Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5179839" data-attributes="member: 177">Not in the slightest.  The contrary, in fact.  A great many arguments around here start because someone fails to accept that another's person's stated experience is plausible.  As a social convention (as opposed to a matter of sheer logic) I think it is more important to cut folks some slack in such a forum, rather than less. This, has been covered a bit by prior points in the thread (like the "Never Give Up, Never Surrender".  But I will grant you that sometimes you do find yourself defending against A when A was never one of your points - largely because that is happening right now.Aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot make great reductio ad absurdumtype arguments, showing flaws in the logic at extremes, and thus calling it into question for many cases.  The problem is that twice before (third time's a charm?) I have limited the context to talking about RPGs.  Whether or not the logic applies to Bigfoot sightings really isn't an issue, because these aren't Bigfoot forums.  We aren't talking about the plausibility of someone being probed by an alien, but of then having not seen (or not seen) a particular pathology with a given rule set, or playing elves, or somesuch.Also, last time I checked, "accept as plausible" is not equivalent to 'take as gospel".  Choosing to grant that something might have happened is not taking as Word of God that it did happen.  The hyperbole really isn't constructive.  I'll guess somewhere upthread this was talked about as well - arguing against an artificially inflated version of my point isn't arguing against my point.</blockquote>

Verification