Should Metaknight be Banned? **Take 2** (Post-podcast)

[ShadowLink84]

Small correction; the fetus is human, just not a human being. It's just as human as the skin cells on my arm are human.

my error I had meant that originally.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm appalled that you would even compare my reasoning to that of anti-gays or abortionists, but nevertheless, it really doesn't matter because I haven't heard one single rational argument for MK's banning. Perhaps you could supply me with one.

Congrats, you have just created one of the worst examples of a strawman fallacy I have ever seen.

Henceforth, when I want a good example of a strawman fallacy, I will reference to your post.


He never compared your reasoning to those groups, he was suggesting that, like what people often do with those groups, you were ignoring debatable reasoning for the pro-ban position in favor of utterly stupid reasoning that happened to be favored by a majority of it's adherents.

For example, in terms of pro-life, there's no reason to address the "God says so" argument, just cite treaty of tripoli, issue closed. But there's a wealth of legal, ethical, biological, and philosophical arguments which you might not find convincing, but are worthy of being subjected to debate.

Just like with this issue. I don't find the ban argument convincing, at least for the moment BUT just because the majority of pro-ban people are pro-ban for stupid reasons doesn't make it right to make a blanket statement and say the group is illogical just because of that majority.

The majority of people who are pro-life calls it murder.
The majority of people against homosexuality often say because its wrong to god.
The majority of people have no ****ing clue what they are talking about.

So why do you and several other people continue addressing STUPID reasoning? -_-

Address what's been said thats actually logical. It lets you get to the meat of things.

Just to be clear, for the two examples, that's only incorrect for arguments in terms of law, not beliefs in personal morality.

Also, that abortion is murder (or at least manslaughter or some lesser form of similar crime) is a legitimate reason for saying abortion should be illegal, it's how they JUSTIFY that assertion that decides whether they're part of the illogical masses or have an argument worth addressing ("God says so" for example, is obviously not worth addressing).


edit:

Is there a better term than STFU?

Naw just messing with you.

it isn't murder primarily because the fetus which will become human is not even self conscious. it has no intellect, no consciousness of self or other things. It cannot give out permission let alone that it is alive only because the mother permits it to be in her body.

That's entirely dependant on how you define the coverage of laws, as well as the reasoning behind laws.

I know I have a history of going onto tangents, but this doesn't prove anything for this thread so... you wanna discuss this, go the Debate Hall.

 

[Steel]

Is there a better term than STFU?

Naw just messing with you.

it isn't murder primarily because the fetus which will become human is not even self conscious. it has no intellect, no consciousness of self or other things. It cannot give out permission let alone that it is alive only because the mother permits it to be in her body.

The moment of conception creates life. You can't deny the fetus is not a life-form simply because its brain and body are still developing. Abortion is taking the life of a human being. A human being that could one day.. who knows? Win a nobel prize? We don't know. It doesn't sound very fair to the brand-new life. Never did anything to deserve death or make any choices in his or her life.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Also, that abortion is murder (or at least manslaughter or some lesser form of similar crime) is a legitimate reason for saying abortion should be illegal, it's how they JUSTIFY that assertion that decides whether they're part of the illogical masses or have an argument worth addressing ("God says so" for example, is obviously not worth addressing).

That was my point, the majority of time, people do not understand what they are arguing and often bring up irrelevant arguments.

Also murder is classified as killing with malicious intent. Would this not be classified as manslaugher instead?

The moment of conception creates life. You can't deny the fetus is not a life-form simply because its brain and body are still developing. Abortion is taking the life of a human being. A human being that could one day.. who knows? Win a nobel prize? We don't know. It doesn't sound very fair to the brand-new life. Never did anything to deserve death or make any choices in his or her life.

potential argument is bad.
Look at Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zei Dong.
it has the potential to be a mass murderer as well.
That potential is determined AFTER birth, not before.

Germs are alive yet we kill them without care. Just because it is new born life means little.

The fetus does not have the right to invade the mother's right to bodily integrity. She should not be forced to carry the life within her that is currently violating her bodily integrity.

Why should I allow something that I do not want to remain inside my body? Just because it is new life and taking it would be unfair? What about myself? would it be fair to me?

Fairness has nothing to do with it.

in anycase we are going dreadfully off topic.

 

[RDK]

Congrats, you have just created one of the worst examples of a strawman fallacy I have ever seen.

Henceforth, when I want a good example of a strawman fallacy, I will reference to your post.


He never compared your reasoning to those groups, he was suggesting that, like what people often do with those groups, you were ignoring debatable reasoning for the pro-ban position in favor of utterly stupid reasoning that happened to be favored by a majority of it's adherents.

For example, in terms of pro-life, there's no reason to address the "God says so" argument, just cite treaty of tripoli, issue closed. But there's a wealth of legal, ethical, biological, and philosophical arguments which you might not find convincing, but are worthy of being subjected to debate.

Just like with this issue. I don't find the ban argument convincing, at least for the moment BUT just because the majority of pro-ban people are pro-ban for stupid reasons doesn't make it right to make a blanket statement and say the group is illogical just because of that majority.

Adumbrodeus, don't come in here with your flashy, ridiculous pseudo-intellectual debating style and expect people to not see past your bull****. The point you made in your post could have been made in one half the size. All you did was patronize me for calling him out on his uncalled-for analogy, which was just that: uncalled for.

And why is it my fault that the majority of the pro-banners use idiotic reasoning? That was the reasoning that I happened to be addressing at that point; it had nothing to do with Shadowlink personally.

