The Kremling Kampaign: King K Rool for Super Smash Bros. DLC!

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Awww now FierceDeity that's just mean. I don't see how he could read that without his head just exploding all over the room.

I think having one's head explode would be a better fate than listening to you two three ramble on about nonsense for eternity.

You can't just go and state something can't be considered funny by anyone and think your statement would be accurate.

I never said that somebody can't find it funny, just that it isn't funny (the definition of "funny" being "causing laughter or amusement"). There's a big difference between those two statements; it's just that if something doesn't involve humor, very few people are likely to find it funny.

[FierceDeity]

I think having one's head explode would be a better fate than listening to you two three ramble on about nonsense for eternity.

irony

I never said that somebody can't find it funny, just that it isn't funny (the definition of "funny" being "causing laughter or amusement"). There's a big difference between those two statements; it's just that if something doesn't involve humor, very few people are likely to find it funny.

Sure, if we forget that humor is also subjective, and your conclusion that there's no humor in his post derives from your own seeming inability to recognize it. Really, if you-
WAIT.
WAIT, GUYS.
I'VE HAD A REVELATION.

Every time BDS comes into an argument, he takes the side that's overwhelmingly less favored. He then proceeds to make a bunch of arrogant claims of his supreme knowledge of every facet of what we've been talking about, championing "logic" as his rationale, despite not having any actual adherence to it. Everything he does seems to be perfectly tailored to facilitate the most argument with the least civility. He wants senseless argument.

Guys.
BDS has been trolling this entire time.

Thread dismissed, bring in the dancing lobsters

[Dude]

I think having one's head explode would be a better fate than listening to me ramble on about nonsense for eternity.

ftfy

lol fierce

[Waddle Bro]

ftfy

FACTS


FierceDeity wins internet and my babies

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Sure, if we forget that humor is also subjective, and your conclusion that there's no humor in his post derives from your own seeming inability to recognize it.

By that logic, I could also say that the following sentence is funny:
A guy walks into a bar, sits down, and has a drink.

Humor is subjective, yes, but using your definition, you could say that literally anything is funny. You could say that I am "unable to recognize humor," but likewise, I could say that it is impossible to recognize humor if it is not present.

Every time BDS comes into an argument, he takes the side that's overwhelmingly less favored. He then proceeds to make a bunch of arrogant claims of his supreme knowledge of every facet of what we've been talking about, championing "logic" as his rationale, despite not having any actual adherence to it. Everything he does seems to be perfectly tailored to facilitate the most argument with the least civility. He wants senseless argument.

I'm not exactly sure you're the best person to be calling somebody else "arrogant"... unless you define that subjectively too (e.g. being anybody who disagrees with you). Many of the phrases you use to describe me are either baseless or could be used to describe yourself, which is very hypocritical.

And that brings me to this...

Every time BDS comes into an argument, he takes the side that's overwhelmingly less favored.

You're assuming not only that an argument is correct because more people are arguing for it (bandwagon fallacy), but also that the argument itself is correct because you're the one arguing for it (which would probably be a form of appeal to authority, yourself being the "authority"; or, alternative, this).

For one who criticizes me for "not using logic," you sure don't use much of it either.



And remember kids! I AM THE CHAMPION OF LOGIC AND STRUGGLE DAILY IN MY FIGHT AGAINST INTERNET ARROGANCE.



EDIT: We should probably end this topic before our fight gets out of hand, given that not much more relevant discussion is likely to come from the topic.

[SlowPokemon]

irony

Sure, if we forget that humor is also subjective, and your conclusion that there's no humor in his post derives from your own seeming inability to recognize it. Really, if you-
WAIT.
WAIT, GUYS.
I'VE HAD A REVELATION.

Every time BDS comes into an argument, he takes the side that's overwhelmingly less favored. He then proceeds to make a bunch of arrogant claims of his supreme knowledge of every facet of what we've been talking about, championing "logic" as his rationale, despite not having any actual adherence to it. Everything he does seems to be perfectly tailored to facilitate the most argument with the least civility. He wants senseless argument.

Guys.
BDS has been trolling this entire time.

Thread dismissed, bring in the dancing lobsters

FAVORITE TIMES INFINITY

BDS the difference between you and us is that we don't see it as a fight

[FierceDeity]

By that logic, I could also say that the following sentence is funny:
A guy walks into a bar, sits down, and has a drink.

