Poll: Why do gamers discriminate other gamers???

[sagamov]

If this is a troll, then congratulations, you got me. If not, let me tell you why you're wrong.

You cannot assume that none of the gamers discriminate- because they do. As stated, they are people, and many people do discriminate in one way or another. There is nothing inherent in a gamer's biology or attitude that prevents them from discriminating- so the fact is that some will do what is normal of some people, since they are people.

The counter example does not have that benefit- it specifically chose women, who are biologically incapable of having testicles (barring some sort of gender reassignment), and therefore cannot be included in the subject pool of individuals who are capable of having testicular cancer.

Gamers are a subset of people who can be prejudiced. Women are NOT a subset of MEN who can have testicular cancer.

Logic.

OT: I am perfect. Therefore, I would be justified in discriminating against people who disagree with my opinion, but because of my perfection I am polite and decide to let such instances slide. Seriously, look up perfection and there I am, being perfect and all that.

Yep. I'm just... great.

*sob*

Well i hope YOU are a trolling, he didn't say gamer don't discriminate, at least no per se, the point is that it CAN be the case (by the logic of the argument)
imagine a circle (people) "some people lie" this circle "P" is touching circle "l" (liars), all gamers are people, circle "g" is inside circle "P", some gamers are liars, circle "g" is touching "l" but that isn't NECESSARILY true,"g" can be inside "p" without touching "l", use babys for a example of something inside p who aren't touching the liars circle, the logic is flawed

 

[flatten_the_skyline]

I think you missed some key parts in my story, they do not make fun of the gay guys in the community, they don't even do jokes about them being they see nothing wrong with it. But me being A-sexual seems to be somehow a worse thing and can be made fun of. I am not native speakers some give me some slack, I suck at understanding social context in text.

To make my policy clear, no one should be made fun of by any terms.. I do not make fun of gay people, I find it tasteless.

I'm glad I got you right before, though I must admit that it sounded misleading.

I am also horrified that people on here seriously deny asexuality. It is not a common phenomenom, I only know of one for certain, and I suspect another to be one, but to call people liars when they claim that they have no sexual urges whatsoever is no way above trying to straighten out homosexuals.

Then again, I usually hang out with feminists and anarchists, so my expectations concerning tolerance might be a little high, but even my Pen&Paper-Friends show an amazing amount of tolerance in many subjects (though they were really pissed off about my left-wing eco-terrorist char for making a fuss about everything in Vampire. Good Times!)

 

[Slowpool]

If this is a troll, then congratulations, you got me. If not, let me tell you why you're wrong.

You cannot assume that none of the gamers discriminate- because they do. As stated, they are people, and many people do discriminate in one way or another. There is nothing inherent in a gamer's biology or attitude that prevents them from discriminating- so the fact is that some will do what is normal of some people, since they are people.

The counter example does not have that benefit- it specifically chose women, who are biologically incapable of having testicles (barring some sort of gender reassignment), and therefore cannot be included in the subject pool of individuals who are capable of having testicular cancer.

Gamers are a subset of people who can be prejudiced. Women are NOT a subset of MEN who can have testicular cancer.

Logic.

OT: I am perfect. Therefore, I would be justified in discriminating against people who disagree with my opinion, but because of my perfection I am polite and decide to let such instances slide. Seriously, look up perfection and there I am, being perfect and all that.

Yep. I'm just... great.

*sob*

Well i hope YOU are a trolling, he didn't say gamer don't discriminate, at least no per se, the point is that it CAN be the case (by the logic of the argument)
imagine a circle (people) "some people lie" this circle "P" is touching circle "l" (liars), all gamers are people, circle "g" is inside circle "P", some gamers are liars, circle "g" is touching "l" but that isn't NECESSARILY true,"g" can be inside "p" without touching "l", use babys for a example of something inside p who aren't touching the liars circle, the logic is flawed

I'm going to spoiler the whole rebuttal. There's all sorts of logic flying around in this thread. Read.

Spoiler

Look closely at the bolded lines of Zilatel's post.

It's not his example thats faulty, its yours. I'll show you with a more on-topic example.

Consider that all individuals that make up 'people' can be divided into two categories. One is Gamers and one is Non Gamers (lets keep the example easy and assume they are both non-empty and divided evenly). Let's assume that none of the Gamers discriminate and all of the Non Gamers do.
Your first premise would be 'Many people discriminate', which would be true, since the Non Gamers all discriminate.
Your second premise would be 'All gamers are people', which would be true, since gamers are a non-empty subset of people.

