| Zod95 said: Let me be as demanding with you as you are with me: you start off with some solid points (however completely useless, but I'll get to that) and then start arguing based on them to prove a point. You get lost in your own reasoning, still believing you're making sense. I can pull criticism out of the air as well and say it applies to you, but it doesn't make it so. How about this? You and other people here demand from me an extremely high accuracy that not even you are able to follow. It's easy to criticize me out of thin air, not giving subtancial arguments, not providing evidences to back up your claims, and then demand the opposite from me. Well, from now on, I will be as demanding with you. If you want to criticize anything, it's better that you do it full of evidences and well structured arguments. Now let's go to your substantial claims: you say that I completely ignore skill and quality of work. That is false and thus your example is a fallacy. Highly qualified work costs more --> that is related to money --> money is 1 of the 3 factors I use to assess commitment --> commitment to quality is different from good games, so I don't assess good/bad, which is another false argument you use. You presented no evidences, your arguments are fallacies and your claims are blatant lies. |
@bolded: Quite ironic considering the demands you place on others for counter-evidence. Perhaps if you started out your claims with solid evidence, there wouldn't be any issues.
Please see my previous post, the onus is on you as you made the initial claim. Don't fall victim to that logical fallacy.
I have already pointed out that using wages is fallible as there are many factors that determine someone's pay. Especially considering Nintendo's wage cuts for execs. Actually, wouldn't you agree that a highly skilled worker taking on a job for pay below their skillset is an indicator of more commitment? Where does this fit into your grand agenda that Nintendo are only out to fill their own pockets?
