Stubby

Board Moderators
  • Content count

    9,682
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Stubby

  1. Anything after version IV was pretty silly, IMO. I liked the gameplay of the earlier versions much better.
  2. Yeah you keep saying "can't be proven". I don't think you know what that term means. You really should be saying that your opinion can't be proven. Because the case against you was proven within minutes - which was the whole point of my first post in this thread. BTW - Speedo does not rhyme with Theda.
  3. I thought it was a reader expressing an opinion on the discussion.
  4. All that and nothing to indicate actual thought. Like I said - meaningless and insubstantial stuff. Because every comment you made here relied only on your beliefs of the state of things. As for the bold above, if you genuinely believe that you cannot prove your point then you should do the honourable thing and admit that you made a rash statement and could;t prove it and accept the criticism gracefully. Instead, you try and make it all about you being insulted I am sure that you base every opinion on your own beliefs because you have not shown me otherwise.
  5. I actually should have addressed this: So the animator admitted he was objectifying the characters. I agree with that.
  6. 1. Wow I read the thread a day later than everyone else and then make a comment indicating my support for another poster's well reasoned argument and all of a sudden I am picking a fight with you? 2. If all the viewer is doing is focusing on the physical traits of the character (as I have said all along) then it is a ridiculous position. Because that conclusion does not take into account all the aspects of the character (which is the argument I was supporting in my first reply). And relying on the physical aspects of the character is reducing the character to an object. Which literally means "objectifying" the character. You have not actually addressed this position in this thread. I don't know why you refuse to do so. 3. I explained that your logic was the same as flat earthers and holocaust deniers. I did not say you were a holocaust denier or flat earther. This is not difficult mate - it's called using an example to illustrate a failed use of logic. If you think that is a personal insult you are mistaken. 4. Yes I did. And you are continuing to prove that observation correct, because you don't back up your claims. You are content to rely on what you "believe" - whether that belief is based on factually correct input or not. For reasons I explained above, I don't accept this as a good reason to base conclusions on anything - whether it's animated characters' appearances, objectifying women, starting a nuclear war or whatever. I have tried to lead you to understand this critique before, but you refused to apply it then and have repeated that position here. 5. Yes and I maintain that. I've shown why - repeatedly. That you ignore my views on your discussion style highlights this. See response 1 above. 6. I have explained what I am doing. I flat out told you only a couple of posts ago. I flat out told you I am not picking a fight. But you have ignored my explanation and instead appear to be content to rely on your belief of what has transpired - see 4 and 5 above. Readers will see who has proven their points, who has evaded answering questions, who has reacted poorly to criticisms and who has put their position on clear evidence. I am content to leave it to the judgement of readers.
  7. I want you to prove that you are actually reading a post and thinking about your position. Because in the post you were responding to I asked you to provide evidence to support your accusations about my conduct. But you have ignored that question. Again. So, please provide evidence of your accusations about my conduct or retract those allegations. The point is not "whatever I say" - that is your argument.
  8. Yeah see now you are just making a passive aggressive complaint about me, after I have taken the time to explain myself and highlight your mistakes - again. You know, you could just answer my questions from upthread. I mean, that would be the mature thing to do. Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion or are you just going to keep ignoring evidence that contradicts you? Better yet, present some evidence of your own - to support any of the accusations you have levelled at me, such as: 1. Only wanted to start a fight. 2. Tried to railroad you. 3. Slung a bunch of insults. Surely you can actually back those comments up, or are they just your beliefs as well?
  9. If by "that guy" you mean me, then you are sadly mistaken. It is never my intention to "fight" as you put it. My intention is to draw attention to conclusions based on poor evidentiary foundations. I was never attempting to "railroad" you. This would be clear to you if you did not take everything so personally and assume that it is an attack on you. I was attacking your bad conclusions, not you personally. If you think otherwise, or cannot see the distinction, that is not my problem. And I at least had the courtesy to answer your questions. It is a tactic of all persons who rely on beliefs alone to support their position and I see nothing different in your approach.
  10. Yeah I understand that, because I have no idea what you are debating most of the time, because you try and maintain that your beliefs are reasonable in the face of contrary evidence. Notice how I accepted that C4JS' link somewhat contradicted my position? You don't do that, ever. None of your second paragraph makes any sense in the discussion. Your first paragraph ignores every fact cited against your position since the start of the thread. You are focused on the physical aspects of the character, rather than the character as a whole. You've been given all the information you need to rationally understand that point but you are ignoring it - hence the comparison to flat earthers and holocaust deniers and antivax conspiracy theorists, and entitlement arguers - who all apply the same lack of logic. Hence the comparison - purely made as an attempt to put your logic fail into perspective. If you can accept, as a starting point, that your initial assertion about blonde hair on a character making her not-Japanese was based purely on the physical representation, we might be getting somewhere.
  11. Now this is truly funny, but not for the reasons you think. The link C4JS produced is evidence that people who produce such characters as "stateless" contradicts, to a certain extent, my position. So it is not at all like flat-earthers or holocaust deniers - as they disregard evidence. Of course, naming these characters with Japanese names, Japanese residence, Japanese places of birth etc detracts from the artistic attempt at statelessness. And I notice my prediction about snark was correct.