Your conclusion was 'Some gamers discriminate'. Which would be false, since we specified that no Gamer discriminates. So your reasoning does not hold up.

The logic you used is formal logic, mostly based on syntactics. You can't just claim theres some semantics at play that makes everything alright, you will have to specify it. The previous counter example is spot on.

This is exactly assuming that gamers don't discriminate, when there is no basis whatsoever to assume such. I admit, gamers might not NECESSARILY discriminate, from a purely theoretical standpoint(though considering additional factors, including backgrounds, education and the sheer size of the community as a whole, there are without a doubt gamers who discriminate, regardless of venn diagram logics). That said, they still have the possibility (and do). Women DO NOT have the possibility to develop testicular cancer, since they do not meet the requirements (no balls).

The logic falls apart when Indeterminacy states:

Many people have testicular cancer. All women are people. Therefore, some women have testicular cancer.

[HEADING=2]Fallacy![/HEADING]

"People" is too broad a subject pool for the cancer comparison, since only a subset of people (men) can develop that particular type. The largest population you can have for such a comparison is "Men", not "People". The inclusion of women, who by biological nature cannot be included, in order to provide a biased result makes the "logic" invalid.

My point is, since gamers are people (and therefore subject to normal human flaws), they are capable of being biased. Since women are not men (and therefore do not have testes), they CANNOT have testicular cancer.

Logic again.

 

[AnarchistFish]

It's probably more due to them being twats who you can't really fight back at than necessarily because they're gamers.

 

[zilatel]

"People" is too broad a subject pool for the cancer comparison, since only a subset of people (men) can develop that particular type. The largest population you can have for such a comparison is "Men", not "People". The inclusion of women, who by biological nature cannot be included, in order to provide a biased result makes the "logic" invalid.[/spoiler]

My point is, since gamers are people (and therefore subject to normal human flaws), they are capable of being biased. Since women are not men (and therefore do not have testes), they CANNOT have testicular cancer.

Logic again.

Sounds like you're trolling. Because the point I was making is really really basic formal logic. The point is, from the premisses (many people discriminate & gamers are people) you CANNOT deduce "gamers discriminate" through formal logic. It's just not a correct deduction, the formal rules do not allow it. It has nothing to do with humans, human flaws or testes. It's basic formal logic, get it?

Oh and the testes counter-example made earlier is just spot on.

 

[Slowpool]

I think you missed some key parts in my story, they do not make fun of the gay guys in the community, they don't even do jokes about them being they see nothing wrong with it. But me being A-sexual seems to be somehow a worse thing and can be made fun of. I am not native speakers some give me some slack, I suck at understanding social context in text.

To make my policy clear, no one should be made fun of by any terms.. I do not make fun of gay people, I find it tasteless.

I'm glad I got you right before, though I must admit that it sounded misleading.

I am also horrified that people on here seriously deny asexuality. It is not a common phenomenom, I only know of one for certain, and I suspect another to be one, but to call people liars when they claim that they have no sexual urges whatsoever is no way above trying to straighten out homosexuals.

Then again, I usually hang out with feminists and anarchists, so my expectations concerning tolerance might be a little high, but even my Pen&Paper-Friends show an amazing amount of tolerance in many subjects (though they were really pissed off about my left-wing eco-terrorist char for making a fuss about everything in Vampire. Good Times!)

I tolerate homosexuals. I find the whole notion extremely odd, but love is love. I simply find it difficult to believe in human asexuality, and personally put it down to people lying about how the feel about sex. Perhaps I feel this way only because my own sexuality is such an integral part of who and what I am, and thinking that people who never experience it must have a horribly broken and empty life by comparison. I'm probably wrong, but part of me feels that way.

That said, I would tolerate people who claim to be asexual, as well. I've never met one, but if this is how they chose to present themselves to the world, so be it. Sexuality (or lack thereof) doesn't really apply to how I deal with people (unless its a pretty girl and I like her). I might be irritated when a gay man flaunts his sexuality and how proud he is of it, but I wouldn't hate him any more that I would hate a dude who flaunts his new girlfriend.

