I dismiss their argument because they're essentially reverting to name calling to try to prove their point. If they had a well structured argument they wouldn't need to resort to a false equivalence. The typical use of the word cancer outside of gaming community is almost always the disease.
I'll concede that language is as language does. I just personally feel that using the word cancer to describe anything in a card game is a cancer of gaming communities in general. It may not be to the same extent as using the words "gay" or "retarded" as a slur. But I think it paints a picture to the maturity and social consciousness of the community.
I suppose if they present their argument as "This deck is cancer", with no supporting argument, they are probably just frustrated and grasping at straws.
Unfortunately, we seem to be venturing into the realm of mind reading. As the word has definitions which can be considered quite similar, there is no way to tell what their usage of the word indicates. I see the use of the word "cancer" as completely legitimate, while you assume that the original poster is ignorant to it's secondary definition. Perhaps we will never know. At any rate, even if they are directly referencing the disease, I don't find that usage particularly offensive. I suppose that is an argument for another time.
That's a bit of a low blow. The definition you point to only exists as an analogy for the disease. This response is about as legitimate as saying, just because I said "shit" doesn't mean I was talking about faeces. We know, but that's not the point. There are a myriad of things you could call something you dislike without referencing a deadly disease. Saying it's just my interpretation is dishonest.
How can anything in a card game be evil or destructive? I feel it's a stretch to call it destructive to the meta being able to put it in the same bounds as a disease that can literally kill people. It's like gamer culture has done in the past in roping in words like "rape" and "gay". They are trying to use shock value.
Whenever I see anyone using hyperbolic words like "cancer" in an argument I know that I can ignore whatever they had to say. If they had a real argument, they wouldn't have to resort to that language. The'd be able to express their argument sensibly, otherwise.
Once again, they are not referencing a deadly disease, they are using the word as it was intended to be used. The word has multiple definitions. When someone speaking English says that they "took someone out on a date", they are not referencing a time of year, or a dried out fruit, they are talking about a romantic engagement. If you interpret it any other way, that's on you.
People believe that the meta should be balanced. If an aggro deck is dominant (or any class of deck for that matter), it is considered destructive to the current meta. Also, dismissing an argument because it contains "words" you disagree with is childish. See above.
I'm getting tired of it though, it's thrown around just for the shock value of the word.
That's where I disagree. They are not pulling up some fringe definition of the word. They are using one of its intended definitions correctly. There is no "shock" value, as they are not associating their usage of the word with the disease. That's on you.
0
I lol'd
0
0
3
Lol, no.
Locked.
0
1
Thread has been cleaned up.
Let's address OP's post and not argue with each other, please.
Thanks :3
1
4
0
http://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/general-discussion/28947-group-therapy-need-to-blow-off-steam-mega-salty
Locked.
0
Thanks for this, I'll give it a shot!
5
Can't win against Jade Druid. It's not even close.
0
1
1
0