Do you believe in guilty pleasures?

-Abyss_Walker- said:
Why would you feel guilty about liking certain shows?.....You can like something because its so bad that its good, like it ironically or because its fappable etc... but theres is no reason to feel guilty about that.

takoShinji said:


Reasons: Peer pressure? Receiving circlejerk/flame comments from more "elite" fans, or even something that might be misinterpreted by non-anime fans (e.g. HOTD)? While the former can be somehow solved with a positive mentality, the latter (cyberbullying) tends to be more common in households or groups with too few fellow fans to relate to.

TheBrainintheJar said:


I do believe in 'so bad it's good, but if it's so bad it's good then it's a reason why it's good. It may not be the intended reason, but it does have some value. If a frying pan is bad as a frying pan but good as a toy, then overall it's useful.

Yudina said:
Translation: I do not understand simple English idioms.

Why do people take phrases like "it's so bad it's good" literally? Do people not understand that these are just expressions and mean something different from what they literally mean?

I'm really confused as to how people are somehow incapable of processing the idea that people just enjoy things that are fucking awful.

Tarotist said:
Guilty Pleasure is a pleasure that makes you feel guilty, and it is a term that only applies to those who feel shame.

TheBrainintheJar said:


I'm really confused as to how people are incapable of claiming others don't understand a term but then refuse to explain it.

Illyricus said:
I believe in animes who I consider bad, but I enjoyed despite that (Mayoiga).

Yudina said:
That moment when you realize that I literally defined it in the next paragraph.

Is reading comprehension a problem for you too?

I mean your original post about a "frying pan" is so bad that it doesn't actually warrant a response. I legit got ebola reading it, but boy did I have an initial laugh. You could say it was so bad that it was good.

RainyRai said:
Like the title says, do you think guilty pleasures is a term that makes sense and should be used? Why? Do you yourself have some guilty pleasures? What does guilty pleasure mean to you.

this thread was brought to you by the Arthur Fining Davis foundation.

TheBrainintheJar said:


If you enjoy something, how is it bad? What do you mean by a bad anime?

Yudina said:
These are literally pseud questions.

Enjoying something that's bad is philosophically analogous to enjoying eating unhealthy food. You know it's not good for you, it's got excessive calories, and you're probably taking in too much sodium, but you do it because you like it.

The only difference is enjoying anime is subjective, because there's no scientific bright line to distinguish what kind of anime is good or bad for you, but that distinction is hardly relevant here. 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.

This is honestly a much more complicated answer than it needs to be. Literally, people are allowed to enjoy things while acknowledging they're shit. Asking open ended questions like "but if they enjoy it....does that mean it's bad" is just being a pseud and trying to posture for the sake of posturing.

TheBrainintheJar said:


Wait, how is 'good food' necessarily healthy food? where does that definition come from?

AltoRoark said:
@Yudina Fucking hell, m8. Quality foods have nothing to do with their nutrition. Anime doesn't even have nutritional value to begin with.

ThingsThatPeopleDoNotRead said:
The only difference is enjoying anime is subjective, because there's no scientific bright line to distinguish what kind of anime is good or bad for you, but that distinction is hardly relevant here. 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.

Yudina said:
yadda yadda yadda

AltoRoark said:

Damn, the hostility is unreal. Anyhow, I didn't necessarily mean "quality" foods, but "good" foods. I minor fluke on my part. But many desserts and such are considered good foods, even though they aren't good for you nutritionally.

AltoRoark said:
But disregarding that, I won't be entertained by something that doesn't meet my standards, unless its the "so bad it's good/funny" scenario which is a whole different case. Shit like "I like this, even though it's bad" is only said by those who care too much about what others think of said anime.

AltoRoark said:
Analogies have to make sense, mate. The parallel between food nutrition and anime does not. Anime quality isn't mathematics or science. That's exactly why I said "anime doesn't have nutritional value". I never said that YOU said it. Our "standards" are engraved in our tastes. We don't make them up and then look for which anime lives up to them. If I like something, it appeals to my tastes, and therefore meets my standards. It's that simple.

