{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/18/2019 3:06:21 AM
1
[quote]Except that if Ford and BMW had defective fuel gauges, then you WOULD consider them trash. You wouldn't only apply it to one company.
Thank you for making my point.[/quote]
You fell in that trap just like I knew! I have both BMW and Tesla that had what I mentioned and I never consider them anything less than when I bought them.
English
-
There's no trap. You're an idiot. In this example, the "other" cars don't even have fuel gauges, but you're on the forums of the brand that does have a fuel gauge whining about how it requires a third party device in order to capitalize on a feature that the other brands don't. That's why it's a god awful analogy. Because every car comes stock with a fuel gauge. In order for it to be remotely relevant, you'd need to pretend that BMW and Tessa don't even have fuel gauges. Somehow you continue not to be capable of comprehending. Let me break it down and give you an analogy that actually works. There's a need out there that No car manufacturers have filled. With every car manufacturer out there, if you want to change gear *ahem* excuse me I mean tires. If you want to change your tires with every other manufacturer out there, you need to pull over to the side of the road, get out of your car, get the spare tires from the trunk, jack up the car, replace the tire yourself. Chevy comes out with an app that links to the car and allows you to change your tires with the click of a button and it does everything automatically. You don't even have to stop driving. With Tespa, BMW, ford, Toyota, Honda, gmc, etc, you don't even have this feature. With Chevy, you do, but it requires a third party device. Yet here you are whining about Chevy because this feature that's provided by NO other manufacturer requires a third party device. Other companies are great for simply not allowing it. Chevy sucks because they have it, but it's not built in to the car itself
-
Edited by HK_Mark23_Osprey: 4/18/2019 3:37:25 PM[quote]There's no trap. You're an idiot. In this example, the "other" cars don't even have fuel gauges, but you're on the forums of the brand that does have a fuel gauge whining about how it requires a third party device in order to capitalize on a feature that the other brands don't. Chevy comes out with an app that links to the car and allows you to change your tires with the click of a button and it does everything automatically. You don't even have to stop driving. With Tespa, BMW, ford, Toyota, Honda, gmc, etc, you don't even have this feature. With Chevy, you do, but it requires a third party device. Yet here you are whining about Chevy because this feature that's provided by NO other manufacturer requires a third party device. Other companies are great for simply not allowing it. Chevy sucks because they have it, but it's not built in to the car itself[/quote] You just showed the flaw in your logic with another example (analogy or not). So, a unique feature that “NO other” manufacturer has or requires a third party device should not be criticized, because the feature is not even there/available for products from other manufacturers to be criticized or used as comparison during criticism? In any case, if Chevy put something like that on their cars, that would really suck. Then again, the criteria for someone to “criticize” a unique feature in one product is whether the same feature also in similar products or different feature in different products? You said that gas cars don’t have what Tesla uses, so my ‘analogy’ was not valid or ‘no trap’. Now, back to the idiotic analysis on top. Many, many cars that don’t even have one OEM camera, but people on the forum of the brand (Tesla) that does (not one but 8 of them) have cameras “whining” about how it requires a third party (aftermarket if you will) camera as dashcam. They damn sure capitalized a feature that other brands don’t f@$$:: have! Not only Tesla cars use the front camera as dashcam now, side cameras also work in sentry mode while the car is parked. Welcome to the real world scenarios of how people think/reason.
-
I'm getting a headache from your syntax. Let me get this clear. Tesla offers a feature that no other manufacturer offers, yes? And that feature is imperfect, yes? and people are up in arms that the new feature that they can't get anywhere else isn't perfectly implemented in tesla?
-
Edited by HK_Mark23_Osprey: 4/18/2019 4:04:30 PM[quote]I'm getting a headache from your syntax. Let me get this clear. Tesla offers a feature that no other manufacturer offers, yes? And that feature is imperfect, yes? and people are up in arms that the new feature that they can't get anywhere else isn't perfectly implemented in tesla?[/quote] Allow me, you are getting a headache from trying to understand how logic works in real world. It’s okay, being an engineer for over 25 years, it’s very common for an average person from my observations. Here is how it went in the case of Tesla unique feature on their cars. If it’s a Tesla unique feature, one can’t really measure/judge if it’s perfect or not, can he? But people could make a big fuzz about whether that feature be implemented and work to its potentials and they did. Now, more functionalities are implemented with that unique feature and people moved on.
-
LMAO. There is absolutely nothing logical about your judicious application of a dumb criticism.
-
[quote]LMAO. There is absolutely nothing logical about your judicious application of a dumb criticism.[/quote] That’s what I expected from you - nothing factual to back up whatever you claimed but emotional comment. Here is something else ironic. Assumed that you are a native English speaker and live in this greatest country on earth. Would you agree that the political system with democratic feature(s) we have in the states is unique and no other countries have things like the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution ? Yes? Hence, anyone’s criticism to any unique (democratic) feature(s) would be considered “dumb criticism”. You know what, those unique features (been criticized and improved) are what make this country great and for whatever reason you could not understand. That’s also why the US is still the most innovative country in technologies, military and many other fields - for having less people like you that block/resist/suppress criticisms.
-
Wtf are you talking about? That's the most incoherent rambling nonsense paragraph I've ever seen. Are you having a stroke?
-
My guess is that you have not seen anything like that in your whole life.
