"No, what you tried to do was overt dishonesty because neither one of them said the following or something that means the exact same thing: "Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction unless specified it's manga only."
"No, what you tried to do was overt dishonesty and borders on trolling.
Neither one of them said the following or something that means the exact same thing:
'Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction unless specified it's manga only.'
That quote is yours."
Does it make a difference, at all, in the points I made?
It is both. I used one in a general sense as part of a requote so I did not have to type and in a specific, original, sense.
Note the brackets used around "An" in the requote I did. You're trying too hard.
I made no such fallacy.
That's not true. Here's why:
"one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself."
Regardless of the content of the argument itself, that's a logical fallacy.
This is why it is called a logical fallacy: just because the masses believe it, does not mean it is true. And before you get too excited, that's in a general sense. I have soundly destroyed you in regards to KMC's "Anime 'Versus' Forum". But you like this goalpost moving thing.
That's a strawman. That is not my argument. You are misrepresenting my argument. It has never been, specifically, that you made up a rule that is generally understood by the interwebz on versus forums. Even after I have explained it to you about a dozen times now, why would you still hold that belief?
And you are still not addressing the substance of my original argument: please point to me in the rules, for KMC's versus, where it states this "popularity rule" that you are desperately clinging to? After you do that, reconcile that the OP did not specify anime or manga. After that, reconcile that Toriyama said both are canon.
In other words, no matter how you approach this topic, you will be categorically wrong in every direction. This is why you have now descended into illogical arguments and pseudo-words games.
Incorrect: "No, what you tried to do was overt dishonesty and borders on trolling.
Neither one of them said the following or something that means the exact same thing:
'Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction unless specified it's manga only.'
That quote is yours."
Incorrect: "Both are independent criticisms of your actions: they do not rely on each other nor did I pass them off as such."
Incorrect: "Both are independent criticisms of your actions: they do not rely on each other nor did I pass them off as such."
Incorrect: "one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself."
Incorrect: "one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself."
Additionally: I actually did address the actual argument itself and it was also wrong. So your claim of argumentum ad logicam is not only wrong, but improperly used.
Incorrect. Those refer to two different problems in your arguments. You have multiple logical fallacies abounding all over your posts and you can barely follow the conversation: so it is understandable that you are confusing two different logical fallacies your are committing as being the same thing.
The false dilemma is when you gave only two possible motivational justifications when in fact there was a contextually obvious third and correct reason. The goalpost moving fallacy you committed is independent: you are shifting the definition of the debate away from my original point of contention.
It is not.
Observe where you once properly represented my argument:
"Anime versus board culture does not use manga and anime in conjunction[;] unless specified[,] it's manga only."
Ahhh. There it is. There's the actual argument and point of contention. However, I would argue that even there, you are not properly representing my exact argument, but it is close enough. My argument is only with KMC's rules, not all of internet SOPs. And why would it be about internet culture? That's just a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum. Who cares what other forums do? Let's keep it about this forum and these rules.
No where in there does it have a rule that says or implies:
Look, you made up KMC Anime 'Versus' Forum rule. You can't do that! Naughty Classic NES, naughty naughty.
Do you hear that very loud whooshing sound? It's either farts or:
"...one can still point out a logical fallacy in an argument without having to even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself."
"You have multiple logical fallacies abounding all over your posts and you can barely follow the conversation: so it is understandable that you are confusing two different logical fallacies your are committing as being the same thing."
I think you meant to pluralize "post" to "posts" because it refers to other posts (two others) and not the one I just replied to.
That's not true: you conceded that the feat occurred in both the manga and anime making my point about it work just fine and no-contradiction has to occur. That's not the same thing as admitting fault about the rule. You also did not say you were hiding behind the rules, you said it was lame to hide behind the rules.
Cool. So you agree that you tried to create a rule for KMC's Anime 'Versus' Forum and then tried to hide behind that? If so, well done and mad respect.
The answer to your question is in your question. You created a rule for KMC's Anime 'Versus' Section and then tried to hide behind it. That's fairly straight forward, I thought.
Notice that I did not make fun of you or call you names. Why? Because you did not do that to me.
Sup, deewwwwd! And, yes, I wish opening posts (OP) said which canon version will be adhered to so we don't have to argue about this stuff, ever. Star Wars movie canon debate are much less muddy, imo, than these anime/manga threads.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Aug 27th, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Star Wars has the same problem tho. Like in RotS arguements ive noticed that some people use the novel scenes to explain points like Obiwan>Dooku even tho Dooku pounded Obi in the movie easily
Gender: Male Location: The sewers of the Big City!
