Neogaf's SJWs defeated: Lucky Chloe is coming to Tekken 7 in North America - Polidicks

Every argument you're in consists of "this doesn't exist" or bringing up something and then when you concede that they do exist or someone calls you out, you turn around and say "lol I don't care."

i care about the context of the debate but i don't care about gamergate if that's what you're concerned about i'm not saying stuff like "*term whatever* is just a lazy copout insult* just for the hell of it

[QUOTE=Ownederd;46865896]i have no idea how you managed to translate that from that but alright i wouldn't ever do devil's advocate because that's a dick move[/QUOTE] Regardless of your intentions, your passive-agressive tone doesn't really helps your case. It makes it look like you're adopting a holier-than-thou attitude. Don't see what's funny about that, unless you're purposefully trying to bait people into flaming you?

Oh, and can you explain why you thik TB is a piece of shit? You never explained that when asked some pages back.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;46865937]i'm not saying stuff like "*term whatever* is just a lazy copout insult* just for the hell of it[/QUOTE] Well it's certainly not grounded in reality so I'm curious as to what the actual reason behind it is.

Well Goddammit, looks like I won't be getting an answer anytime soon.

Guess we'll never know.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;46865199]i literally don't care gamergate sorry. i'm not gonna write an ironman17-level post on it [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Why reply - Multiple threadshitting" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE] See you in a week shitcock :) [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming - Unnecessary" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=_Axel;46866021]Well it's certainly not grounded in reality so I'm curious as to what the actual reason behind it is.[/QUOTE] Calling someone an SJW and then using the fact that they are now labelled as an SJW (to you) to ignore their points [U][I]is a lazy cop out[/I][/U]. You're labeling them so you can go "oh well they are an SJW I don't have to listen to them anyways". I don't see how that's so hard to understand. Instead of throwing ad hominems, learn to debate? Like seriously, read up on what ad hominem is and then come back and tell me with a straight face that calling someone an SJW is not ad hominem.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46866164]Calling someone an SJW and then using the fact that they are now labelled as an SJW (to you) to ignore their points [U][I]is a lazy cop out[/I][/U]. You're labeling them so you can go "oh well they are an SJW I don't have to listen to them anyways". I don't see how that's so hard to understand. Instead of throwing ad hominems, learn to debate? Like seriously, read up on what ad hominem is and then come back and tell me with a straight face that calling someone an SJW is not ad hominem.[/QUOTE] hmm, sound almost like what most SJWs do in the first place when they throw the term misogynist around doesn't it?

[QUOTE=codemaster85;46866217]hmm, sound almost like what most SJWs do in the first place when they throw the term misogynist around doesn't it?[/QUOTE] Okay?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46866164]Calling someone an SJW and then using the fact that they are now labelled as an SJW (to you) to ignore their points [U][I]is a lazy cop out[/I][/U]. You're labeling them so you can go "oh well they are an SJW I don't have to listen to them anyways". I don't see how that's so hard to understand. Instead of throwing ad hominems, learn to debate? Like seriously, read up on what ad hominem is and then come back and tell me with a straight face that calling someone an SJW is not ad hominem.[/QUOTE] the best way to debate is to call the opposition SJWs and compare them to the absolute worst people that those creepy stalker subreddits have dredged up. if you really wanna find horrible people as examples when debating about groups, you might as well look at both sides. if we're still talking gamergate for some reason, i can find some equally irrelevant weirdos that have doxxed, swatted, and harassed people for virtually no reason. but what's the point in that when you can actually talk with people and not just pick at low hanging fruit. [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=codemaster85;46866217]hmm, sound almost like what most SJWs do in the first place when they throw the term misogynist around doesn't it?[/QUOTE] please tell me you're replying to his post jokingly like i did in the first part of mine otherwise i have bad news for you

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46866164]Calling someone an SJW and then using the fact that they are now labelled as an SJW (to you) to ignore their points [U][I]is a lazy cop out[/I][/U]. You're labeling them so you can go "oh well they are an SJW I don't have to listen to them anyways".[/QUOTE] You're pulling that out of your ass. In what circumstances did I refuse to debate with someone, let alone by using that as a pretext? You pretending I did such things does not make it any more true. [QUOTE]I don't see how that's so hard to understand. Instead of throwing ad hominems, learn to debate? Like seriously, read up on what ad hominem is and then come back and tell me with a straight face that calling someone an SJW is not ad hominem.[/QUOTE] Using "SJW" is simply a way to refer to them. It's not the argument. I already said that three times. Is it too much of a bother to you to read my posts? Ad-Hominem consists in attacking a person instead of their argument. Using a neologism to refer to them is not Ad-Hominem when it's accompanied with arguments. Using your reasoning we could condemn the word "racist" as well. A good rule of thumb when constructing an argument is to check if applying the same logic in a different context leads to absurds conclusions, in which case it is flawed. This is something you clearly should have done here.

