JustALEX said: Boku no Pico is everyone's guilty pleasure whether they want to admit it or not... Be honest....you watched for the memes, but you kept watching cuz you liked it! Ya got me. toomotherfuckingshort. |
| I usually feel guilty for hentai but meh |
TheBrainintheJar said: First of all, I don't care for accusations of "intellectual"/"un-intellectual." That just tells me you're unaware of what those terms really mean.I don't mock you. I just find it very un-intellectual to assume you explained everything perfectly and the other side is at fault for not understanding. Oh well, whatever makes you feel good. My point is that I have made 3-4 additional posts in the time that you've been literally doing nothing but complaining about the fact that I suggest you read what I have written. You could have easily responded in that amount of time, but you didn't. All you've done is posture and whine that I haven't given you your fair due in clarifying, of which I have zero obligation to do and, more importantly, I've done over the course of this conversation with other people. There were 2-3 occasions even before this point where I could point at a past post that I had written and which word for word answered a question that you had. Forget the possibility that you just didn't know how to draw simple implications from a framework, I had sentences which answered your question in their entirety, yet there were multiple instances where you simply missed that. That just tells me you did not pay close attention. Why should I give you any benefit of the doubt? Why would I care about your intellectual statements if I've been convinced by your asinine questions that you had zero capability for nuance and close reading? Again, you would have a point if I hadn't made additional posts. I have. You haven't responded. The onus is now on you to respond. I make no illusions that I've explained things perfectly. I merely said I have explained things multiple times. It is not my fault if after multiple attempts, and posts with other people, you still don't get it. At that point, I take zero responsibility. Second of all, what you said is patently false on not trying to mock me, but I can recognize there are people who insincerely try to take some sort of moral high ground by trying to invoke compassion and appeals to rational discourse. I'm sorry if you feel somehow wronged by this, but I do not apologize for telling you that I don't think you're capable of presenting a sound argument against my framework, especially when I see nothing of substance from you after how many paragraphs of content? Again, if you haven't responded after all these additional posts, where I have made addendum and clarifications, I am convinced you have nothing to offer me. It's as simple as that. My last post is essentially devoid of most of my standard insults and is probably the most spoonfed clarification of them all, and yet rather than responding to what I had written there, you simply just complain more, which essentially proves my point that you're posturing for the sake of it rather than actually engaged in saying anything substantive. And yes, for the record, it does make me feel good that you chose to complain and complain when I have written multiple paragraphs to other people clarifying my position for people who continue to make up arguments. It essentially proves what I already suspected from the very moment you asked a question already answered by my posts: that you really only asked questions to posture around and never had an argument to begin with. |
YudinaAug 28, 2016 8:07 AM
Yudina said: AltoRoark said: That moment when you cross out all the instances of you not reading and not knowing what a strawman is. Are you just in denial? You literally straw manned my arguments and you expect me to treat your points having any substance? I really don't know how you can brush these things off unless you completely misunderstand the fact that a straw man literally means you never addressed my points in the first place.Don't mind what I did. Just crossed out the pointless bullshit so that the substance is easier to see. If you straw manned me, there is no validity in your points. The cognitive dissonance is just out of this world, the amount of hoops you jump through in order to try to make a valid point. I have no idea what strawmanning has to do with this, but whatever. What I crossed out was the edgy schlock that provided no arguments. AltoRoark said: Are you retarded? Again, this entire conversation can be summed with "If I had simply read this guy's posts, I would have noticed that everything that I'm arguing has either been addressed or made irrelevant." See below:So you're saying that even without considering nutrition, there's still a standard outside of liking something. What is that standard? How can oreos or steaks that taste good be "bad" outside of nutrition? Again, you aren't defining your terms or making a valid point. WhatISaid said: Before I go further, I just want to say that both you and this other shitlord are basically at fault for not knowing what the "defining your terms" means. I explicitly stated that we find as good are based on standards of quality. The reason this might seem vague is precisely because these standards can be either subjective or extremely broad. Sometimes these are pretty universal, other times these standards are personal. These are points I have made in the earliest of my points. Examples are not the same as defining my terms, which you are misconstruing. I can point to dozens of quotes where I time and time again stress the subjective nature of these standards and how we use them to come to a conclusion of "good."There are standards of quality for what makes a good steak (and thus other foods such as desserts, salads, etc). People are often free to enjoy binge eating "bad foods" such as well done steaks or an oreo cookie, while simultaneously acknowledging that they're either not well made culinary dishes or straight up cheap products providing some lingering feeling of satiation. Really, this is basic reading here. I'm not even kidding when I say that I have repeated myself over and over again, and you essentially keep misusing words and terminology to make fallacious points. Anyway, I'm not here to give you a fucking lesson in culinary mastery, but it seems you really are that dense. If you really want me to explicate, people know that rare steaks are better than well done steaks, becauase rare steaks maintain the juices of the meat and the tenderness, both of which add to the flavor and texture of the food. People argue against this all the time, when every reputable chef of any standing will tell you that a rare steak is better. In fact, most self-respecting steakhouses, if not all, will be pissed off if you order a steak well done. If we want to talk about desserts, people are familiar with what good bakery is. Take an apple pie for instance. Apple pies have a particular standard for their quality. A non-mushy (and often very crispy) outer crust without over burnt edges. The bottom has to be solid to hold the contents of the pie and to show that you've cooked the pastry evenly. The inside requires a solid balance of whatever ingredients you throw in there (obv apple, cinnamon, whatever) or you throw off the taste profile of the dessert. In case you haven't noticed, none of these qualities have anything to do with the "nutritional" value of the food. These are merely understood standards for what makes good food tasty. People don't always have to agree with them, and that's when we have abnormalities, but there are understood combinations, cooking techniques, and other standards through which we are usually accurate in determining when something will taste good to someone who's mouth is palatable to that particular brand of