“A fallacy fallacy is when someone points out a fallacy to dismiss a statement or argument.”
I didn’t dismiss your statement or argument.
The following sentence directly addresses your statement which you quoted:
And loadouts fall under authenticity & capability, not realism.
Realism is how sensors work, and physics.
So, to make sure you are not misrepresenting yourself:
Your post is opposing my stance, which is: “F-4J UK should move to 11.7; or get AIM-7Fs; and irrelevant of those two it should get any correct air to ground weapons it should be able to use.”
Are you certain that you disagree with/oppose F-4J UK moving to 11.7, or getting AIM-7Fs?
Are you certain that you disagree with/oppose F-4J UK getting napalm?
I want to make sure you understand your position, and I want to make sure I understand your position.
In missile count yes.
In radar, flight model for at least a few months [and potentially still], and missile quality J-11B edged out ahead in my view; at least prior to the new PL-12 issue that has shown up.
But I am biased in favor of faster scanning radars that have functional track while scan.
I am doubly sure that this is cheap wordplay
If you call me a red herring, then the side effect of dismissing my statement will follow. Because you criticised my reliability.
Sir, do you think I am that naive?
In your reality.
Realism covers quite a large radius and loadouts can be included in the Realism term.
This is moving a goalpost.
The reason I mentioned F-4J(UK) in this discussion was
Gaijin’s realism standards are iffy and there is selective realism that exists. And F-4J(UK) was one of EXAMPLES.
To be fair, I was mainly focusing on tanks in this aspect.
That’s my fault.
The F-15C GE is the US’s “equivalent” to the Su-30SM, I am comparing the two of those.
.The F-15C GE is indeed better than the Su-30SM thanks to better defensive kit, GNSS missiles paired with aesa radar that offers better awareness and better flight performance.
While it isn’t a huge difference, it’s enough to possibly result in the F-15C GE going up in br if we receive proper decompression.
I don’t have a negative opinion of you, Blend; let alone one like that.
I noted a red herring within your post, which was to talk about loadouts; then I addressed your post’s content because I’m not going to dismiss your argument just cause a fallacy is present.
Have some tea, enjoy life a bit.
I’ve never once in my life thought less of anyone for what they said online, let alone fallacies contained in online posts. Life is too short for that to sway my thoughts.
To me, a post containing a fallacy will at most challenge my thinking. Do I want posts to contain them? No, but I’m not going to change my view on the person just cause a post contains one; that seems silly to me.
And maybe you see loadouts as realism. I don’t, I see them in the subject of authenticity and capabilities; because to me, realism is systems and physics, something I learned from racing simulators and DCS.
If we have to agree to disagree because of that difference, that’s okay.
Don’t bring personal things into open discussion; it’s a TRUE red herring moment.
Regardless of whether you have a negative opinion of me or not, it won’t matter in the discussion itself.
It isn’t a red herring. You are framing me because you want to believe that F-4J(UK) cannot be evidence of Gaijin’s selective realism.
In case we have a murder case in court, CCTV footage on VHS cannot be evidence because the victim wasn’t murdered with a VHS Tape?
Should we call it a red herring? I think not.
You brought reality to argue about dismissing russian bias, and I brought F-4J(UK) and Italian Tonka to dismiss your reality argument.
This isn’t a red herring.
Well don’t worry about my life, it is none of your business, and off topic, also, I am enjoying my life very much, having a cuppa, have debates in the forum.
Cool, another self-defending. TLDR /j. (Ofc I read them)
“TMI, TMI, my friends.” -Steve Carell
If you don’t limit the usage of the term “realism” because nothing but you want to make all those counterarguments into a bin,
Then maybe we could agree to disagree about the usage of the “realism” term.
But in this case, I reckon we cannot reach an agreement to disagree.
So, cut all that off-topic soap drama, and shall we move forward, Toby?
Can you accept that bias exists in applying realisms on loadout, and that selective realism exists?
Comparing missiles with each other in tests and statshark, talking to highly skilled players who know what they’re talking about.
Looking at tournament metas.
I have enough experience in various different vehicles and with different missiles that I can look at a plane and get a good idea of how well it performs without using it yet.
It’s like trying to prove to someone that an Audi is better than a BMW when you’ve never driven a BMW in your life. Maybe it’s better to get involved in your area of expertise?
I also regularly chat with players of equal skill or superior skill who have used these vehicles.
I’m very certain that my information is correct.
You should also not talk regarding expertise as you have only played 5 vehicles in total.
You also only did well in the one vehicle you own that is criminally undertiered.
An expert is someone with first-hand experience. Just because you’ve watched YouTube videos about quantum physics doesn’t make you a physicist. I hope I’ve expressed myself clearly enough, since you can’t understand what I’m talking about the first time.
I have First-Hand experience with more vehicles than you, do better than you in the same vehicles if not worse ones and communicate with people better than both of us who say the exact same things I do.
