Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5537813" data-attributes="member: 2067">Wow. Okay.I used the awesome power  of <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy" target="_blank">ANALOGY</a> to formualte a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum" target="_blank">reductio ad absurdum</a> argument against the OP's core position that because compoundword monsters are not numerous, they are therefore not a problem. By the OP's logic, things that are not numerous should not be a problem. Murders are a small fraction of crimes, but they are, most folks would agree, a problem. Therefore, the logic that "because something is not numerous, it is not a problem," fails. I went on to elaborate on the point by demonstrating that the problem with CompoundWord monsters is that they can sound very very silly, even when the game element they are labeling is not supposed to be silly. This is a problem in and of itself, regardless of the frequency of the occurance, as murders are a problem in and of themselves, regardless of the frequency of their occurance. Of course, I absolutely, and, I thought, clearly, did not equate the two on a moral continuum. I wasn't making a moral point in the slightest. That's a misrepresentation of my position, and therefore, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" target="_blank">strawman</a>. You must have been mistaken about my position, and I hope the above paragraph has given you some insight into my intended message. I apologize if I was unclear in communicating my ideas, but I did make the assumption that it was obvious that no rational actor would compare the two things on a moral continuum and come to a conclusion that they were equitable, as you said I did. You must think I am somehow mentally damaged!The alternative is that you just wanted to win Internet Bonus Points by being sarcastic and condescending, simultaneously dodging addressing the actual point I made (that frequency of an event should not alone dictate our reaction to the event, in case you missed it), and obfuscating it for future posters. In that case, I hope you quit being a jerk so that we can have a constructive conversation about our actual issues instead of a game of crude catchphrases and tired old arguments.To the topic: Do you agree that a quantity of occurance should not dictate our reaction? If not, why do you think that I should agree with you instead?</blockquote>

Verification