food. Again, these caveats are important because fundamentally, again, my original point stresses the fact that we, as individuals, create standards but they in and of themselves are flexible and ever changing, and we almost never perfectly follow these standards. Hence why guilty pleasures exist. The same is true for numerous other desserts. Mixtures, flavors, these are all subjective in most cases but that doesn't preclude the fact that there are numerous standards out there for evaluating whether or not a particular culinary product is up to the standard. The reason why oreo cookies do not match up with a professionally cooked pie is because it not only lacks the same sort of artistry and set of skills necessary to make it, but it also lacks the same depth of flavor and only provides lingering satiation, which by most people's understanding of good foods, should not be the case. See? there you go finally elaborating and fleshing out your points. Debating 101, my friend. It doesn't take random insults, it takes competence. Anyway, ... What you say here is only the fundamentals of what make something taste good. You aren't addressing how it can be considered good if the standards aren't met. AltoRoark said: Dude. If you don't read my arguments, just tell me. I explicitly told you that your argument fundamentally is not an argument. It's literally a counter-example without any logical basis. Your point about unhealthy foods is a strawman, because I made a caveat showing that it's not important whether we're talking about healthy/unhealthy foods, the subjectivity of taste makes both points essentially the same. I, in no way shape or form, equivocated nutritional value with an anime having some sort of absolute value, yet that's basically what you suggest. "Desserts". Yeah that's what I said. What's the big deal? I was making a point about unheathy foods that are considered good. What part about "desserts" triggered you so badly? Also see above. Literally every alternative strain we go on suggests to me that you're just not really knowledgeable on any of these subjects, and require clarification of the most minute degrees to even have a seemingly normal conversation. You considered nutritional value as a measure of quality when it comes to food. That's why I used desserts as an argument. AltoRoark said: This is so contradictory. So now you're saying "liking something means they have something of worth in spite of their flaws." Well, just in your last post, you said that you can enjoy something even though it's bad by laughing at it. So if an anime makes for good comedy, that must mean you like it, according to your own words.With you're examples, you just point out their flaws and the fact that you like them. Your liking of something doesn't come out of thin air. Liking them means that they have something of worth in spite of their flaws. But, that's not what you say in your original post. You say that liking something means you must enjoy it in the context of what it was trying to do. So what is it, because you can't have it both ways. If you think liking something means you find something of worth, then you must like Another because it made you laugh, and we can both scientifically and philosophically prove that laughing is something worthwhile to you because it's both healthy and brings you utility and happiness. It means you must like a bad singer because of how badly she performed, and you laughed at him or her. But if you think liking something means that they must achieve their original purpose, then you can't like those things for precisely those same reasons. I suspect you're probably going to say "well...........liking them means that they have something in worth in the context of what they were trying to do in spite of their flaws," which is both a needlessly complicated understanding of what "liking" means and also playing around semantically for no reason. In other words, you have constructed a completely arbitrary bright line that serves no meaning, that is filled to the brim with internal contradictions. Never did I say "go bad it's good" means you like it. Ever. Now look who's strawmanning. What did you like Code Geass for? Its story? Its action? Its characters? If you didn't enjoy it for how bad it was, but actually liked it, then there was something of substance found in spite of its issues. Perhaps you liked for its action, or for how badass the MC was, or for the plot twists. AltoRoark said: Because as I have said multiple times, our standards are never perfectly aligned and is never fully in tuned with what you are going to like. There are going to be tons of things that don't normally meet your standards.You say that we like some things that don't meet our standards. How does that work? How can I like something if my standards are not met? When you say "With you're examples, you just point out their flaws and the fact that you like them," you completely fail to understand the point. Again, you are missing nuance, which honestly I can't say I'm surprised. All of those examples showcase: 1. Fundamental flaws and misalignments with my standards of "quality" 2. Demonstrations that these shows/pieces are doing the exact opposite of what they are intended to do Demetori is not good metal, but it is a metal band. Repetitious riffs and chords, no real artistry in their solos, lack of variety and dynamics. These are fundamental things in music that people use to showcase good music. By these metrics, Demetori is not good, but I still like listening to them. I'm not laughing at how cliche their chord progressions are, so it can't be "it's so bad it's good." What is it then? Psycho Pass is not good cyberpunk. I think it's a poorly constructed dystopia and features strike after strike of things that disqualify it from being good science fiction. Needless references, shitty mystery, silly scientific conveniences, and so forth. Psycho Pass is supposed to be a cyberpunk crime anime. I'm not laughing at Psycho Pass whenever it makes a mistake, so by your definition, it's not "it's so bad it's good." I just think I like it despite the fact that it fails in most categories of what it's trying to do. I don't know why the anime community is always so up in arms about topics like this, like it's a travesty when people admit to liking bad things. You just keep telling me that you like certain things even though they're flawed. But do you know what I'd like to know? Why you liked them. If you didn't enjoy them for how bad they are, why did you like them? Before you ask me what kind of enjoyment it is, tell me the reasons for your liking of these. AltoRoark said: Holy shit, can you fucking read the paragraph before and after it to actually understand my point? I literally laid it out on the table for you. I think this just demonstrates that you continuously just nitpick arguments out of my posts without actually responding with substance. One of the worst examples you could ever make. We're discussing individual works and products, not, genres, authors, composers, etc. I mean, if I dislike all mecha except Gundam Wing, does that mean I think Gundam Wing is bad? Every single response to my posts have been: 1. Not nuanced and easily demonstrate that you did not read anything outside of maybe single lines 2. Either single sentences or a paragraph filled with repetitions and no new information 3. Arguments that either do not address my own or completely confuse my points when I have been completely consistent in applying my framework See below: ForSomeoneWhoDoesNotRead said: This is literally clarifying that the above are normal examples of where people's usual standards are misaligned and something out of the norm surprises them. I then talk about precisely what we talked about before, which is how people can like things that are bad.These