AltoRoark said:
And PS, you're the one making this more complex than it needs to be, lmao. Your post would be a whole lot more straightforward without all the "ur stupid and clueless and blablabla" bullshit.

Yudina said:
You barge into a conversation saying retarded things. I'm only acerbic because you didn't even read what I wrote, yet you decide to respond with asinine comments that give me ebola that have nothing to do with what I said.

Also, this entire spiel you had about "good" food relating to desserts: I already covered in my previous post. So....thanks again for proving to me that you just don't read anything I write outside of me insulting you for not reading. Oh, the irony.

Do you like....not know anything about English? You do know that the "so bad it's good" expression means that you enjoy something even though you think it's bad?

So basically you admit to making a strawman by saying "anime doesn't have nutritional value" and arguing against it as a response to my post on top just not reading what I said anyway.

You're literally just spewing nonsense garbage without addressing anything I've said in my post. You fail to address the point that people are perfectly capable of liking things that do not live up their standards or tastes. I don't care where your standards or tastes come from. They could come from the garbage; the fact remains that people don't have to hate things that are outside of their standard of taste.

I am far from being complex, but if you think I'm being complicated, then I'm sorry you find basic English so difficult to parse. You also didn't read my original statement, where I succinctly said that some pseud was incapable of understanding why people are allowed and can enjoy bad things. I only responded when he decided to ask "deep" questions but just ended up getting exposed for fraudulent questioning. I'm glad you decided to respond to my post with a strawman with no context and no real argument.

And no, I think calling what you said stupid is perfectly comprehensible, unless you're telling me that you're incapable of understanding even that.

Our "standards" are engraved in our tastes. We don't make them up and then look for which anime lives up to them. If I like something, it appeals to my tastes, and therefore meets my standards. It's that simple.

Yudina said:
Are you just not capable of thinking for yourself on top of not being able to read?

I literally noted that there's a scientific bright line for food that is good for you.

I would meme about how your line of questioning is everything wrong with how pseuds do philosophy, but these questions remind me of a time when I sat at the base of a waterfall and prayed to a rock. Needless to say the rock did not enlighten me.

AltoRoark said:
Just for you to clarify on what my main point is, I do think you can enjoy bad things, but not LIKE bad things. Therefore I do not believe in "guilty pleasures". Enjoying something for how bad it is and enjoying something for how much you like it are different things.

AltoRoark said:
After reading through your previous posts, I never saw a single valid argument about desserts and other unhealthy foods. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

ThingsAltoRoarkDoesNotKnowHowToRead said:
Second of all, if we were to assume that "quality" meant more a standard of excellence pertaining to a sort of taste in food, then even there we can reasonably argue that people are free to enjoy well-done steak, but just know that they're eating shitty steak. In other words, people are free to eat shitty things, but it can be reasoned that there is a decent understanding of what is "good" or "quality" or "healthy" food that does not have to be aligned with what you want to eat.

AltoRoark said:
I'm not sure that you know what a strawman is, mate. I said it to point out the blatant flaw in your analogy. I elaborate on this in my previous post.

ILiterallyBlockedItOutInAParagraph said:
The only difference is enjoying anime is subjective, because there's no scientific bright line to distinguish what kind of anime is good or bad for you, but that distinction is hardly relevant here. 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:
I did address it, mate. I just made a point against it in my post: Oh, and "you're spewing nonsense garbage" and "I don't care" are not arguments. And restating your main point without backing it up doesn't work either.

TheBrainintheJar said:
Jesusfuckareyoustupidisthisnotclear

/discussion.

Back on topic: Can't you define your terms? Can't you explain why you arrived at the conclusion why "Good means XYZ"?

Yudina said:
Such distinction. I love how much people in the anime community go so far to draw meaningless semantic differences that are ultimately irrelevant. It's like you go through mental loops to convince yourself that it's impossible for people to act a certain way when clearly they do. What's the difference between enjoying something and liking it?

