[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by thrrowaway

The youtube videos are people reading OFFICIAL COMICS. If you could understand that you are wrong for once in your life then you would figure this out.

As I told you, being official within an imaginary canon is not evidence for any wider discussion about the issue. Internal consistency does not mean a thing is objectively useful or even safe.

They arent promoting their own content. They are saying that its not suitable for children. Its also not biased because its a legal requirement. It has a Mature rating. I told you this, but you said its not relevant.

We are not denying that his game is not suitable for children. We are saying that it is not suitable for anyone. That is where your bias comes into play.

Yes, it does count actually. And you say peer reviewed. That means the people that play this game. You are not my peers. You are crazy people.

This is the equivocation fallacy. Peer-review in science does not mean that "your peers" would become experts when applying this silly game to its general effects on the population.

The videos are not tedious or uninformative. They explain a story to a game with a vast amount of lore. But you refuse to use it since its youtube. So i dunno about that. And of course i use things that support my side. Im not gonna use your god awful stand point.

As we told you: the internal consistency or "canon" is not evidence when assessing the usefulness or harm of this game. It is nice that you now admit your bias, of using things that support your side. That excludes you from serious scholarship. Serious science also considers issues that would falsify one's hypothesis. In addition, you're now using poisoning of well fallacy of never even aiming to look at the evidence (the Bible) that your opposition provides.

And im not gonna look at posts of genuine psychopaths that look too deep into angry birds for gods sake.

This is just an ad hominem fallacy, an appeal to person. Being distasteful or in your opinion insane is irrelevant to the actual evidence material. We're assessing that and if you wish to engage in civilized conversation, you should do that, as well.

Ephesians 4:31
Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

You do realize... We are talking about a video game... This is actual research in this scenario. Canon and game play applies here. We arent talking about cars or cream. Its a free game that actively says kids shouldn't play it

In which manner is "canon" actual research? What are its hypotheses? How do they test anything and send it out for objective assessment?

The law applies. You cant play it if its not in your age range. Her kid wasnt allowed to play the game. He did not ask for consent if he could play, but this mom blew it way out of proportion. He was having fun and suddenly she turns it into "Heavy and Medic are banging in the back room" You see what im saying?

Are all things that are allowed according to laws useful, healthy, absolutely not harmful in any manner? Can you find any examples of the contrary (that would be an exercise in alternative hypotheses)? For "having fun" please consult Luke 14:26.


Yours in Christ,


Elmer