are just your most normal examples. But there are tons of sophisticated and intelligent people who end up liking to watch Jersey Shore, Michael Bay Movies, and chick lit in their spare time, even if those people are extremely well read and generally have higher standards for "quality." Why? Who the fuck knows. People are weird and they're not robots with obvious brightlines. Plenty of people who have higher standards for their literature end up liking to read teen romance novels that you can get at the airpoprt in their spare time. By their standards, these are not well written, with poor development, characters, plot, and essentially exists for sensationalism, the occasionally erotic moment, and extravagance. People who actually read books will tell you that these are often base and unsophisticated and are not subject to being called "good" books. Even in instances where people are trying to find redeeming qualities in these sorts of fiction, they will often resort to saying that they are, by and large, crappy and lack substance. But people can still like them, and people do, and they are perfectly allowed to do so. You will find plenty of people who will have high standards for what they read or watch, but will find themselves and just enjoy Jersey Shore or teen angst novels. I don't understand what's wrong with saying "you're allowed to like bad things," unless you think that everything someone likes has to be good. I hope you understand that by definition "good" does not have the same definition as "like," nor do they follow the same set of underlying meanings. Liking something is about satiation and satisfaction. Something that's "good" can imply a multiple of other things from a moral, structural, aesthetic, and philosophical standpoint that can be completely separated from the concept of "liking" something. Something that's good does not have to satisfy or satiate you. Therefore, people can demonstrate with great intellectual rigor why something like Ergo Proxy is a great model anime or why the Fifth Symphony is such a great demonstration of the beginning of the Romantic symphony. But they do not have to like it. By those very same metrics, people can show us why something like Code Geass does not measure up to the artistic ambitions or the animated superiority of other works, such as a Studio Ghibli film, but that does not mean that they can't like Code Geass more. People can show us why 4'33 is not really music, and in almost every understanding of music, is bad music precisely because it is not music at all, but they can like it for reasons completely unrelated to the quality and the standards that they set for what good music is. Furthermore, any arguments against this are arguments of degree and not by kind, which I disagree with on a philosophical level. In other words, people are likely to respond to this and simply say "well they still thought Ergo Proxy was okay obviously because they can demonstrate all its good points, but it just isn't their favorite so they say they don't like it as much" or that "obviously they thought the Fifth Symphony was good because of this praise; it's just that they probably have other things they like more." These are arguments of degrees, where you are essentially drawing a line in the sand for people, without them knowing, and assuming that they must on some degree like it precisely because they praise something. Not only does this ignore the actual opinions of the actor, of which he or she has previously stated, but it's an arbitrary distinction of degree that just isn't valid in the context of this discussion. My argument is an argument of kind, which I think is much more fundamentally consistent, which is that people can understand metrics of good or bad while simultaneously acknowledging whether they like or dislike something. There's no arbitrary degree that they must like something to a degree if they found something worthwhile. I think that just makes for poor argumentation and lousy rhetoric. At the end of the day, concepts of good or bad are divorced from people's satisfaction with things. Hence, why food is the best example, because that is one of the many areas where people constantly enjoy things that they find acceptable despite the food being not of good quality. And again, it has to do with the evolution, flexibility, and caveats in our standards. There is no perfect standard and way to describe someone's taste unless they are truly the most boring individual alive. First of all, you are, again, not telling me why you or others like or dislike something. You don't unconditionally like Michael Bay movies. If you like something, there's a reason for it. Second of all, this says nothing about your example with Gundam Wing, Beethoven, etc. So yeah, it was still a dumb example. AltoRoark said: Don't use words like "angst" and "drama" if you don't know what they mean. If you can demonstrate a single instance where I've acted with "angst" or that I've incited "drama," then I will apologize right then and there. But as it stands, I don't think you understand what either of those words mean.Call me illiterate or stupid all you want. As far as I'm concerned, all the arguments I've made are perfectly valid. Your angst and drama does nothing to help the situation. If I had started acting depressed and sorry for myself that you were being retarded, then you'd have a point to make about me acting with angst. If I had gone on someone's profile to shit talk you rather than doing it to your face, then maybe you'd have a point to make about drama. How embarrassing it would be if the very person who talks about "drama" doesn't understand what it means. How even more embarrassing would it be, if once I had made an example of drama (going on someone's profile to shit talk someone else to start drama), that I catch you in the very act of doing precisely what it is you are accusing me of. I would argue that a framed and nuanced argument, sprinkled with me accusing you of not reading and straw manning my arguments, which I have proven time and time again by your lack of nuance and ability to respond to the fundamental premises behind my arguments and instead, just the base off one liners that are used to set off a greater point, is way more valid than a post that's filled with purely counter factuals and no real arguments. Anyway, I like how you use your last sentence to levy some sort of insult, then proceed to further demonstrate that you're incapable of using words in the English dictionary correctly. But keep trying. I'm sure you'll get their eventually. You talk like an insecure teenager with anxiety and you excessively drop random insults out of immaturity. Angst and drama are perfectly suitable terms. |
