[Messianic]

Originally Posted by Nakara [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

pretty sure saying your analogy is dumb as fuck is refuting it

"Refute: 1. Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove."

Insults do not a proof make

you should keep throwing around your phrase 'subjective valuations' that your probably just learned in your econ 101 course to try and keep sounding smart though

Keep throwing insults and avoiding any real debate - it makes you smarter. I didn't take Econ 101 btw, I just skipped the compilation texts and read the classics, and listened to seminars/debates. Most econ professors, particularly Keynesian-leaning professors or some supply-siders will argue against subjective valuation since they have statist tendencies, and therefore a supposed "objective" framework from which to start. I doubt its something covered in any detail in Macro, Micro, or the Econ 101 class that has a little of both (at least regionally accredited institutions such as state Universities generally structure the classes that way).

But all of that probably went over your head anyway. I'm happy if it didn't, however, because you'll be able to reply with substance instead of:

"u think ur so smart, keep using your key phrases," and "calling your analogy stupid disproves it."

Cmon, try harder.

I think pointing out the irony of the false analogy is a refutation.

Pointing out the irony of an analogy isn't a refutation, and assuming its a false analogy isn't a refutation. You didn't show why it was false (except for one claim which I will answer more fully below) - you just said one provides a tangible benefit while one doesn't, which is actually subjective and false, given that evidently, people do receive tangible pleasure from playing EQ.

It's ironic that there is a direct parallel between people addicted to online video games and those addicted to sex - again, the circumstance/context is different (and perhaps addiction to sex is more commendable), but the form is the same. Things can be entirely different in one respect but completely the same in others.

I am pretty sure the valuation is "subjective" if it were only readily apparent to one person.

That's not what subjective valuation really means..100% of individuals in the world could "agree" on something, but that wouldn't make it objective. But that's a whole side issue which doesn't need to be dealt with here to continue the argument.

In this case, I am almost positive that having millions and all the sex you want is a pretty tangible benefit. On the flip side, having uber leet gear from many hours spent on your ass tapping keys is not going to get you money or any pussy beyond badjojo.com.

The reality though, is that the efforts of the athlete almost always result in a tangible benefit.

As far as I can see, the above is the only real point you made against the analogy. It's a false premise to say that tangible benefits do not come from EQ. Playing EQ almost always results in a tangible benefit, at least to some people (i.e. pleasure, the basis for all "tangible benefits"), or people would never play it over other alternatives. Do you have sex 24/7? Do you have sex at every single opportunity? If you're honest, you say you don't, since we have lives outside of our genitalia. At times, you value certain things over sex.

Do you pleasure yourself constantly instead of playing EQ, or do it constantly while you play EQ? No? Then, at least at times, you value EQ higher than sexual pleasure. At those times you value EQ more, you play. Why is your position of more sex better than someone else's position of more EQ (although both positions possess different amounts of both) objectively better? If both of you are content with the amounts you have, why should everyone follow your balance?

Since both result in tangible benefits, the analogy stands. As I said before, the scale and circumstance are different, but the form is the same - sacrificing more time, resources, or opportunities than the other guy to receive a greater reward in the same arena - and you don't always get a greater reward, but is almost always the result of putting more time into a competitive endeavor than your competitors.