You also do know that guilty pleasures refer to when people.....enjoy bad things right (not always the case though)? Again...is English just not a language you understand? Perhaps I should recommend something more straight forward?

So, basically, you don't read?



That's because you don't understand what an analogy or a strawman is. You drew a strawman because you spun an argument out of mid-air that has nothing to do with my post "anime doesn't have nutritional value" and argued against it, even when that's not remotely my point. You not understanding the analogy (that much like how we understand what food is good for us, we construct a similar standard for what anime is good for us) is not the same as the analogy being irrelevant. Besides, I already responded to it before you even made your strawman in the form of a caveat:



So please stop acting like you have some sort of intellectual brilliance in pointing out flaws in analogies when you clearly don't read my posts. This would also be the time to point out that "guilty pleasures" are used just as often in food as they used in people having guilty pleasures in television shows. Once again, I think this just demonstrates your lack of understanding of basic English expressions and terms. And you're the one trying to tell me what a strawman is?

This is again, literally a non-argument. How does this address what I'm saying? How you formulate your tastes or standards does not preclude the fact that your standards exist and thus you judge anime according to them. My point isn't how you come up with your tastes. My point is how you use your tastes and standards to judge things. Like you're literally trying to put the horse before the cart here.

No. If you're not going to read anything I write, which you clearly haven't considering you ask questions that have already have clarified, and just posture like some pseudo intellectual who doesn't know how to do anything but ask questions, I'm really not gonna bother answering you. Everything you want answered is literally in my posts. Literally, just read them.

All I see you do in multiple threads is posture around like some pseud who asks meaningless questions like some guy who is way too obsessed with the continentals and fell for the question meme.

AltoRoark said:
@Yudina Your bs about steaks doesn't prove or argue a thing. It just restates your main point and nothing else. So yeah, I stand by what I said.

ThingsISaidAtTheBeginning said:
Second of all, if we were to assume that "quality" meant more a standard of excellence pertaining to a sort of taste in food, then even there we can reasonably argue that people are free to enjoy well-done steak, but just know that they're eating shitty steak. In other words, people are free to eat shitty things, but it can be reasoned that there is a decent understanding of what is "good" or "quality" or "healthy" food that does not have to be aligned with what you want to eat.

StupidPostIsStupid said:
But many desserts and such are considered good foods, even though they aren't good for you nutritionally.

AltoRoark said:
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?

AltoRoark said:
My "anime doesn't have nutritional value" statement was to point out that there's no other measure of anime quality outside of how much we like it, unlike food. So "anime quality is subjective" is a perfectly relevant distinction as opposed to "hardly relevant".

AltoRoark said:
I addressed your point on how we make assessments on what's good and what's bad. You're saying standards are separated from how much we like something. I say that if I like something, then it meets my standards. There's no way around it. I don't make up my standards. Their in my taste, and I enjoy things in accordance to them.

AltoRoarkStrawman said:
You're saying standards are separated from how much we like something.

WhatYudinaSaid said:
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.

TranslationForTheNonReaders said:
Yudina said that people use standards to determine how much they like something.

Tautologies101 said:
I don't make up my standards. Their in my taste

AltoRoark said:
PS, I love how you think I claim to have intellectual brilliance when I'm not the one calling my opponent dumb, clueless, etc. You seem more interested in dumping out edgy comments than actual debate. Your saying "that frying pan analogy is so stupid it doesn't warrant a response" says plenty about your maturity level.

TheBrainintheJar said:
I think that, in a civil discussion, you assume the person you talk with isn't the most intelligent person ever. They may miss something, or misunderstand. I'm not convinced by "I already repeated this!". If someone didn't understand something and keeps asking me questions, I'll keep asking them or referring them to previous answers.

Yudina said:
It doesn't restate the main point, but you're free to be stupid and think that.

Today I learned:

1. Much like how guilty pleasures are used in food where people eat tons of unhealthy foods while feeling guilty that they're supposed to be eating more healthily, people are free to like anime even if they think it's bad or mediocre.
2. If we take out the "unhealthy/healthy" argument and just focus solely on the taste of food, there's still an argument to be made. 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.