AltoRoark said: Because when you strawman, you don't actually address my argument:I have no idea what strawmanning has to do with this, but whatever. What I crossed out was the edgy schlock that provided no arguments. I mean this is once again an application of you not knowing how to read: WhatISaid said: And this is how you translated:You make those kind of assessments as what anime is "good" for you, but you are also perfectly allowed to enjoy anime that fail to meet any of those assessments whatsoever. AltoRoark said: The quote "You make those kind of assessments as what anime is "good" for you," literally means people have standards for what "good" means. In other words, our standards will generally determine what we like. The only caveat I made is that people can enjoy anime even if they don't those standards.The former says that people like things that don't meet their standards. The latter says that standards determine how much you like something. They don't say the same thing. That is not making an absolute (which you are assuming) statement that "standards being separate from how much we like something is in fact what you said." In other words, this is a strawman. Your sentence is making the claim that I am saying that our standards are absolutely separate from how much we like something, since you don't provide any conditionals in your sentence. I merely stated that people can and do separate qualities of "good" or "bad" from how much we "enjoy" or "like" something precisely because those two terms do not share, always, the same common underlying principles. They can, but they do not have to. I do not believe in the world view where anything you "like" is "good," because I do not believe that satiation and enjoyment are comparable with the same sort of philosophical underpinnings as our conception of "good." They may be similar, but they are not the same. That does not mean that they never align. Just another classic example of you misconstruing words. The mental hoop you have to jump through in order to misunderstand me that bad is honestly astonishing. I can't imagine how bad your control of the English language must be to fuck up that badly. This ultimately just boils down to one simple fact: You not being able to understand why people can like bad things does not mean that they can't. Guilty pleasures exist precisely for this reason. To suggest that they do not because you have some sort of mental block that makes you think people have to think something they like is "good" is ridiculous. If we defined good subjectively as "anything I like," we must equally acknowledge that someone else could reasonably have a subjective interpretation of the word "good" that is completely different from your own. AltoRoark said: ?What you say here is only the fundamentals of what make something taste good. You aren't addressing how it can be considered good if the standards aren't met. I would just like to say that with an actual explication, you provide zero additional substance in terms of making an argument. This statement right here legit demonstrates that you have not followed logic, but rather are happy to see that a wall of text didn't include an instance of "you're stupid." Are you not capable of stringing logic from one post to the next? ThingsISaid said: Oreos do not meet the fundamentals of what makes something taste good as I specified above:People are often free to enjoy binge eating "bad foods" such as well done steaks or an oreo cookie, while simultaneously acknowledging that they're either not well made culinary dishes or straight up cheap products providing some lingering feeling of satiation. ThingsISaid said: Yet, people are allowed to like oreos even though they do not match up with these standards, precisely because they provide lingering but satiating qualities that are precisely the prerequisites for what we experience as "guilty" pleasures. They are a cheap and easily consumable food, but that does not mean they are of the same culinary standard as good food.The reason why oreo cookies do not match up with a professionally cooked pie is because it not only lacks the same sort of artistry and set of skills necessary to make it, but it also lacks the same depth of flavor and only provides lingering satiation, which by most people's understanding of good foods, should not be the case. I mean, we're back to 101 here where I legit have to let you know that you're not reading. AltoRoark said: How many times do I have to go over this? First of all, that quote you are directly quoting specifically mentions that I use multiple metrics. You talking about desserts is irrelevant because, as I mentioned directly in that quote you're quoting, I already compensated that by talking about the subjective quality of foods and how that relates to anime in that both have subjective standards through which we judge whether something is good. This is a fallacious argument precisely because I specified that there are just as valid subjective standards of quality tasting food, which I specified further above.You considered nutritional value as a measure of quality when it comes to food. That's why I used desserts as an argument. Second of all, again, your argument about "desserts as an argument" is not an argument. It is a counterfactual with no substance. In other words, you are merely trying to make a dent an argument via some completely irrelevant technicality that I've already addressed in numerous shapes and forms. AltoRoark said: ??????Never did I say "go bad it's good" means you like it. Ever. Now look who's strawmanning. This is what I mean when you don't read. Pointing out a contradiction in logic is not a strawman. You aren't allowed to call out someone for strawmanning when you don't know what it is. Here is what you said originally: WhatYouSaid said: You then said this:You can laugh at how badly a singer performs, that doesn't mean I like the song, as opposed to genuinely liking certain music. Liking something is enjoying it in context of what it was trying to do. Let's take a look at Another. You're either genuinely freightened by it, or you laugh at it for how it fails to frighten you. The former is liking, the latter is "so bad it's good". Seriously, isn't this common sense? WhatYouSaid said: These are inherently contradictory statements. Why?With you're examples, you just point out their flaws and the fact that you like them. Your liking of something doesn't come out of thin air. Liking them means that they have something of worth in spite of their flaws. Because: 1. You say that the former, laughing at how badly a singer performs is "so bad it's good." 2. You said in your second quote that "liking something means they have something of worth in spite of their flaws." 3. It is given that laughter is a measurement of happiness, utility. For the sake of argument, laughter is good because it provides satiation and enjoyment. 4. Laughing at how badly a singer performs is finding worth in that singer, precisely because we find laughter to be good, providing utility, etc. 5. You say in the first quote that there is a difference between "genuinely liking certain music" and laughing "at how badly a singer performs." 6. I have proven via points 1-4 that you "like" a bad singer because of how badly she performs. This is a contradiction with point #5. Seriously. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if you can handle this argument. This is basic reading comprehension. All it takes is understanding what you said and what I said. A strawman suggests that I made up something you said. You can tell in both of those quotes that you have inherently contradicted your point. It is simply not possible for you to say that you can laugh at how badly a singer performs and not "like it" while simultaneously making the claim that liking something means finding worthwhile in whatever it is you like, when clearly laughing at a singer's performance is finding something worthwhile via the act of laughter. You're undoubtedly going to agree with this, so I will just point back to the post I had clarified above, because I literally answer your next point before you make it. AltoRoark said: So you're projecting why I like something then? Is this the point of all this questioning? I feel like this entire line of conversation is pointed to the fact that you just want me to say something, and then you can spin that to mean that I found something "worthwhile" and therefore I find Code Geass "good" and am thus lying to myself for saying otherwise.What did you like Code Geass for? Its story? Its action? Its characters? If you didn't enjoy it for how bad it was, but actually liked it, then there was something of substance found in spite of its issues. Perhaps you liked for its action, or for how badass the MC was, or for the plot twists. Whether I like Code Geass for any of those reasons is besides the point. Your original argument is