 

[daftalchemist]

Just because someone has something in common with you, doesn't automatically make them as good (or bad, for that matter) of a person as you are. That's why I pick and choose the personal things I reveal about myself. But no one should ever mention their sexuality, just ever. I know it's usually a point of pride for most people, but the general population is just NOT properly mentally equipped to handle such a topic.

I've never been discriminated against, fortunately, so you won't get any "I'm a girl and people think I suck" BS. But I have garnered attention I did not otherwise want. That's why I stay off of mic chat, unless I'm playing with a community I'm apart of. I either get "discriminated" against in a way because they think I'm a prepubescent boy, or I just get general creepy attention like internet stalking.

 

[Slowpool]

"People" is too broad a subject pool for the cancer comparison, since only a subset of people (men) can develop that particular type. The largest population you can have for such a comparison is "Men", not "People". The inclusion of women, who by biological nature cannot be included, in order to provide a biased result makes the "logic" invalid.[/spoiler]

My point is, since gamers are people (and therefore subject to normal human flaws), they are capable of being biased. Since women are not men (and therefore do not have testes), they CANNOT have testicular cancer.

Logic again.

Sounds like you're trolling. Because the point I was making is really really basic formal logic. The point is, from the premisses (many people discriminate & gamers are people) you CANNOT deduce "gamers discriminate" through formal logic. It's just not a correct deduction, the formal rules do not allow it. It has nothing to do with humans, human flaws or testes. It's basic formal logic, get it?

Oh and the testes counter-example made earlier is just spot on.

It has EVERYTHING to do with humans, human flaws and testes, since they are an integral part of the examples. It is, in fact, possible for gamers to be prejudiced. It is not, in fact, possible for women to develop testicular cancer. So the logic of the counter argument is perfectly flawed.

 

[BodomBeachChild]

Welcome to the internet. It's been this way for a long time.

 

[lord.jeff]

Many people discriminate. All gamers are people. Therefore, some gamers discriminate.

[HEADING=2]Logic![/HEADING]

Spot on except for one thing "All people Discriminate" some more then others, but we all do it.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Why do protestants discriminate against Catholics?

It's the same thing essentially, just the details that differ.

It's human nature to find offense in the smallest thing, and start the stupidest conflicts over it. People hate each other basically.

If a person see's something he/she doesn't like. They will continue to not like it, and make their opinion heard.

 

[Stu35]

To make my policy clear, no one should be made fun of by any terms..

Bollocks.

Making fun of people is half of what makes living in this world even moderately possible without going insane.

Banter bonds us together, it allows us to make light of what is otherwise a bleak and horrible existence, it entertains and gives us topics for discussion, and demonstrates to those we are engaging in the banter with, that we like them and are comfortable enough to confront otherwise taboo subjects with them...


I personally need Banter in my life the same way I need sex in my life - without it I get miserable, and frustrated.

You need neither of these things, that's absolutely fine, I will tolerate it, and even support you against those who would try to deny you what makes you happy, but don't tell me not to make fun of you for it, because that's trying to deny me what makes me happy - making fun of people who aren't me and hold different views to me.

Savvy?

Why do protestants discriminate against Catholics?

Because they keep trying to fuck with our parades?

(For the Americans, I'm refering to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth])

 

[Woodsey]

That's exactly what's wrong! Your middle statement doesn't properly distribute over everyone who discriminates - just over a subsection of the people that happen to be Gamers. The parameters could be there, but by calling your reasoning "logical", you're excluding them.

Try this one:

Some cars are BMWs.
All Porsches are cars.
Therefore, some Porsches are BMWs.

[HEADING=2]Distributed Middle![/HEADING]

Well my reasoning doesn't have to be applicable to everything right?

[HEADING=2]Keeping up the tradition![/HEADING]

[HEADING=2]LOUD NOISES![/HEADING]

OT: Well, they didn't discriminate against you because you're a gamer, they did it because of your sexuality. Its (kind of) like expecting white men to not be racist to black men because they're all men. Having that one thing in common doesn't really mean much.

 

[ultimateownage]

That's not discrimination as much as it's just you hanging out with idiots.

Fun fact: Sharing a hobby does not make us all best friends.

 

[flatten_the_skyline]

I tolerate homosexuals. I find the whole notion extremely odd, but love is love. I simply find it difficult to believe in human asexuality, and personally put it down to people lying about how the feel about sex. Perhaps I feel this way only because my own sexuality is such an integral part of who and what I am, and thinking that people who never experience it must have a horribly broken and empty life by comparison. I'm probably wrong, but part of me feels that way.

