3 ms·

You are to feminism what Fox News is to news channels; I'm not trying to pull an "Ad hominem" but pointing out that it makes no sense to keep a discussion where

You are to feminism what Fox News is to news channels; I'm not trying to pull an "Ad hominem" but pointing out that it makes no sense to keep a discussion where one of the sides try to cover up all the mistakes and recognize none by constantly changing the conclusions extrapolated and interpretations of the subject.

dalke 14y ago
Yes, I claim that you made mistakes in your analysis of the presentation, and that you are covering up the mistakes by not addressing my critique. For example, I said that the presenter did not make the argument that 'Because woman are not the main focus, therefore men are, therefore games are sexist'. You have never present the reasoning behind that assertion, and I did not get the same conclusion from the presentation. For example, you said "Dinosaur Planet was transformed to a StarFox game because it makes so much business sense but unsurprisingly she didn't mention this _extremely_ obvious fact.", and I show that while it wasn't explicitly said, it was a simple inferences from two other statements, to wit "the transformation used the damsel-in-distress trope" and "game companies often use the damsel-in-distress trope to make more sales". This does leave the possibility that the change was done for other reasons, but I think it's reasonable to infer that the speaker knows that it makes business sense, but also believes it doesn't make good moral sense. For example, you describe 'objectification' as the dictionary definition of "To become/transform into an object", and argued that the speaker was using "false attribution." I responded by pointing out that the speaker was using the definition as it's used in the philosophy of ethics, with a heritage dating even back to Kant, and that that was the appropriate definition for this presentation. I don't see where the presenter used false attribution. As as for ad hominem, I realize that you do have experience in that matter. The phrase "doing it in a overly-formal tone just to look more serious" is ad hominem, in that it references the presenter's style, rather than the logic. So please, justify your original assertions rather than making new statements. Otherwise I could just as easily say that you used the "overly-formal tone" of naming common logical fallacies "just to look more serious" in your opposition to the contents of the presentation. And where's the fun in me being a parrot?
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
  You are purposefully lying in the claims that "addresses your critique". I'm not longer trying to convince you because you made up your mind long time ago, but for anyone else just check this part of the discussion: jQueryIsAwesome> Dinosaur Planet was transformed to a StarFox game because it makes so much business sense but unsurprisingly she didn't mention this _extremely_ obvious fact dalke> No? The logical implication was clear to me. Ask anyone after watching the video "why do you think Dinosaur Planet was never published?"; they will tell you that is because society is sexist or because Yamamoto said so or because Nintendo is misogynist. Very few people will go the logic route and try to convey the very logical reason that it just made business sense. > I responded by pointing out that the speaker was using the definition as it's used in the philosophy of ethics, with a heritage dating even back to Kant Didn't you know that words mean what most people think they mean? Not the definition of "philosopy of ethics" or Khan. ...you are the uploader of this submission and/or part of the same feminist group aren't you?
  - dalke 14y ago
    I would appreciate my lies being pointed out. I am unable to see them myself. Ahh, since "very few people will go the logic route" then must I avoid using logic when talking with you, and only use emotional arguments? You started off by highlighting what you thought were logical fallacies in the presentation. I assumed that you wanted a discussion based on logic. Am I to infer instead that your objections here are based in emotions, and not in logical thinking? That would explain your frequent leanings towards the ad hominem arguments, including the attempt in the last line of guilt by association. Once you appeal to the abstract "anyone", then you are making an argumentum ad populum. An equally invalid counter-argument from me would be "no, only fools would draw the same conclusion as you do." Neither point is based on logic, and easily dismissible. (Though you could use that argument if you've done an appropriate random statistical sampling, I strongly doubt that's the case.) Therefore, your reply just now does nothing to strengthen your original argument, and I believe your reach towards arguments by fallacy undermines the emotional component of your position. You say it "just made business sense". Please explain the "just" part. How come it didn't make business sense during the original development? "Didn't you know that words mean what most people think they mean?" You know that isn't true. Words have multiple meanings and different meanings to different groups of people. I presume you are making another emotional argument here rather than a logical one. I will explain the logic, starting with the same example I used earlier. (I doubt it will make a difference. Perhaps I'm an optimist, or a masochist, at heart.) Words can have multiple meanings. Most people think "theory" means something like "speculation." You'll see that in dismissive claims against evolution, saying "it's only a theory." But scientists will also use "theory" to mean a 'general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena', as in "Einstein's theory of gravitation" or "the germ theory of disease." Most people will say that a "clip" and a "magazine" are the same thing, but someone who knows firearms will point out that a clip lacks a feed mechanism. Most people will ask "is that snake poisonous?" when they mean to ask if the snake is venomous. Is there really a vehicle inside your computer or does "bus" mean something else when talking about computers? To insist that everyone use the general understanding of a word and hence deny subgroups the use of appropriate technical vocabulary is absurd. Instead, the correct analysis is to examine the context. Is the presenter using terminology appropriate for the domain and audience? is the terminology well-established in that field? etc. I then showed that the presenter is using the appropriate terminology for this sort of video, with a long established history. (And that's "Kant", not "Khan". Should I infer from that typo that you know little about philosophy?) It is valid to propose that the presenter used terminology that was inappropriate for the audience. I would disagree with the proposition, but not the logic behind it. It is muddled thinking, however, to outright reject the existence and usefulness of specialized vocabulary.