I repeat:
This is an example of hardcore intellectual dishonesty on your part. Both persons stated that anime version isn't used just like I did. A person doesn't have to repeat what I said ad verbatim to echo my sentiments I.E. you're lying.
Yes, it does since the arguments contradict. Here's a refresher:
"So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both. "
Let me remind you again:
Your argument is that I made up a rule and now you're claiming that I'm appealing to popularity over a rule I made up. How could a rule that doesn't exists be popular?
But, I'm not objecting your use of appeal to popularity. I'm objecting to the argument that you've not "even remotely come close to addressing the facts in the argument itself".
Agreed, it is a logic fallacy.
Now, lets talk about the content of the argument. You said I made up the argument but it's suddenly a popular argument. Which is it? Did I make it up or is it popular?
Believe whats true?
You mean the rule you claimed I made up. How could the masses believe it if I just made it up?
So, your argument is not that I made up the rule or is it. That's all I wanna know.
I stated that it was an unspoken rule and part of board culture.
I repeat: Both criticism are about the exsistance and popularity of a rule. One supports the other, I cannot be guilty of both making up a rule that doesn't exist but is simultaneously popular. That's a contradiction.
Okay, now show me what post I moved the goal post. Because I know it's when the same as when I gave you two options to choose from.
So, you believe me when I stated that it's an actual trend?
The Quote you made above me mentions internet culture. That's what I'm talking about. Not an actually rule made for anime versus.
Actually, that's a misunderstanding. I didn't mean to imply that it was a rule made by the mods, just an unspoken one that versus debaters tend to follow. When you referenced "internet culture" like you did earlier. I'm pretty sure you knew I meant that it wasn't a rule made by the mods.
__________________
Last edited by Classic NES on Aug 27th, 2012 at 01:19 PM
Gender: Male Location: The sewers of the Big City!
Then I'll say it now. I'm hiding behind the rules. But, said statement implies that such a rule exists and I did not make it up like you claimed.
But, I stated repeatedly that the rule I was talking about was unspoken and not enforced by the moderation. It's just board culture and yes I was hiding behind that. I never denied that part. Now are you going to acknowledge that said culture [I'll use that word instead of rule, because It might be confusing] infact does exists and I did not make it up.
I never planned to insult.
We mostly agree. I'm just trying to make my point that I did not invent the culture of canon manga by default.
I know this conversation is hard to follow but your reply is actually quite non sequitur. There is no difference between a general statement and that statement directed at you. They both hold true and there is no contradiction. Go back and reread the part of the conversation to see where you went wrong.
I addressed this already. You have yet to offer a counter to my reply to that.
I literally and directly addressed both aspects of what you mention there. Why do you keep ignoring it?
Cool. That's one concession down. I only need you to admit one other half and you can move on.
Please quote me where I said it is "suddenly a popular argument." Or would you like to just go ahead and admit you just used a strawman?
Define "it" first before I can answer this portion.
Define "it" in this portion, as well. Then show me where in my posts I argued against "it" being popular.
I'll save you time: you oddly committed two logical fallacies at once with that compound question: false dilemma (there are not only two choices) and strawman (your question implies a malformed version of my arguments).
Anything. I was explaining how that type of fallacy works, for you, because I'm awesome like that.
Strawman. That's not really what I said, you little sneak, you.
With this same type of absurd reasoning, I can answer your question with a better question: why would I selecting green when I should be counting to potato?
My argument was outlined, quite clearly, over a dozen times to you. I even confirmed when you got my argument (mostly) right.
What do you think my argument is. And, please, do not make my argument to me with your words: make my argument to me with my words by quotting them.
Me thinks you know since I haven't been secretive about it.
That's not all you stated and not what you originally had stated.
But you failed to actually address the portion of my post you just quoted.
Please address this: "And you are still not addressing the substance of my original argument: please point to me in the rules, for KMC's versus, where it states this 'popularity rule' that you are desperately clinging to? After you do that, reconcile that the OP did not specify anime or manga. After that, reconcile that Toriyama said both are canon."
Now, you can do a few things, from here. You can admit no such rule exists on KMC Forums and concede the point. If you still claim that such a rule exists, you'll have to find it on the list of rules listed for the KMC Anime 'Versus' Forum. If you cannot find it, then you must concede the point. If you do find it, then you must reconcile how the rule would apply when the OP does not specify "manga only", "anime only" or "both manga and anime". If you can properly reconcile that, within the context of the KMC Anime 'Versus' Forum rules, then you must also reconcile the problem of canon superiority: Toriyama said they are both canon.
