Yes, calling it 'incredibly' stupid is a brilliant argument. Such a statement frets me not, little man, for I only laugh at your meager attempt to argue.
Just like saying: Your argument is asinine from the very first post and calling me pretentious, saying I do not hold the knowledge for many things and not stating a single reason why it is. Yet at least I gave you several reasons. But I am the one at fault, sigh...
The amount of work you're putting into making a fool of yourself is rather amusing. I stated MORE than it simply not being true, but obviously that doesn't click with you. Not my fault you misunderstand so many, many things. It's quite clear you're not understanding it. My arguments are rational, you're the one that isn't rational. You're just going on and on about your unrealistic ideology of the world and how you so pompously assume of me based off tacky assumptions.
When I gave you an example of a popular quote that is very well received and asked for a reason as to why this quote is well received you replied with:
"The latter quote actually touches on a truth, whereas the other would hold no more a baring if the antithesis were stated."
You didn't state more than it simple not being true until after I debated that point and you realized you were making up excuses because of your bias, please
stop making up stuff.
Also whether you find a quote to be distasteful or dull doesn't mean it is smart of you to discuss with me why the quote is not literally correct. You went on 4 posts, FOUR, about how I was wrong with my distribution, when as I stated in my very second post, it is a popular quote I used. It's just like saying: "I only know I know nothing" in a conversation about philosophy. You aren't supposed to say: "You know your own name, and your age, and your address", you're supposed to debate the actual meaning of the quote. But apparently this is too much of a simple concept for you to grasp.
Popularity and literalism are not mutually exclusive, and thus your point is completely unfounded, please go through every "popular" quote and prove this. I doubt you will, because again you've been unable to prove the burden you've been endowed with. That isn't true at all, again. Some people are just lucky and don't have to wok for anything, often times those people have no innate talents either. Your generalizing is nauseating, as well as completely missing the point.
Huh? What the hell are you talking about? I literally don't understand what you are saying.
"Not only that but most popular quotes do not fit a literal truth comparison."
Where do I claim popularity and literalism have any relation to each other?
If I state most cars use gasoline, I am not claiming anything about gasoline or car apart from the fact that most cars use gasoline.
Again I am not going to go through every quote in the world and check if 51% of the quotes in the world cannot be taken literally. How is it that you can only take things literally?
I gave you a list of examples, but you can't bear losing so you won't accept any type of defeat, thus you make up impossible feats for me to complete before you "admit defeat". Again, you cannot even argue against any of my points, you are just looking at my arguments and finding any point you can take to a literal sense so that you can use it as a scapegoat.
And again, taking things too literal on that last part. Yet again, you can't argue against my points so you just look for a point you can take out of context and use it as a means to "look" like you are refuting my points in any way, but you aren't.
10 pages.... means 7 billion people? Seems you're not as good at math as you believed. Mario has statistics on his side, he's an icon. Go on the street and more people would identify Mario. That in no way proves anything you've stated, you're talking specific demographics, that's all. Experience? That has to be the most backwater thing I've heard you say yet. You're confusing immediate sensory input with living through something. Typical.
Yet I still bet Mario is not known by 3 billion people, so saying "he is known by most people" is not correct either.
I accept your defeat, even if you won't accept it yourself
.
Again, no I didn't. You clearly have some form of cognitive dissonance, because you're trying to throw an argument I used against you in my face, and it fails miserably because there's no substance to it. I never stated one did not need hard work, never once. You're putting words in my mouth, as I previously called you on. Gee, I'm agreeing with what I said earlier. What a surprise. My examples/arguments were that hard work as a large majority is in and of itself an exaggeration. And again, you're still wrong, because one can do something for 20 or so years, and still suck horribly at it. Hard work alone is not a determiner, merely a contributing factor; which is what I argued, and still am--gee look at that, me agreeing with what I already said, again; what a surprise. I never said that they made no sense coinciding with being asinine, that was reserved specifically for you astrophysics references, to which yes, it is pretentious and ridiculous, that isn't going to change. Clearly you don't read closely enough.
"And again, you're still wrong, because one can do something for 20 or so years, and still suck horribly at it."
I never claimed you couldn't. If you want to actually say I said things, quote me on them instead of making them up, like I do with you.
"Hard work alone is not a determiner, merely a contributing factor"
Which I stated on my very first post, yet you kept on debating.
"which is what I argued"
You never argued for that, I did. You didn't argue against it being a contributing factor either, but you did argue that theoretically it was not
needed which is what I have been debating all along.
