Quote from: Kael;1081578Selachimorpha

To the Google!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081588To the Google!

Lol, I have such irrational love for that show. I can still remember watching the reruns as a kid before bed on Nick at Nite (I think that's right). Selina Kyle....(drool). The world needs another Adam West.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081548No they don't, no I'm not, and no it doesn't when I am advocating we defend the RPG hobby as a whole.

Took me a bit but I see what you are trying to do here.

You keep using words like genocide, and murder, when I am talking about the RPG hobby.

Nothing I am advocating is in the same ballpark as genocide and murder. Not even in the same reality.

And could not be construed as such by any reasonable person.

You keep trying to say my words are equivalent to physical violence, when I have not advocated physical violence of any kind.

SJW's use a similar tactic. They equate the words of their opposition with 'literally hurting people' so that they feel justified in using physical violence as a response to people that they disagree with. Antifa does this in their rhetoric all the time.

Why are you doing it?

I think you just answered your own question.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081584Yeah. I wonder why Jaeger felt so threatened.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3283[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081583\...

 To watch as you use a SJW argument to try and remove legitimacy from someone else... like the people you claim to want to defend against.

I haven't changed any of my terms, yet you desperately dance to create new ones to explain why you think you're justified.

LOL. Sorry no. Nice try.


So lets breakdown his "argument" directly here:

He keeps saying what I am advocating is 'analogous':  "similar or comparable to something else either in general or in some specific detail"

To murder and genocide: His words. See his previous posts.

When what I am advocating is not comparable to murder or genocide.

He is making an apples and oranges comparison, and trying to get everyone to believe that they both are basically the same thing.

That is disingenuous at best.

So either he is an SJW, or is clearly unable, or refuses, to see what they are all about, and what they represent.

I cannot fix that in a forum thread.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081593LOL. Sorry no. Nice try.


So lets breakdown his "argument" directly here:

He keeps saying what I am advocating is 'analogous':  "similar or comparable to something else either in general or in some specific detail"

To murder and genocide: His words. See his previous posts.

Correct so far.

QuoteWhen what I am advocating is not comparable to murder or genocide.

He is making an apples and oranges comparison, and trying to get everyone to believe that they both are basically the same thing.

Wrong. That would be equivocation to say they are basically the same thing. Analogy is drawing a comparison to another field and finding out what would be a similar situation in that field. That does not mean the two things are equivalent. Landing a plane to park it for the evening could be viewed as analogous to readying your computer to turn off for the evening. They both involve ordered steps of some kind to ready it to cease to be used (analogy) but one wouldn't say that shutting down your computer is as hard as landing a plane (which would be equivocation).

See, my situation would now be analogous to Ben Shapiro squarely holding a mirror up to his opponents and watching them flounder to shift terms and add something new to the conversation to try to win. That does not mean I am saying I am Ben's equivalent.

Again, I am not the one shifting terms here. Go back and look. I never claimed this was equivalent.

QuoteThat is disingenuous at best.

Only if you don't want to see your opponent's side.

QuoteSo either he is an SJW, or is clearly unable, or refuses, to see what they are all about, and what they represent.

Speaking of ad hominem...

It's amazing how quickly you went from, "This guy is against me," to, "therefore he must be an SJW!" We can also then reasonably conclude that you feel I should not be in your hobby at all, based on your earlier argument. All because I disagreed with you, and never once did I do anything even remotely threatening to you.

Does that attitude sound familiar at all? It should.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081592[ATTACH=CONFIG]3283[/ATTACH]

Hmm... how? I didn't refute anything in my statement. I pondered something. That had nothing to do with his argument or him as a person.

EDIT: I mean, I suppose if you want to characterize it as an attack then it would be ad hominem, but it really wasn't intended to be one. It was an observation. Calling someone an SJW would seem to be a direct ad hominem.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081656Again, I am not the one shifting terms here. Go back and look. I never claimed this was equivalent.

Ok, so lets get all semantic then:


So lets breakdown his "argument" directly here:

He keeps saying what I am advocating is 'analogous': "similar or comparable to something else either in general or in some specific detail"

To murder and genocide: His words. See his previous posts.

When what I am advocating is not analogous to murder or genocide.

He is making an apples and oranges comparison, and trying to get everyone to believe that they are analogous to each other.

That is disingenuous at best.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081656...

It's amazing how quickly you went from, "This guy is against me," to, "therefore he must be an SJW!" ....

LOL. In the very quote you used, I said no such thing.

I listed three either, or, possibilities.

You picked one and put words in my mouth.