Humor is subjective, yes, but using your definition, you could say that literally anything is funny. You could say that I am "unable to recognize humor," but likewise, I could say that it is impossible to recognize humor if it is not present.

Lol, you bring up the bandwagon fallacy, but pretend that it means anything in regards to humor. Idk what you think "my definition" is, considering the only thing that I said about it is that it's subjective, which you apparently agree with (yet don't understand the implications of). But if you think that your conclusion that it doesn't have humor holds any merit against the conclusions of the multiple people who think that it does, then you're clearly letting your tunnel vision get in the way of your understanding of the concept.

I'm not exactly sure you're the best person to be calling somebody else "arrogant"... unless you define that subjectively too (e.g. being anybody who disagrees with you). Many of the phrases you use to describe me are either baseless or could be used to describe yourself, which is very hypocritical.

And that brings me to this...You're assuming not only that an argument is correct because more people are arguing for it (bandwagon fallacy), but also that the argument itself is correct because you're the one arguing for it (which would probably be a form of appeal to authority, yourself being the "authority"; or, alternative, this).

Actually, it's more based on the fact that any time I do bring up rationale in response to your posts, you literally just respond with a rewording of your own unilateral, inflammatory argument. Take now, for example.
You: "This is definitively not funny. People may find this funny, but that doesn't mean it's funny."
Me: "But the people who find something funny are what designate its humor."
You: "I'm gonna pretend to acknowledge the subjectivity of humor, but here's an example of something that is definitively not funny. People may find it funny, but that doesn't mean it's funny."
Truth is, what you just said might actually be hilarious in a certain context or mindset. Humor is not empirically definitive, except for the people who experience it. The more people experience it, the harder it is to say that something is "definitively not funny", which is why "OMG BANDWAGON FALLACY" is a pretty invalid argument in this case.

Though your high school debate class may have taught you that shouting "FALLACY" at the top of your lungs is enough to discredit an argument, it only does so if the other rationale is weak, and if the opposing rationale to it is valid. I could technically take literally everything you say and go "Omg appeal to authority because you find yourself to be an authority on the way logic works", and hold the same amount of merit as what you just said. I won't, because I'm not an arrogant prick. I will say, however, that a perfectly logical argument, as you believe yourself to have, needs to be logical both in its content and its rhetoric. If you were a purely logical human being, you'd see the things that you type, and realize their absurdly inflammatory nature, and the impossibility of their actually convincing anybody. As for its content, I don't expect to convince you of your tunnel vision, as that would require you to turn it off for a moment. And I do realize the hypocrisy of saying "Your rhetoric is inflammatory, ya arrogant prick!", but truth be told, I've gotten tired of talking at an angry, arrogant, youtube commenter of a wall, who, for all I know, is presenting such an atrocious argument for the purpose of sheer hostility. So, troll, I will no longer be crossing your bridge.

Oh, hey, look who's here.

[Waddle Bro]

rekt

[blueflower999]

BDS has been trolling this entire time.

Fierce if you're going to assert this the least you could do is not feed him. We all know that know BDS is going to make a massive wall of text to respond to your massive wall of text. 

What was this thread originally about again? Donkey Kong or something? Oh well, who cares. Let's just argue about stuff!

[Maelstrom]

Maybe Fierce and BDS should start a debate club. The both seem to think they're so good at it....

[Dude]

Oh well, who cares.

exactly

[BlackDragonSlayer]

BDS the difference between you and us is that we don't see it as a fight

If you don't want me to see it as a fight, then don't make it one.

Lol, you bring up the bandwagon fallacy, but pretend that it means anything in regards to humor. Idk what you think "my definition" is, considering the only thing that I said about it is that it's subjective, which you apparently agree with (yet don't understand the implications of). But if you think that your conclusion that it doesn't have humor holds any merit against the conclusions of the multiple people who think that it does, then you're clearly letting your tunnel vision get in the way of your understanding of the concept.

I did not bring up the bandwagon fallacy in regards to humor; I mentioned it in response to your "description" of me.

