this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
60 points (94.1% liked)

Games

16796 readers
850 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
60
[Accursed Farms] Giant FAQ on The European Initiative to Stop Destroying Games (www.youtube.com)
submitted 3 months ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works -4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Right, because I'm specifically talking about fallacies. You're currently exhibiting the fallacy fallacy, which is when you assume an argument is wrong because it's fallacious.

I have my judgement on this topic already (I'm not for or against it, but its more complicated than that too), I'm responding to people who are struggling to understand even the first fallacy that I found, which honestly makes me think this is actually really important to do.

If you can't see the flaws in the argument that "we're making the first bridge across this river, so we're your only hope for a bridge across the river". You're going to have some really tough times not being scammed.

I've spent more time in this comment section having to explain how that's a fallacious argument than I spent watching the video. This is utterly absurd that I need to explain that just because there's only one initiative doesn't mean it's the only possible initiative.

You lot are having an argument against a position I don't hold and a argument I'm not making.

[–] mke@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I sincerely apologize if I misrepresented your position, I hate it when that happens to me. Maybe I was too defensive. I genuinely tried to engage with your original comment as I understood it. It didn't help that, in my experience, people who start off a discussion like this:

Makes me want to sit down watch it and pick out any falacies, but let's be honest, that's not likely to happen.

Tell me you don't understand fallacies without telling me you don't understand fallacies I guess.

Are often not discussing in good faith.

If you can't see the flaws in the argument that "we're making the first bridge across this river, so we're your only hope for a bridge across the river". You're going to have some really tough times not being scammed.

Yes, but I addressed in my previous comment how I don't believe that's the spirit of the message being conveyed.

Regardless, if you've already spent that much time in this comment section, there's no need to drag things out even more. You sound very set in your ideas—whatever they are, what you meant to accomplish; I don't think I've grasped them quite yet—so I won't bother you further.

Hope you have a good day.

[–] inlandempire@jlai.lu 3 points 3 months ago

I admire your patience in interacting with such an obnoxious individual lol