It's not the issue of whether or not it complies to every single variable, it's the issue that it barely compares at all, because it's an embellishment (i.e. a pathetic comparison). I would agree with science, CERTAIN arts, but not video games. And that's where your pretentious asinine argument kicks itself in the gut. I'm not confused, and in fact, I'm scoffing at how utterly trivial and pathetic your personality seems based off of how fervently you attempt to push such a ridiculous arbitrary point. Again you draw straws, stating by interpretation against what I have stated to be my collective thoughts objectively. All is within the same context. Try again.
Which arts can a really talented person be good at with little to no practice and hard work?
Also if video games are only talent driven then how is it that any professional gamer has at least trained themselves extensively in the game they are adept at. Can you name a couple of the best players in any competitive game that had never touched any other game of a similar fashion in a competitive ambiance until the very day they became a pro?
Stop analyzing things as literally as you do, as that won't get you very far. Let's not take the quote out of context and lets analyze the context under which the quote was done. What is the error we have been discussing from the very first post? What was the topic of the discussion and how does that quote relate to it?
The topic of the discussion is that some people make the mistake of believing that if they are talented enough, they can offput hard work or experience and as such there must be someone who could achieve that which others need to work so hard for without any type of work himself.
Me: "The error in the mindset behind letting a high school grad whose incredibly amazing at physics, yet has never studied physics outside of high school, plan out a rockets trajectory to the moon is the same as the one of there being someone who can be better than the very best in the world without even trying or working for it, in any area, be it sports, video games, arts or
science."
When you relate this quote to the topic at hand, the error it is pointing to is the belief that just because someone is extremely talented, he does not need to prepare or make any effort to achieve something incredibly difficult.
Does this error hold true in both account?
Yes it does.
Now let's go to your response:
"I would agree with science, CERTAIN arts, but not video games."
And then you claim:
"I never stated one did not need hard work, never once"
Stop taking every quote out of context and then analyzing it by itself in a literal fashion. This is a debate and all quotes pertain to the topic at hand. Critical Reading.
I understand it, you're just contradicting yourself left and right and making a downright fool of yourself. The two are completely different, it would seem you are the one having difficulties, and thus an adherent to hypocrisy. The fact you're to tell me that I can't understand my own writing is laughable, are you a troll? Really, that has to be even more pretentious and pathetic than your astrophysics point. No, you quite clearly stated last page that one did not overpower the other, which is of course backpedaling, a sandwich of such, as you have once more changed positions. All I say is, prove it. Prove EVERY SINGLE CASE is required hard work, quantified hard work, and not easy work, or mediocre work. Newsflash, you won't. Because you can't. All you're capable of is anecdotes, which are not evidence.
"required hard work, quantified hard work, and not easy work, or mediocre work"
LOL. Seriously? Just how literal and out of context can you take things from texts? I mean seriously... seriously?
You understand that by "hard" work I don't literally mean hard work, I mean putting effort into it. Some people find stuff easy to do when they love doing it, it doesn't make it any less of a hard work. To a person lifting a weight might be hard while it is easy to another person.
I'll reverse the logic on you. How do you know whats talent and what's acquired skill? How do you know if someone was actually talented before they started learning something? Can you prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that every single person classified as "talented" did not just acquire all said skills through time and effort?
You LITERALLY have no concept of probability and possibility, and that's sad. I stated it's a possibility, not a probability. As the great physicist Michio Kaku said something along the lines of, "It is a possibility a planet of unicorns exist, but not very or at all probable." That's where you fail, that's where the crux of your pathetic meandering misunderstanding comes to die. I am not saying anything of the sort, and therefore there is no backpedaling, merely the rational acknowledgement of possibility.
"If I were you: "It is a possibility a planet of unicorns exist, but not very or at all probable." Prove that there is a possibility"
See how you sound?
Now for a counterargument (yes, I won't leave you in the air like you do, because I do have counterarguments):
Not everything has possibility. Even when there are vast amount of numbers. If I were to say that there is a possibility for there to be someone than can fly without the need of any type of machinery, would you say there's a possibility? This is not a philosophy debate, its a logical debate.
I thoroughly believe that no matter how talented you are at something, you cannot be the best at something without actually putting any effort into it. Even if you are incredibly good at physics, you won't be able to even know several physics formula without either doing a College Degree/Masters relating to physics, or actually sitting down, analyzing and "discovering" the formulas yourself. Either way it takes a lot of effort to reach that level, you aren't born with that level of understanding.
