game character based on Sarkeesian.... we're DOOMED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-02-2015, 02:12 PM
RE: game character based on Sarkeesian.... we're DOOMED
(17-02-2015 02:08 PM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 01:35 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Where did she use an ad hominid attack.. by questioning how you know she isn't a gamer? By saying she a person who spent time studying probably knows more about something she spend time studying? By saying you've dismissed her without giving any nuanced critic of what you actually are opposed to?

You've chosen to give that the distinction of what a "gamer" is. It's a not seriously defined or cared about label because it highlights next to nothing to plenty of people. Which includes those who would fit your classification of the term.

Analysis's are prone to being one sided and some times they are misguided in situations. Also, there are some purposes in the system of being that way, they aren't always of the ilk of attempting to be "objective" review like claims. There are differences and there are flaws. The mistakes are just to point out. Getting carried away about them and disliking ideas seems to be a different problem others have taken though.

Quote:But of course you just want to dismiss what she says rather than face the reasoned criticism she has levelled against the gaming industry.


Quote:Are you sure you're not also a theist?

Labeling a poster a theist on an atheist forum, when said poster has repeatedly put forth the position that they are anti-theistic. Dismissing the argument out of hand because of the the view expressed and not the content of the argument being fallacious. That part is an attack on the person making an argument and not the argument it self.

All of her posts on this thread have been attacks on the posters and not the arguments.

I'd like you to re-read that post she made a couple times. Please... for your sake. That in no way was doing what you are here proclaiming it was doing. I wouldn't think me just telling you would help, but you looking at what is actually being said and it's actual word order may actually make you see what is being said.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
17-02-2015, 02:33 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2015 02:38 PM by Blackhand293.)
RE: game character based on Sarkeesian.... we're DOOMED
(17-02-2015 02:12 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 02:08 PM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  Labeling a poster a theist on an atheist forum, when said poster has repeatedly put forth the position that they are anti-theistic. Dismissing the argument out of hand because of the the view expressed and not the content of the argument being fallacious. That part is an attack on the person making an argument and not the argument it self.

All of her posts on this thread have been attacks on the posters and not the arguments.

I'd like you to re-read that post she made a couple times. Please... for your sake. That in no way was doing what you are here proclaiming it was doing. I wouldn't think me just telling you would help, but you looking at what is actually being said and it's actual word order may actually make you see what is being said.

Those are direct quotes from her.

Circumstantial Ad Hominem: this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.).

My opponent argues on and on in favor of allowing that mall to be built in the center of town. What he won't tell you is that his daughter and her friends plan to shop there once it's open."

And please tell me how can I read a meaning into "Are you sure you're not also a theist?" other than attempting to poison the well?

The requirement of evidence to back your claim does not disappear because it hurts your feelings, reality does not care about your feefees.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 02:50 PM
RE: game character based on Sarkeesian.... we're DOOMED
(17-02-2015 02:33 PM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 02:12 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I'd like you to re-read that post she made a couple times. Please... for your sake. That in no way was doing what you are here proclaiming it was doing. I wouldn't think me just telling you would help, but you looking at what is actually being said and it's actual word order may actually make you see what is being said.

Those are direct quotes from her.

Circumstantial Ad Hominem: this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.).

My opponent argues on and on in favor of allowing that mall to be built in the center of town. What he won't tell you is that his daughter and her friends plan to shop there once it's open."

And please tell me how can I read a meaning into "Are you sure you're not also a theist?" other than attempting to poison the well?

How? By understanding context, by understanding the difference between assertions/labeling and desiring follow ups to ignored points. By looking at things openly and not assuming something about the idea in general before getting at the value or intent.

This could also apply well to various things. Is it necessarily not poising the well? I suppose I couldn't say it isn't doing that, but that's not the same.

This kinda boils down to the thing. Why do you feel like you're being attacked(as in what an ad hominid is doing) by being questioned? This coincidentally representative of a major issue in this topic.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
17-02-2015, 03:00 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2015 03:08 PM by Blackhand293.)
RE: game character based on Sarkeesian.... we're DOOMED
(17-02-2015 02:50 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 02:33 PM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  Those are direct quotes from her.

Circumstantial Ad Hominem: this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.).

My opponent argues on and on in favor of allowing that mall to be built in the center of town. What he won't tell you is that his daughter and her friends plan to shop there once it's open."

And please tell me how can I read a meaning into "Are you sure you're not also a theist?" other than attempting to poison the well?

How? By understanding context, by understanding the difference between assertions/labeling and desiring follow ups to ignored points. By looking at things openly and not assuming something about the idea in general before getting at the value or intent.

This could also apply well to various things. Is it necessarily not poising the well? I suppose I couldn't say it isn't doing that, but that's not the same.

This kinda boils down to the thing. Why do you feel like you're being attacked(as in what an ad hominid is doing) by being questioned? This coincidentally representative of a major issue in this topic.

I have provided evidence, her only question was why did I not think AS is a gamer, I have stated it multiple times.

The rest of her post was not a question but an assertion as to why I said something. And for the record, I have posted multiple time about my anti-theistic worldview, so calling into question whether I believe in a god or not A.) had absolutely nothing to do with the arguments presented, and B.) this is an atheist forum, where theists are generally not welcome due to their world view being in direct conflict with the purpose of the forum. So what other use could that little tidbit be?