  12. I already explained why I do so. Face it mate, you made a silly suggestion about people focusing on the physical aspects of one particular animated character as a reasonable basis for concluding that this character was not Japanese. When evidence was produced that put her appearance in context - by including all of the other clues - like her name, language, place of birth and home nation - you ignored it and doubled down on your position. You have still not addressed why it is reasonable to ignore all that evidence that contradicted your initial proposal. By focusing on the physical, you were reducing the character to an object. Or, dare I say it, "objectifying" the character. When the character is seen as a whole, the character is demonstrably Japanese. This was proven to you within a few posts. That you continue to complain about how the physical aspects of this character just highlights how you don't understand what objectifying actually is. And every post you make without adding anything to support your initial statement proves me correct. You are doing a bang-up job of highlighting the lack of thinking in your position. I will now pause to hope that you reflect on this, but I expect to see a comment where you don't believe that such is the case, or yet another allegation of snark.
  13. It wouldn't matter if I did prove it. You would just claim that your belief trumps my proof.
  14. Well your logic cap fits, so...
  15. OK, please tell us all what it means in your head. I mean, we all know from previous discussions that you have your own personal private definitions for things so please enlighten us. Damn, you have a short memory: What evidence do you have for "very common" as used above? I don't have to pretend in your case.
  16. Which means you are content to be ignorant. Good for you. Why then did you try to denigrate the point of this thread by stating your opinion? Also, seeing as you were the one who raised non-substantive replies (by suggesting that I was just using crappy one liners as a position), please put your beliefs to the test and answer my questions from above, viz:
  17. If your contributions to this thread constitute your case, then I have no case to answer. But I'm going to address your non-case because it is not about you. It is about your unsubstantiated opinion being corrected, in a situation where the thinking of non-posting readers of the discussion are of more importance than your opinion. All you can claim to support your opinion is your belief. This is the same position you consistently adopt. It is a sad thing that reliance on ignorance and misguided beliefs are considered good things in the current public sphere. Such attitudes have given the world lowered vaccination levels. Such attitudes have the world at the mercy of an ignorant buffoon with his fingers on a nuclear trigger. Challenging such attitudes is of profound importance. Challenging such attitudes is made easier by the availability of evidence to contradict silly beliefs. In this case, the topic at hand is whether you can prove that blonde hair is enough to ensure that an animated character is Japanese. You have failed to do so, yet somehow think your belief is more important than the evidence to the contrary. Admittedly, your opinion is something that is not all that earthshaking in importance when compared to the silly beliefs referred to above, but the principle behind the need to prove a position is the same. And I address my remarks in these situations to the readers of the thread who don't post. If even one of those readers comes to understand that raising a silly opinion and then refusing to support it by evidence is a bad thing, so much the better. And really, every single time you cite your belief as your 'evidence' for your opinion, you are making my argument easier.
  18. Well if you ever posted anything sensible or meaningful it would help.
  19. Again you produce nothing of substance. Just like a flat earther.
  20. I never said that it was true cuz True Metis said so. I said he had proven you wrong. But, you know, I'm just being snarky. Engaging with a flat earther: 1. Flat earther claims the world is flat. 2. Evidence produced includes a photograph from space. The Earth is round. Curvature of the earth at sea. Curvature of the earth from an aircraft. And so on. The flat earther is demonstrably incorrect. 3. Flat earther. Engaging with DunderMifflin: 1. DunderMifflin claims that Sailor Moon is not Japanese because she has blonde hair. 2. Evidence produced that all of the Sailor characters in that universe have unnatural hair colour, have Japanese names, were born in Japan, live in Japan etc. DunderMifflin is demonstrably incorrect. 3. DunderMifflin ignores all that and claims that his belief trumps the actual evidence to the contrary. Let's test that theory. Do you now accept that suggesting that Sailor Moon is not Japanese just because she has blonde hair was a ridiculous claim? If not, why? And please include something other than a suggestion that it is your belief. Bear in mid that you made the positive assertion about blonde hair being the test for not-Japanese-ness. You have the onus of proving that and so far all you have produced is your "belief". That doesn't cut it.
  21. LOL I didn't start this engagement by making a snarky comment. I mentioned that True Metis had comprehensively proved you wrong. Then you descended to snark. But of course we know that you are constitutionally incapable of accepting criticisms of your opinions because you say so.
  22. Simply declaring that you because you believe something to be different from what it actually is is not a valid form of argument. Of course, plenty of people have done that over history - climate change deniers, flat earthers, chemtrail exponents, holocaust deniers as examples - and they were all wrong. Clinging to a discredited position based on nothing more than your belief is neither persuasive nor convincing of your position.
  23. When you are trying to defend a silly position, it always helps to use all caps.
  24. Which means you are intentionally remaining ignorant about the balance of the available information. Which means your opinion is baseless, uninformed and rather silly.
  25. TM you have made this point hands down. If all I knew was that Sailor Moon was a nickname for a character named Usagi Tsukino, that she spoke Japanese and that she lived in Japan, I would be justified in concluding that she was Japanese. If I then saw a picture that showed her with blonde hair I would still conclude she was Japanese. The same goes for each of the other characters. As the saying goes, It's not rocket science.