When every single nuance, loophole, and possible result has to be closed, just so there is no wiggle room left for cheating the original intent and restricting the outcomes, it's not really a conversation, but is getting into formal, legal style writing The way you're (somewhat incorrectly, I'll get to that) picking apart my words is making me feel as though I should have hired a lawyer to draft my original statement.
I know exactly what you were trying to say, I'm saying the implications of your statement (even within lines of your intent and context) are absurd when you take the time for a double-take.
And again, I'd disagree with this. You've presented several different frames of reference intended to present my use of the word "associate" in a vague connotation. "You play FFXI, RMT play FFXI, therefore you are associated." With the context of the thread, and therefore the ideas behind the statement removed, this is a perfectly logical conclusion to draw, and yes, quickly makes the entire world nothing but a steaming pile of shit.
...hmm, maybe that's not too far off anyway.
At any rate, the isolation of that from the rest of the thread, its context, and therefore its meaning, to present it with an alternate one that distorts the meaning of what I have said, that's one of those fallacy things you want me to point out so bad. By taking it out of context, changing the frame of reference from someone reading this post, to a new FFXI player, to someone who doesn't even play, you can alter the very meaning of what an "association" is. There is no valid reason to do this, unless you
intend to twist my words.
vagueness of the word trash
You took a decent chunk of time going into it, I just did the same.
Did you just say there will be exceptions to every statement? Then don't make simplistic assumptions about people's character and save yourself the trouble of looking like an idiot.
See my lawyer comments above. A decently intelligent person will realize on their own that there are exceptions (Unwilling participant, unknowing participant for example), and not require me to add a clause to a simple statement simply to inform them of this. This was one of the first things we were taught in science class. Any all inclusive statement more than likely has an exception.
Another thing that is being completely ignored is the degree to which each of the participants is guilty. Maybe I should have said "scum" and "trash" instead, but again, I didn't think I'd need to carefully word my statements so as to make sure nobody could accidentally directly equate the two.
The way this is all presented in an extremely verbose manner makes it look as though it's actually an elegantly worded, perfectly logical argument may be a fallacy of its own.
In the case of rule-breaking activities, an associate is little more than an accomplice. In the case of poor attitudes, much like the ones people are posting that exist in TF, there's an old saying... "He that sleeps with Dogs, must rise with Fleas. If you keep Company with base and unworthy Fellows, you will get some Ill by them."
There's probably something I've missed, point it out, I'll get it later, I've got to get back to work here.
