Razer Footprints: Poll

@Crackmonster -

My example using automatic weapons was presented to *demonstrate* a certain *type* of logical fallacy - a slippery slope argument. It isn't a strawman. I presented a type of slippery slope argument to show how it follows the same 'reasoning' pattern that has been put on display here.

I will make it simpler.

GGG has introduced a cosmetic effect that advertises a company. Since they have done this once they will surely do it many more times.

Now, read that carefully, can you see what it is flawed? Another example:

Jeff didn't go to school today so obviously he won't go to school tomorrow and will flunk out of highschool.

Do you see why that is faulty?

Another example:

If the government uses these ten miles in the nature preserve to drill for oil they won't stop, they'll keep taking land until the nature preserve is destroyed.

Now, all three examples *including the one which was listed first* follow the same *faulty* reasoning structure - which makes them all of the same *type* of fallacy - a slippery slope. Drawing parallels between arguments by presenting a counter argument that follows the same structure as the first *is not a strawman*. Now, if you have *valid justifications* and can demonstrate that in the past action X has lead to action Y,Z etc.. then it *is not* a slippery slope fallacy - it is only a fallacy if you have no valid reasons for your feared cause and effect scenario. If, tomorrow, or next week GGG announces that now Pepsi will have adds in game *then we would now have valid reasons to support the argument listed first* - but until that time, we cannot make that argument, at most we can say that we do not like in game advertisements and do not want to see them in the future - that is perfectly fine, however if that is what you want to say then just say that, do not go on and spin some crazy sky is falling scenario for no reason whatsoever.

Here is a strawman:

Person A: I believe we should cut government funding from defense spending and instead allocate it to child welfare.
Person B: Person A want's to leave use defenseless to our enemies!

Now, see that Person B restated Person A's argument in a fallacious way in order to get around any kind of meaningful discussion and instead get people on his/her side. That is a strawman argument (or an example of a particular type).

Thanks.

"

Crackmonster wrote:

This is saying that since goverment did A we all assume they will do B. What was talked about here is that since they do A, they will probably repeat A again.

Well said. It has nothing to do with a slippery slope (a concept people in this thread seem to have extreme difficulty understanding).

I'm not worried about some phantom worse thing GGG will do. I'm worried that they will simply do the same thing again. Since they just did it once, it's obviously more likely they will do it again.

What is see in:

"

GGG has introduced a cosmetic effect that advertises a company. Since they have done this once they will surely do it many more times.

Is yet another manipulation of the truth that i chose to let be the first time that i read it. For your statement to be correct in this thread you should change the word "surely" into "probably" and change "many more times" into "again".

"

GGG has introduced a cosmetic effect that advertises a company. Since they have done this once they will probably do it again.

Now it matches the people in the thread. Maybe you can find one exception but in general this is the reaction.

--------

Your version is over-interpretated and leaps ahead creating yet another straw man. I am not messing around here i am dead serious, your interpretertion is what you want to discuss but i want to discuss what is relevant to this thread. Your version also is absolute, whereas the other is open.

The general kind of comments in threads like these would be something like:

"So, whats next? Nike footprints?"


From which you can draw

"

GGG has introduced a cosmetic effect that advertises a company. Since they have done this once they will probably do it again.

but not

"

GGG has introduced a cosmetic effect that advertises a company. Since they have done this once they will surely do it many more times.

And to your edit, no matter how many times you rewrite your original argument you change nothing. A strawman is correct in itself, which is why you can keep changing it around without it being wrong, but a strawman is not touching the topic, and you are exaggerating the situation and discussing off of the untrue exaggeration.

Who cares, i dont like them, many people don't like them, some people do and others dont care. The reason i wanted to argue with you a bit was because you started saying it was a slippery slope to mock GGG a bit and ironically ask them what's next. That is all healthy, and that's all i want to say. When GGG does something as silly as direct product placement inside the actual game world in a game thought to be all about integrity, it is time to mock them a little. It wasn't the smartest move you know, and people are right to be concerned.

EDIT: For example, if people were literally thinking that slums will be with the nokia logi all over, and so on, the whole game infested heavily, then yes it would be a slippery slope. However, all the comments i have read have been communicated with irony. I do not think the guy seriously meant that we would be seeing the nokia logo, he was playing off of it, in a way that i understand to be entertaining when i read it, and not something where i instantly think wow this guy is blind as hell, jeeeeeezzz.

If people do not believe that 1 in game advertisement will *surely* lead to further advertisements. Then I do not understand why they are angry over 1 in game advertisement, that doesn't actually advertise anything - it's a green group of coiled snakes on the ground.

you said: "The reason i wanted to argue with you a bit was because you started saying it was a slippery slope to mock GGG a bit and ironically ask them what's next."