[QUOTE=_Axel;46866262]You're pulling that out of your ass. In what circumstances did I refuse to debate with someone, let alone by using that as a pretext? You pretending I did such things does not make it any more true. Using "SJW" is simply a way to refer to them. It's not the argument. I already said that three times. Is it too much of a bother to you to read my posts? Ad-Hominem consists in attacking a person instead of their argument. Using a neologism to refer to them is not Ad-Hominem when it's accompanied with arguments. Using your reasoning we could condemn the word "racist" as well. A good rule of thumb when constructing an argument is to check if applying the same logic in a different context leads to absurds conclusions, in which case it is flawed. This is something you clearly should have done here.[/QUOTE] Okay, then, define SJW for me. Also drop the tu quoque and give me a real argument. Stop throwing criticism straight back at me and instead properly respond to mine.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46866269]Okay, then, define SJW for me.[/QUOTE] Did you read the thread? Do I really have to dig for my post a second time?

[QUOTE=_Axel;46866281]Did you read the thread? Do I really have to dig for my post a second time?[/QUOTE] Are you really gonna sit there and complain about me asking for a simple definition or are you gonna actually argue?

[QUOTE=_Axel;46858431]Well shit if that's the actual definition then I must be one heck of a SJW. I don't think it is, though, nor have I seen it used with such a broad meaning on the internet much. I think it's a spot on denomination for a certain kind of persons, specifically people who care more about appearing "politically correct" and "progressive" rather than actually helping society to go further. More precisely, the kind who blissfully engage in hypocritical behavior regarding these topics and prefer to see opponents as boogeymen rather than engaging in rational debate. Here's a quote from another thread about why I think it's a fitting title for them: [QUOTE]That's a pretty fitting denomination, I think. It's as pure an oxymoron as it gets; you don't spread tolerance by waging war, you do so by being civil and by proving your point through rational debate. Why do you think the most well-known and successful social movements are non-violent ones? Because it's more efficient to make people tolerant towards you by showing your humanity than by hurting and humiliating them. These people are a travesty to social progress, they adopt a scapegoat mentality not because it actually further their pretended goal, but because it strengthen their cultish structure. No genuinely progressive people would identify as that.[/QUOTE] If you want to prove the validity of an ideology, you have to stay critical towards it, not hold every of its aspects as some sorts of holy scriptures. All in all, to me the SJW title represents the bad seeds who are actually detrimental towards social progression by misinforming people about what it means rather than your average social justice supporter they should learn a thing or two from.[/QUOTE] Here it is. I should bookmark it or something. [editline]6th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=xxncxx;46866303]Are you really gonna sit there and complain about me asking for a simple definition or are you gonna actually argue?[/QUOTE] I don't know, to me it seems like common courtesy to actually read the entire debate before butting in and asking for a point that was already argued.

[QUOTE=_Axel;46866307]Here it is. I should bookmark it or something.[/QUOTE] Okay, so out of your definition we get [quote]These people are a travesty to social progress, they adopt a scapegoat mentality not because it actually further their pretended goal, but because it strengthen their cultish structure. No genuinely progressive people would identify as that.[/quote] Just looking at the vocabulary, I can already tell this definition puts SJWs in a negative light, no? So would you disagree that calling someone an SJW and applying this definition to them would be attacking their character, IE ad hominem? Or do you want to redefine it so you can win the argument?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46866325]Okay, so out of your definition we get Just looking at the vocabulary, I can already tell this definition puts SJWs in a negative light, no? So would you disagree that calling someone an SJW and applying this definition to them would be attacking their character, IE ad hominem? Or do you want to redefine it so you can win the argument?[/QUOTE] No need to be so salty. When I refer to someone as an SJW it's not in a baseless manner. I only do it when they have exhibited the behaviour I described. It's not so much an Ad-Hominem as it is a criticism of their misdeeds.