Actually, it's more based on the fact that any time I do bring up rationale in response to your posts, you literally just respond with a rewording of your own unilateral, inflammatory argument. Take now, for example.
You: "This is definitively not funny. People may find this funny, but that doesn't mean it's funny."
Me: "But the people who find something funny are what designate its humor."
You: "I'm gonna pretend to acknowledge the subjectivity of humor, but here's an example of something that is definitively not funny. People may find it funny, but that doesn't mean it's funny."
Truth is, what you just said might actually be hilarious in a certain context or mindset. Humor is not empirically definitive, except for the people who experience it. The more people experience it, the harder it is to say that something is "definitively not funny", which is why "OMG BANDWAGON FALLACY" is a pretty invalid argument in this case.

Most of the times, you don't bring up any "rationale" (given that a quick Google search for the definition of "rationale" will result in the definition "a set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or a particular belief"); in this case, you're using a shoddy argument (which, in addition, is misconstruing what I said- I never mentioned the bandwagon fallacy in regards to humor) because I pointed out a flaw in your reasoning (e.g. your definition of subjective being "Anything goes!").

I think a more accurate scenario of what you described would be like this:
Me: "It's not really funny, but you're trying to pass it off as funny to mock DonValentino."
You: "You're just missing the joke. It's funny, and if you don't find it funny, you're wrong."
Me: "You're ridiculous. You're not conveying your 'joke' across properly, if it's there at all."
You: "Well, humor is subjective. It's funny, and if you don't find it funny, you're wrong."

You mention that the example of a "joke" I gave could be funny "in a certain context or mindest," but that's exactly what I'm trying to say. The same thing applies in the case of the original post that ended up sparking this whole thing off. "In a certain context or mindset," you could find such a thing funny, but then, as you yourself pointed out, you could find nearly anything funny "in a certain context or mindset." Just because you can see something as funny doesn't mean it is funny. The argument is going to be very circular if you operate on the mindset that anything and everything IS funny.

Though your high school debate class may have taught you that shouting "FALLACY" at the top of your lungs is enough to discredit an argument, it only does so if the other rationale is weak, and if the opposing rationale to it is valid.

1: I didn't go to a "high school debate class."
2: I didn't "shout 'FALLACY'" at the top of my lungs.
3: It's funny how when I mentioned a fallacy in your argument ONE TIME you get on the defensive and bash me for using the logic you say I don't use. It seems as if you're the only one shouting.

I could technically take literally everything you say and go "Omg appeal to authority because you find yourself to be an authority on the way logic works", and hold the same amount of merit as what you just said.

All you'd be doing in that case would be blind bashing without any sort of base in reason or things I have said (connecting with a similar point above, you could say whatever you like, but that doesn't make it true). You're trying to take what I said and misinterpret it to try and make it seem unreasonable.

I won't, because I'm not an arrogant prick. I will say, however, that a perfectly logical argument, as you believe yourself to have, needs to be logical both in its content and its rhetoric. If you were a purely logical human being, you'd see the things that you type, and realize their absurdly inflammatory nature, and the impossibility of their actually convincing anybody. As for its content, I don't expect to convince you of your tunnel vision, as that would require you to turn it off for a moment. And I do realize the hypocrisy of saying "Your rhetoric is inflammatory, ya arrogant prick!", but truth be told, I've gotten tired of talking at an angry, arrogant, youtube commenter of a wall, who, for all I know, is presenting such an atrocious argument for the purpose of sheer hostility. So, troll, I will no longer be crossing your bridge.

It's funny how all the things you describe are only true of you. The things I type were ("were," as in, I tried to be reasonable before I understood that you didn't actually want a reasonable discussion- just a session of "I'm right and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong": and quite frankly, that's all it boils down to) neither "absurdly inflammatory" nor have any "impossibility of actually convincing anybody" (though, to be fair, you actually do have a point here, depending on how thickheaded the "anybody" in question is); in fact, all you're doing is spurting mocking and inflammatory responses, yet accuse me of doing so (which is hypocritical). Don't accuse me of being a "troll" when you're the only one who's acting like one. You're the one who started slandering me. You're the one who responded to my arguments with pure bashing instead of actually thinking up an intelligent response.

[SlowPokemon]

Omfg

he is still talking

bds this is ancient history

[FierceDeity]

just look at them go

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Omfg

he is still talking

bds this is ancient history

(click it)