Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8699487" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Seriously? You're literally actually going to say this.Well, folks, I feel like that's case closed. "I don't care how bad the means might be, my noble ends are all the justification I need."You absolutely did not. I have responded to those things, and have not seen you actually give an argument of weight. I have, in fact, explicitly said why your arguments by analogy don't work. You have continued to use them anyway.That your players are having fun does not mean this is the only way for it to be fun. That's a classic logical fallacy (namely, false dichotomy: you have to railroad otherwise the players wouldn't have fun. This is false.)Yes, that is my point. Your "specific examples" keep not working because they aren't the same as the thing being discussed. You keep bringing up non-sequitur examples, things that aren't relevant, and pretending that they are relevant. Performance magic and watching movies doesn't involve any agency on the part of the audience, that's a vital difference between those things and playing a TTRPG, yet I have not seen a single statement addressing this fault.Except that, again, the whole point here is that the person DOES NOT LIKE SURPRISE PARTIES. That's the WHOLE POINT. By assuming the person DOES like surprise parties, you have literally just made the argument completely circular, you have assumed the thing you were trying to prove.Making a fallacious argument doesn't make you wrong. But it doesn't do you any favors, and making repeated fallacious arguments casts doubt on your premise.You explicitly said you WANT them to think it, and will do whatever it takes to ensure they never stop thinking it. You literally just said that in the post I quoted.Why not? They are extremely relevant and demonstrate exactly the problem here. A person who has a very strong reason to oppose a particular state of affairs, being deceived by people who genuinely think well of them. Why should these be passed over without comment? By ignoring them, you are tacitly admitting that there are examples which poke holes in your argument, but which you refuse to engage with.That's not what I said. I said pre-approving every single person the child interacts with. That means the child is never allowed to meet anyone the parent doesn't want them to meet. That's quite a bit different--and, I hope you'll agree, dramatically more draconian.Except that, again, you are assuming the person starts liking sci-fi. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about someone who gets tricked into watching a sci-fi film and doesn't like it when he realizes it's sci-fi.Again, you make this circular by presuming appreciation. Further: you cannot have someone listen to country music, or watch a sci-fi movie, etc. without them, y'know, learning that it is country music or sci-fi. That's a pretty clear fault in the analogy, because as you literally just said, you work to make sure your railroading will never be observed.That's two problems with these examples. One, you know that the players will not only not be happy, but will in fact be angry if they learn that you tricked them into a railroad. Two, you actively work to ensure the railroad will never be discovered. That makes your examples both circular and not actually analogies. This isn't even an argument by analogy--it's a pure non sequitur!See above. Both of the critical faults remain: in order to achieve this you have to reveal that the person was playing with women, and you have to assume the person actually is happy after the reveal. You have explicitly stated that both of these statements are false, that you specifically try to prevent such a reveal from occurring, and that if such a reveal did occur, it would guaranteed cause at least some of your players to become upset.</blockquote>

Verification