Disingenuous again.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081664Ok, so lets get all semantic then:


So lets breakdown his "argument" directly here:

He keeps saying what I am advocating is 'analogous': "similar or comparable to something else either in general or in some specific detail"

To murder and genocide: His words. See his previous posts.

When what I am advocating is not analogous to murder or genocide.

Sure it is. You're advocating the removal of someone else from the existence of this field. You're advocating killing their ability to have a voice or be a part of a broader community. The analogy to life would be... murder.

EDIT (for context):

QuoteAny hobby or community can save themselves a lot of trouble in the long run, by identifying and driving out SJW entryists early and often.

Now back to your current post.

QuoteHe is making an apples and oranges comparison, and trying to get everyone to believe that they are analogous to each other.

That is disingenuous at best.

I think you don't understand what analogy is. THIS (as in preceding sentence) is an ad hominem statement because I'm left with nothing else to refute. You've retreated into your corner and refuse to make a cogent argument.

QuoteLOL. In the very quote you used, I said no such thing.

I listed three either, or, possibilities.

You picked one and put words in my mouth.

Disingenuous again.

I left the other two off because the other two amounted to the same thing as the first: a reason to discount anything I had written. That first was the only one where there was another argument to explore. All three are actually the same response for purposes of this conversation, but only one has a broader implication that you are unwilling to address.

You know, if you don't like the analogy, there are plenty of others we could go with. Forced relocation. Political expulsion. Political arrests. Take your pick. In the end, they are all about murdering someone else's voice, so why dicker about it?

Tanin sometimes people need to be pointed to the door and be told to leave.  No amount of weaseling you can make won't change that.  SJWs had overstayed their welcome.  It is not genocide, but a get out of my bar situation.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081666You know, if you don't like the analogy, there are plenty of others we could go with. Forced relocation. Political expulsion. Political arrests. Take your pick. In the end, they are all about murdering someone else's voice, so why dicker about it?

What would be the appropriate analogy to some would be squatters wanting to take over your property, and you not letting them in? Would your behaviour be more akin to murder, to genocide, to forced relocation, to political expulsion, to political arrest? Or to all of these at once?

Quote from: S'mon;1081672What would be the appropriate analogy to some would be squatters wanting to take over your property, and you not letting them in? Would your behaviour be more akin to murder, to genocide, to forced relocation, to political expulsion, to political arrest? Or to all of these at once?

Well, so let's examine that two ways: first, compared to one another. Second, compared to the current gaming community, as may or may not be implied in your question (but even if it's not, I'm bringing it up, so it's largely irrelevant).

Analogizing Squatting to Another Cognizable Harm

I'm going to take the liberty of summarizing murder, genocide, forced relocation, political expulsion, and political arrest as "another cognizable harm." If that term is too broad for you, I'm willing to discuss narrowing it. Further, I'm going to throw out there an assumption that the squatters have done nothing to beautify or add to the abandoned property (which is a requirement for "squatting" in some places) and that definition of squatter can be reasonably agreed to simply be, "one who settles on property without right or title or payment of rent."

The last thing that has to be brought up before analyzing the analogies: generally squatters have to already be on your abandoned (key word there) property to be squatting. So I'm going to assume that by "you not letting them in," you mean "you did not give permission." If you mean that you're physically, actively, right now, not letting them in, then they're tautologically, not squatters.

Operating from these premises, the closest form of cognizable harm is not an analogy at all, it's called trespass. (In many jurisdiction, there's a distinction between trespassers and squatters, but to the layman it's a pretty razor thin distinction.) In trespass, you have a right to defend your property and remove them. But you know what you do not have a right to do? Kill the squatters. Unless they threaten you bodily. If they only threaten your property, you normally have no right to harm them over it any more than is absolutely required to get them to leave. If that force would significantly endanger them to grievous bodily harm or kill them, you have no right to do that. (It's worth noting that this is changing in America, slowly.)

But, if you want to stick to just the categories you offered: you really cannot analogize it to them very well because they lack a specific or general means of comparison. In the offered categories, "you" (the generic you) would be the aggressor silencing someone else who has a right to speak. The squatter has no equivalent right to your property. Though his actions and good-will towards your abandoned property may actually grant him rights as a tenant, depending on the circumstances, in which case you could analogize your use of force quite clearly to murder or forced relocation: you want to silence his rights to exist.

Taking this Analogy to the RPG World

The analogy of a squatter in general does not work because implicit in it is an assumption that they do not have a right to play in the hobby. If we look at buying a book, or subscription to an ebook, as a close analogy to "paying rent" and forming, or joining, a gaming group, or wanting to discuss the hobby in the meta-sense, as actively contributing to the land, for better or ill, then they are landlords or tenants, not squatters. And if they were simply invited to join someone's group, or to a forum that is open to everyone, then that's explicitly being invited "on to the land." For them to be squatting or trespassing, you'd need to show they have no right to be here to begin with.