that "liking something means liking in the context of what it was trying to do." I have shown you that I like Code Geass despite the fact that it's whole point is to essentially be sci-fi/mecha anime. I think it fails on both of those accounts, but it's still fun to watch. By the same token, Psycho Pass is a failed sci-fi dystopia, yet I find it an easy and quick watch. These are the main sticking points of these anime. Anything else is cursory and largely irrelevant, but if I still like and enjoy breezing through these anime, it demonstrates a disconnect between what we find as "good" and what "like" and vice versa. I don't have to explicate any of the reasons why I like these anime. I can say story. I can say random plot twists. I can say the fact that they have girls. It really doesn't matter. The point is that Code Geass isn't any of those things. If I say I like Code Geass because of the girls, then that's completely valid, despite the fact that CG is not trying to make you like something because of how many girls are in the show. It is more suitably a cat and mouse sci-fi adventure story. Thus, Code Geass, and other anime like it, can very much be defined as a guilty pleasure, because even though I enjoy hard sci-fi with much more scientific substance, or even though I enjoy serious mecha anime, something that's more trashy like Code Geass is still appealing and fun to watch. Being "fun to watch" is in and of itself a "reason" why I like it. Giving any specific reason is meaningless because I've already established that whatever reason it is is completely different from the original intention of the show anyway. AltoRoark said: Why do I need to answer this? Whatever I answer is utterly irrelevant. You're misunderstanding the point. The point is not that they're "flawed."You just keep telling me that you like certain things even though they're flawed. But do you know what I'd like to know? Why you liked them. If you didn't enjoy them for how bad they are, why did you like them? Before you ask me what kind of enjoyment it is, tell me the reasons for your liking of these. The point is that you specifically said liking something means liking them in the context of what they are trying to do. In the case of my music examples, I have demonstrated that I can like music I don't deem as "good" music. I have told you I don't like Demetori because they make good music. I like them for their repetitious riffs despite the fact that these chords and easy to please solos are not emblematic of good music, but rather more representative of cheap parlor tricks that most competent musicians can perform to woo people over. This entire line of reasoning is essentially for you to tell me precisely why me saying I "like" something is wrong, and not out of any sort of understanding that people have personal proclivities and are perfectly aware of what is good or bad, and are capable of choosing whether or not to like them. Once again, this stumbles into the world of arguments of degree and kind. Just because I can say that Psycho Pass brought me entertainment value because it had some nice action sequences doesn't mean I acknowledge it as good. This is the fundamental problem with arguments of degree, because it just assumes an arbitrary brightline, that if I have something positive to say, then I must find it "good" on some level, when differences of "good" and "enjoyable" are often incredibly stark. AltoRoark said: Again, you don't understand. A reason for liking something doesn't have anything to do with whether something is good. I can give you a shit reason for liking Michael Bay movies, but that doesn't make the film "good".First of all, you are, again, not telling me why you or others like or dislike something. You don't unconditionally like Michael Bay movies. If you like something, there's a reason for it. So sure, I can tell you that I like watching The Rock for its explosions, that doesn't suddenly mean that The Rock is a good movie because of explosions. That's not how it works. Even if you wanted to say that I must consider it a "good action movie" because I enjoyed the explosions (ignoring the fact that you are once again projecting onto me what you think I should be feeling), that doesn't fly either. I've seen plenty of good action films, and I don't think Michael Bay stacks up at all with any of them. But that doesn't stop me from liking his films. There's fun explosions, cool stunts occasionally, and sometimes I laugh. These are not necessarily the underpinnings of a good film, by my standards. They are merely reasons why I enjoyed something and not why I consider it a good film. Again, the reasons why I like something are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the reason I like them is separate from the standards of which I judge whether they are good or bad. Me saying that Michael Bay movies are cheap action flicks which are a good waste of time does not mean that they are a good film, because my understanding of a good film is not the same thing as "cheap action flicks that are a good waste of time." AltoRoark said: I don't think you understand what an "insecure" teenager sounds like, and if anything, you're the one who has repeatedly made childish arguments. I don't think you really have any standing as far as whether your arguments hold up. They simply don't. You contradict yourself, misunderstand terminology, and never seriously confront the fundamental framework that I've set up. You simply look at technicalities and small nitpicks which are largely irrelevant and don't have anything to do with the main front of the case.You talk like an insecure teenager with anxiety and you excessively drop random insults out of immaturity. Angst and drama are perfectly suitable terms. I also don't think calling you retarded for not being able to read and understand arguments is an indication of immaturity, but rather an acknowledgment that you have time and time again misunderstood arguments. Again, simply look at where you tried calling me out for strawmanning you. That's such a huge stupid jump in logic, not being able to recognize your own internal contradictions (which I'm sure you'll vehemently deny with more bullshit). I have pointed out in multiple places where: 1. You haven't fully read the argument 2. You haven't connected the dots from previous to present posts 3. You keep saying I haven't addressed something when it is ultimately irrelevant when I was merely addressing a much more critical point that you still do not acknowledge. Once again, I don't think you know what angst and drama is. If you did, you wouldn't be using those words, but it is precisely because you don't know what they mean that you use them. You're also completely unaware of what strawmanning is, and by the look of your own posts, you seem to be completely lacking in memory of what your previous posts consist of. Both you and this other shitlord keep asking for clarifications, but your "arguments" are nothing more than single sentence counter factuals on topics of "technicalities" rather than actual meretricious arguments of logic and rigor. Again, I'm not the one that's mocking someone outside of the confines of the forum to make yourself feel better that I'm calling you out for just being all around incapable of reading and making a real reasoned argument. In the end, I sincerely believe you need to learn how to read arguments in their entirety before actually putting something into a post. Regardless of whether or not I think you've acted like an imbecile, anyone can look past my vitriol and see that I have a much better claim on an argument, specifically because if we summed up your arguments, it would not only be lacking in any sort of length, it'd be lacking in substance. Anyway I'm just not going to post any further in this thread. I think the moment you said I was strawmanning a contradiction you yourself created is when I realized that you not only read what I wrote, you're also not consciously aware of your own position outside of the most simplistic fundamentals. I can already predict where your next argument is going to be on that matter, and I've essentially deemed it asinine for a number of reasons. The bottom line there's nothing stopping people from liking bad things. I have demonstrated numerous cases where this is true, and I don't think I need someone who has been incapable of understanding his own positions on the subject telling me what I should or am actually thinking. It's just ironic when people project what other people should be feeling, especially on a forum so against actual disagreements of opinions. |
