Green should disallow GINA

[Muggens]

Originally Posted by Chortles Snort|eS [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

HEAL NOW
YOU HAS AGGRO
BUFFS FADED
ALERT ALERT
NO CLASSIC

[dekova]

I'm fine with people using Gina. Not that much different from the log parser I used back in the day. The UI is much prettier though.

Not gonna say your opinion is wrong Izmael, but I think you're in the minority on this one.

[Canelek]

Pfft. Cable and ISDN were not that rare in 1999 (I didn't mention DSL because I forget when it became a popular competitor). That is about when they were becoming more mainstream and affordable. It's not like there wasn't coax (and CAT3 for ISDN) running into 90% of buildings.

Of course there were plenty of folks on dialup since this still was a period of technology transition, but let's not pretend like it was 1990.

[akagami]

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

Pfft. Cable and ISDN were not that rare in 1999 (I didn't mention DSL because I forget when it became a popular competitor). That is about when they were becoming more mainstream and affordable. It's not like there wasn't coax (and CAT3 for ISDN) running into 90% of buildings.

Of course there were plenty of folks on dialup since this still was a period of technology transition, but let's not pretend like it was 1990.

Found out who was living in San Francisco in 1999.

[Canelek]

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

Found out who was living in San Francisco in 1999.

No, but you got the correct state, so touche.

[Ashenden]

I love that when people disagree with a change they take it to the absolute extreme via things like resolution and internet speed to try and make it sound dumb.

Is there a name for that kind of argument?

[Baler]

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

Is there a name for that kind of argument?

It's called a debate. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Izmael]

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

I love that when people disagree with a change they take it to the absolute extreme via things like resolution and internet speed to try and make it sound dumb.

Is there a name for that kind of argument?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
is the closest I can think of.

[loramin]

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

I love that when people disagree with a change they take it to the absolute extreme via things like resolution and internet speed to try and make it sound dumb.

Is there a name for that kind of argument?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
is the closest I can think of.

I believe this is correct. In the more general sense you could say that someone making such an argument is making a "straw man" argument, but the specific kind of straw man would be one based on Reductio ad absurdum.

And before anyone tries to argue, I'm not trying to say that it never makes sense to use extremes in a debate. Of course that can be a valid rhetorical technique, sometimes, ie. when:

Originally Posted by https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

it builds on assertions which are actually present in the argument it is deconstructing, and not when it misrepresents them as a straw man. For example, any creationist argument that takes the form of "if evolution were real, we'd see fish turning into monkeys and monkeys turning into people all the time" only serves to ridicule itself, since it mischaracterises the theory of evolution to an extreme degree.

[Nagoya]

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

I love that when people disagree with a change they take it to the absolute extreme via things like resolution and internet speed to try and make it sound dumb.

Is there a name for that kind of argument?

maybe an Association fallacy; the guy wants to remove something that didn't exist in 1999, so people pitch other stuff that didn't exist in 1999 (good internet, good computers) to make him look stupid.

honestly Baler for such a #classic champion, you're disappointing here.
if "some programs" existed in 1999 also to do similar things, then use these programs. GINA is not classic, and there is no way you can defend this.

and i'll pitch an association fallacy in there because we're having fun:

if you're defending GINA as something classic that we should be able to use in 2019, then you're defending the compass (we could use something similar in 99!), the Ctrl+M maps (we all had maps in 99!) and everything else you're fighting against.

GINA did not exist in 1999 and is not classic, period.
if other classic tools existed at the time, then use these classic tools.

my2¢