Woohoo, official off-topic thread!

Originally posted by NemeBro
No, using illogical debates and fallacies in your arguments to try to prove your character superior makes you a fanboy.

A fanboy is not simply someone who repeatedly claims their character wins...Who does that? Fanboys usually do debate their character, although they do not factor being reasonable or being logical into their arguments. They are driven by bias and love for their character, refusing to believe that they can lose. The extent of fanboyism varies however, casual fanboys will still argue against the odds but apply some logic and reason into their arguments and concede when defeat is inevitable, but then there are fanboys like Phenomenol(DBZ fanboy) for example who will argue against all odds after having their argument smashed to pieces no matter the opposition. Those are the two extremes however, and obviously most fall in the middle at varying extents. THAT is the forum definition of a fanboy.

BT is only arguing against this because he is called a fanboy so often and absolutely refuses to accept it. He believes only he is correct in his assessment of himself and that everyone else is wrong, that he is simply far more intelligent and better than everyone else despite what many people(most) are saying. Which reminds me of a recent South Park episode. The theme of the episode was that truly egotistical individuals would do anything they can to protect their egos and actually convince themselves of their own superiority over others. BT does this quite often, he truly believes that he is right and everyone who criticizes him is wrong.

In relevance of NemeBro's post, I've sniffed out a quote with Q'Anilia that I reacted to revolving the fallacy discussion. This merely to show that NemeBro is correct that Burning Thought is indeed using fallacies (For what it's worth).

Originally posted by Q'Anilia
I'm starting to feel like a broken record 😐

Existential fallacy.

He isn't stated the regulator. Even if he is, there's a dozen definitions of the word "regulate", which creates another existential fallacy when it's claimed that it's that particular definition of the word that is correct while all the others are wrong.
Then another fallacy comes along as a concequence of the fallacy collision. This one is the propositional fallacy, which has the poster fall for the logic fallacy of affirming the consequent. You claim in confidence that Kain:
1. Is a regulator.
2. Regulate by the regulation definition you used.

With that, executing the propositional fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory

It's surprisingly relevant, so that picture fairly bothersome. In my eyes, usage of invalid logic and fallacies can define you as a fanboy (Which is the subject of discussion). Doesn't necessarily, but there are a lot of terms out there that has more than one definition.

Originally posted by C. C. Cowgirl!
[b]It's surprisingly relevant, so that picture fairly bothersome. In my eyes, usage of invalid logic and fallacies can define you as a fanboy (Which is the subject of discussion). Doesn't necessarily, but there are a lot of terms out there that has more than one definition. [/B]

I agree. But do you really wanna go there again?

@TGE: Aww hell naww, you didn't just say that. If you wanna see a face that is asking for a brick, look at your avatar.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
If you wanna see a face that is asking for a brick, look at your avatar.

😆

QFT

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I agree. But do you really wanna go there again?

@TGE: Aww hell naww, you didn't just say that. If you wanna see a face that is asking for a brick, look at your avatar.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I agree. But do you really wanna go there again?

@TGE: Aww hell naww, you didn't just say that. If you wanna see a face that is asking for a brick, look at your avatar.

I didn't "go there" in the first place, so I can't go there "again". Merely go there now. I personally am able to have a civil discussion on the matter. It is a debate that not only the forum could gain from by reading, but an interesting one. What defines a fanboy and what place does fallacies have in the term.

Originally posted by C. C. Cowgirl!

It's surprisingly relevant, so that picture fairly bothersome. In my eyes, usage of invalid logic and fallacies can define you as a fanboy (Which is the subject of discussion). Doesn't necessarily, but there are a lot of terms out there that has more than one definition.

Originally posted by NemeBro

A fanboy is not simply someone who repeatedly claims their character wins...Who does that? Fanboys usually do debate their character, although they do not factor being reasonable or being logical into their arguments. They are driven by bias and love for their character, refusing to believe that they can lose. The extent of fanboyism varies however, casual fanboys will still argue against the odds but apply some logic and reason into their arguments and concede when defeat is inevitable, but then there are fanboys like Phenomenol(DBZ fanboy) for example who will argue against all odds after having their argument smashed to pieces no matter the opposition. Those are the two extremes however, and obviously most fall in the middle at varying extents. THAT is the forum definition of a fanboy.

This is the definition of fanboy that I agree with. Actually, one of the possible definitions. But just because there is more than one definition, doesn't mean any other definitions are automatically wrong.

I would like to say that anyone who uses Yahoo to talk to people on MSN like a certain member here is a douche.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I would like to say that anyone who uses Yahoo to talk to people on MSN like a certain member here is a douche.

Huh?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
This is the definition of fanboy that I agree with. Actually, one of the possible definitions. But just because there is more than one definition, doesn't mean any other definitions are automatically wrong.

Needed note: Although there is more than one definition, just because it doesn't make seperate definitions wrong, it doesn't mean some are right.

There's a huge difference between not necessarily wrong and not necessarily right.

Originally posted by C. C. Cowgirl!
[b]Needed note: Although there is more than one definition, just because it doesn't make seperate definitions wrong, it doesn't mean some are right.

There's a huge difference between not necessarily wrong and not necessarily right. [/B]

Yep, that's pretty much what I wanted to say.

I just wanted to say I like CCC's avi, I know that's kinda random to the subject currently at hand but I think everything that was required to be said has done so already.

Also seems this discussion has come to a close.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Huh?

Someones being a dick basically.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
Someones being a dick basically.

I still don't get it. Somebody is impersonating someone on this forum on MSN Messenger?

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
I just wanted to say I like CCC's avi, I know that's kinda random to the subject currently at hand but I think everything that was required to be said has done so already.

Also seems this discussion has come to a close.

I like it too 😄 I just wish I had a signature to match.

And this is the off-topic thread 😛

Originally posted by C. C. Cowgirl!
[b]I like it too 😄 I just wish I had a signature to match.

And this is the off-topic thread 😛 [/B]

Hmm I could make you one if you wanted, your call.

True, true.

I'd love you if you could! SSBB Zelda is just beyond beautiful ilu

SSBB's Zelda it is.