So if you're experiencing a problem with squatters at your table, I'd wonder how they got in there to begin with that did not involve the landlord inviting them in. Even once the landlord withdraws his invitation, to continue the analogy, you're still looking at going through an eviction process (presumably the analogy here would be banning them from a forum or removing the player from the group) and they would, again, be a trespasser only insofar as they no longer are welcome.

But to generalize trespass to the entire community would be like saying that because I was a squatter in Indiana, I can now no longer rent anywhere in the United States. It does not follow one to the other.

Taking it a step further, to your right to defend yourself if you're being threatened on your property (i.e. they're trying to push you out of the gaming community), then, by analogy, you would only have the right to prevent your own expulsion, which could, if reasonable, be done by expelling ("murdering") the trespasser. However, you would need to show that you were in imminent danger AND that it is actually YOUR property, not just that you have a right to be there. (That is, inherent in the analogy, you are claiming to own all of RPG community.)

If you want to extend the analogy to "all members of the community own the community" then we're talking about creating a government, not an individual owner. Else you are acting with the voice of all on your own, which is rather illegitemately despotic.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1081667Tanin sometimes people need to be pointed to the door and be told to leave.  No amount of weaseling you can make won't change that.  SJWs had overstayed their welcome.  It is not genocide, but a get out of my bar situation.

I didn't know it's your bar.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081665Sure it is. You're advocating the removal of someone else from the existence of this field. You're advocating killing their ability to have a voice or be a part of a broader community. The analogy to life would be... murder.

And you're doing it again. Loaded words.

Why not? Participation, suppressing, and ostracization, in their place?

But then you wouldn't get to obliquely paint me as an advocate for murder and genocide would you?

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081665I think you don't understand what analogy is. ....

I do. You are making an apples and oranges comparison.


 

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081665I left the other two off because the other two amounted to the same thing as the first: a reason to discount anything I had written. That first was the only one where there was another argument to explore. All three are actually the same response for purposes of this conversation, but only one has a broader implication that you are unwilling to address...

No.

The other two are perfectly valid reasons why you would not get what I and others in this thread are saying.

Do you see SJW entryism as a threat? If so, what counter steps do you think are adequate enough to deal with them?

If you actually answer, the worst thing I could say in reply is that we have a fundamental disagreement of the level of danger SJW's present to the hobby in particular, and society at large.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081681And you're doing it again. Loaded words.

So you want to make an analogy that has words that have no meaning? If not, then please explain what your loaded term, "loaded words," means.

QuoteWhy not? Participation, suppressing, and ostracization, in their place?

We can use those instead: I'm perfectly comfortable with drawing up a similar analogy around participating, suppressing, and ostracizing. I mean that's a wide open field of other wonderful things we could analogize your desire to suppress their speech to!

QuoteBut then you wouldn't get to obliquely paint me as an advocate for murder and genocide would you?

Again, that's argument from equivocation, not argument from analogy. Analogy does not mean that because I like and discuss the merits D&D 3.5 that I also advocate any system analogous to it. It means that there's a comparison that can be drawn.

If you feel like you are personally being accused of advocating for those things, maybe you should look hard in the mirror and figure out why you feel that way from a simple analogy that does not ascribe advocacy of the actual thing analogized to onto you.

QuoteI do. You are making an apples and oranges comparison.

You do understand that false analogy only works if the analogy is actually false, right? If I asked what would be the analogous fruit the Orange tree bears to what an Apple tree bears based on fruit it bears alone (not comparing anything else like taste, color, quality, but solely on the fact that they are fruit bearing trees), what would the answer be? Would that answer imply that I am advocating for oranges?

QuoteNo.

The other two are perfectly valid reasons why you would not get what I and others in this thread are saying.

I did not say they were not valid answers. I said they amounted to the same thing.

QuoteDo you see SJW entryism as a threat? If so, what counter steps do you think are adequate enough to deal with them?

If by threat you mean a threat to me and my game? No, not really.

If by threat you mean an existential threat to the hobby? Only if men and women of good conscience refuse to engage them in open and meaningful debate, thereby dragging their ideology into the light where it can be judged on its merits. (Should they refuse to join such debate, or even actively sabotage it, that only reflects poorly on them.) Of course, in answering whether or not there is a threat, I have also given you what counter steps are adequate enough to deal with them.

QuoteIf you actually answer, the worst thing I could say in reply is that we have a fundamental disagreement of the level of danger SJW's present to the hobby in particular, and society at large.

And that's perfectly OK. This is a forum for debate, after all, isn't it?