Epomis said:
There's no such thing as an emotional debate.
There most certainly are emotional debates. That is what happens when you support arguments with feelings rather then facts. It is actually the norm outside of an academic setting. Besides, if subjective emotional reaction to external stimuli was governed by logical, you could logic most people out of depression, suicide, ect.
Epomis said:
It's flimsy but not unsupported, statistics confirm that most gamers are men and most women tend to be play so-called "casual" games.
I am not saying no evidence exists to back up your conclusion. I am saying you did not support it in your post, which is a major flaw in the kind of a debate where someone makes a point by naming a logical fallacy. I am not saying you are 'wrong' for not supporting your argument. I am just pointing out how this is not the sort of discussion this standard was designed for. Even the guy quoting the logical fallacies in this debate isn't policing their own arguments.
I mean come on, how many people in the world claim that statistics exist that totally support their world view, despite the fact that correlation is so obviously not causation. I think at the very least, it is everyone making political arguments. /joke
It's not an emotional reaction, this might seem insane to you but I deduced that my position is a reasonably good stab in the dark based on the available information. I stick by it as well; I do not believe that the characters of this game were designed the way they were for the benefit of female gaze.
You are entitled to to your belief in your stabs in the dark based upon what limited information you have chosen to gather. People will however chuckle if you claim it is founded in fact and logic. People who want to answer such questions study the problem, figure out a way to collect such data, then come to conclusions perhaps years down the line. People who come to conclusions absent data want to talk about how they feel about things, not answer questions.
Here's the problem, I know you probably aren't familiar with my posting here but I've stated in another thread that objectifying what are, essentially, two-dimensional representations of a person isn't a problem. So it's not that I've adopted an uneven attitude where objectifying women in media is bad but objectifying men doesn't matter, it's I don't think it matters in either case.
This right here is why I have been so careful about distinguishing between your arguments, and your tactics. Or at least half the reason. I did not wish to imply that you were wholly alined with one side.
That said, the point I was making is that you introduced a logical standard and only applied it to individuals who were on the receiving end of your counter point. It is my position that it was not applied to feminists (who argue all the time that sexism is in the eye of the beholder, at least until the power fantasy line comes up.) or your own argument.
A selective application of a logical standard in an emotional debate is, well rather silly. It is a bit like criticizing one football team for not jumping into a pool before running home.
Keep in mind I am ever so specifically not questioning your arguments, or asking you to defend your position. I am simply pointing out how wildly inconstant it is to quote logical fallacies in discussions where a "high standard of evidence" is a shot in the dark with an unsupported thesis. No post in this thread would last a second under the critical eye of an academic.
Which is of course okay. This is an internet message board. It has one of the most informal standards out there.
*edit to say* Please feel free to say your peace, and I will absolutely read it, but I think I am crossing the line into thread jacking territory. Perhaps if you wish to continue the discussion after saying your peace, we can create another topic and leave this one be?
