@DarkLink77 said:
He's pretty petty, my dude.
He's also stupidly biased.
There is a reason I said I am not a fan of him ;)
But at the same time... if there is one thing worse than posts like his, it would be the posts of the people that attack him. My point is, as an onlooker in the ongoing Mems-TGR debates, TGR is generally more convincing. I agree though, he is stupidly biased, and that is his main issue.
The one thing, that I am more likely to counter than opposing views is views I agree with, but are formulated on very stupid opinions. Pretty common behaviour actually. Did you see when even Fox News of all places called Donald Trump out on his bullshit?
@jg4xchamp said:
Yeah until you come to another realization that he hasn't actually played a video game, and will routinely come up with every excuse in the book for a gameplay short coming, just because the game tells a story, a story that wouldn't be good enough to be considered a quality direct to dvd film, much less actually worth praising as something meaningful or with some reflective depth to it. And he's king of argumentum ad populum, the critical reception, the consensus, the look at this voting process. Meaningless praise that isn't even a product of his own argument, just shit he found to back his claim, which inherently subjective to begin with.
He'd be lucky get a D in debate 101 with that shit.
While I am sure he does play games, I would definately argue that he is playing them for the wrong reasons. Like you said, storytelling has never been gaming's strong point. Even a storytelling "masterpiece" like Planescape: Torment would only be a mediocre book at best.
I will acknowledge he uses Argumentum ad Populums and Appeals to Authority (critical reception). He is far from innocent from using bad arguments. Its just that compared to several others... he is pretty benign. Furthermore, I recall him actually describing and justifying the qualities in the game.
Its why in the OT forums, I am far more critical of some ideologies than others despite disliking them as well.
I agree, his arguments would get either a D or F, depending on my mood that day. But a potential D, is still higher than a certified F. On the spectrum of bad arguments, one still lies above some of the others.
@ConanTheStoner said:
1. Fallacies are his bread and butter.
2. That's just the thing. He doesn't show any degree of intellectual honesty. He rarely backs up his arguments. He makes sweeping generalizations about subjects he has little to no knowledge of. He straight up lies to make a "point". He's biased beyond belief and won't even entertain a point of view that differs from his own. When you bring facts to the table and show him that we was indeed wrong, or at least present him with a strong argument, he does one of a few things. He'll either ignore your post as if it doesn't exist, change the subject, shift some goal posts, or if the situation fits, he'll fall back on ad populum.
I don't think the guy needs to be banned, that's just childish. There are plenty of shit posters running rampant on this board, at least texas attempts to discuss games. I'd rather have dudes like him around than the typical sales/graphics/scores bunch.
You're giving him far more credit than he deserves though. I'm not oblivious to the fact that people just shit on him with drive by posts a lot of the time, but to an extent he's earned it. When you've been dealing with his nonsense for years, you come to understand that legitimate efforts to have a fruitful conversation with the guy are just a waste of time.
Even when I find myself in agreement with him, I still can't co-sign on the "arguments" he presents.
I know the best route would be to just ignore him and often times I do. But eh, it's SW, shit debates are what we signed up for.
On point 2. Well that is distrubing. But I guess it is just the terrible quality of some people's arguments that are so bad they even make him look good. And yes, you are right, I think that is the problem. The typical sales, graphics, scores bunch are on such a low they make even him look good.
Got any links to threads where he straigt up lies to make a point, presents willful ignorance or commits goalpost shifting? Do that and I will rally right behind you on the context of TGR. If there is one thing I have zero tolerance for, it is willful ignornace and refusal to admit to being wrong. It may be due to my desire to become a researcher where shit like that is enough to get you kicked out. I remember a while back there was a Randroid (aka Objectivist) on this forum, who despite being presented 5 studies made by experts proving him wrong, he still kept spouting his bullshit pretending his anecdotes carried more weight than the scholarly articles I linked. If that TGR has even a shred of resembelence to that guy...
Edit: But yes, if what you say is true. It would be best to ignore him. Since responding to him in that case would mean you are just wasting your "breath" or falling down to his level.
Log in to comment