YudinaAug 28, 2016 7:01 PM
| No. I do not believe in such a ridiculous notion. |
  ♰ ἡ φύσις οὐδὲν ποιεῖ ἅλματα. ♰ συκεροκυ™ |
Yudina said: AltoRoark said: Because when you strawman, you don't actually address my argument:I have no idea what strawmanning has to do with this, but whatever. What I crossed out was the edgy schlock that provided no arguments. I mean this is once again an application of you not knowing how to read: WhatISaid said: And this is how you translated:You make those kind of assessments as what anime is "good" for you, but you are also perfectly allowed to enjoy anime that fail to meet any of those assessments whatsoever. AltoRoark said: The quote "You make those kind of assessments as what anime is "good" for you," literally means people have standards for what "good" means. In other words, our standards will generally determine what we like. The only caveat I made is that people can enjoy anime even if they don't those standards.The former says that people like things that don't meet their standards. The latter says that standards determine how much you like something. They don't say the same thing. That is not making an absolute (which you are assuming) statement that "standards being separate from how much we like something is in fact what you said." In other words, this is a strawman. Your sentence is making the claim that I am saying that our standards are absolutely separate from how much we like something, since you don't provide any conditionals in your sentence. I merely stated that people can and do separate qualities of "good" or "bad" from how much we "enjoy" or "like" something precisely because those two terms do not share, always, the same common underlying principles. They can, but they do not have to. I do not believe in the world view where anything you "like" is "good," because I do not believe that satiation and enjoyment are comparable with the same sort of philosophical underpinnings as our conception of "good." They may be similar, but they are not the same. That does not mean that they never align. Just another classic example of you misconstruing words. The mental hoop you have to jump through in order to misunderstand me that bad is honestly astonishing. I can't imagine how bad your control of the English language must be to fuck up that badly. This ultimately just boils down to one simple fact: You not being able to understand why people can like bad things does not mean that they can't. Guilty pleasures exist precisely for this reason. To suggest that they do not because you have some sort of mental block that makes you think people have to think something they like is "good" is ridiculous. If we defined good subjectively as "anything I like," we must equally acknowledge that someone else could reasonably have a subjective interpretation of the word "good" that is completely different from your own. So then it's a contradiction. What we like is determined by our standards, but sometimes it isn't? That's basically what you're saying here. Deliberately ignoring the inconsistency in your argument if a form of special pleading. Your only way around this is to do one thing: Explain how you can like something with these standards not met. AltoRoark said: ?What you say here is only the fundamentals of what make something taste good. You aren't addressing how it can be considered good if the standards aren't met. I would just like to say that with an actual explication, you provide zero additional substance in terms of making an argument. This statement right here legit demonstrates that you have not followed logic, but rather are happy to see that a wall of text didn't include an instance of "you're stupid." Are you not capable of stringing logic from one post to the next? ThingsISaid said: Oreos do not meet the fundamentals of what makes something taste good as I specified above:People are often free to enjoy binge eating "bad foods" such as well done steaks or an oreo cookie, while simultaneously acknowledging that they're either not well made culinary dishes or straight up cheap products providing some lingering feeling of satiation. ThingsISaid said: Yet, people are allowed to like oreos even though they do not match up with these standards, precisely because they provide lingering but satiating qualities that are precisely the prerequisites for what we experience as "guilty" pleasures. They are a cheap and easily consumable food, but that does not mean they are of the same culinary standard as good food.The reason why oreo cookies do not match up with a professionally cooked pie is because it not only lacks the same sort of artistry and set of skills necessary to make it, but it also lacks the same depth of flavor and only provides lingering satiation, which by most people's understanding of good foods, should not be the case. I mean, we're back to 101 here where I legit have to let you know that you're not reading. Funny, I wasn't even making an argument. I was telling you how what you say is irrelevant because it isn't what I asked. I'm no longer interested in these fundamentals you speak of. I'm insisting that you tell me why and how you can like things that don't meet your standards. Seriously, who are you trying to impress? Nobody gives a frog's fat ass about how much you know about well-made dishes. Start addressing the topic of debate at hand. Have you even debated before in your life? AltoRoark said: How many times do I have to go over this? First of all, that quote you are directly quoting specifically mentions that I use multiple metrics. You talking about desserts is irrelevant because, as I mentioned directly in that quote you're quoting, I already compensated that by talking about the subjective quality of foods and how that relates to anime in that both have subjective standards through which we judge whether something is good. This is a fallacious argument precisely because I specified that there are just as valid subjective standards of quality tasting food, which I specified further above.You considered nutritional value as a measure of quality when it comes to food. That's why I used desserts as an argument. Second of all, again, your argument about "desserts as an argument" is not an argument. It is a counterfactual with no substance. In other words, you are merely trying to make a dent an argument via some completely irrelevant technicality that I've already addressed in numerous shapes and forms. I'm not sure where you got the "it's not an argument" bs from. I addressed a point you made and countered it. That makes an argument. Again, Debating 101. Learn it. Anyway, if any kind of response to your nutritional value analogy is irrelevant, then that deems the analogy itself irrelevant. It holds absolutely no water, so why even use it to begin with? You compare it to anime quality, and then proceed to completely contrast the two. It was confirmed useless once you addressed the fundamentals of good food outside of nutrition. AltoRoark said: ??????Never did I say "go bad it's good" means you