Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "TheQuartering" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. ​ Kerosin Fuchs  Actually no, law did not come into being requiring a victim, laws older then much of recorded history could be victimless and yet were still law, in fact it was common for victimless laws to exist, the Israelites and Persians, even the Babylonians, they all contained laws that didn't require victims in all cases, many of those laws were enforced separate from victim laws however that doesn't discount them as laws, and action was always taken towards them. The Romans and Egyptians also had victimless laws. (in fact the Greek Antiquity Egyptians were actually a practical socialist state before being invaded by the Romans, which does invalidate that claim even more) That aside its clear you aren't willing much to defend your ideas, you proposed no reasoning towards them and instead try to claim it hasn't been done before. (which isn't a good justification either, its on its own a form of fallacy in fact) And then you tried to drag my name through the mud as if I'm a forced "moralist" who never came to my own conclusions, again trying to fallaciously dissuade my side of the argument. My hands have never been clean, and I carry no more shame for that because it disgusts me to be unclean and I have been reborn. No one has made me pure in life, I'm pure because I have been Chosen by God as a servant being a Follower of Christ. And I in fact carry joy because of that. Now if you'd like to stop trying to shame me for something I'm beyond in mind, body, and soul I'd prefer you'd stop pulling fallacies to support your arguments.
    1
  5.  Kerosin Fuchs  It hurts both society and the individual participating it, don't lie about reality and call it truth, we know what it does, refusal to face reality is ignorant delusion you willingly will take part in just to spoil yourself because you lack any discipline. And its clear how much it poisoned you given how much vile, fallacy, and weakness you've shown in this discussion. And consent doesn't fix the fact its encouraging pedophilia, I don't care if its behind closed doors or not, its evil thoughts which lead to evil actions. (whether you are conscious or aware of it, blindness does not fix a broken body and neither does it fix a broken mind) The only reason many people like you will defend free speech isn't because you care about what others say, its to protect your addiction, if you could figure a way to control the rolling scale I have no doubt in accordance with your actions already you would easily use it to silence opposition to anything, specifically degenerate behavior such as porn. You don't have the foreknowledge nor discipline to recognize anything beyond yourself and will refuse anything that shows you how wrong it is, it will never satisfy you and you will never stop hungering for a larger kick, there is nothing new under the sun, its all vanity, so don't you arrogantly think you've found something better. (we all try until we realize there is not but One Way, but you can try all you want to avoid it) You're so undisciplined you aren't even willing to accept your fallacious claims weren't valid arguments, instead trying to berate a messenger of truth because you can't stand the light.
    1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19.  @khosrowzare8301  "whatever, that does not prove his argument" Never said it did, if you read what I wrote, I literally told you fallacies are logically neutral, as in they don't change the argument at all. That was actually a strawman. "The name of the fallacy doesn't matter since at this point we will be arguing semantics." It very much does, the substance of the fallacy communicates how someone is to respond and to what degree misunderstandings of the subject are present, they also communicate possibility of incorrect perspective on the subject which is also useful for correction regarding the subject. This aside it was not a fallacy so its not semantics, (despite the fact it never was because two different fallacies can't be treated the same in most cases) it could be a direct demonstration of his argument so long as the proof exists, and he doesn't need much to do so. "He (the poster the initial responce was toward) claimed the devs are saying it's a joke after the fact just like Canada's PM." Which is pretty easy to prove if you retrieve the track record. This aside whether Justin Trudeau actually made a joke or not is irrelevant, the case of the matter is that it was politically infused, this is a reference to a capably similar (whether its actually similar is currently up for debate here, its capably similar, as in it could be comparable, this is not up for debate, hence why its not a fallacy) case. "They have a track record of making these types of jokes and the community knows it as well. Just look at the comments on this video and see how many people are bashing Jeremy for his, somehow superisingly, stupid take." A track record of these jokes does not change anything in the argument because the argument in this case has to do with whether the statement is politically charged. Even if the joke was accepted by the community positively that does not mean anything in regards to this argument, it also does not necessarily mean the specific case couldn't be politically charged, to a certain that has to be weighed by context, background, and environment, background as far as I see (not that it is, but that I have been revealed so far) doesn't say anything either way, environment says it is, (Belgium as an environment is ripe with left wing politics and game studios are excessively pandering to left wing politics as of these days) context I suppose could go either neutral or against that depending on the background. So far by these metrics I'd be hesitant to weigh in specifically on the argument itself, though personally I hate these type of jokes in every business and will always be biased against any business that does it regardless of desire or intent. By the way the comments of the community are irrelevant for the argument as well. "They never actually outright said it was a joke after the backlash..." Not really sure how that improves your argument and that aside it was all useless information, most especially to me, someone who doesn't actually care all that much. You'd be arguing with the wrong guy anyone since my position wouldn't be changed by the specific of the incident all that much and I didn't make the argument. Also that aside, this does not present any information on the related affiliation of the statement being debated over. "This complaint is very common in DnD community, specially by GMs..." Aside from not being an argument here still, a developer studio is not a DM/GM, as I said, I'd say it personally be disgraceful to act in that manner, but that's irrelevant. "first, the devs never claimed it was a joke after the fact when he said they did," Implicitly they did according to your later reasoning, so technically this is an outright lie, you can't have them joking with the players and then also not in behavior making a joke. (interpreted as claiming it to be a joke by implication) There isn't even any reason to bring this up in all honesty since whether its a joke or not isn't relevant to what people are taking issue of. "second, the devs have a track record of joking with players when he implied (through Canada PM's exmples) that they didn't." Actually no, this conclusion of discussion is wholly incorrect, whether either of them were a joke or not is not relevant, its whether the statement itself was politically charged, which you've done nothing to counter. This aside there's already inherent strikes against the studio implicitly, however it is true that the burden of proof is on your opponent of the debate, however it would not take much to prove it true. And I shouldn't have to correct on this but I feel my words will be taken out of their meaning if I don't, this does not mean I'm implying things either way, I am not saying that the proof that is burdened exists, I am merely saying he is required to demonstrate his claim evidentially in some manner, in the least for the sake of context or background which would show a track record or implying the relation to the subject.
