Obsessing about people on MAL.

katsucats said:
That's called ad hominem. What does John Wayne Gacy being a serial killer have to do with the existence of other serial killers?

damastah said:

FTFY. C'mon.

Claire said:
I personally don't get people here who have an obsession with certain MAL members. Like, I understand if you have a crush on someone here, but if you're a guy and the one who you seem clearly obsessed with is another guy, it just seems...out of place, unless your intent is to eventually ask them out on a date IRL.

Signs that you're obsessed with a MAL member:
1. Commenting on their profile at least once.
2. Repeatedly trolling them on the forums and dishing out personal attacks when it's not even relevant to the conversation.
3. Creating threads about them and pretending that it's not about them at all.
4. Having a "senpai pls notice me" vibe.

You must have at least 3 of these to qualify as an obsessive person on this site.

So MAL, what do you think of people who obsess about other people on MAL? Why do they do this? Do you know of other indications that someone is obsessed with someone else here?

Have you been obsessed with someone here or have been the target of someone's obsession? What did you think of the whole situation?

erik_erik_ said:

Oh, I did not suppose at the time that I should've supposed... I suppose you got me while supposedly changed something I said...

katsucats said:
Hey bro, nothing wrong with being black.

katsucats said:
1. Calling someone X for properties Y while denying that oneself is X, despite holding same such properties Y is hypocrisy. Calling someone X while being X and neither affirming or denying the latter is not. Otherwise someone could levy the charge: "Sam accuses Olwen of thinking gravity exists. Sam also thinks gravity exists. Therefore, Sam is a hypocrite." This is clearly absurd.

2. Your argument was not that Claire was a hypocrite. Rather, you posed, Why would anyone take Claire seriously? This is ad hominem, since you are dismissing a claim based upon some attribute of the claimant.

These observations are hardly pedantic or lack understanding, although I understand it may be in turn easier to attack me to cover up one's own blatant logical mishap.

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess,

These observations are hardly pedantic or lack understanding, although I understand it may be in turn easier to attack me to cover up one's own blatant logical mishap.

Olwen said:


1. Wrong:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite



2. Let's do a formal mathematical proof that my argument was valid then. My second argument was as follows:

1) ∀P(P is bad => ∀x∀z(x is P and z is P and z is not as P as x is and x lectures z about P => ~Ǝy(y should take x seriously))) = premise
2) Obsessiveness is bad. = premise
3) Claire is obsessive. = premise
4) Someone else is obsessive. = premise
5) That person is not as obsessive as Claire. = premise
6) Claire lectured that person about obsessiveness. = premise
7) ∀x∀z(x is obsessive and z is obsessive and z is not as obsessive as x is and x lectures z about obsessiveness => ~Ǝy(y should take x seriously)) (follows from 1 and 2, universal instantiation, modus ponens)
===
8) ~Ǝy(y should take Claire seriously) (follows from 3, 4, 5, 6 by four applications of conjunction generation, universal instantiation on 7, and modus ponens)

Previous argument in formal logic terms:

1) ∀x∀z(x is obsessive and z is obsessive z is not as obsessive as x is and x lectures z about obsessiveness => x is a hypocrite). = premise
2) Claire is obsessive. = premise
3) Someone else is obsessive. = premise
4) That person is not as obsessive as Claire. = premise
5) Claire lectured that person about obsessiveness. = premise
===
6) Claire is a hypocrite. (follows from 2, 3, 4, 5 by conjunction generation, universal instantiation on line 1, modus ponens)



I've just mathematically proven that all of my arguments are logically valid, so you've obviously fucked up somewhere again :P.

Olwen said:
You know, we should have a formal philosophical debate and have people vote on it. What do you think? It'd be so fun!

Olwen said:
We shouldn't take anyone seriously who points out a trait in people when that person has more so the trait himself.

Is English your second language?

