Scholar is a horribly designed job and shows zero thought goes into healer design

[Elucesta]

I think some if you nay be derailing the thread probably

[Renathras]

...

I don't doubt you believe Yuna is an example of a White Mage, but until you can find an actual quote from the game, I don't think "because in lore she is addressed as a WHITE MAGE no assumptions needed" is at all accurate nor that she should be considered a White Mage, especially since any of the characters in the game can pick up her skills eventually.

And, again, I gave you lists of the other explicit White Mages in the game's history, you can't just ignore that. Even if we point out Eiko (not Garnet) is a bit more White Mage, Eiko and Garnet are from the Village of Summoners, not the Village of White Mages, so they're both technically Summoners as well. "the facts" are that FFXIV is pretty true to the Final Fantasy lore White Mage, and more strictly accurate as a representative of it than the Summoner-hybrids, not all of which even WERE White Mages (Rydia from FF4 being a Summoner+Black Mage)

FF11 is an apples-to-apples comparison, as it is also a MMO, and in it, WHM is almost exclusively healing/buffing in party content, rarely using any damage spells.

It may not be objectively good design, but it's not objectively BAD design, either. I played Holy Paladin in Burning Crusade WoW, and its DPS rotation was literally one button, Judgement. This isn't exactly uncommon.

"some people" isn't a fallacy of appealing to a majority (some is not most; "most people" would be said fallacy, which is why I avoid saying it, something not true of everyone in this forum who often invoke that they're speaking for the majority)

So, I can't speak to all of the single-player games in the series, but you missed the point: You're comparing apples to fish because the single-player games have entirely different combat and encounter models from FFXIV. Each game has a different answer to, "What is a white mage (healer)?" because each game has different systems and stories that the job needs to slot into. And what matters is whether each game provides a satisfactory answer in its own context.

This would be true if I hadn't mentioned FF11, which is an MMO... In fact, FF11's WHM to FF14's WHM is the most apples-to-apples comparison we could look for.

Kimhari is blue mage, he can fill any role in the party once you get him moving. Its just his start position on the standard sphere grid sucks. Advanced grid he's a gamebreaker.

Kimhari's starting point can probably best be thought of as Red Mage, I think. His special abilities are absolutely Blue Mage, yeah, but his grid places him within close reach of White and Black Magics, even if it still kinda sucks.

I think some if you nay be derailing the thread probably

lol, fair enough.

[AmiableApkallu]

This would be true if I hadn't mentioned FF11, which is an MMO... In fact, FF11's WHM to FF14's WHM is the most apples-to-apples comparison we could look for.

And once again, in your quest to be legalistic pedant, you've missed the point: what matters is whether each game provides a satisfactory answer in its own context.

Instead of addressing that, you're... stuck on how FFXI is an apple, and how FFXIV is another apple, while ignoring the fact you yourself spent a lot of words talking about the fish that are FF3, FF4, FF5, FF7, FFTA, all while glossing over your own position that "some spin offs and XI (where RDM did it better) aren't exactly the best cases."

The same with this legalistic pedanticism over FFX's Yuna. I played that game ~20 years ago. Yuna might not literally be called a White Mage, but if you're coming from FF1 and FF4, she obviously fills the same role. Her starting section of the sphere grid is obviously inspired by white mage. She's one of, if not the only, characters who's naturally set up to learn Holy, an archetypal white mage skill. The story required her to be a summoner; her game play slotted her as a white mage. The fact that you can blur over all these distinctions at the end game is the exception that proves the point.

[Katish]

The fallacy some people is indeed part of that fallacy... the fallacy is your still appealing to popularity, the bandwagon fallacy. It doesn't even necessarily mean the populace believes you but rather you make it seem so. Appeal in this case means to say something about a subject matter by giving it to an amount of people, usually of a larger group but it doesn't have to be the majority. Basically, it renders that you the person believe that your argument cannot stand on its lonesome so you attempt to gardner people of like mind and add in a populace that holds that idea or you just do it to make what you say more viewed as a fact even if it isn't, in the end it's to make what you say more believable even if that populace doesn't exist, or if it does exist, ignoring who makes up that populace.

Do note: An appeal does not equate to the truth. And, it does not neccessarily equate to what the populace believes.

My conclusion:
You use those terms to appeal and gardner public opinions. Which takes away from the relevant evidence that is true. Which is fine sometimes but I see it too often than naught, which could allow me to draw the conclusion that you might not actually believe in what you say. Hence, why I said to refrain from said usage to make a more believable statement. Since this is just general information:
https://fallacyinlogic.com/bandwagon-fallacy/
I recommend scrolling the examples.

[Renathras]

...

Good god, there was no attempt to be "legalistic pedant".

I think (because suggesting anyone else does is apparently a bandwagon fallacy now) that the healers DO provide a satisfactory answer IN THEIR OWN CONTEXT.

However, that was not the discussion. The discussion was how White Mages are in other Final Fantasy games. You can't enter a discussion in progress and insist it must be about the topic in the way you want it to be - to commandeer an in progress discussion. You can add a point or your desired direction to the discussion, you can't force everyone else to bend to it and insist they're being <insert insult> if they don't.

I didn't address that because that wasn't the discussion we were having.