That point #2 is the same as #1.

Brilliant. Where did you learn your English comprehension skills?

And before you make it sound like I didn't say this in my previous post. Please sit the fuck down:

Which is a condensed version of the above.

Besides, your argument was stupid to begin with. Your only response to this entire premise is that "desserts" exist.

You had no logic. No argument. No basis for arguing the fundamental premise and framework of the above. You just said "desserts."

Fucking desserts.

The part about anime not having nutritional value is answered below, but dear god the stupidity of someone to basically argue against something with literally no logic except "well he didn't mention this type of food and thus must be absurd" is beyond my realm of understanding: how someone could be so logically inept as to say that they stand by their original statement of literally having said nothing of substance.

This cognitive dissonance is really just out of this world. I even talk about this "good" you're talking about.

This might be the dumbest application of "common sense" I've ever read.

It also reeks of someone who doesn't understand music.

Bombshell: You're perfectly capable of liking what you perceive to be a bad song or piece. Good music isn't just something you feel; there are musical standards people develop themselves to judge what they like or do not like. I'll use classical music as an example. Go listen to Glenn Gould's rendition of Beethoven Op 14 no. 2. Most people who have read sheet music and have listened to Moonlight know that Gould's is iconoclastic. In some ways it's sacrosanct and a travesty, and by most known understandings of musical interpretation, Gould's rendition is "bad." I would likely concur with people who make those assessments.

But you know what? I still like it. I think it's iconoclastic for a good reason, and while I can't say that the interpretation is good by my own standards, there are intangible and indistinguishable things that make me like it.

Okay. Another example. Let's look at Demetori. They're a Japanese metal group that does metal remixes of Touhou music. By my standards of musicality, I would not call them good. Their pieces are usually trite and cliched, with the same predictable riffs and chords over and over again. There's little dynamic variation: it's almost always either really loud clashing sounds or soft acoustics with very little variation in between. By my standards, I'd say Demetori are pretty bad.

But I still enjoying listening to them. I don't "laugh" at how bad they are. I don't listen to the performance and start cackling, and then go on forums and scoff that Demetori is "so bad that it's good." I say that I like listening to them despite the fact that I don't think they produce good music.

Are you capable of understanding this basic premise? Or do I have to bring out more examples? You know what? I think you're stupid, so let's keep going.

You talk about fucking genres like horror. You start with this nugget of wisdom:

"Liking something is enjoying it in context of what it was trying to do."

Fucking hell. It's so black and white with you. You're either "frightened" (therefore you must like it) or you either start laughing at it (it's so bad it's good). Literally, what the fuck am I reading? You are perfectly capable of liking a horror that's bad. There are people who genuinely like watching Michael Bay movies, even though they're bad, because of precisely what they are. What are Micheal Bay movies? They're bombastic summer blockbusters with huge explosions. Are they good? By my understanding, no. I think they're shallow flicks with cheap entertainment value.

But you know what? I've liked watching some of them. By all my standards, I would not call "The Rock" a good film. It's got a stupid plot, no real characters, and Sean Connery is hardly a saving grace in an otherwise bizarre sequence of events. But I didn't laugh at it. I didn't go "lol it's so bad it's good." I enjoyed watching The Rock, but I'd never call it a good film.

Do you need an anime example? Fine. Let's go there.

Code Geass. It's got a lot of labels on it. Science fiction. Is it a good science fiction story? I wouldn't say so, based on my experience with science fiction. Is it a good mecha? It doesn't really ring as a mecha anime, because it really only uses the robots as a means to an end as opposed to being a means in and of themselves. So by both those standards, Code Geass isn't a good representation of the exact genre that it represents. But I like Code Geass, for all its other story faults and lack of believable characters, I liked it. I'd say the same with Psycho Pass. It's shitty sci-fi, cribs from basically every notable cyberpunk work in existence, and Urobutcher is a fucking hack. But it's an easy and enjoyable watch.

