Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Autumnal" data-source="post: 9027738" data-attributes="member: 6671663">it’s possible to get not too analytical but inappropriately analytical. I’m left-handed, but if someone were to say that people at large are right-handed, my existence doesn’t disprove the generalization. I can just barely walk a few steps or stand a few minutes, but that doesn’t falsify any observation that people walk in a bipedal fashion nor any discussion of typical walking speeds in various conditions, durations, etc. If someone says every X this or every Y that, then yes, single instances refute. But that doesn’t happen much, and “gamers game for fun” has the structure of a generalization, not specifically of a universal. “Yeah, pretty much, but here are a couple interesting kinds of other motives” makes a better response than “You fool! Consider this and mourn the death of your assertion!” (No, no, that’s me exaggerating, your perceived tone was nothing like that.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Autumnal, post: 9027738, member: 6671663"] it’s possible to get not [I]too[/I] analytical but [I]inappropriately [/I]analytical. I’m left-handed, but if someone were to say that people at large are right-handed, my existence doesn’t disprove the generalization. I can just barely walk a few steps or stand a few minutes, but that doesn’t falsify any observation that people walk in a bipedal fashion nor any discussion of typical walking speeds in various conditions, durations, etc. If someone says every X this or every Y that, then yes, single instances refute. But that doesn’t happen much, and “gamers game for fun” has the structure of a generalization, not specifically of a universal. “Yeah, pretty much, but here are a couple interesting kinds of other motives” makes a better response than “You fool! Consider this and mourn the death of your assertion!” (No, no, that’s me exaggerating, your perceived tone was nothing like that.) [/QUOTE]

Verification