next »

[Incision]

"Children are dumb.  They need parents."

"Parents aren't the only source of guidance!  You can learn from experience!  In fact, sometimes that is more important!"

"So... are you saying children don't need parents?"

"..."

[Dragonmaw]

"Children are dumb.  They need parents."

"Parents aren't the only source of guidance!  You can learn from experience!  In fact, sometimes that is more important!"

"So... are you saying children don't need parents?"

"..."

That is not even remotely what I said (great usage of straw man, by the way), but now that you mention it, yes. Children do not need parents in order to mature so that they do not make themselves miserable. Parents may accelerate the process, but it's not necessary.

You are also lumping in maturity with survival. Parents are an essential part of any child's survival, as they provide basics such as food and shelter. Parents are not an essential part of maturing as a human being. So, once again, nice straw man. Great job at being a fucking dumbass.

2. This is not a trait that is cured with age, but proper guidance.

This is a fundamentally inaccurate supposition for the reasons both me and PF have laid out. If you wish to explain how maturity requires a parent (most of which, I might add, are immature themselves), I'm all ears. But you don't really seem interested in holding a reasoned conversation, so I'm not waiting with bated breath.

[Incision]

For all those watching, we are now at the point in the thread where I have to defend the idea of parents and teachers being useful.  What the fuck.

[Dragonmaw]

For all those watching, we are now at the point in the thread where I have to defend the idea of parents and teachers being useful.  What the fuck.

Not useful, essential. Your #2 point was that they are essential for maturity.

Keep mischaracterizing this shit, it's really becoming. Straw man all the day long.

[Incision]

Sorry dude, but that is your logical failing.  If I say "X is a cure for Y," that does not mean X is the only cure for Y.

[oewarj]

Children do not need parents in order to mature so that they do not make themselves miserable. Parents may accelerate the process, but it's not necessary.

They are absolutely necessary because they accelerate the process.

[Dragonmaw]

lol

Sorry dude, but that is your logical failing.  If I say "X is a cure for Y," that does not mean X is the only cure for Y.

2. This is not a trait that is cured with age, but proper guidance.

I don't know how I could make this any clearer. Do you even read what you write?

[Incision]

Yes.  That means aging--the simple process of getting older, of having existed for an increased length of time--will not teach you anything.  In other words, what we call adults (due to their age) may in fact still be children (due to their taste).

So now we have:
1. "Z is not a cure for Y."
2. "X is a cure for Y."

Again, no mention of anything being the only cure.  I'm teaching logic 101, here.

[Dragonmaw]

Hate to break it to you, but people do not age in a magical tube where they never experience anything ever. That's the realm of science fiction.

Here, since you like all this "logic" nonsense (superficially, perhaps), let's look at it from this perspective:

1.) Statement: Maturity != age; Maturity = guidance
2.) Refutation: Maturity = guidance OR experience; Age = experience
3.) Rebuttal:

[eva]

edit
age is not automatically experience

[milk]

That is not even remotely what I said (great usage of straw man, by the way), but now that you mention it, yes.

An important part of intelligent argument is anticipating and addressing objections before your opponent even gets to make them. You can't just trivialise that by crying "straw man" every time it occurs -- especially when you go on to explicitly show that you were going to make that very objection anyway ("now that you mention it, yes").

Look at it this way: Incision did not really put words in your mouth. He simply took your line of reasoning to its logical extreme; it's what you would have said anyway. That's not the same as misrepresenting you.

[Dragonmaw]

That is not even remotely what I said (great usage of straw man, by the way), but now that you mention it, yes.

An important part of intelligent argument is anticipating and addressing objections before your opponent even gets to make them. You can't just trivialise that by crying "straw man" every time it occurs -- especially when you go on to explicitly show that you were going to make that very objection anyway ("now that you mention it, yes").

Still a straw man because he equates not believing parents are required to mature to not requiring parents at all. As parents provide more than one service to a developing child (most importantly survival), this is a straw man. He is stating my position that children do not need parents whatsoever, when it is that children do not need parents to mature. If you read the rest of the post, you'd see that I clarify how he is misrepresenting my position.

Thank you, try again.

[Blademasterbobo]

Going back to the beginning of the analogy, when you were saying parents are necessary to guide the children or w/e, it basically meant that critics can guide tastes, etc, right? Dragonmaw, you're now whining about how that's not the only way someone can develop their tastes, but, as Incision is not a fucking retard, it is incredibly condescending to argue about something that is so simple it shouldn't have to be stated at all. Of course you can develop without guidance! Videogames are a relatively new medium; if this was untrue, then becoming a videogame critic would be impossible. Only a complete moron would argue that it's impossible to develop without guidance! Quit assuming everyone who has a viewpoint differing from your own is a complete moron, basically.

This is not difficult to understand.

