0.01% lives matter too!
Lama just jelly he spent his money on english breakfast instead!
1 Like
So you donât want to hold peopleâs hand in-game, but you do outside of the gameâŠ
Personally, I think that the members of the community that have that much disposable income would find it more ârewardingâ to be able to make the connection between the lack of a $1k pack and google to find out that they canât upgrade their packs anyway so itâs all a moot pointâŠ
TLDR for anyone who doesnât know me, yes, I am a curmudgeonly argumentative Englishman.
@Bankaikiller I am not âjellyâ, Iâm not even a jam, Iâm just not going to hold those with that much disposable cash to a higher standard. Especially when it involves taking some of their previous posts totally out of context!
1 Like
I know lol iâm just giving you a hard time, I do it for all the emperorâs new grooves out there.
1 Like
I could murder a full English breakfast thoughâŠ
Edit: Wihtout the beans, mushrooms or black pudding. So itâs more like a half English breakfastâŠ
Iâm just trying to help you develop those all important neural connections that come when learning new skills. I also think you should get more sleep! Are you eating enough fiber?
Thereâs this little thing on the side of the forum that pulls through any new posts (or edits).
1 Like
But then I canât argue with Heavy about how heâs wrong!
Just sayinâ.
1 Like
Ah the old slippery slope argument. Always a good way of defending your position⊠
OoOoOoO Philosophy!
RawSuicide wasnât actually using the slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument would be something like âIf a few people started buying $1k supporter packs, then itâs going to cause others to buy 1k supporter packs, and eventually so many people will have bought 1k supporter packs that there wonât be enough money left to feed the poor!â
For a slippery slope argument, the argument needs to be that the action will snowball into much greater consequences. Also, the slippery slope argument is not always wrong! Sometimes an action can predictably snowball into much greater consequences, but the argument is often used without making the necessary connections to show why this would be the case, or the connections made are weak/unverifiable/proven to not exist.
RawSuicideâs argument was more akin to appealing to the OP to see if his argument holds up universally. Does OP always get disappointed when money isnât spent on retirement or helping people?. If not, then there would have to be something more specific about this particular purchase that directly creates a scenario where people should always choose retirement or hobbies over a 1k supporter pack that doesnât also apply to other uses of money that OP would not be disappointed in. In a way, this is similar to (although not exactly like) Kantâs categorical imperative. RawSuicide is appealing to the universality of the argument, and suggesting that if you cannot apply this position to everyone under all relevant circumstances, then there may be a problem with the conclusion.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk @Llama8 !
2 Likes
Is there a TLDR for that?
Anyway, you go & take your âdegreeâ & cogent argument somewhere else please, the internet does not need it!
TLDR: Youâre wrong!
The internet may not need it, but you do 
2 Likes
Well if it wasnât a slippery slope then it was at least a lightly greased incline! And since Iâm arguing on the internet I am well within my rights to totally ignore you!
Touché
@Llama8
What @McFluffin said!
Thanx MĂ€c. I wanted to google âslippery slopeâ to creaye a smart sounding answer. But I could not have written what you did⊠You saved me a lot of time! 
My Masterâs degree in philosophy doesnât come in handy very often, but when it does itâs usually to prove @Llama8 wrong!
6 Likes
We have agreed that you used a milder form (the afformentioned âlightly greased inclineâ argument) & that you are therefore required to pay reparations to the injured party (myself) in the form of a pair of (new & unused) 3090 graphics cards.
Edit: I wait avidly for my physics with astrophysics degree to come in useful to prove @McFluffin wrong (again, Shadow Daggers breakpoints, just sayinâ).
2 Likes
Hmmm. I didnât realize astrophysics was all about blindly guessing and getting lucky every once in a while 
2 Likes
Jsut because the maths it too complex for you doesnât make it âblindly guessingâ. It may look like blind guesswork, but in reality thereâs an obscene amount of very complex maths going on to get to that point.
And totally not a dart board with some breakpoints pasted on it.
1 Like
To be fair, while maybe not a Slippery Slope, there was definitely some assumptions taken. I was talking specifically about the amount of money spend on a video game. Somehow the counterpoint got into money spent on all sorts of things. Spending money on a video game and spending money on a vehicle are not equal. A pickup truck, for example, still gets you to and from a potential job that makes you your money. It also has the ability to create jobs (hauling) that will make money. It is more of an âinvestmentâ.
If anything, there could have been a hint of Fallacy of Composition in assuming all spending of money outside of retirement and charity (those were set by my example, which was not meant to be exhaustive), are equally wasteful.
1 Like