like it. Ever. Now look who's strawmanning. This is what I mean when you don't read. Pointing out a contradiction in logic is not a strawman. You aren't allowed to call out someone for strawmanning when you don't know what it is. Here is what you said originally: WhatYouSaid said: You then said this:You can laugh at how badly a singer performs, that doesn't mean I like the song, as opposed to genuinely liking certain music. Liking something is enjoying it in context of what it was trying to do. Let's take a look at Another. You're either genuinely freightened by it, or you laugh at it for how it fails to frighten you. The former is liking, the latter is "so bad it's good". Seriously, isn't this common sense? WhatYouSaid said: These are inherently contradictory statements. Why?With you're examples, you just point out their flaws and the fact that you like them. Your liking of something doesn't come out of thin air. Liking them means that they have something of worth in spite of their flaws. Because: 1. You say that the former, laughing at how badly a singer performs is "so bad it's good." 2. You said in your second quote that "liking something means they have something of worth in spite of their flaws." 3. It is given that laughter is a measurement of happiness, utility. For the sake of argument, laughter is good because it provides satiation and enjoyment. 4. Laughing at how badly a singer performs is finding worth in that singer, precisely because we find laughter to be good, providing utility, etc. 5. You say in the first quote that there is a difference between "genuinely liking certain music" and laughing "at how badly a singer performs." 6. I have proven via points 1-4 that you "like" a bad singer because of how badly she performs. This is a contradiction with point #5. Seriously. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if you can handle this argument. This is basic reading comprehension. All it takes is understanding what you said and what I said. A strawman suggests that I made up something you said. You can tell in both of those quotes that you have inherently contradicted your point. It is simply not possible for you to say that you can laugh at how badly a singer performs and not "like it" while simultaneously making the claim that liking something means finding worthwhile in whatever it is you like, when clearly laughing at a singer's performance is finding something worthwhile via the act of laughter. You're undoubtedly going to agree with this, so I will just point back to the post I had clarified above, because I literally answer your next point before you make it. Let's get this out of the way first: You stress that I don't know what a strawman is. But do you notice the logical flaw in this? My use of the word strawman was strictly pointing out you misrepresenting my argument, which what a strawman is by definition, and you pointing out a contradiction, which I deny making. Honest to God, it's couldn't be more obvious that you only spout shit like "you don't know what (so-and-so) is" as only a means of boosting your ego. You put "you don't know what a strawman is" along with "you contradicted yourself" both in one post, in an attempt to talk down to me. But it backfires, because it rips open a logical inconsistency the size of Kansas. But enough of that. Let's get to the argument. I didn't contradict myself at all. What I said was that if you liked something, then there was obviously something of substance in context of what it was doing in spite of its flaws. I could further elaborate this if you would tell specifically why you liked them, which you stubbornly refuse to do. AltoRoark said: So you're projecting why I like something then? Is this the point of all this questioning? I feel like this entire line of conversation is pointed to the fact that you just want me to say something, and then you can spin that to mean that I found something "worthwhile" and therefore I find Code Geass "good" and am thus lying to myself for saying otherwise.What did you like Code Geass for? Its story? Its action? Its characters? If you didn't enjoy it for how bad it was, but actually liked it, then there was something of substance found in spite of its issues. Perhaps you liked for its action, or for how badass the MC was, or for the plot twists. That's exactly what I'm trying to do. If you provide this, I'll be able to elaborate. That's what debating is. Whether I like Code Geass for any of those reasons is besides the point. Your original argument is that "liking something means liking in the context of what it was trying to do." I have shown you that I like Code Geass despite the fact that it's whole point is to essentially be sci-fi/mecha anime. I think it fails on both of those accounts, but it's still fun to watch. By the same token, Psycho Pass is a failed sci-fi dystopia, yet I find it an easy and quick watch. These are the main sticking points of these anime. Anything else is cursory and largely irrelevant, but if I still like and enjoy breezing through these anime, it demonstrates a disconnect between what we find as "good" and what "like" and vice versa. I don't have to explicate any of the reasons why I like these anime. I can say story. I can say random plot twists. I can say the fact that they have girls. It really doesn't matter. The point is that Code Geass isn't any of those things. If I say I like Code Geass because of the girls, then that's completely valid, despite the fact that CG is not trying to make you like something because of how many girls are in the show. It is more suitably a cat and mouse sci-fi adventure story. Thus, Code Geass, and other anime like it, can very much be defined as a guilty pleasure, because even though I enjoy hard sci-fi with much more scientific substance, or even though I enjoy serious mecha anime, something that's more trashy like Code Geass is still appealing and fun to watch. Being "fun to watch" is in and of itself a "reason" why I like it. Giving any specific reason is meaningless because I've already established that whatever reason it is is completely different from the original intention of the show anyway. AltoRoark said: Why do I need to answer this? Whatever I answer is utterly irrelevant. You're misunderstanding the point. The point is not that they're "flawed."You just keep telling me that you like certain things even though they're flawed. But do you know what I'd like to know? Why you liked them. If you didn't enjoy them for how bad they are, why did you like them? Before you ask me what kind of enjoyment it is, tell me the reasons for your liking of these. The point is that you specifically said liking something means liking them in the context of what they are trying to do. In the case of my music examples, I have demonstrated that I can like music I don't deem as "good" music. I have told you I don't like Demetori because they make good music. I like them for their repetitious riffs despite the fact that these chords and easy to please solos are not emblematic of good music, but rather more representative of cheap parlor tricks that most competent musicians can perform to woo people over. This entire line of reasoning is essentially for you to tell me precisely why me saying I "like" something is wrong, and not out of any sort of understanding that people have personal proclivities and are perfectly aware of what is good or bad, and are capable of choosing whether or not to like them. Once again, this stumbles into the world of arguments of degree and kind. Just because I can say that Psycho Pass brought me entertainment value because it had some nice action sequences doesn't mean I acknowledge it as good. This is the fundamental problem with arguments of degree, because it just assumes an arbitrary brightline, that if I have something positive to say, then