We've been over this, already. You're actually having to completely ignore entire sets of arguments I made against this particular line of reasoning, which also includes some of your responses to those same arguments (meaning, you acknowledge, simply by responding to the content where it clearly shows it is a false dilemma on your part).
But, I'll play just to see if I can get you to concede this point, too: if it is a contradiction then how do you reconcile that problem of my explanation clearly showing it is not a contradiction but simply false dilemma on your part?
So why continue repeating the same point that has already been destroyed? You know all I have to do is just re-quote myself where I counter that same repeated point of yours, right?
Do you see the post where I first pointed out you were moving the goalpost?
Define "it's".
But, no, I have no interest in discussing that topic.
Hardly. You consider this to be a misunderstanding?:
"The canon is the source material. That's the manga, Anime is not canon. Since no version is specified we use the default version i.e. canon version."
Hardly.
No, what I am sure of is you spoke out of baseless authority, read all the rules, saw that I was right, and amended your approach in your very next post. We call this a back-peddle.
You went from, "Deez are da rulez and dis is how it will be!" to "nah, naaaah, maaaan. We just...kind of...have a general understaaaanding on the interneeet on hoooow theeese things shoould work."
Correction: "you tried to create a rule for KMC's Anime 'Versus' Forum and then tried to hide behind the newly created rule."
That's odd. Because that is non sequitur to this:
"...you tried to create a rule for KMC's Anime 'Versus' Forum and then tried to hide behind the newly created rule."
Not once did you say it was "not enforced by moderation". And you first said this:
"The canon is the source material. That's the manga, Anime is not canon. Since no version is specified we use the default version i.e. canon version."
That's hardly stating it is an unspoken rule.
Again, this is moving the goalposts. I will not acknowledge that particular argument you are wanting to make because it would validate your goalpost movement: something I have no interest in arguing.
Be honest: that's not really what you're doing nor is it a point of contention on this end. I have no interest in discussing or debating that topic. It is a redherring.
Gender: Male Location: The sewers of the Big City!
This is the statement:
"So, how could I have appealed to popularity if no one agree'd with the manga only [unless stated] policy according to you? Which is it: Am I alone making up this rule or am I appealing to popularity. Because It can't be both. "
That response you made doesn't address the issue.
This is false. You've failed considerably at addressing this.
You did not, but direct me to the counter argument and I'll show you my reply.
I never implied that it wasn't, It just once again contradicts the assertion that I made up the argument. How could the argument be nonexistent but at the same time popular?
I didn't say you stated that bit. I'm saying that it suddenly being popular is inconsistent with what you infact did say: That I made it up. That's a misread on your part.
The rule that we've been discussing. You claimed I made it up.
Same as above: "The rule that we've been discussing. You claimed I made it up.
So, you're saying that you didn't accuse me of making the rule up now?
"
Which I addressed with this:
First of that's a Fallacy Fallacy.
That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?
You also just cherry picked that quote. Here's the bits you ignored:
You mean the rule you claimed I made up. How could the masses believe it if I just made it up?
So, you didn't claim I made up the rule now?
How could something be believed by the masses if I made it up?
You claimed that I made up the rule whilst simultaneously claiming that I'm appealing to the masses.
I don't, so answer the question now:
So, your argument is not that I made up the rule or is it.
That is not all I stated, but it is part of my original post:
You explained that already man. It's through appeal to popularity which is wrong.
Because it is a contradiction:
That's not a false dilemma because you contradicted yourself. The second law of the three laws of logic is the law of non contradiction. You can't argue that I'm making up said rule and then say I'm making an appeal to popularity by appealing to said rule. Former statement implies that there is no such a rule in exsistance while the later implies there is such a rule which I support through appeal to popularity. So, which is it? Is there or is there not a rule?
Gender: Male Location: The sewers of the Big City!
Quote it.
It's being the rule you claimed I made up.
And, that's our only discrepancy and has always been.
Oh, So, you do know of this rule i.e. "it's". You said above that you don't want to gt into it, but I'll ask you again. Are you still asserting I made that rule up then claiming you don't know what "it" is then claiming then claiming I'm appealing to the masses. All at once?
I said from the onset that it was board culture and clarified that it wasn't a mod made rule.
I repeat:
I said from the onset that it was board culture and clarified that it wasn't a mod made rule.
I did say it was unspoken early on, just not first.
Why would you need to argue that I was hiding behind a rule if I said I was?