What part of still being able to like things that are not up to your standards do you not understand? I'm really glad you started talking about shit like music, because this just tells me you actually have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

I'm not even sure what to say.

Of course there's a measurement for quality. And you know what? I've already said it once in this thread. I've said that individuals establish the measurements and standards to determine what anime is good or bad for them.

Oh wait, you didn't read any my posts. No fucking wonder you still spew out this garbage.

The reason why it's a strawman is because I never even said anime doesn't have nutritional value, and yet you responded to me with that argument. Legit, the definition of a strawman is you:

1. Make up an argument your opponent never said and is completely irrelevant to his or her point.
2. Argue against it.

Like can you stop talking about nutrition and anime as if I had made any indication that I was talking about some objective scientific metric for measuring anime? I even said explicitly in my very first fucking post that the difference between anime and food is that there's "no scientific brightline."

I literally spelled it out for you, and you still continue to make asinine posts. Are you going to keep embarrassing yourself with how often you misread, misinterpret, and strawman my positions?

More strawmen. Here we go:





You can't get out of it this time. You legitimately stated that I said something, when I have never made any such assertion.

You're really in no position to say you've "addressed" anything when your first summation basically tells everyone that you completely misunderstood the basic principles of what I wrote. And you wonder why I think you're illiterate.

Also:

Is literally one of the worst examples of pseudo-philosophizing, bullshit, and tautologies. You don't make up your standards? Standards are in your tastes? Dude, they're literally the same fucking thing. Your tastes, which you formulate over the course of your life, is the literal compilation of preferences and standards that you use to judge things. And once again, you're missing the point. I literally said that I don't care where your standards or tastes come from. I'm only pointing out that people obviously judge things by those standards, but that people are perfectly within their right to like things that are outside the scope of their standards.

That's because people like things that don't match up with their taste all the fucking time.

"Man, I usually hate white wine, but this particular brand of riesling really hit the spot!"
"Dude, the mecha genre really isn't my thing, but who knew that such a mainstream title like Gundam Wing would appeal to me?"
"Beethoven's a shit composer, but you know what? Pathetique was actually really good."

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.

Don't try to tell people that they're incapable of liking bad things. These kind of assertions you're making are so far from reality that it's laughable that you keep trying to blanket them all under the guise of "common sense," when the reality is precisely the opposite.

Oh please. At this point, you've only demonstrated that you:

1. Enter into conversations with no context.
2. State arguments completely unrelated to what I say.
3. Make further strawmen by literally saying that I argue things that I'm not arguing.
4. Act like I don't know what analogies are, and then proceed to say you're responding to my posts without actually saying anything substantive.

Sorry dude, but your lack of literacy is appalling, and the fact you continue to respond to my posts with "I stand by what I said" when you continue to not understanding anything I previously wrote is fucking embarrassing.

When I literally point to paragraphs where I made my assertions, and you don't understand them, I get the impression you're not at the level where I can have a conversation with you without having to reclarify things over and over again.

And honestly, I don't care for civil discussion if I don't think you have anything to offer me. Again, your frying pan analogy was so logically atrocious that I only responded out of spite.

Yudina said:
It doesn't restate the main point, but you're free to be stupid and think that.

Today I learned:

1. Much like how guilty pleasures are used in food where people eat tons of unhealthy foods while feeling guilty that they're supposed to be eating more healthily, people are free to like anime even if they think it's bad or mediocre.
2. If we take out the "unhealthy/healthy" argument and just focus solely on the taste of food, there's still an argument to be made. 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.

That point #2 is the same as #1.

Brilliant. Where did you learn your English comprehension skills?

And before you make it sound like I didn't say this in my previous post. Please sit the fuck down:

Which is a condensed version of the above.

Besides, your argument was stupid to begin with. Your only response to this entire premise is that "desserts" exist.

You had no logic. No argument. No basis for arguing the fundamental premise and framework of the above. You just said "desserts."

Fucking desserts.