I must find it "good" on some level, when differences of "good" and "enjoyable" are often incredibly stark. What? It's perfectly relevant. The subject is about how you can like something enough these so-called standards aren't met. If your reasons for enjoyment truly aren't in context of the work's intention, then let me hear them. I suggest you quit making these lousy cop-outs if you want to have actual debate. Let's say you like Psycho-Pass because of its action. PP is intended to be an action-oriented show, is it not? Then there you have it. You like it for what it tried to do in the first place. AltoRoark said: Again, you don't understand. A reason for liking something doesn't have anything to do with whether something is good. I can give you a shit reason for liking Michael Bay movies, but that doesn't make the film "good".First of all, you are, again, not telling me why you or others like or dislike something. You don't unconditionally like Michael Bay movies. If you like something, there's a reason for it. So sure, I can tell you that I like watching The Rock for its explosions, that doesn't suddenly mean that The Rock is a good movie because of explosions. That's not how it works. Even if you wanted to say that I must consider it a "good action movie" because I enjoyed the explosions (ignoring the fact that you are once again projecting onto me what you think I should be feeling), that doesn't fly either. I've seen plenty of good action films, and I don't think Michael Bay stacks up at all with any of them. But that doesn't stop me from liking his films. There's fun explosions, cool stunts occasionally, and sometimes I laugh. These are not necessarily the underpinnings of a good film, by my standards. They are merely reasons why I enjoyed something and not why I consider it a good film. Again, the reasons why I like something are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the reason I like them is separate from the standards of which I judge whether they are good or bad. Me saying that Michael Bay movies are cheap action flicks which are a good waste of time does not mean that they are a good film, because my understanding of a good film is not the same thing as "cheap action flicks that are a good waste of time." Movies are a visual experience. If you like his work, he succeeded at what he intended to do. And what do you know, this goes back to two of the points I previously made. One being that liking something is enjoying it in context of what it wants to be, and the other being that flawed works have something of substance if they are indeed liked by the individual (for reasons relating to its intentions, that is). AltoRoark said: I don't think you understand what an "insecure" teenager sounds like, and if anything, you're the one who has repeatedly made childish arguments. I don't think you really have any standing as far as whether your arguments hold up. They simply don't. You contradict yourself, misunderstand terminology, and never seriously confront the fundamental framework that I've set up. You simply look at technicalities and small nitpicks which are largely irrelevant and don't have anything to do with the main front of the case.You talk like an insecure teenager with anxiety and you excessively drop random insults out of immaturity. Angst and drama are perfectly suitable terms. I also don't think calling you retarded for not being able to read and understand arguments is an indication of immaturity, but rather an acknowledgment that you have time and time again misunderstood arguments. Again, simply look at where you tried calling me out for strawmanning you. That's such a huge stupid jump in logic, not being able to recognize your own internal contradictions (which I'm sure you'll vehemently deny with more bullshit). I have pointed out in multiple places where: 1. You haven't fully read the argument 2. You haven't connected the dots from previous to present posts 3. You keep saying I haven't addressed something when it is ultimately irrelevant when I was merely addressing a much more critical point that you still do not acknowledge. Once again, I don't think you know what angst and drama is. If you did, you wouldn't be using those words, but it is precisely because you don't know what they mean that you use them. You're also completely unaware of what strawmanning is, and by the look of your own posts, you seem to be completely lacking in memory of what your previous posts consist of. Both you and this other shitlord keep asking for clarifications, but your "arguments" are nothing more than single sentence counter factuals on topics of "technicalities" rather than actual meretricious arguments of logic and rigor. Again, I'm not the one that's mocking someone outside of the confines of the forum to make yourself feel better that I'm calling you out for just being all around incapable of reading and making a real reasoned argument. In the end, I sincerely believe you need to learn how to read arguments in their entirety before actually putting something into a post. Regardless of whether or not I think you've acted like an imbecile, anyone can look past my vitriol and see that I have a much better claim on an argument, specifically because if we summed up your arguments, it would not only be lacking in any sort of length, it'd be lacking in substance. Anyway I'm just not going to post any further in this thread. I think the moment you said I was strawmanning a contradiction you yourself created is when I realized that you not only read what I wrote, you're also not consciously aware of your own position outside of the most simplistic fundamentals. I can already predict where your next argument is going to be on that matter, and I've essentially deemed it asinine for a number of reasons. The bottom line there's nothing stopping people from liking bad things. I have demonstrated numerous cases where this is true, and I don't think I need someone who has been incapable of understanding his own positions on the subject telling me what I should or am actually thinking. It's just ironic when people project what other people should be feeling, especially on a forum so against actual disagreements of opinions. First, talking like an insecure teenager refers to your attitude, not your arguments (which sadly don't have much substance anyway). Second, personal attacks in the middle of debate, no matter the reason, is immaturity. Period. I know perfectly well what these terms mean. Third, your saying that I don't "fully connect the dots" or am "incapable of reading" only lies in the fault of you not making the effort to properly elaborate your points and define your terms. Fourth, the length of my posts has little to do with how much weight they hold. Quality over quantity. Your point of this whole argument was that people can like things that don't live up their standards. Have you backed this up? Nope. The least you could do is explain your reasons for liking things you find "bad", and you refuse to do even that. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Hentai is the worst anime genre ever created. ( 1 2 )Alpha_1_Zero - 11 hours ago |
54 |
by DesolatePsyche
»»
54 seconds ago |
|
Poll: » has the majority of people (here) seen the big 3 ? ( 1 2 3 )ame - Yesterday |
128 |
by DesolatePsyche
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Would you be in favor of tipping Crunchyroll for every anime you complete on their platform?Dije - Yesterday |
36 |
by perseii
»»
21 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » From what side of the neck do you enjoy being bitten by your vampire master?Catalano - 8 hours ago |
9 |
by traed
»»
51 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you tend to watch newer seasonal shows, or older shows?Akuya - 3 hours ago |
10 |
by iThink
»»
51 minutes ago |