    1
  20.  @khosrowzare8301  "Now I'm just confused. Can retrieving the track record act as proof or not? you can't have it both ways." Because the jokes aren't relevant to the subject, its behavior, beliefs, ideals, and perspectives, which are also integrated in the projects they've developed and everything they've said, a joke doesn't incorporate context nor reasoning into the mindset in order to produce a conclusion. When I say track record, I'm not referring to one-offs and one-shots, its all about the track record of productions, most especially for what they're geared for or for what they speak to specifically on the subject. My context makes this clear, those two statements are not by each other and refer to completely different points under the same response. (its not an argument because I'm not arguing with you over a position I couldn't give less of a damn over) "Context clearly shows it was not political, they were just showcasing accumulated data they had nothing with creating (the result was not something they could predict anyway)." The context itself from what you gave doesn't clarify this either way which is why I told you its currently neutral. Speaking about data speaks nothing to nor against the subject at hand, making it argumentatively useless data as I said. "Background is related to their track record as a company which also shows them never making political statements before." Perhaps, but I don't see anything that should convince me either way. "Environment has nothing to do with Belgium as a country since it wasn't made there, but insread on a public, international froum for the game's commiunity which, again hasn't been politically charged." Larian is a Belgium company that developed and published the game, unless you're telling me that the majority of development for a Belgium studio does not take place within Belgium and the heads of the studio have no association with Belgium, this reasoning is wrong, that or you're telling me Larian doesn't own the rights to the third game, doesn't control the analytical data, likely did not develop the game at any point, and currently does not host the development's PR. Your refutation is the most pedantic manner in which you could be correct and yet it doesn't prove a single point about the environment of the company that owns the game, not where its development actually happened, which isn't actually relevant to this point. If you want to argue in a manner that doesn't make you seem unhinged, you really should learn to submit when your opposition is right, even despite the fact I'm not the opposition, I'm more comparable to a moderator at this point. "And making these kinds of statements is just them being close to the players. Most devs were like that in 1990s and early 2000s before the rise of big gaming publishers and then the whole US political BS of mid 2010s." I don't really care, a company is not a person, a studio is not a person, they should not act like one, and should not be treated as one. I despise that outlook, regardless, you are arguing with a vehement bias I have, you can't convince me against it, I didn't conclude this by rational argumentation and I don't care to discuss it with you, the only reason I brought it up was to make you aware of my perspective against studios that do it. It has no other bearing then to describe my bias against that specific subject, you really need to learn to limit your injection into topics that shouldn't be argued on, arguments are just as much clarification you can't or shouldn't argue as they are about opposing points defeating each other. (or in the least fighting it out) Only when the point is being made as a substance against the points at hand are they worth interacting with. "At this point any further argument is pointless anyway. This is the reason why such click-bait articles (both Kotaku's and this video) are stupid. They force their context on to matters and then you will have one hell of a time convinding anyone not in the know about the whole matter that they were just talking out of their asses." Either learn to deal with them properly or you should prefer silence, because you can only otherwise fail and harm yourself. "After all, it's not very possible to prove the lack of a political agenda." I feel like you saw what I posted, but read none of it, you understand nothing of what I wrote and decided to argue with the irrelevant stuff instead of making the case for your side, you tried to turn me into the enemy when I wasn't the one opposing you, I haven't argued once on the subject itself, if you actually read what I wrote, I haven't even tried to prove either side of the argument. "the worst part is, these articles never correct themselves which goes to show how much integrity they have while claiming the other side has none (takes one to know one I guess)." Who cares, its all vanity anyway, at that point better to enjoy yourself then regard those who make themselves suffer or to make you suffer. If people actually did this, negative clickbait wouldn't exist. I take joy in these (referring to this specific instance) type of things, teaching reason, making arguments, this form of intellectualism is a hobby of mine I partake in, outside of speaking my opinion on matters separately before I do such, this is the type of nerdist hobby I like to spread in understanding to others. And its why I love economics as well. (aside from the fact people need to learn basic reason and economics because nobody does, and its actually destroying society, but that's merely one justification)
    1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1