing word games now to try to make it look like you knew…

[Karak_Terrel]

@Nevyn_Auscent

There are actually valid reasons why the data could say that even if ganking actually decreases retention.

Dude, if the data shows that no new players are getting ganked then the premise “ganking is bad for new player retention” is false no matter how you spin it. There is now “correlation” we have to consider here if the very thing you are concerned about isn’t even happening.

[Dracvlad]

I have him blocked for this very reason. I have not read any of his aggressive banal utterings, but have read what you said in reply to him knowing that you have found exactly what I found. Good job.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Karak_Terrel

Dude, if the data shows that no new players are getting ganked

But the data clearly didn’t show that, because they had information on new players getting ganked.
However you also utterly missed my point, which was that there are valid options which would explain the data which could still have a negative impact on players while showing the slight ‘uptick’ which they found. And since there are valid options for that, and valid options where ganking is utterly unrelated to retention, the weak correlation they found can’t be used as any kind of causation.

Not just trotting out the saying, but actually applying logic, it still holds true in this case, we have a single weak correlation. No useful conclusions can be drawn from it in any direction other than ‘Hey, maybe we should look more at things’

[BIade_Runner]

You know that the emotional abuse that you suffered made you such a broken human being?
Your lack on empathy and sick appetite for tears and human suffering is obviously despicable, but otherwise much of the burden is indeed on the ones who damaged you so bad…

Sadly when the ones of your kind will reach a critical mass, the fate of humanity will be sealed, irrevocably condemned to a self inflicted sixth big extinction (many signs shows that we are already there).
Anyway, from an evolutionary standing point, the demise of unfit species is just the normal course of events.

[Ramona_McCandless]

I find people who claim others are untermensch usually have nothing important to say and say it just to stir up conflict.

[Knowledgeminer]

@Dracvlad

I have him blocked for this very reason. I have not read any of his aggressive banal utterings, but have read what you said in reply to him knowing that you have found exactly what I found. Good job.

Bookmarked for posterity. Gotta love the “good job” part.

[Knowledgeminer]

I hope this post of yours gets deleted as utterly inappropriate (and my reply to you with it), but in the meantime, and in case it doesn’t, I’d love to know what it was that happened to you that caused this inability to discern between a game and RL…

[Karak_Terrel]

@Nevyn_Auscent

But the data clearly didn’t show that, because they had information on new players getting ganked.

Watch the video again then. The data showed that under 1% of new players get ganked.

If you postulate that ganking is a problem for new players and the data shows it isn’t even happening then your theory is just completely out of the window. This has nothing to do with correlation.

Not sure how that is do hard to understand man.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

Except that 1% is actually quite a substantial portion when compared to the number of new players who make it to 30 days.
Look at that 1% alongside the retention figures. Then consider again how big a portion 1% actually is.

Again, we don’t have enough detail here to know, but that 1% could be happening at an average point in play time where 95% have already dropped out, meaning it’s 20% of those who remain who get ganked at that point. And that would matter.

But you keep arguing against points I haven’t made.
My point was that we simply don’t know, we don’t have detailed enough information, so we can’t go around tossing any kind of assertions to support any of these arguments.

[Karak_Terrel]

Sure bro. Then maybe they should fix the thing that makes 95% of players quit first and once that is done we can go back and check if ganking is now actually has a significant influence. But at the moment it hasn’t.

[BIade_Runner]

You really fool yourself and rationalize your lack of compassion for other people just because they are playing a game behind a monitor? Like they cease from being real persons with real feelings just because they are gamers and you do not see them…

Don’t worry, your next layer of rationalizing, build to protect you from cognitive dissonances caused by your lack of kindness and empathy, will kick in pretty fast, by telling yourself that “they deserve contempt and suffering because they are fool enough to have feelings about interactions in a video game”…

So you are just a tool who happen to punish them for their stupidity, but meanwhile you can enjoy a bit their tears because, what the hell, is just a video game and the act of enjoying people suffering became vaguely enough to not trigger any sense of guilt

[Anderson_Geten]

@Knowledgeminer

No, sorry, but merely answering or replying to something is not the same as refuting or arguing against it, much less refuting or arguing against a different (misrepresented) argument.

And I did not claim it.

You claim that I declared, merely “answering it” is the same as "arguing against a diffrent[…] " Which I did not.
You claim that this declaration being wrong means that I am wrong (by “no, sorry but”)
You don’t talk about what I actually claimed (the whole sentence, meaning not merely answering it)
Again, strawman.

@Knowledgeminer

but nothing is being refuted there

Yes, you are refuting my point.

@Knowledgeminer

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to support the idea that I made a strawman there.

Yes there is. My question was followed by its answer, which makes it a rhetorical question that does not need an answer.
Because my point was not whether you wanted to make Eve a PVP game or not, which I don’t give a single fck.
My point was to give example of what anybody would do to make a game more PVP-centric, thus proving that CCP did not take the path of evolving the game into a more PVP-centric part like OTHER GAMES did.

You just got stuck on it because of your comprehension issues, and claim that I did claim something about you specifically while I just don’t care.

@Knowledgeminer

Again not a strawman.

Yes a strawman. You literally make me say something I did not say, and use this misconception as a way to dodge the real point I made.
AND you specifically say it invalidates what I am saying, which isrefuting.

again 100% BS from your part.