Also thank you for not jumping on the bandwagon and actually asking about my view on this issue. I am bowing out for the night, its late, I have a headache and a long day ahead of me at work.
For reference:

Poisoning the well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person.

The requirement of evidence to back your claim does not disappear because it hurts your feelings, reality does not care about your feefees.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2015, 03:16 PM
RE: game character based on Sarkeesian.... we're DOOMED
(17-02-2015 03:00 PM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 02:50 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  How? By understanding context, by understanding the difference between assertions/labeling and desiring follow ups to ignored points. By looking at things openly and not assuming something about the idea in general before getting at the value or intent.

This could also apply well to various things. Is it necessarily not poising the well? I suppose I couldn't say it isn't doing that, but that's not the same.

This kinda boils down to the thing. Why do you feel like you're being attacked(as in what an ad hominid is doing) by being questioned? This coincidentally representative of a major issue in this topic.

I have provided evidence, her only question was why did I not think AS is a gamer, I have stated it multiple times.

The rest of her post was not a question but an assertion as to why I said something. And for the record, I have posted multiple time about my anti-theistic worldview, so calling into question whether I believe in a god or not A.) had absolutely nothing to do with the arguments presented, and B.) this is an atheist forum, where theists are generally not welcome due to their world view being in direct conflict with the purpose of the forum. So what other use could that little tidbit be?

Also thank you for not jumping on the bandwagon and actually asking about my view on this issue. I am bowing out for the night, its late, I have a headache and a long day ahead of me at work.
For reference:

Poisoning the well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person.

You're again failing here by not taking communication that was given in it's way. You're making assumptions. You shouldn't ignore her question on your strawman arguments in the previous post highlighting the typical trollish behavior that occurs here..

She never asserting you were a theist. That's why I said read it over and over. Is it poisoning the well/prodding, yes I already said I think it is so. That's not the same as asserting you are something. Maybe when you are not with a headache at another time; if you read it, you will understand the line of communication.

And asking you why you feel "attacked" is actually a question on the actual topic. I here assumed you would understand that reference as you seem aware of the topic by posting videos about it. That's a point about you defending and holding this opinion of "what a gamer is" and why do you think it matters? Why do you feel this value on who is or isn't a gamer is relevant? Why do you feel being questioned is an assertion against you? These are topics coming out by your responses that seem interesting to get responses about.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 01:01 AM
RE: game character based on Sarkeesian.... we're DOOMED
What ClydeLee said.

I couldn't say it better.

(17-02-2015 02:33 PM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  And please tell me how can I read a meaning into "Are you sure you're not also a theist?" other than attempting to poison the well?

The reason I said that was to try to get you to see that your reasoning is just as flawed as your typical theist on here. I know that it can sometimes be difficult to recognise when it's about a subject that you are passionate about. It's the reason why theists fall into the same trap after all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 01:07 AM
RE: game character based on Sarkeesian.... we're DOOMED
(17-02-2015 02:08 PM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  Anita has a clear bias agianst men and uses her platform to attack a hobby enjoyed by mostly men.

And why do you think that the hobby is enjoyed mostly by men?

That is the key point here. If you can understand that you may begin to understand where Anita is coming from.

Until then you will continue to see it as an attack on you personally. Which it is not.

So come on, let's really explore this point.

Why is gaming a hobby mostly enjoyed by men?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 01:18 AM
RE: game character based on Sarkeesian.... we're DOOMED
(18-02-2015 01:07 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 02:08 PM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  Anita has a clear bias agianst men and uses her platform to attack a hobby enjoyed by mostly men.

And why do you think that the hobby is enjoyed mostly by men?

That is the key point here. If you can understand that you may begin to understand where Anita is coming from.

Until then you will continue to see it as an attack on you personally. Which it is not.

So come on, let's really explore this point.

Why is gaming a hobby mostly enjoyed by men?

And why is attacking it soooooo deathly terrible? I mean jeez. It's like... Those guys who fly kites. Not a lot of women fly kites. In fact there was this chick who made youtube movies about the fact that not a lot of women fly kites and she fucken suuuuuuuuuuucks. Fucken hate her. She's a fraud and a man-hating bitch. How dare she criticise flying kites.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
18-02-2015, 01:23 AM
RE: game character based on Sarkeesian.... we're DOOMED
(18-02-2015 01:07 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Why is gaming a hobby mostly enjoyed by men?

Well ya know Wink Women have more of a nurturing instinct. They like playing with dolls and cleaning houses and cooking, that kind of thing. Computer games are just not that appealing to them.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
18-02-2015, 05:17 AM
RE: game character based on Sarkeesian.... we're DOOMED
(17-02-2015 02:12 PM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 06:26 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(11-02-2015 04:17 PM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  I am something she is not. I actually am a gamer.

What are you? Twelve?

Such logic. Much argument. So wow.

'cause what I'm hearing here is:
blah blah blah no true christian, blah blah blah how dare she criticise the pope, blah blah blah I'm a serious catholic and those protestants are all going to hell.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: