Re: Ardent Creator Supporter Pack - Availability Update

0.01% lives matter too!

Lama just jelly he spent his money on english breakfast instead!

1 Like

So you don’t want to hold people’s hand in-game, but you do outside of the game…

Personally, I think that the members of the community that have that much disposable income would find it more “rewarding” to be able to make the connection between the lack of a $1k pack and google to find out that they can’t upgrade their packs anyway so it’s all a moot point…

TLDR for anyone who doesn’t know me, yes, I am a curmudgeonly argumentative Englishman.

@Bankaikiller I am not “jelly”, I’m not even a jam, I’m 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 i’m just giving you a hard time, I do it for all the emperor’s new grooves out there.

1 Like

I could murder a full English breakfast though…

Edit: Wihtout the beans, mushrooms or black pudding. So it’s more like a half English breakfast…

I’m 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?

There’s this little thing on the side of the forum that pulls through any new posts (or edits).

1 Like

But then I can’t argue with Heavy about how he’s wrong!

Just sayin’.

1 Like

ardent centurions, and lords just dont get us… @Heavy :boom: :gun:


Ah the old slippery slope argument. Always a good way of defending your position… :wink:

OoOoOoO Philosophy!

RawSuicide wasn’t actually using the slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument would be something like “If a few people started buying $1k supporter packs, then it’s going to cause others to buy 1k supporter packs, and eventually so many people will have bought 1k supporter packs that there won’t be enough money left to feed the poor!”

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.

RawSuicide’s argument was more akin to appealing to the OP to see if his argument holds up universally. Does OP always get disappointed when money isn’t 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 doesn’t 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) Kant’s 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 !


Is there a TLDR for that?

Anyway, you go & take your “degree” & cogent argument somewhere else please, the internet does not need it!

TLDR: You’re wrong!

The internet may not need it, but you do :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


Well if it wasn’t a slippery slope then it was at least a lightly greased incline! And since I’m arguing on the internet I am well within my rights to totally ignore you!


What @McFluffin said!

Thanx Mäc. I wanted to google “slippery slope” to creaye a smart sounding answer. But I could not have written what you did… You saved me a lot of time! :kissing_heart:

My Master’s degree in philosophy doesn’t come in handy very often, but when it does it’s usually to prove @Llama8 wrong!


We have agreed that you used a milder form (the afformentioned “lightly greased incline” 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 sayin’).


Hmmm. I didn’t realize astrophysics was all about blindly guessing and getting lucky every once in a while :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


Jsut because the maths it too complex for you doesn’t make it “blindly guessing”. It may look like blind guesswork, but in reality there’s 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 “investment”.

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