dalke 14y ago

Yes, I claim that you made mistakes in your analysis of the presentation, and that you are covering up the mistakes by not addressing my critique. For example, I said that the presenter did not make the argument that 'Because woman are not the main focus, therefore men are, therefore games are sexist'. You have never present the reasoning behind that assertion, and I did not get the same conclusion from the presentation. For example, you said "Dinosaur Planet was transformed to a StarFox game because it makes so much business sense but unsurprisingly she didn't mention this _extremely_ obvious fact.", and I show that while it wasn't explicitly said, it was a simple inferences from two other statements, to wit "the transformation used the damsel-in-distress trope" and "game companies often use the damsel-in-distress trope to make more sales". This does leave the possibility that the change was done for other reasons, but I think it's reasonable to infer that the speaker knows that it makes business sense, but also believes it doesn't make good moral sense. For example, you describe 'objectification' as the dictionary definition of "To become/transform into an object", and argued that the speaker was using "false attribution." I responded by pointing out that the speaker was using the definition as it's used in the philosophy of ethics, with a heritage dating even back to Kant, and that that was the appropriate definition for this presentation. I don't see where the presenter used false attribution. As as for ad hominem, I realize that you do have experience in that matter. The phrase "doing it in a overly-formal tone just to look more serious" is ad hominem, in that it references the presenter's style, rather than the logic. So please, justify your original assertions rather than making new statements. Otherwise I could just as easily say that you used the "overly-formal tone" of naming common logical fallacies "just to look more serious" in your opposition to the contents of the presentation. And where's the fun in me being a parrot?

jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
You are purposefully lying in the claims that "addresses your critique". I'm not longer trying to convince you because you made up your mind long time ago, but for anyone else just check this part of the discussion: jQueryIsAwesome> Dinosaur Planet was transformed to a StarFox game because it makes so much business sense but unsurprisingly she didn't mention this _extremely_ obvious fact dalke> No? The logical implication was clear to me. Ask anyone after watching the video "why do you think Dinosaur Planet was never published?"; they will tell you that is because society is sexist or because Yamamoto said so or because Nintendo is misogynist. Very few people will go the logic route and try to convey the very logical reason that it just made business sense. > I responded by pointing out that the speaker was using the definition as it's used in the philosophy of ethics, with a heritage dating even back to Kant Didn't you know that words mean what most people think they mean? Not the definition of "philosopy of ethics" or Khan. ...you are the uploader of this submission and/or part of the same feminist group aren't you?
- dalke 14y ago
  I would appreciate my lies being pointed out. I am unable to see them myself. Ahh, since "very few people will go the logic route" then must I avoid using logic when talking with you, and only use emotional arguments? You started off by highlighting what you thought were logical fallacies in the presentation. I assumed that you wanted a discussion based on logic. Am I to infer instead that your objections here are based in emotions, and not in logical thinking? That would explain your frequent leanings towards the ad hominem arguments, including the attempt in the last line of guilt by association. Once you appeal to the abstract "anyone", then you are making an argumentum ad populum. An equally invalid counter-argument from me would be "no, only fools would draw the same conclusion as you do." Neither point is based on logic, and easily dismissible. (Though you could use that argument if you've done an appropriate random statistical sampling, I strongly doubt that's the case.) Therefore, your reply just now does nothing to strengthen your original argument, and I believe your reach towards arguments by fallacy undermines the emotional component of your position. You say it "just made business sense". Please explain the "just" part. How come it didn't make business sense during the original development? "Didn't you know that words mean what most people think they mean?" You know that isn't true. Words have multiple meanings and different meanings to different groups of people. I presume you are making another emotional argument here rather than a logical one. I will explain the logic, starting with the same example I used earlier. (I doubt it will make a difference. Perhaps I'm an optimist, or a masochist, at heart.) Words can have multiple meanings. Most people think "theory" means something like "speculation." You'll see that in dismissive claims against evolution, saying "it's only a theory." But scientists will also use "theory" to mean a 'general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena', as in "Einstein's theory of gravitation" or "the germ theory of disease." Most people will say that a "clip" and a "magazine" are the same thing, but someone who knows firearms will point out that a clip lacks a feed mechanism. Most people will ask "is that snake poisonous?" when they mean to ask if the snake is venomous. Is there really a vehicle inside your computer or does "bus" mean something else when talking about computers? To insist that everyone use the general understanding of a word and hence deny subgroups the use of appropriate technical vocabulary is absurd. Instead, the correct analysis is to examine the context. Is the presenter using terminology appropriate for the domain and audience? is the terminology well-established in that field? etc. I then showed that the presenter is using the appropriate terminology for this sort of video, with a long established history. (And that's "Kant", not "Khan". Should I infer from that typo that you know little about philosophy?) It is valid to propose that the presenter used terminology that was inappropriate for the audience. I would disagree with the proposition, but not the logic behind it. It is muddled thinking, however, to outright reject the existence and usefulness of specialized vocabulary.