Is there one good reason why people would deny their existing sexuality in general? I mean seriously, when you're not pressed, why lie about it, why? Sex might be needed to keep our species alive, but is not a vital part of our life. And try to look at it from an outsider's perspective. We have art, games, sports, food, science, politics, so many things you can devote your life to, so many opportunities, only to be dominated by sex. And the asexual I know isn't unable to love or anything, just not interested in the intercourse part. Imagine you could love objectively, without being fooled by physical attraction.

A life without sex doesn't need to be boring or empty at all!

 

[zilatel]

"People" is too broad a subject pool for the cancer comparison, since only a subset of people (men) can develop that particular type. The largest population you can have for such a comparison is "Men", not "People". The inclusion of women, who by biological nature cannot be included, in order to provide a biased result makes the "logic" invalid.[/spoiler]

My point is, since gamers are people (and therefore subject to normal human flaws), they are capable of being biased. Since women are not men (and therefore do not have testes), they CANNOT have testicular cancer.

Logic again.

Sounds like you're trolling. Because the point I was making is really really basic formal logic. The point is, from the premisses (many people discriminate & gamers are people) you CANNOT deduce "gamers discriminate" through formal logic. It's just not a correct deduction, the formal rules do not allow it. It has nothing to do with humans, human flaws or testes. It's basic formal logic, get it?

Oh and the testes counter-example made earlier is just spot on.

It has EVERYTHING to do with humans, human flaws and testes, since they are an integral part of the examples. It is, in fact, possible for gamers to be prejudiced. It is not, in fact, possible for women to develop testicular cancer. So the logic of the counter argument is perfectly flawed.

There's two sides to the discussion.
One the one hand, theres the more intuitive discussion if you agree with the claim that gamers discriminate. This has to do with human flaws, character, prejudices, etc.

On the other hand, theres the logical side of the discussion. Formal logic has 'rules' that tell you which deductions are valid and which ones are not. In my counter-example, theres a situation where the premisses do not allow you to deduce the conclusion (I sketch a situation where the premisses are true, but the conclusion is not). Formal logic is a guide book in this works, it won't allow you to make claims stonger than your premisses allow. This the point i'm making, the two premisses the guy made will not allow him to deduce his conclusion (while he made a big point that it did). This is a formal argument and has nothing to do with if i personally agree with the conclusion.

I hate it when i have to spell things out.

 

[Boba Frag]

To make my policy clear, no one should be made fun of by any terms..

Why do protestants discriminate against Catholics?

Because they keep trying to fuck with our parades?

(For the Americans, I'm refering to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth])

Just a tad inflammatory and over simplifying, don't you think?

 

[Stu35]

To make my policy clear, no one should be made fun of by any terms..

Why do protestants discriminate against Catholics?

Because they keep trying to fuck with our parades?

(For the Americans, I'm refering to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth])

Just a tad inflammatory and over simplifying, don't you think?

Deliberately so.

I was joking. I thought my playful little '' would have made that clear.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

To make my policy clear, no one should be made fun of by any terms..

Bollocks.

Making fun of people is half of what makes living in this world even moderately possible without going insane.

Banter bonds us together, it allows us to make light of what is otherwise a bleak and horrible existence, it entertains and gives us topics for discussion, and demonstrates to those we are engaging in the banter with, that we like them and are comfortable enough to confront otherwise taboo subjects with them...


I personally need Banter in my life the same way I need sex in my life - without it I get miserable, and frustrated.

You need neither of these things, that's absolutely fine, I will tolerate it, and even support you against those who would try to deny you what makes you happy, but don't tell me not to make fun of you for it, because that's trying to deny me what makes me happy - making fun of people who aren't me and hold different views to me.

Savvy?

Why do protestants discriminate against Catholics?

Because they keep trying to fuck with our parades?

(For the Americans, I'm refering to this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth])

hah couldn't agree more. this is exactly how i feel (roughly 90% of my day is spent making fun of something/someone.)

 

[Fledge]

Asexual

a·sex·u·al /āˈsekSHo͞oəl/
Adjective:

1.Without sex or sexuality, in particular.
2.(of reproduction) Not involving the fusion of gametes.


Are you sure you're asexual?