A person who pretends that she has [the quality of not being obsessive], but in fact has [the quality of being obsessive] is irrelevant to the assertion of another person having the quality of being obsessive, or that the first has lectured the second, or that the first is more so than the second.

Your 1st argument is an ad hominem since your argument encased in premise 1 dismisses someone

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

I think you should get a life.

Let's forget, for now, that we have no metric to determine whether Claire or the other person is more obsessive, which is an arbitrary premise you pulled out of your ass since it has nothing to do with either the definition nor any facts presented.

Your first argument argues for ignoring a claim based on a trait of that person. If your second argument is true, then a person who is smart who has pointed out that another person is less smart is a hypocrite -- clearly not the way in which most people understand that word. So even if you are "right" in your own mind, you are right only on account of grammar and not any significant way.

Zergneedsfood said:
I'm honestly more obsessed with Katsu x Olwen than anything else really.

Maybe get xE in on it and there'd be nice hot threesomes.

PDot19 said:
Why stop there.

Get noob and autocrat in this too.

Get'im all in 'ere.

Zergneedsfood said:
It doesn't matter who he is. What matters is his plan.

Olwen said:
We assume that people follow the Gricean maxims when they talk. By lecturing someone on being obsessive, you generate the conversational implicature that you yourself are not obsessive, because it would violate the Gricean maxims if you talked about

Olwen said:
So you still don't understand how an ad hominem argument works? LOLOLOL. No, my entire argument follows from formal logic, Mr. Formal Logician. All I did was use universal instantiation, conjunction generation, and modus ponens, all of which are valid logical techniques. I did not use the ad hominem fallacy.

Olwen said:


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

To draw the conclusion "A's claim is false" modus ponens, universal instantiation, etc. were not used. So it's an invalid argument. But since my argument did not use reasoning of that kind, my argument is fine.

Olwen said:
For wanting to debate with you, Mr. Creator of the Debate Club (am I remembering this right?)?

Olwen said:
We don't need a metric for obsessiveness because it's so obvious LOL

Olwen said:
http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1373629

Comparing making a thread, posting comments on a profile etc. to GOING TO SOMEONE'S UNIVERSITY AND STALKING THEM is retarded.

This entire argument is a joke lol. It's like a monkey trying to fight with a gorilla. Arrogant pseudo-philosophers who know nothing about logic shouldn't argue with trained logicians. =_=

Zergneedsfood said:
I'm honestly more obsessed with Katsu x Olwen than anything else really.

katsucats said:
Creating an open discussion about obsessions does not imply that oneself is less obsessive than all future participants. This is not, and has never been, a single-ended lecture, nor would a non-moralistic lecture of this type imply that the lecturer is "better" than the other. If you don't have the time nor patience, then stop dreaming up irrelevant principles in the first place.

Ad hominem is not a formal logic fallacy, and does not necessarily violate any formal logic structure.
1. If a person is gay, he is wrong.
2. Bob is gay.
3. Bob is wrong.
Is perfectly valid according to modus ponens, but unsound.

By rejecting Claire's claims of someone being a hypocrite, using her character as evidence, you have done exactly the above. Using that Claire has made a claim as a premise, and then drawing a tautological conclusion based on arguments encased within your premises does not change this, and I would've thought that you'd know better than to try some cheap trick like this.

Olwen's Trick Argument
1. Hypothetical argument A = premise
2. All the hypothetical terms in A are true = premise
3. Therefore, the conclusion in A is true = conclusion

Uh, no. This is teruu level trolling.

That's The_Autocrat.

Appeal to common sense. LOL

What you need is potty training, because all you do is spew a bunch of shit. Your closing statement is an argument from authority, but it's so pathetic that it doesn't even need a name for anyone to recognize it. Why don't you scan a copy of your certificate or diploma so we can laugh at you.

AnnoKano said:
>Commenting on their profile at least once

I do not think making a single comment qualifies as an 'obsession'.

Involtus said:


nor does Claire...