This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - big sponge
Pages: 1 ... 606162 6364 ... 394
1831
« on: August 06, 2016, 03:52:09 PM »
Only giving attention to the arguments that actually have standing doesn't mean that I think other arguments don't exist. If you honestly expect me to give the time of day to all the arguments out there that don't actually matter and aren't worth mentioning you really are looking to start shit over nothing.
but you see, saying that they don't matter doesn't mean that they don't matter
they're wrong
but they still matter
no they don't, especially if they have nothing to do with the topic at hand "we should ban hentai because i don't like eggs" has nothing to do with the subject of whether or not hentai has any negative affects on women and children why on earth should anyone acknowledge its existence in that kind of discussion?
1832
« on: August 06, 2016, 03:46:18 PM »
Guys can't you see Verb is completely supporting your opinions while attacking them at the same time?
Dummies
We know.
The problem is he isn't joking.
He literally believes his opinion on hentai is at all relevant to the discussion at hand.
I'm starting to think this is all just a damage control effort by Verb after he wrongly accused me of using fallacies and nobody agreed with him. Especially since he expects me to list every single one of the countless possible wackjob arguments out there as to why somebody out there would be opposed to something in order to prove that i don't fail/am full of fallacy/whatever else he decides to use to keep this going until he gets the last word.
1833
« on: August 06, 2016, 03:42:33 PM »
I really don't care about any other arguments out there.
that doesn't mean they're not there, and it doesn't make it any less fallacious for you to not acknowledge them until now
Only giving attention to the arguments that actually have standing doesn't mean that I think other arguments don't exist. If you honestly expect me to give the time of day to all the arguments out there that don't actually matter and aren't worth mentioning you really are looking to start shit over nothing.
1834
« on: August 06, 2016, 03:36:08 PM »
1). alleged social harm
This (and a physical/psychological harm argument) is the only one that matters and considering there is zero evidence to suggest that it actually does it's irrelevant. Not that they'd be relevant in the first place in a discussion about the suffering of women and children and whether or not cartoon porn actually harms them. I really don't care about any other arguments out there.
1835
« on: August 06, 2016, 03:17:32 PM »
So basically you don't have an argument and you've been making a big deal out of nothing.
so because i'm on your side, i'm not allowed to point out when you make bad arguments
That would be fine if that were the case, but you're not. Nothing you've said so far is even relevant considering you're apparently not even talking about the same subject as I am. So next time you feel like being intentionally vague and misleading in order cause a thread to blow up over literally nothing can you give us the courtesy of a heads up first so we don't have to waste time dealing with you?
1836
« on: August 06, 2016, 02:52:21 PM »
In this circumstance it does though because we're on the subject of the suffering of women and children. you are
i'm not
if you're going to use "I don't like it" as the crux of your argument as to why it's a problem why what's a problem
hentai?
i don't think hentai is a problem
So basically you don't have an argument and you've been making a big deal out of nothing.
1837
« on: August 06, 2016, 02:38:44 PM »
Verb has yet to realize that calling relative privation on this doesn't actually apply. maybe you don't know this, but merely stating that "it doesn't apply" does not mean that it doesn't apply
In this circumstance it does though because we're on the subject of the suffering of women and children. Sexual cartoons have nothing to with the suffering of women and children (nor do they have a negative affect on anything for that matter other than maybe someones libido but even then it wouldn't be the cause of it and simply one of many tools that can be used for ones release) so banning them will do nothing to help alleviate their plight. Suggesting something that actually will help them as an alternative is in no way "relative privation". Your opinions don't actually matter Verb. So if you're going to use "I don't like it" as the crux of your argument as to why it's a problem this really amounts to nothing more than a "Verbatim is blowing shit up over stuff that doesn't matter again" episode.
1838
« on: August 06, 2016, 02:24:46 PM »
I merely explained the validity and logical soundness of LC's points stating that something is "sound" without giving an explanation does not count as an explanation
he has the right opinion, but he's supporting it with faulty logic
None of it is faulty. There is nothing faulty about saying that if you want you're going to tackle the problem of suffering of women and children you should fight the things that are actually causing it instead of going after a completely unrelated non-issue.
1839
« on: August 06, 2016, 02:19:49 PM »
(never mind the fact that you didn't actually use any fallacies correctly).
i'm not the one using fallacies--you are
either way, i explained each and every one of them, in case you're lost
explaining why you think they apply doesn't mean they actually do
1840
« on: August 06, 2016, 02:19:12 PM »
The UN has limited resources, so how they choose to allocate those resources is always relevant to the matter at hand.
You're credibility is also on the line, because its important to discourage people from placing faith in someone who is consistently self serving or otherwise wrong.
The fallacy in your argument is that you believe that a constructive discussion on opposing viewpoints on the functions of the world government must adhere to a more logical form of discussion and not a more human one.
We do business by Robert's Rules of Order, not by the rules of a term paper.
see, the funny thing is that i actually don't think hentai should be banned under any justification
In other words, I completely agree with LC.
but that doesn't make his arguments any less fallacious LMAO
and yes, all discussion should adhere to a logical form of discussion and not a "human" one--we should stray as far from human reasoning as possible when it comes to... well, fucking anything
I never made comment on your personal opinion, and frankly, I couldn't care less about it.
I merely explained the validity and logical soundness of LC's points, and made conjecture that your criticism of them was uncalled for.
Verb has yet to realize that calling relative privation on this doesn't actually apply.
1841
« on: August 06, 2016, 02:15:16 PM »
Brody, leaving nothing but a link to a fallacy when responding to someone would leave any reasonable person to come to the conclusion that you're saying they're wrong because of it (never mind the fact that you didn't actually use any fallacies correctly).
1842
« on: August 06, 2016, 01:29:31 PM »
Only not actually because there is zero evidence to suggest that sexual cartoons have any negative effect on real world women and children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man It's a non-issue that's being used to distract the public from things that actually matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh-pooh
Incorrectly throwing out fallacies doesn't make you correct. Or is this another "I don't like it so therefore it's objectively wrong" episode from Verbatim?
1843
« on: August 06, 2016, 01:19:49 PM »
I think the UNs time would be better spent trying to combat things like the underground sex slave trade going on in North America and Europe instead of trying to protect the rights of cartoon women and children.
relative privation, etc.
Only not actually because there is zero evidence to suggest that sexual cartoons have any negative effect on real world women and children. It's a non-issue that's being used to distract the public from things that actually matter.
1844
« on: August 06, 2016, 12:56:53 PM »
I think the UNs time would be better spent trying to combat things like the underground sex slave trade going on in North America and Europe instead of trying to protect the rights of cartoon women and children.
1845
« on: August 05, 2016, 09:25:31 PM »
who
1846
« on: August 05, 2016, 07:26:12 PM »
Got kicked, can someone invite me back?
I invited you twice and Tru invited you back once I think. Did you not get any of our invites?
1847
« on: August 05, 2016, 07:25:07 PM »
They better not fuck up the mp side of it with that clusterfuck of a system they're using now. Broodwar had the best custom game browser.
Yeah, I miss that browser. I liked how every custom map you played on automatically saved to your computer so you could go back to it later.
Not to mention the fact that SC2s UMS community is creatively dead due to the fact that only the most popular gametypes can be seen at the top. There are possibly thousands of great maps and gametypes that have died or gone unnoticed due to the fact that nobody can find or play them unless the creator has a network of people they can rely upon to boost their map up to the front page.
1848
« on: August 05, 2016, 11:11:17 AM »
They better not fuck up the mp side of it with that clusterfuck of a system they're using now. Broodwar had the best custom game browser.
1850
« on: August 05, 2016, 12:48:47 AM »
but is it better than ghostbusters 2016?
All I have too look up to is MYSELF
IT'S TIME TO MAKE HERSTORY
1851
« on: August 05, 2016, 12:44:55 AM »
but is it better than ghostbusters 2016?
All I have too look up to is MYSELF
IT'S TIME TO MAKE HERSTORY
1852
« on: August 04, 2016, 09:34:04 PM »
but is it better than ghostbusters 2016?
1853
« on: August 04, 2016, 09:02:40 PM »
THEY RUINED PREY
RUINED IT
I WANTED MY HUMAN BOUNTY HUNTER IN A STRANGE AND ALIEN CITY
NOT THIS SHOOT BLACK SQUIGGLY LINES IN SPACE RAPTURE SHIT
1854
« on: August 04, 2016, 08:25:36 PM »
You doing another one for Saturday as well?
Psy and I work on saturday/sunday.
1855
« on: August 03, 2016, 06:03:00 PM »
yep
1856
« on: August 03, 2016, 05:05:21 PM »
I think it's really lame that people wanted this movie to fail just because "fuck SJWs!" If they can put this movie out with a full female cast, and it works and is really good, why does that matter? That was never the issue. The problem was that people saw the trailer, saw it looked shitty and then said they weren't interested. When Sony, the cast & crew, and SJWs came out of the woodwork and claimed they wanted it to fail because of an all women-team; that's when everyone wanted the movie to fail out of spite.
"The music sounds shitty." You're a misogynist.
"The jokes aren't funny." You're a misogynist.
"The acting looks bad." You're a misogynist.
"I was never interested in Ghostbusters to begin with." You're a misogynist.
You could come up with a trillion different excuses as to why you weren't going to see this movie that had fuck all to do with the cast, and you'd still be a misogynistic sexist shit lord. Sony doubled down and lost, people didn't want the movie to fail out of spite until after they were being criticized for not wanting to seeing it for [Insert non-cast related reason here].
While it's true that people who simply didn't like how the movie looked were accused of being sexist, there were also ...people who didn't like it because they were being sexist. And those are the people I'm really directing my comment at, people who literally wanted it to fail because they've made the ghostbusters into women.
you mean like the .08% of people that didn't like it (if we were to take youtube comments as a sample size)?
I've seen people in multiple places across the internet and in real life complain about it for that reason.
ok cool, but that doesn't mean that they're in any way a significant portion of the population of people that didn't like the movie
it's still a thing that's happening though. and sure, you can look up statistics of youtube videos all day long and rattle them off as if it's infallible proof of something, but i don't think i'm alone in feeling that there was a collective groan when the movie was announced with a full female cast, and for that reason.
If five people in a room of a few thousand make a collective groan for a reason you don't like does it really matter? Instead of focusing on a minute minority you should be addressing the problems pointed out by the majority of detractors. It won't happen because that would mean that Sony has to come out and admit that they're movie sucks though so they're going to continue milking this misogyny narrative for as long as possible.
1857
« on: August 03, 2016, 04:33:33 PM »
I think it's really lame that people wanted this movie to fail just because "fuck SJWs!" If they can put this movie out with a full female cast, and it works and is really good, why does that matter? That was never the issue. The problem was that people saw the trailer, saw it looked shitty and then said they weren't interested. When Sony, the cast & crew, and SJWs came out of the woodwork and claimed they wanted it to fail because of an all women-team; that's when everyone wanted the movie to fail out of spite.
"The music sounds shitty." You're a misogynist.
"The jokes aren't funny." You're a misogynist.
"The acting looks bad." You're a misogynist.
"I was never interested in Ghostbusters to begin with." You're a misogynist.
You could come up with a trillion different excuses as to why you weren't going to see this movie that had fuck all to do with the cast, and you'd still be a misogynistic sexist shit lord. Sony doubled down and lost, people didn't want the movie to fail out of spite until after they were being criticized for not wanting to seeing it for [Insert non-cast related reason here].
While it's true that people who simply didn't like how the movie looked were accused of being sexist, there were also ...people who didn't like it because they were being sexist. And those are the people I'm really directing my comment at, people who literally wanted it to fail because they've made the ghostbusters into women.
you mean like the .08% of people that didn't like it (if we were to take youtube comments as a sample size)?
I've seen people in multiple places across the internet and in real life complain about it for that reason.
ok cool, but that doesn't mean that they're in any way a significant portion of the population of people that didn't like the movie this misogynists hate ghostbusters narrative was practically invented by Sony in order to create controversy and put butts in seats
1858
« on: August 03, 2016, 04:15:40 PM »
I think it's really lame that people wanted this movie to fail just because "fuck SJWs!" If they can put this movie out with a full female cast, and it works and is really good, why does that matter? That was never the issue. The problem was that people saw the trailer, saw it looked shitty and then said they weren't interested. When Sony, the cast & crew, and SJWs came out of the woodwork and claimed they wanted it to fail because of an all women-team; that's when everyone wanted the movie to fail out of spite.
"The music sounds shitty." You're a misogynist.
"The jokes aren't funny." You're a misogynist.
"The acting looks bad." You're a misogynist.
"I was never interested in Ghostbusters to begin with." You're a misogynist.
You could come up with a trillion different excuses as to why you weren't going to see this movie that had fuck all to do with the cast, and you'd still be a misogynistic sexist shit lord. Sony doubled down and lost, people didn't want the movie to fail out of spite until after they were being criticized for not wanting to seeing it for [Insert non-cast related reason here].
While it's true that people who simply didn't like how the movie looked were accused of being sexist, there were also ...people who didn't like it because they were being sexist. And those are the people I'm really directing my comment at, people who literally wanted it to fail because they've made the ghostbusters into women.
you mean like the .08% of people that didn't like it (if we were to take youtube comments as a sample size)?
1859
« on: August 03, 2016, 12:13:14 PM »
I can't believe I missed this.
Budget: $144 million.
Box office: $158.2 million.
You mad that the movie mad bank? Are you bro, are you raging with anger?
>14 million over it's production budget
>No comments on advertising costs
>Paul Feig himself said it need 500 million to break even
Lol go back to shilling Marvel Rotten Tomatoes, Star Trek toppled your SJW golden summer blockbuster without even trying and Suicide Squad is going to steamroll your shit reviews with its infinite cash magic just like BvS did. Ghostbusters will NOT get a sequel. This has ended Feig's shitty misandrist career and forced Sony to learn not to double down and insulting their consumer base.
i believe it was already green-lit for a sequel before it came out
1860
« on: August 03, 2016, 03:24:35 AM »
Does pre-ordering a digital copy for the preload a day or two before the game comes out after you've read/watched reviews and first impressions count as pre-ordering it?
Pages: 1 ... 606162 6364 ... 394
|
Show Posts