The same still holds true for this statement, as well:
"I know this conversation is hard to follow but your reply is actually quite non sequitur. There is no difference between a general statement and that statement directed at you. They both hold true and there is no contradiction. Go back and reread the part of the conversation to see where you went wrong."
I don't think you know what you're replying to. Go back through the convo and re-read to see why your replies are not making sense. I'll give you a hint, you should be responding to something about "An" and "Your".
Go ahead and show me where you addressed my counter argument because it has not been posted, as of yet. Instead, you just repeated yourself. I could be wrong. Maybe I missed it. So show me and I'll concede if you actually countered it.
No thanks. Go back and read it, yourself. Quote the counter argument and quote your reply that counters that counter argument. If it is just you repeating yourself and it is an actual legit counter argument, I'll concede.
I addressed this already, multiple times. Why are you talking in circles? Go back and read my replies and find where I addressed this already. I'll help jog your memory: remember the stuff about logical fallacies?
That's odd, because, that's exactly what you said: "You said I made up the argument but it's suddenly a popular argument."
But, no worries: I already know I never said any of that.
Well, it's not a misread on my part. You just confirmed that my reading was correct. Are you arguing for the sake of argument, now?
No I didn't. But, please, feel free to quote me where I said "you made it up".
No I didn't. But, please, feel free to quote me where I said "you made it up".
Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that.
Which was addressed and countered, inexorably. Do you have another argument that wasn't soundly destroyed?
Ugh. This is irrelevant to that which you responded. It is not even a tiny bit relevant.
Addressed that already, too.
Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that.
Addressed this already. Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that.
Addressed this already. Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that.
You do know the argument, actually. Go back and read it and quote it back to me.
None of the above.
Ahhh, but you see, the problem is not what you stated later but what you stated originally. I addressed that, too. Why did you ignore that?
I'm a woman.
Not only did I address that, you conceded the point that it is argumentum ad populum. So, I'll ignore this statement of yours.
Which was addressed and countered, inexorably. Do you have another argument that wasn't soundly destroyed?
No thanks. You can go back and read to find it or you can use the search function in both your browser and on KMC. Good luck!
When you find it, you can certainly quote it back to me.
No it isn't. Figured that's what you'd say, though.
No that's not. Have you see how wordy and circular your posts have been?
In order to address some of your points, I need you to define your ambiguous pronouns. Why? Because you're obviously misrepresenting my position with your "its" and "it's" so if I respond assuming you are properly representing my argument, then you can use that to have a shit fest heyday by pretending you got me via an ambiguous pronoun reference. I'm not knew to legal speak and contracts: what makes you think I'll fall for an ambiguous pronoun reference?
Either you forgot my actual argument or you are purposefully ignoring it. Which one is it?
And I won't answer the questions you'll ask.
Addressed this already. Go back and read if you want to know exactly my point on that.
Addressed this already. Just read above.
Addressed this already.
Well, had you actually represented my side with a tiny bit of accuracy, maybe I could say yes to this last question. Since you continually fail to represent my arguments, sadly, I am unable to answer a yes or a no to this.
No you didn't. In fact, you admit that you don't a bit later in your reply:
Anyway, this is actually what you said (and you said nothing more after this, in the same post, which is why this started):
"The canon is the source material. That's the manga, Anime is not canon. Since no version is specified we use the default version i.e. canon version."
No need to repeat your lies.
OH! So it wasn't the onset? Huh? Well, now...I know how to address your earlier points.
This reply makes little sense to the section you quotted mostly because you're purposefully forcing my reply to be on one small portion of the section I quoted. Maybe that section of my post you quotted actually applies to this section of your post:
"I never denied that part. Now are you going to acknowledge that said culture [I'll use that word instead of rule, because It might be confusing] infact does exists and I did not make it up."
Now, with this new knowledge that my post applied to that, make another reply to that same section of my post.
Here it is again:
"Again, this is moving the goalposts. I will not acknowledge that particular argument you are wanting to make because it would validate your goalpost movement: something I have no interest in arguing."
No it's not and you're not. If that was all you're debating then why reply to everything else with that useless fluff?
I know you're just trolling, but feel free to quote the rule Classic NES is talking about from the list of rules Peach made for the KMC 'Versus' Forum.
Or maybe I'm not wrong??? I'm actually rarely wrong about anything.
But those are quickly and easily destroyed by mods like Ushgarak. It's much easier to piss out those tiny fires with things like Star Trek and Star Wars because there is a very clear canon and non-canon definition for those two things. Similar is true for Marvel's 616...but less so.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 27th, 2012 12:31 PM