I never said hard work was NOT a factor, I stated that it not always the dominant factor. Oh, SO wrong, yes, that gets your point across SO clearly. You're literally proving nothing saying this, but that's nothing new.
You said it wasn't a needed factor.
Sure you need experience and practice to get better at a game, that's how rote rehearsal works. Everyone has their limitations, typically heavily involving innate talent. Hate to break to you, but everyone's different, and no single side is going to consistently best the other. Your last point doesn't hold any weight. It assumes personality traits, motivation and overall hypothetical ability about a hypothetical person that has not been defined. It's like drawing a smiley face on a blank piece of paper and stating things about 'him' you couldn't possibly prove. Hypothetical anecdotes are even further away from evidence than anecdotes.
I believe that hard work does gets you farther than what talent does, although as I stated I also agree that talent does set a barrier at a certain limit. A mixture of both is needed in order to be great.
My 2nd post is stating a belief shared by the casual and semi-casual Smash community. Can you really tell me you've never met someone who said he was probably the best at the game and had never played it with anyone except his close-knit group of friends? It was an example, I wasn't referring to a single person in particular.
Hard work falls apart at the walls of limitation. A man can only work so hard at climbing a wall with no limbs, after all. Sure metagame would exist, and if that's how you're defining it, you're sadly misinformed. Again, I never stated talent alone was all that mattered, then again, it seems you read what you want to read. It'd say being a "pro" is just being "good" or "great" at the game, not some misconceived notion that seems to mean having no life and dedicating said no life to a children's game. It's a hobby, and by no way as serious as you make it out to be, which once more adds more evidence that you're pretentious.
I never quoted you needed to dedicate your life to the game, also I don't consider this game a "children's game". Apparently you cannot get through a single argument without making up things and arguments. You also are very demeaning with even the things that you like and do. "It'd say being a "pro" is just being "good" or "great" at the game", no being a pro means a professional. Did you know League of Legend and Dota players are getting payed? Did you know they train 8 hours a day like a real jon? For some people its an actual job, don't assume things.
Also for those people who it isn't their job, they still have spent countless of hours. I have spent 600-700 hours on Brawl and I only played with my casual friends and when I had a smashfest over at my house. I never actually "practiced" by myself as some of the more professional players do. I also only played for about 2 and a half years, on and off.
I am pretentious because I believe people actually need to work for something. Okay then.
Yes, making convoluted points and acting like a child is going to change mindsets. I hope you're happy knowing you've accomplished nothing.
What exactly have you accomplished?
You act as though I care enough to sift through your paragraphs of whining. You said it early on, about how people would have heard of me if I were any good. Nevermind aliases changes, that concepts beyond you.
"Smash 64 has been out for 15 years, not 10. Also even though I doubt you have put more hours into competitive play as Isaia has, because if you had, people would at least know you even if you weren't any good at the game you would still be known around solely because of all the time you would spend playing with different people around, practice only takes you so far, you do require talent in order to advance to the highest level of play.
BTW: What I meant by "being known" is that people would know you from having played you. It doesn't mean that you are famous. "
Lets read what I actually said, quoted directly from the post at hand. Let's read it again.
Lets get some key phrases here:
"people would at least know you even if you weren't any good at the game you would still be known around solely because of all the time you would spend playing with different people around"
Huh, I even said, even if you weren't any good... but let's continue,
"What I meant by "being known" is that people would know you from having played you. It doesn't mean that you are famous."
Also note the keyword: DOUBT. Meaning I accept that you could spend all those hours in the competitive scene and be relatively unknown to everyone if you were a really shy person and maybe never socialized or spoke to anyone and only played, but that I doubted that after 15 years playing a game as much as Isai you wouldn't even be known around the community. You corrected me stating that I was wrong and that many people do know you in the community and that I just didn't realize who you were, to which I accepted your claim and dropped that whole point.
I don't know exactly what you gather from this, as you seem to lack reading comprehension skills, but what I was stating was that you would be well known around the Smash 64 community, as in players would know of you because they had played you before. I even gave my example of how I was relatively well known in my community and I was an average player. I accepted the fact that people did know you when you told me because I have no reason to doubt that you are known around said community, as you just stated you could have changed your alias or I could just be oblivious as to who you are, I didn't refute your claim at all.
BUT, NEVER, EVER, ever did I make a statement that you need to be famous to be good. Your whole counter argument against me in the last 2-3 posts has been that I make a wrong assumption that you need to be famous to be good. So, now go ahead and prove that I did say that... because otherwise most of your last claims (which aren't even arguments against my statement, but more so against my personality) fall apart.
.