As for Yuna, specifically, that ALSO isn't "weagawistic pedaticiswm". The argument was presented that Yuna was a White Mage with the SPECIFIC claim that the lore and game SAID SO directly with no interpretation needed. I was literally countering an argument someone above presented. You can't attack someone as "legalistic pedantic" for them following a conversation. Maybe you should try following the conversation instead of insulting people who are?

Moreover, you speak of exceptions that prove the point, when Yuna is LITERALLY the exception that proves the point. <_<

And if you think I'm coming on too strong in this reply - note that we were having a conversation just fine and you decided to launch into an insult fest. Mayhap don't do so.

You know SCH is a horrible job when Yuna outshines it.

Heh.

That actually did make me chuckle. SCH Demi-Bahamut when?

The fallacy some people is indeed part of that fallacy... the fallacy is your still appealing to popularity, the bandwagon fallacy.

No, it's me making a statement of fact - that I am not the only person who believes or feels a certain way. That's it. It's the difference between me saying "I believe the Earth is round" (which implies no one else does) or "Some people believe the Earth is round" (which is a statement of fact). There's no appeal to a group. It's only saying that "more than one person" feels or thinks a thing. That's literally it. The bandwagon fallacy version would be "Because so many people believe the Earth is round, you should too/you'd be a fool not to/etc". Which isn't at all the construction I was using. (Note here that we're using the Earth being round as a fact, but if you think personally it's flat, feel free to substitute flat there, the end result is the same either way - I wasn't using bandwagon fallacies.)

It is not, in fact, part of the bandwagon fallacy, since there's no appeal to that group as being correct or one you should join. See:

"The bandwagon fallacy, also known as the appeal to the masses or appeal to common belief fallacy, is the logical fallacy of claiming that something is true because everyone believes it. ... In other words, there’s nothing inherently illogical about claiming that something is popular, positive, or effective because it’s enjoyed by many. The fallacy lies in the claim that because something is popular, it must be effective, true, or otherwise positive. ... Essentially, the bandwagon fallacy makes listeners and readers question any opposition they have to the position being discussed." ( https://www.grammarly.com/blog/bandwagon-fallacy/ Emphasis/bolding from source)

From your own link: "Bandwagon fallacy is a logical fallacy that is based on the assumption that something must be true or good if it’s in accordance with the opinions of many others."

Note that I never stated "Because some people like it... therefore ...it must be true [or] you must agree". This means it was NOT, in fact, a bandwagon fallacy. Note that I have neither stated something must be true or good BECAUSE "many people" agree with it. In fact, I'm generally in the minority here and arguing for the minority, not the majority, which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of a bandwagon fallacy.

Moreover, the first time you chastised me for this when when I said "Some people absolutely love (SCH's kit being clunky/fighting itself)", which would be me supporting Osmond's position, not arguing against it.

Additionally, the SECOND time you did so was in the same post you were using it as a red herring to avoid admitting the answer to the topic at the time: That you had no proof to support your claim Yuna was explicitly referred to as a White Mage in FFX's lore after you made the absolute and explicit claim that she was so. In other words, one might think you were trying to evade admitting you were wrong using accusation/attack as a smokescreen.

As my use of the terms is always factual - a greater than 1 person group of people hold a position - not as arguing that they must be correct or right or that you must join them; it's not a bandwagon fallacy.

Moreover, considering how many people here DO use the appeal to majority/bandwagon fallacy who you AREN'T correcting, I feel it necessary to point out your critique of its use may not be in good faith.

Again, I'm not sure which specific case you're referring to, but the use of the term I made prior to you starting to attack me over it was "Some people absolutely love that..." and "Again, some people love that...many people do not.", which are statements of fact, not an intent to lead to a conclusion. I wasn't even arguing FOR A CHANGE, I was merely arguing that the other poster might be mistaken over why many people prefer SGE over SCH.

It was not an admission of an argument not standing, it was not an attempt to argue for a course of action, and it was not an attempt to persuade anything in lieu of argument made. Indeed, I made the argument for the WHY right there.

.

Your conclusion is wrong. Not least of which because I EXPLICITLY avoid appeals to majority. It's why I try REALLY hard (and I think I've succeed here in all the cases I've used such language) to never say most or all people believe a thing, nor to use the number that believe as a conclusive impulse for any overall action other than "because some people like X/don't like Y, that is a reason to do X/not do Y, or at least not do so universally", which is a reasonable argument to make when dealing with groups of heterogeneous people. The only time I ever use language like that is if we have definite statistics for it. For example, in the General forum thread on Ty's Healer survey, there were combinations of the groups that would constitute a majority, and we were discussing the results of a survey, so what the majority feels is relevant there (as is what the minority feels, of course). In those cases, we're talking in terms of numerical percentages.

Because I EXPLICITLY avoid using language or argument as your conclusion suggests, not only is your conclusion wrong, it's the exact opposite of the truth. And, again, I'll note you've not once called out anyone else using similar language - though for the benefit of the doubt, it is possible it's because you're new or just haven't seen it, I would have to see what other threads you're posting in to conclude that or not.

I would suggest in the future, you have more care with your conclusions, and also, that you don't use accusation of fallacy to evade admission of being wrong about things.

If you like, I could even point you to examples of you using similar appeals/language in your own posts so you could recant the use of the bandwagon fallacy..?