Quote:
Originally Posted by chilledsanity
WiFiDi, you're making my brain hurt with how much you're misunderstanding what I said. I'll try and explain it to you.
Yes, this reasoning is flawed, that's why it's called a LOGICAL FALLACY. I honestly don't know where you're drawing the conclusion that Bridget would have to be hacking. I'm just basing this on what was said. Take a look at the first example from the page, it's easier:
1. Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
2. Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
3. Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.
Now apply this to the conversation:
1. Player 1 thinks people should not hack in games.
2. Player 1 ends up hacking in the game anyway because he is so good at the game he is bored.
3. Player 1 does not think this should be held against him personally because he is a skilled player.
So unless player 1 believes EVERYONE should hack in TFC/FF, his reasoning is flawed.
|
ok i guess that makes sense, the way i read it i didnt get that impression just my interprataion.