The ChaosRook of Doom wrote:
Master ketrel wrote:
You can't rebut an argument by criticising or denigrating its presenter instead of dealing with the argument itself.
Yes you can, if you have a history of providing information you pulled from your *** then people should be informed and right off the top not believe you and or not take your numbers as realistic or reliable.
It's called Ad hominem. It is a logical fallacy in debates of this type. If we're talking a matter of opinion, then discrediting the person with the opinion is perfectly reasonable. However, when we are talking cold verifiable facts, discrediting the person rather than the argument is irrational and unhelpful. No doubt that HDS tends to pull numbers out of his nether regions, but in this case, his numbers aren't that far from reality and can't be dismissed just because he's the one providing them.
not quite... unless you already know the answer to the question, you have no way of differentiating between when seraphus is flat out lying (like he used to do daily on the killingifrit MNK forums;
i'm not sure if he was an alla troll as well at that time) or saying something valid.
since he does simply make things up on occasion, his posts are rendered worthless. the only ways they could be "useful" would be if you verified everything he said for yourself (90% of the cases of which could be done without ever asking the question in the first place), or if others post confirming his response (in which case it's their answers not his that were helpful).
there's principles of charity and trust that allow for communication, especially here where we make claims about observable things that "no one would ever bother lying about" (like how we assume most to all parses haven't been edited after the fact by the poster). when someone openly violates those principles, it's borderline impossible to seriously communicate with them.
listen, i'm all for the principle of anonymous communication and having arguments stand up more than people (i quite prefer that to ego/reputation-based forums like alla), and i know ad hominem is a fallacy. but you need to understand that social interaction is not so simple as taking everything everyone says "at face value" all the time. the internet has trolls
, for one. two, if people like seraphus are allowed to spread misinformation as freely as valid information, it erodes all reason for people to take seriously anything you or i might say (stuff where certain game mechanics are taken as assumed). some people prefer to take the attitude, "no! regardless of liars, you should hang on EVERY SINGLE WORD that comes out of my mouth, make no judgments about my demeanor and character, and hash out every logical argument i make no matter how trifling!" that's a very entitled and foolish attitude.
you can't deal with known liars the same way you deal with people who have never lied to you. this isn't about morality or ethics, it's about the dispassionate mechanics of communication itself. the machinery can't run if liars are treated the same as truthtellers; the conveying of information is premised off certain common assumptions without which we can't talk about final fantasy xi.