@Knowledgeminer

You’re trying to make it look as if the problem here is that I’ve been picky about your definition

It literally is.
My definition was correct.
You claimed that I don’t know about strawman because my definition was wrong, therefore you instantly proved you were stupid since the two definitions refer to the same thing.
That’s all there was. You just proved that you are an idiot in that part.

Then you affirm that the first definition you used was not correct, while actually it also contains the second one, therefore you fail, again.
Again : your issues, your mistakes.
The only mistakes here are yours.

You don’t understand a single word of what I write and yet you want to give you opinion. And then you complain I don’t answer your whole BS.
What a crybaby.

[Galaxy_Pig]

@Anderson_Geten

Just because you are subject to PVP everywhere does not make it a PVP game.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the stupidest thing I’ve heard today.

[Knowledgeminer]

@Anderson_Geten

And I did not claim it.

Nor did I say you did.

@Anderson_Geten

You claim that I declared, merely “answering it” is the same as "arguing against a diffrent[…] " Which I did not.

Again, I did not claim that. Read again what I said that you quoted yourself. You are the one showing comprehension issues here all the time. You are the one making a strawman here (again), by pretending it’s me who did what you’re doing. You “see” people doing the very wrong things that you do all the time but they don’t…

What I did there is explain what’s the problem with your statement that ‘part 2 and 3 are contained in “answers to an argument by making it say something else that it meant in the first place.”’

Precisely because refuting is a particular case of answering, but it’s possible to answer something without refuting it, your definition is wrong because it includes cases that are not strawman. And this deficiency in your definition and “understanding” of the term, that you pretend doesn’t matter, is precisely what makes you use it incorrectly and call “strawman” things that aren’t all the time, and not even be aware of that…

@Anderson_Geten

Yes, you are refuting my point.

You don’t understand. You’re conflating the purpose of claiming that you linked an article to prove a point with that claim actually being a refutal of anything itself.

A claim that you linked an article for whatever reason isn’t a refutal of anything itself, which it would have to be for the thing be a strawman. Even if that claim was false and the purpose of making it was to refute something else, it would still not be a strawman. But you are unable to understand this precisely because you don’t understand what’s wrong with your definition of what a strawman is.

If anything, you might call the whole thing a fallacy if that was the case, but not a strawman.

@Anderson_Geten

My question was followed by its answer, which makes it a rhetorical question that does not need an answer. […]

Sorry, but nothing you said addresses the issue of you pretending that my reply to your question, rhetorical or not, was a strawman at all. You’re simply dodging the issue again babbling about why you asked the question and how little you care what my answer to that question was, but that’s all utterly irrelevant to whether I made a strawman when answering it or not…

Note also that, unlike the other two examples which I gave just to illustrate what you keep not understanding about this, failing to properly address this particular case after all the use you made of it throughout the thread would make you look like a jerk…

@Anderson_Geten

Yes a strawman. You literally make me say something I did not say, and use this misconception as a way to dodge the real point I made.
AND you specifically say it invalidates what I am saying, which is refuting.

Which just keeps showing your misunderstanding of the concept.

Again, even if I had really made you say something you din’t say (which I didn’t do, and I already explained that in my reply to the post where this happened), that would still not be a strawman.

For it to be a strawman, I would have had to argue against what I was supposedly claiming you said, not merely claim that you had said it. That’s what you keep not getting…

@Anderson_Geten

My definition was correct.

No, you’re confusing your inability to understand why it’s wrong, which is a problem you have, with it being correct.

@Anderson_Geten

Again : your issues, your mistakes.
The only mistakes here are yours.

Exactly, but what’s worst about it all is that you’re not even aware of that. You keep thinking it’s me who has the issues you have and “seeing” me do all the wrong things you do…

[Anderson_Geten]

@Knowledgeminer

Nor did I say you did.

You implied I did.
Because “no, sorry, but”. And also because you complain that I don’t answer all your sentences. Which means that even when you don’t explicitly say it, all your arguments are actually made to refute mine.

@Knowledgeminer

but it’s possible to answer something without refuting it,

Not an argument in the case you disagree with the person who affirmed it.
comprehension issues.

Your ONLY argument was that I did not understand what a strawman is, because my definition was incorrect.
My definition matches the one you gave at first. There fore, you were wrong.
Now you try to cherry pick on specific explanations, and still my definition was correct - and you were wrong.
This :

@Knowledgeminer

ROFLMAO. Turns out @Anderson_Geten, which accuses others of strawman all the time, and made a big deal of me making a mistake I immediately acknowledged, calling me stupid and whatnot for that, doesn’t know what a strawman is. Now this is hilarious. I’m gonna bookmark this for posterity.

Was wrong. The only argument you had was a definition that supposedly did not match the one I used - but actually it does.
You selectively choosing another definition is just a proof of your dishonesty.

You are just spamming nonsense again.

[Galaxy_Pig]

@Knowledgeminer

For it to be a strawman, I would have had to argue against what I was supposedly claiming you said, not merely claim that you had said it.

Anderson, do you still not understand this? If so, could you kindly back up your claim by demonstrating exactly where/how he strawmanned you? Because, I’ve been following this little back and forth and, though I hate to say it, Knowledgeminer is kind of completely destroying you right now.