[QUOTE=_Axel;46866334]No need to be so salty. When I refer to someone as an SJW it's not in a baseless manner. I only do it when they have exhibited the behaviour I described. It's not so much an Ad-Hominem as it is a [B]criticism of their misdeeds.[/B][/QUOTE] So, ad hominem. EDIT: The fact I'm being dumbed and disagreed for this shows that alot of you need to read up on what ad hominem is. "Criticism of their misdeeds" is criticism of someones character, not their argument, which is textbook ad hominem.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46866325]Okay, so out of your definition we get Just looking at the vocabulary, I can already tell this definition puts SJWs in a negative light, no? So would you disagree that calling someone an SJW and applying this definition to them would be attacking their character, IE ad hominem? Or do you want to redefine it so you can win the argument?[/QUOTE] Ad-hominem is using character attacks to win an argument Calling someone an SJW does not mean you are arguing with them and is not ad-hominem. If you call someone an SJW in order to win an argument then you are using Ad-hominem. It's like calling someone a racist, there are certain beliefs a racist has, thinking certain races are inferior to others. If someone said they think black people are inferior to them I can identify them as a racist. If I try to win an argument with someone by calling them racist I am using Ad-hominem.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46866339]So, ad hominem.[/QUOTE] Saying someone is racist while presenting evidence towards it is Ad-Hominem now? According to you, criticising someone's behaviour is Ad-Hominem then? Isn't that what you're doing at this very moment? Explaining why someone's conduct is toxic actually serves a purpose: Pointing it out means people are less likely to indulge in it in the future. The Ad-Hominem fallacy is relevant when one is attacking somebody's person instead of their point, i.e. it is irrelevant to the debate. This is not the case in this context. [editline]6th January 2015[/editline] But come on, I'm interested in your point. Milkandcookies can join too if he has something relevant to say.

[QUOTE=_Axel;46866362]Saying someone is racist while presenting evidence towards it is Ad-Hominem now? According to you, criticising someone's behaviour is Ad-Hominem then? Isn't that what you're doing at this very moment? Explaining why someone's conduct is toxic actually serves a purpose: Pointing it out means people are less likely to indulge in it in the future. The Ad-Hominem fallacy is relevant when one is attacking somebody's person instead of their point, i.e. it is irrelevant to the debate. This is not the case in this context.[/QUOTE] We were arguing whether or not calling someone an SJW in an argument was ad hominem or not. Not whether calling out someone for being a racist was (Oh and another tu quoque, thanks!). And thank you for defining ad hominem for me? [quote] It's not so much an Ad-Hominem as it is a criticism of their misdeeds.[/quote] You say its not ad hominem to criticise someones misdeeds and not their argument, when that's literally the textbook definition of ad hominem?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46866380]We were arguing whether or not calling someone an SJW in an argument was ad hominem or not. And thank you for defining ad hominem for me? You say its not ad hominem to criticise someones misdeeds and not their argument, when that's literally the textbook definition of ad hominem?[/QUOTE] Not when the subject matter of the debate is the toxic nature of their behaviour. Don't go preaching about logical fallacies when you don't understand logical thinking in the first place.

[QUOTE=_Axel;46866387]Not when the subject matter of the debate is the toxic nature of their behaviour. Are you really that thick?[/QUOTE] That's not what I was ever arguing with you about, where in the world did you get that from? Also nice flame snipe.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46866398]That's not what I was ever arguing with you about, where in the world did you get that from?[/QUOTE] What were you arguing about then? That calling someone an SJW without anything to back it up is Ad-Hominem? I thought we already established that pages ago.

[QUOTE=_Axel;46866407]What were you arguing about then? That calling someone an SJW without anything to back it up is Ad-Hominem? I thought we already established that pages ago.[/QUOTE] Well I'm glad you admitted to not reading my posts, because I'm sure I made it very clear in them what I was arguing with you about. Also I wouldn't have brought it up if you "already established that pages ago." But please, backpedal further.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46866380]We were arguing whether or not calling someone an SJW in an argument was ad hominem or not. Not whether calling out someone for being a racist was (Oh and another tu quoque, thanks!). And thank you for defining ad hominem for me? You say its not ad hominem to criticise someones misdeeds and not their argument, when that's literally the textbook definition of ad hominem?[/QUOTE] What argument? If I call someone an SJW and I'm not arguing with them how am I using Ad-Hominem?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46866414]Well I'm glad you admitted to not reading my posts, because I'm sure I made it very clear in them what I was arguing with you about.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=xxncxx;46866325]Just looking at the vocabulary, I can already tell this definition puts SJWs in a negative light, no? So would you disagree that calling someone an SJW and applying this definition to them would be attacking their character, IE ad hominem? Or do you want to redefine it so you can win the argument?[/QUOTE] This is your point. See? You simply mention "calling someone an SJW" which in itself doesn't consist in Ad-Hominem. Who's backpedaling again? [QUOTE]Also I wouldn't have brought it up if you "already established that pages ago." But please, backpedal further.[/QUOTE] That's a risky gamble considering you were literally caught not having read my post about the SJW definition and asking for it nonetheless.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46866269]Okay, then, define SJW for me.[/QUOTE] Soccer moms of the 10's.