Your choices are Kill, or ... Kill

[ppaladin123]

"beg the question"= to assume what you are trying to prove, thus creating a circular argument. Does not mean, "raises this rhetorical question that I am about to ask." Many people misuse this expression...it drives some other people crazy. The presence of such a misuse does not necessarily negate a point but it does weaken its presentation.

This is not a criticism (since I missed what you two were arguing about). It is a philosophy interlude.

 

[Insight]

Begging the question is using circular reasoning as part of the basis for your argument.

...the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove.

link

Begging the question is related to the fallacy of many questions, in which an argument is proposed that raises more questions than it answers, or is based partially or wholly on scant evidence.

See the link above for examples of begging the question in action.

It is not uncommon for people to misuse "begging the question" to mean asking the question (or raising the question).

 

[Mistwell]

You can lean towards liking and switching to 4E because of what you've seen, heard, or read from some official source.

You can lean against liking and switching to 4E because of what you've seen, heard, or read from some official source.

Anything else, especially extremism on either end of the spectrum is more than a tad illogical, unless you happen to be a designer or playtester who has seen the vast majority of the new rules.

I can't imagine any reasonable person being overbearingly pro- or anti- 4E at this point because we don't know everything yet. Stating emphatically that something does or doesn't exist based on nothing more than speculation strikes me as either wishful thinking or foolishness.

Please, let's discuss rules we know exist. There was so much stuff released at D&DXP this weekend, plus all of the stuff WOTC has already released. There's no reason to create 4E straw men and attack or defend them.

If part of my hobby is to buy most new WOTC D&D books that come out regardless of content (at least for entertaining reading), and I want to play those books at least a bit, then I can be overbearingly pro-4e at this point without even knowing what is in them. This is in fact what Amazon pre-orders are all about for some folks.

If my budget simply doesn't allow for me to buy new books, and I want my group to continue playing D&D, then I can be overbearingly anti-4e at this point without even knowing what is in the 4e books. This is in fact what motivates some folks who still play 3.0 instead of 3.5, or even earlier versions of the game.

I can think of a few more reasons to be overbearingly pro or anti 4e at this point without even knowing what is in the books. But in general, I do agree with your point.

 

[Insight]

If part of my hobby is to buy most new WOTC D&D books that come out regardless of content (at least for entertaining reading), and I want to play those books at least a bit, then I can be overbearingly pro-4e at this point without even knowing what is in them. This is in fact what Amazon pre-orders are all about for some folks.

If my budget simply doesn't allow for me to buy new books, and I want my group to continue playing D&D, then I can be overbearingly anti-4e at this point without even knowing what is in the 4e books. This is in fact what motivates some folks who still play 3.0 instead of 3.5, or even earlier versions of the game.

I can think of a few more reasons to be overbearingly pro or anti 4e at this point without even knowing what is in the books. But in general, I do agree with your point.

In either of these cases, however, you're not making a value judgment. If you always buy new D&D books, then you don't care about the quality. If you can't afford to buy new D&D books, then it doesn't matter to you if they are of high quality.

 

[Insight]

Since we opened the whole 'logical fallacy' argument, what I'm seeing around here more than anything else is what's known as Hasty Generalization:

...reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence.

Person A travels through Town X for the first time. He sees 10 people, all of them children. Person A returns to his town and reports that there are no adult residents in Town X.

link

This would be like someone attending D&DXP coming away with the belief that there are no Rogues, Warlords, Elves, or Dragonborn in 4E -- simply because he didn't see any of the preview characters with those races or classes. I've also seen people make this faulty argument regarding RP, that because the preview adventures didn't feature much RP that RP must be "gone from D&D forever..."

 

[Mistwell]

Now, let's look a little closer at what the OP is doing. He is speculating that 4e will Fail To Deliver. It doesn't really matter what the specifics are, because he's not the only one doing this. He, without reference to evidence, is suggesting that 4e will be written in a way that produces generally negative results, and which will detract from everyone's play experience. By spreading misinformation (sleep does damage) and starting groundless rumours (there is no way to do nonlethal damage in 4e), he seems to be making an attack against the edition for whatever reasons he has to do so. This is negative behaviour.

However, if a poster makes a groundless speculation that 4e will contain some feature that will be really excellent and which will improve everyone's play experience, he is not engaging in negative behaviour. He might be in error, but his error is merely wishful thinking, rather than pernicious slander. He may spread misinformation, but he does not want to rally an attack against either 3e or 4e. He's just groundlessly optimistic. Naive, perhaps, but not trying to start a fight.

I think that trying to get people together to hurl invective at the new edition without ground is a much worse behaviour than trying to get people together to be happy about an unreal feature of the edition. It causes more fights, spreads more negative feelings, and is generally a more aggressive and combative stance.

Those who have a problem with 4e, and whose beef is grounded in actual information, have a valid case to make, as long as they acknowledge that their problem may be only due to their having no access to the sections of the rules that solve their problem. However, this caveat also applies to people who are pleased about the implications of revealed information--those implications may not hold true once we have the entire rules. But neither of these stances is pernicious in the way that the OP's position is.

I know I am late, but I just wanted to voice my 100% agreement with the above.

This idea that all opinions are of equal harm or benefit bothers me, because it's not true. Baseless opinions which are likely to spread fights, aggression, and combative stances are not equal to baseless opinions which are likely to spread unrealistic happiness in this context. On-balance, when in the context of a community of hobby enthusiasts discussing their hobby, if you are going to have baseless opinions it's better that they spread happiness rather than fights and aggression.

 

[Deep Blue 9000]

That and "Sleep does damage", which is actually demonstrably wrong.

Well, yeah, that too. Maybe I'm being naive, but that seemed like a simple mistake more than a clumsy attempt at disinformation.

You see, the way I read the quoted post from hong is that he's being sarcastic and dry, which, to anyone who's read enough threads he's commented on, is what most of his posts on the 4e forum have involved. Nothing aggressive or combative, simply trying to inject some humour into proceedings.

*Shrug* It's only injecting humor if you agree with the poster. I recall a few posts about a month ago with thread titles or poll choices ridiculing 4e. I thought they were hilarious. But many other posters complained of bias.

 

[pawsplay]

"beg the question"= to assume what you are trying to prove, thus creating a circular argument.

Yes, that is what I meant.

 

[Agamon]

Between this and the skill system, I see the DM 'filling in the script' a lot in 4e.

And I couldn't be more pleased.

Hallelujah!

 

[pawsplay]

"beg the question"= to assume what you are trying to prove, thus creating a circular argument.

Yes, that is what I meant.

EDIT: To clarify, the reason it "begs the question" is because the question purported being answered is not answered. The argument "You can't judge the PHB without reading it" with the rationale, "Because you can't judge the PHB without reading it" begs the question.

I was not making a pretense in order to rhetorically state my question. The questions remains unanswered.

Example
Person A: You cannot judge the PHB without reading it.
Person B: Why can I not judge the PHB without reading it?
Person A: Because you have not read it.
Person A: But why? That would seem to beg the question, why can I not judge the PHB without reading it?

Summary of the use of begging the question referenced above:
Person 1: Why would you read the PHB when you have strong evidence you won't like it?
Person 2: You do not know if you will like it without reading it.
Person 1: How will I determine if I should read it?
Person 2: You must read it.
Person 1: So in order to determine if I should read the PHB, I must read it. That would seem to beg the question, why would you read the PHB when you have strong evidence you won't like it.