Poll: Why do gamers discriminate other gamers???

[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.

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.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the original point was perfect from a purely theoretical standpoint. But the counter example doesn't apply, since the apparent result is impossible, whereas the original's is entirely possible. Formal logic, as you use it, isn't enough to come to the facts- you HAVE to consider possibilities to make a factual statement. Unless formal logic doesn't require the consideration of possibilities? If this is the case, formal logic itself is not enough to come to a factual conclusion to the issue at hand, and this whole discussion is an exercise in futility and I'm surprised it took me this long to figure it out.

If that is the case, let's discuss baby hedgehogs.

 

[Firehound]

Let me explain this to you. Anonymity Plus normal person plus audience equals total fuckwad. And the scientist who discovered this.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/

For the question posed in the thread title: Most people assume anyone who doesn't play the same or for the same reasons are wrong. For example, I have a friend who can't wrap his head around games that are impossible to win. He berates anyone(including yours truly) for playing games like minecraft, even when such games are being used as an example for reasons other then gameplay.

Likewise, I know people who think any game that you don't get a AR of some sort and the ability to magnetically stick to walls and knee high-fences are not a real game. Some vehementally hate games that involve strategic or tactical aspects, such as many games produced by Paradox studios. It's silly, but gamers tend to feel that their method is the only right way to enjoy games, and it is something that can turn people away from games.

 

[Twad]

.. Why would i discriminate other gamers? Its hard enough to get guenuine helpfull/good players in MP games, im not gonna waste a potential teamate for stupid reasons.

The only time i dont want to play with others is when they are being trolls/griefers on purpose. I tolerate pretty much everything else, at worst they act as bait. At best they make for one heck of a fun game. Ya know, "that one game" where everything just went perfectly well, when you didnt really need to communicate and yet everything and everyone did their thing flawlessly. Fun times.

THe only thing remotely like "discrimination" i saw was when my friends happened to talk french on a L4D2 game and some idiot kicked one out "just 'cause he talked french". We chewed him out real good, he quit, got our buddy back, played and had a fun time.

 

[zilatel]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the original point was perfect from a purely theoretical standpoint. But the counter example doesn't apply, since the apparent result is impossible, whereas the original's is entirely possible. Formal logic, as you use it, isn't enough to come to the facts- you HAVE to consider possibilities to make a factual statement. Unless formal logic doesn't require the consideration of possibilities? If this is the case, formal logic itself is not enough to come to a factual conclusion to the issue at hand, and this whole discussion is an exercise in futility and I'm surprised it took me this long to figure it out.

The counter example shows that IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAS TO BE THE CASE that IF many people discriminate AND gamers are people THEN gamers discriminate. Since there are situations where thats not true (the counter example shows that).
If it doesn't ALWAYS hold (it doesnt hold in the counter example), then you can't just say it's true on the basis of the argument (which is what the point was of the original guy, with the logic in caps).
And formal logic is just formal logic, it's not how i use it, thats just how it is. And it can account for factual statements. If its morning, the sun comes up. It's morning. So what can we deduce? The sun comes up. Thats pretty factual (you see the same pattern as in the argument we were having?).
Formal logic deals with deduction. If you hold something to be true (fact or assumption) and you have formal rules that can deduce other truths from that initial fact, then you have new deduced truths. But in the 'gamers will discriminate' argument, the new facts were wrongly deduced, and thus are not fact. So you cannot deduce from those initial facts, that gamers will discriminate, purely on the logical form. Regardless of if we personally agree with the statement or what's up with humans, flaws or even testes!

 

[darkfox85]

Hello everyone

I?d like to throw my hat in with the interesting logic-chopping discussion going on here. I hope no one gets cross, but I feel the OP has been adequately answered in his distress and much of the arguments involve people who just disagree on the use of words such as ?discrimination?, ?asexual? etc.

I?ve only just realised how rusty I am when it comes to logic and I think I need a bit of help. So I?m coming forward with very low confidence.

Let me put forward a proposition.

?All elephants are pink. Nellie is an elephant. Therefore Nellie is pink.?

As far as I can see, this statement is logically sound (hypothetical syllogism.) But, as a comparative to others who have had problems with the propositions put forward in this thread, there is a problem with the premise ? elephants aren?t pink.

Of course elephants aren?t pink. But the accuracy of the information presented in the premise is not for the field of logic to (entirely) bother itself with. There?s a fallacy going on certainly, but I?m not sure to what extent logic can be used to help us.

e.g.

?All attenzies are toropptik. Urriweq is an attenzies. Therefore Urriweq is a toropptik.?

Logically sound, complete nonsense. Logic is about the reasoning and argument structure (amongst other things) not about the information presented. This is a criticism of logic in that it might not be too effective at determining truth.

I see many ways I have this wrong and I?m very worried about it. This is especially true if you wish to bring in ?deductive reasoning?, or mention that logic is much more expansive than my silly examples, or perhaps I?ve mistaken ?soundness? for ?validity.?

By all means, I welcome corrections and only hope I don?t degrade the debate.

 

[Hoplon]

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

Also, people are dicks.