The part about anime not having nutritional value is answered below, but dear god the stupidity of someone to basically argue against something with literally no logic except "well he didn't mention this type of food and thus must be absurd" is beyond my realm of understanding: how someone could be so logically inept as to say that they stand by their original statement of literally having said nothing of substance.

This cognitive dissonance is really just out of this world. I even talk about this "good" you're talking about.

This might be the dumbest application of "common sense" I've ever read.

It also reeks of someone who doesn't understand music.

Bombshell: You're perfectly capable of liking what you perceive to be a bad song or piece. Good music isn't just something you feel; there are musical standards people develop themselves to judge what they like or do not like. I'll use classical music as an example. Go listen to Glenn Gould's rendition of Beethoven Op 14 no. 2. Most people who have read sheet music and have listened to Moonlight know that Gould's is iconoclastic. In some ways it's sacrosanct and a travesty, and by most known understandings of musical interpretation, Gould's rendition is "bad." I would likely concur with people who make those assessments.

But you know what? I still like it. I think it's iconoclastic for a good reason, and while I can't say that the interpretation is good by my own standards, there are intangible and indistinguishable things that make me like it.

Okay. Another example. Let's look at Demetori. They're a Japanese metal group that does metal remixes of Touhou music. By my standards of musicality, I would not call them good. Their pieces are usually trite and cliched, with the same predictable riffs and chords over and over again. There's little dynamic variation: it's almost always either really loud clashing sounds or soft acoustics with very little variation in between. By my standards, I'd say Demetori are pretty bad.

But I still enjoying listening to them. I don't "laugh" at how bad they are. I don't listen to the performance and start cackling, and then go on forums and scoff that Demetori is "so bad that it's good." I say that I like listening to them despite the fact that I don't think they produce good music.

Are you capable of understanding this basic premise? Or do I have to bring out more examples? You know what? I think you're stupid, so let's keep going.

You talk about fucking genres like horror. You start with this nugget of wisdom:

"Liking something is enjoying it in context of what it was trying to do."

Fucking hell. It's so black and white with you. You're either "frightened" (therefore you must like it) or you either start laughing at it (it's so bad it's good). Literally, what the fuck am I reading? You are perfectly capable of liking a horror that's bad. There are people who genuinely like watching Michael Bay movies, even though they're bad, because of precisely what they are. What are Micheal Bay movies? They're bombastic summer blockbusters with huge explosions. Are they good? By my understanding, no. I think they're shallow flicks with cheap entertainment value.

But you know what? I've liked watching some of them. By all my standards, I would not call "The Rock" a good film. It's got a stupid plot, no real characters, and Sean Connery is hardly a saving grace in an otherwise bizarre sequence of events. But I didn't laugh at it. I didn't go "lol it's so bad it's good." I enjoyed watching The Rock, but I'd never call it a good film.

Do you need an anime example? Fine. Let's go there.

Code Geass. It's got a lot of labels on it. Science fiction. Is it a good science fiction story? I wouldn't say so, based on my experience with science fiction. Is it a good mecha? It doesn't really ring as a mecha anime, because it really only uses the robots as a means to an end as opposed to being a means in and of themselves. So by both those standards, Code Geass isn't a good representation of the exact genre that it represents. But I like Code Geass, for all its other story faults and lack of believable characters, I liked it. I'd say the same with Psycho Pass. It's shitty sci-fi, cribs from basically every notable cyberpunk work in existence, and Urobutcher is a fucking hack. But it's an easy and enjoyable watch.

What part of still being able to like things that are not up to your standards do you not understand? I'm really glad you started talking about shit like music, because this just tells me you actually have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

I'm not even sure what to say.

Of course there's a measurement for quality. And you know what? I've already said it once in this thread. I've said that individuals establish the measurements and standards to determine what anime is good or bad for them.

Oh wait, you didn't read any my posts. No fucking wonder you still spew out this garbage.