"4 new posts:" he's not saying that! If you play videogames constantly, and are not a moron, of course you'll develop tastes (maybe not good tastes) regarding videogames. This was covered earlier in the thread, too. But if you want to know about something you have no experience with, something you have only a child-like grasp of, guidance from an outside source is the easiest and most effective way to learn about this new subject.

"1 new post:" goddamnit.

[Dragonmaw]

Going back to the beginning of the analogy, when you were saying parents are necessary to guide the children or w/e, it basically meant that critics can guide tastes, etc, right? Dragonmaw, you're now whining about how that's not the only way someone can develop their tastes, but, as Incision is not a fucking retard, it is incredibly condescending to argue about something that is so simple it shouldn't have to be stated at all. Of course you can develop without guidance! Videogames are a relatively new medium; if this was untrue, then anyone becoming a videogame critic would be impossible. Only a complete moron would argue that it's impossible to develop without guidance! Quit assuming everyone who has a viewpoint differing from your own is a complete moron, basically.

This is not difficult to understand.

Oh, I don't assume that. I know.

"4 new posts:" he's not saying that! If you play videogames constantly, and are not a moron, of course you'll develop tastes (maybe not good tastes) regarding videogames. This was covered earlier in the thread, too. But if you want to know about something you have no experience with, something you have only a child-like grasp of, guidance from an outside source is the easiest and most effective way to learn about this new subject.

This is assuming there is such a thing as good taste, which so far has gone unproven and unrealized in this thread.

As PF mentioned, guidance can give you a framework to better understand something in a faster period of time. You don't learn via guidance at all. You learn via experience, with guidance providing a mold for you to shape your experience around. Guidance itself does not actually teach you anything.

The easiest and most effective way to learn about something will always be to experience it with a self-aware mindset. Paul has mentioned this a few times before (mostly in Skype), and I agree with him: the best way to develop as a person (maturity, taste, or otherwise) is to develop in a vacuum with critical thinking. Guidance molds you towards another person's or state's ideal, not necessarily what is more mature or correct.

edit
age is not automatically experience

Age is the process of getting older. As people get older, they are involved in things. Experience is the process of gaining knowledge via being involved in something. So while age is not a 1-to-1 ratio with experience, it's pretty damn close. You gain experience (experience events) as you age, from things as simple as the alarm clock waking you up in the morning to learning not to date psychopaths.

[Blademasterbobo]

Ok, at least you're arguing an actual point, now, instead of stating the obvious and shouting "STRAWMAN" over and over.

I agree with that, the things I've taught myself are the things I am the best at, etc. Of course, if somebody's ideas mostly mirror your own, sometimes you would be inclined to listen to their other ideas. This leads to stupid problems, but is also a faster/easier way to develop tastes regarding certain things. Not the best way, though.

[Dragonmaw]

I was arguing an actual point before, too, it's just that I suppose saying "guidance is not the way (best or otherwise) towards maturity" is controversial.

[s0]

Let's stop dissecting the children/parents analogy for a moment and go back what we're actually discussing here: Videogames.

So, let's say want to get into a genre of videogames you were previously unfamiliar with (this works with other forms of art too), say adventure games. Would you rather

a) Buy the first adventure game that "looks good" to you, at the risk of wasting time and money on a game you don't like?

or

b) Ask your friend who's been playing adventure games for most of his life which one you should get?

Actually, seeking the advice of experts is pretty common for people in general, not just when choosing which videogame to play. It's never really required, but it makes life a whole lot easier.

Derp.

[oewarj]

Paul has mentioned this a few times before (mostly in Skype), and I agree with him: the best way to develop as a person (maturity, taste, or otherwise) is to develop in a vacuum with critical thinking.

That is because you guys can't think. People can't progress (at least not in an accelerated rate) if they don't build on older foundations that people already laid out for you and are relegated to building it AGAIN and AGAIN.

Guidance molds you towards another person's ideal idea, not necessarily what is more mature or correct.

No duh. That is where you use your THINKING ABILITY. Like any normal, mature individual.

[Blademasterbobo]

You can't think if you develop your own opinions? durp. I agree that it's much faster, and of course you're going to listen to experts on a subject in order to not waste your time, but the BEST way to learn something intricately is to learn it yourself.

Here's a shitty example: Leibniz, it could be argued, wasted his time in developing calculus when (even though he didn't know it at the time) it had already been developed by Newton. Who do you think ended up with a better understanding of calculus, though: Leibniz, or a student who learned from Newton's ideas?

[oewarj]

Blademasterbobo, you aren't parsing that properly. I am saying that because they can't think, they say such stupid shit like "the best way to develop as a person (maturity, taste, or otherwise) is to develop in a vacuum with critical thinking" and not see why a vacuum wouldn't even be close to ideal.