If you want to ironically mock someone go nuts, but don't present it as an argument, and if someone disagrees with you do not stick to your attempt at ironic mocking as something worth protecting.

you said: "I do not think the guy seriously meant that we would be seeing the nokia logo, he was playing off of it, in a way that i understand to be entertaining when i read it, and not something where i instantly think wow this guy is blind as hell, jeeeeeezzz."

If person after person uses the same type of thing that you read as "entertaining" I read it as 'serious' I read it as serious because a myriad of threads have instantly arose by people believing the sky is falling because of 1 cosmetic option that is a picture of green coiled snakes. That is hysteria, hysteria isn't 'entertaining' - for me.

Making semantic squabbles over "again" and "many more times" doesn't change anything. because both options are assumptions, based off of nothing other than fear, that is why it is a slippery slope argument. More examples:

(a)Mike didn't go to school again. He will surely fail highschool.
(b)Mike didn't go to school again. He will probably fail highschool.
(c)Mike didn't go to school again. he will most likely fail highschool.
(d)Mike didn't go to school again. It is possible he will fail highschool.
(e)Mike didn't go to school again. He may fail highschool.
(f)Mike didn't go to school again. He will fail highschool.

Which of the above are faulty?

Also - saying at the end of a discussion "I wasn't serious, I was just being sarcastic" or something akin to that, isn't a defense.

Wittgenstein, you're doing it again.

Making a strawman. Stop with the strawmen. None of the "going to school" examples follow the actual reasoning in this thread.

The actual reasoning is:

a) Mike didn't go to school today. Thus, it is likely that he does not go to school on some other day, as well.

This is statistically true, and if you would like I could create some logic puzzles around ideas such as this that drive the point home.

A slippery slope argument implies that you are reaching towards a new, separate conclusion - NOT the identical thing that just happened.

ignoring completely logical babble (sorry, this is what it is - babble)

interesting part is: it seems that out of two parties it is Razer that got much better deal. if it is non-monetary deal then.. judging by count of new players in trade chat (you know, these 'what are good stats on quiver and wtb unique bow!!!!' type of comments) there are.. none today. so the 'get more players part seems to not have worked that well' (judging by the trade chat - inaccurate as it might be it still is a metric)

on the other hand almost all poe players and most definately all forum readers know about razer/razor whatever and know how their logo look like and what type of stuff they make

dear GGG - was that deal really worth it, considering.. noticeable backslash from the community? on a personal note - for me difference between 'ads' and 'no ads' is similar to that of 'donate'/'dont donate'. you can go all-in with ads (that picture few pages ago - priceless!) but then - to maintain fair/moral image - you should stop accepting donations. in the long term these are exclusive anyway

Hey now, I was not the one who was ironically mocking anyone, i was just describing the actions of some people in this thread and why i did not see it as serious posts to be taken literally. As far as it is within my ability i try to make my words represent what i want to say.

Listen, i don't get all irony, you don't get all irony, no one get's all irony. Is it possible you took them a bit more serious than was needed in this case?

"

Making semantic squabbles over "again" and "many more times" doesn't change anything. because both options are assumptions, based off of nothing other than fear, that is why it is a slippery slope argument. More examples.

It makes all the difference. It means i have to reply to something that is not matching the thread, where i can either chose to reply to your direct qoute of a hypothetical situation, or i can choose to assume you meant that which would be logical to draw from the previous comments. I chose to reply to what i knew it should look like. I even considered saying it then but i left it, until you brought it directly to my attention again then i had no choice. To someone like me who is often painfully aware of how one word can change the entire meaning of a sentence it matters all, because one thing is correct and the other is a misunderstanding!!

In any case, i do not wish to keep arguing like this i have no issue with you at all, so it makes me feel bad to continue. I do not think either of us think this is the end of the world or that poe will collapse tomorrow.

My opinion about this whole thing is that this was a mistake and that they sacrificed some of their artistic purity in doing it. That is my standpoint.

I vote 6. I use Razer mice and have no problem with the company in general; but the footprints are tacky and heavy handed.

I love the footprints and Razer products.

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

If people do not believe that 1 in game advertisement will *surely* lead to further advertisements. Then I do not understand why they are angry over 1 in game advertisement, that doesn't actually advertise anything - it's a green group of coiled snakes on the ground.

Sooooo...

The Windows logo is "just a group of coloured wavy squares"
The Nike logo is "just an odd looking tick with a round corner"
The nVidia log is "just an awkward looking coiled up snake"

etc.

and I guess that "none of these actually advertise anything"...

Leaving the aesthetics and fallacies aside for the moment, how do you expect to be taken seriously with "reasoning" like this?