The reason why it's a strawman is because I never even said anime doesn't have nutritional value, and yet you responded to me with that argument. Legit, the definition of a strawman is you:

1. Make up an argument your opponent never said and is completely irrelevant to his or her point.
2. Argue against it.

Like can you stop talking about nutrition and anime as if I had made any indication that I was talking about some objective scientific metric for measuring anime? I even said explicitly in my very first fucking post that the difference between anime and food is that there's "no scientific brightline."

I literally spelled it out for you, and you still continue to make asinine posts. Are you going to keep embarrassing yourself with how often you misread, misinterpret, and strawman my positions?

More strawmen. Here we go:





You can't get out of it this time. You legitimately stated that I said something, when I have never made any such assertion.

You're really in no position to say you've "addressed" anything when your first summation basically tells everyone that you completely misunderstood the basic principles of what I wrote. And you wonder why I think you're illiterate.

Also:

Is literally one of the worst examples of pseudo-philosophizing, bullshit, and tautologies. You don't make up your standards? Standards are in your tastes? Dude, they're literally the same fucking thing. Your tastes, which you formulate over the course of your life, is the literal compilation of preferences and standards that you use to judge things. And once again, you're missing the point. I literally said that I don't care where your standards or tastes come from. I'm only pointing out that people obviously judge things by those standards, but that people are perfectly within their right to like things that are outside the scope of their standards.

That's because people like things that don't match up with their taste all the fucking time.

"Man, I usually hate white wine, but this particular brand of riesling really hit the spot!"
"Dude, the mecha genre really isn't my thing, but who knew that such a mainstream title like Gundam Wing would appeal to me?"
"Beethoven's a shit composer, but you know what? Pathetique was actually really good."

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.

Don't try to tell people that they're incapable of liking bad things. These kind of assertions you're making are so far from reality that it's laughable that you keep trying to blanket them all under the guise of "common sense," when the reality is precisely the opposite.

Oh please. At this point, you've only demonstrated that you:

1. Enter into conversations with no context.
2. State arguments completely unrelated to what I say.
3. Make further strawmen by literally saying that I argue things that I'm not arguing.
4. Act like I don't know what analogies are, and then proceed to say you're responding to my posts without actually saying anything substantive.

Sorry dude, but your lack of literacy is appalling, and the fact you continue to respond to my posts with "I stand by what I said" when you continue to not understanding anything I previously wrote is fucking embarrassing.

Yudina said:

"Man, I usually hate white wine, but this particular brand of riesling really hit the spot!"
"Dude, the mecha genre really isn't my thing, but who knew that such a mainstream title like Gundam Wing would appeal to me?"
"Beethoven's a shit composer, but you know what? Pathetique was actually really good."

AltoRoark said:
Don't mind what I did. Just crossed out the pointless bullshit so that the substance is easier to see.

AltoRoark said:
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:
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.

AltoRoark said:
"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?

AltoRoark said:
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.

AltoRoark said:
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?

ForSomeoneWhoDoesNotRead said:
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.

AltoRoark said:
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.

TheBrainintheJar said:
If you're 'responding out of spite' then you're not making a good case for yourself. So it's not about discussing and learning - it's about calling things 'atrocious', acting shocked and calling other idiots. What does this get you?

Yudina 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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

I hope you realize that I've stated it already that I don't think I can learn anything from you.

I also hope you realize that you could have jumped in on any of my above arguments at any time rather than continuously asking me why I don't clarify things for you. I have clarified any of your questions numerous times even after you stopped asking me to clarify. I'm not going to repeat myself when I clearly have text above me telling someone why they don't understand anything I've written, precisely because they lack the capacity for argumentation and comprehension.

The fact that you do not have anything to say only confirms my suspicion that I don't think you have anything of substance to say. I'm sorry, but me saying you didn't read what I wrote is a perfectly acceptable response. I don't care how often you try to mock me over it, but your persistence in trying to get me to relent and spoonfeed your answers rather than simply jumping on any of the above posts which makes it clear where I stand on issues makes me question your ability to hold an enlightened conversation. You are free to prove me wrong, but at this point, if you are unaware of what I'm actually arguing, then I'm not really convinced you have anything to show for it.