Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7417618" data-attributes="member: 5142">I also disagree with this assertion, and I believe that [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] may have made a similar comment earlier in his summation of topic. Again, I would like to revisit the earlier analogy that I raised. I don't think fundamentally that people are reacting so strongly to "world building is bad" because of the advice, facts, or definitions, but, rather, because they are emotionally feeling that they (and their worldbuilding efforts) are being morally judged for doing it. This gets back to my earlier analogy of "drinking" in which an article entitled "Why Drinking is Bad" will receive a lot of emotional pushback. However, the pushback will not be rooted in the actual advice "you should drink alcohol in moderation" or based on disagreement with basic facts like "alcohol has well-documented negative side-effects" but because their response will invariably be guided by their own emotional knee-jerk reaction of "I enjoy drinking and I am feeling morally judged for drinking alcohol ergo the article must be wrong and drinking is not bad." Nevertheless, most rational people should be able to pick up on how an article entitled "Why Drinking is Bad" is not meant to be a blanket moral judgment against drinking. Though most rational people should be able to understand that, that will not always be the case as people are not entirely rational people. You could replace the word "worldbuilding" with just about any issue and see a similar brand of emotionally-charged pushback that speaks less about the validity of the argument and more about the persecution complex of the respondants. I think you are projecting here or at least exposing your own knee-jerk reaction. I don't think that Hussar is expressing this sentiment, as he is fairly clear about his own viewpoint and perspective on the matter. Your analogy was a false equivalence between situations, Max. Your false equivalence literally was a case of apples and oranges to debating the definition of 'worldbuilding.' If you honestly believe that this wasn't a case of false equivalence or have no intent to sincerely reflect on why that is the case, then I am hard-pressed to see how you have any intent whatsoever to engage in this conversation with any shred of good faith or self-respect. And here you are not citing [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]; instead, you are citing your own strawmen arguments about Hussar that you have been repeatedly rebuked about. There you go again with your beloved fallback tactic: fallacy of assertion regarding your unsubstantiated "old [definitions]" claim. You can repeat it until your face turns blue, but that does not make it true.</blockquote>

Verification