-
True. I've never seen anyone so uneducated and incapable of formulating sentences, let alone a coherent and logical argument.
-
Edited by HK_Mark23_Osprey: 4/18/2019 7:28:39 PM[quote]True. I've never seen anyone so uneducated and incapable of formulating sentences, let alone a coherent and logical argument.[/quote] Well, it looks like you know something about logical argument and I am eager to learn since I was uneducated and incapable. So, could you please humor me by stating your argument again even it might be the same as you stated before in a more simpler format for me to understand and learn? Here is what I think the argument you had that I did not agree. [quote]If you were even remotely genuine in your application of the criticism, you would apply it objectively to every other game ever. If you did this, you would have to whine about every single game ever. [/quote] So, feel free to formulate it or whatever the actual argument you had (since I might have missed) into a simpler structure below: (you just need to fill the blanks) (given that (if I dare) we have the same understanding of “an argument is a conclusion that follows logically from a set of premises.”) Premises 1: (e.g. playing games is fun) _________________________________________ Premises 2: (e.g. Destiny is a game) _________________________________________ Conclusion: (e.g. playing Destiny is fun) _________________________________________ Reminder: due to my limited learning capacity, all I am looking for once you state the argument is your explanation of how each premises point works with the others to contribute to your argument as a whole. Shall we?
-
In fairness to this comment, I should have already thought about presenting the argument in a 3rd grade format in order to help you understand. If the ability to transfer gear between characters is a criteria by which we qualify the quality of a game, then it is a criteria by which we qualify the quality of all games. If a game is bad for lacking said feature, then all other games that also lack said feature must also be bad. If you fail to apply this logic equally to all games, then you are judiciously applying your criticism, and are speaking from bias.
-
[quote]In fairness to this comment, I should have already thought about presenting the argument in a 3rd grade format in order to help you understand. If the ability to transfer gear between characters is a criteria by which we qualify the quality of a game, then it is a criteria by which we qualify the quality of all games. If a game is bad for lacking said feature, then all other games that also lack said feature must also be bad. If you fail to apply this logic equally to all games, then you are judiciously applying your criticism, and are speaking from bias.[/quote] https://apple.news/A8eKLD3rvRNeoK5MC2KgTEA Help me to understand whether this person was judiciously applying his criticism, and are speaking from bias by stating “the Galaxy Fold is nothing short of an absolute disaster” without applying a criteria by which everybody (or we) qualify the quality of all smartphones.
-
Edited by HK_Mark23_Osprey: 4/19/2019 3:45:37 PM[quote]In fairness to this comment, I should have already thought about presenting the argument in a 3rd grade format in order to help you understand. If the ability to transfer gear between characters is a criteria by which we qualify the quality of a game, then it is a criteria by which we qualify the quality of all games. If a game is bad for lacking said feature, then all other games that also lack said feature must also be bad. If you fail to apply this logic equally to all games, then you are judiciously applying your criticism, and are speaking from bias.[/quote] Thanks for giving me time to chew on it. You know that I am slow. So, I just thought that I maybe learn this in a different way. That is to focus on the first logic of applying ‘a criteria’. If a criteria should be used to qualify the quality of all games, is it safe to say it is a universal criteria for quality assessment of all games? If it is, then could you tell me the statement below is valid? The ability to transfer gear between characters is a criteria by which we qualify the quality of all games, hence it should be the criteria by which we qualify the quality of Destiny (which is one of all games). Here is the confusing part for me, please clarify. I believe that such criteria of “the ability to transfer gear between characters” by which (you assumed) “we” should qualify the quality of a game and all games has not been established as a requirement for measuring game’s quality. How would anybody go about applying it?
-
[quote]In fairness to this comment, I should have already thought about presenting the argument in a 3rd grade format in order to help you understand. If the ability to transfer gear between characters is a criteria by which we qualify the quality of a game, then it is a criteria by which we qualify the quality of all games. If a game is bad for lacking said feature, then all other games that also lack said feature must also be bad. If you fail to apply this logic equally to all games, then you are judiciously applying your criticism, and are speaking from bias.[/quote] This is totally eye-opening for me. Please bear with me for a little longer. Since I know a thing or two about cars, I will try to understand your logic by using cars, of course with your help. Here we go, If a criteria (or a set of requirements) by which we qualify the quality of Malibu (a car made by Chevy), then it (the same criteria) is a criteria by which we qualify the quality of all cars. Could you provide evidence that the statement is valid? How would you use this criteria to qualify Malibu’s quality and all cars’ quality? If Malibu is bad for lacking all-wheel drive, then all other cars that lack of all-wheel drive must also be bad. Please explain to me how this statement is true (or how to apply the logic equally to all cars?) so that I can believe and understand why it is true and/or the logic is valid. If you could prove one criteria for quality assessment of one game/car should be the same criteria of quality assessment of all games/cars and there is a valid logic in ‘all cars without AWD are bad because Malibu does not have AWD’, then I would agree that my criticism to Destiny was spoken from bias and judiciously applied.
-
[quote]True. I've never seen anyone so uneducated and incapable of formulating sentences, let alone a coherent and logical argument.[/quote] This is just another sign of your lacking of the ability to be objective when you constantly express your personal perspectives on the other person instead of (guess what?) the topic at hand.
-
I bet you are!
-
Genius
-
It’s okay if you are out of words, I don’t have more to say anyway.