 

[ShadowLink84]

And why is it my fault that the majority of the pro-banners use idiotic reasoning? That was the reasoning that I happened to be addressing at that point; it had nothing to do with Shadowlink personally.

The majority of anti ban often use terrible reasoning as well.
"You are all too lazy to try and beat MK" being one of the favorite.
"You know nothing of high level smash"
"get better."

bad arguments yet used by the majority of anti ban supporters.

The bat swings both ways.
How was my example uncalled for by the way?

 

[RDK]

The majority of anti ban often use terrible reasoning as well.
"You are all too lazy to try and beat MK" being one of the favorite.
"You know nothing of high level smash"
"get better."

bad arguments yet used by the majority of anti ban supporters.

The bat swings both ways.
How was my example uncalled for by the way?

I don't see how any of those are an example of terrible reasoning, if used in the proper context. The problem with them is that they're not the only reasonings that should be used.

And your analogy was uncalled for because you accused me of shotgun-blasting your entire side of the debate, when that's not what I meant in my post at all.

 

[Steel]

potential argument is bad.
Look at Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zei Dong.
it has the potential to be a mass murderer as well.
That potential is determined AFTER birth, not before.

Germs are alive yet we kill them without care. Just because it is new born life means little.

The fetus does not have the right to invade the mother's right to bodily integrity. She should not be forced to carry the life within her that is currently violating her bodily integrity.

Why should I allow something that I do not want to remain inside my body? Just because it is new life and taking it would be unfair? What about myself? would it be fair to me?

Fairness has nothing to do with it.

in anycase we are going dreadfully off topic.

That's the thing, you don't know. You aren't giving the new born a chance like everyone else; you and I have been given.

Germs? Why would you even bring that up? It's also debatable whether or not they actually are alive.

Also the second half of your argument sounds incredibly selfish and a "me-first" attitude. I would go more into it but I'm tired and this isn't the place for it.

 

[Plum]

The real problem in this game is that Gannondorf can basically fly.
Screw MK. He has close/neutral matchups. Gannondorf is as high of a tier as he can jump.

 

[adumbrodeus]

That was my point, the majority of time, people do not understand what they are arguing and often bring up irrelevant arguments.

Also murder is classified as killing with malicious intent. Would this not be classified as manslaugher instead?

Depends on jurisdiction, generally it's malice aforethought, not malice. Malice aforethought refers to a certain level of either recklessness or premeditation. Even where "malice" is actually used, legally it refers to the same thing, intent or reckless disregard.

It's not uniform, assuming that the fetus is legally covered of course. Different stages of development and different abortive methods would fall under different legal crimes, the morning after pill for example would qualify as depraved indifference manslaughter, because it's not actually killing the fetus, it's preventing the implanting and ultimately depriving it of nutrients, causing it to die.


But again, different topic.

Adumbrodeus, don't come in here with your flashy, ridiculous pseudo-intellectual debating style and expect people to not see past your bull****. The point you made in your post could have been made in one half the size. All you did was patronize me for calling him out on his uncalled-for analogy, which was just that: uncalled for.

The fact that the analogy was uncalled does not mean that you are not liable for, instead of calling it out on it's merits, you strawmanned it.

Call my debate style pseudo-intellectual all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that I made a valid point, you committed a logical fallacy. Don't.

And why is it my fault that the majority of the pro-banners use idiotic reasoning? That was the reasoning that I happened to be addressing at that point; it had nothing to do with Shadowlink personally.

It's not your fault, but that doesn't remove you of the burden of addressing those arguments which are debatable.

And what was personal here? I never said you attacked him personally, a straw man fallacy is acting like somebody made an argument they didn't make and proceeding to tear it down (whether on purpose or by mistake). That was your error, don't do things like that and expect people not to call you on it.

 

[Flayl]

I hear Sagat is god tier in SF 4 >_>

 

[Ulevo]

Christ. The one debate topic worse than the ban on Meta Knight in a smashboards forum is that of abortion. Why is this thread not locked if we're talking about abortion now?

Stay relevant to the topic, or don't post. This is ridiculous.

 

[Snowstalker]

Germs? Why would you even bring that up? It's also debatable whether or not they actually are alive

No, you're talking about viruses. Bacteria (germs) are as alive as you and me.

 

[aeghrur]

Adumbrodeus, don't come in here with your flashy, ridiculous pseudo-intellectual debating style and expect people to not see past your bull****. The point you made in your post could have been made in one half the size. All you did was patronize me for calling him out on his uncalled-for analogy, which was just that: uncalled for.

And why is it my fault that the majority of the pro-banners use idiotic reasoning? That was the reasoning that I happened to be addressing at that point; it had nothing to do with Shadowlink personally

I like his style, it teaches me stuff.
Stop hating, lol. This debate is interesting though, continue on.

 

[ShadowLink84]

That's the thing, you don't know. You aren't giving the new born a chance like everyone else; you and I have been given.

The same works back towards you. how do I know you won't be another Hitler? It would be better off snuffing you right?
but wait, you can be another einstein, i better not snuff you.
but wait, you can be the next Stalin!
Again its a bad argument.

Germs? Why would you even bring that up? It's also debatable whether or not they actually are alive.

Thats a virus not a germ.

Also the second half of your argument sounds incredibly selfish and a "me-first" attitude. I would go more into it but I'm tired and this isn't the place for it.

Explain why life supersedes the woman's life and right to bodily integrity and right to choose
Last i checked, you should not be forced to have something in you hat you do not want.

 

[RDK]

The fact that the analogy was uncalled does not mean that you are not liable for, instead of calling it out on it's merits, strawmanned it.

Call my debate style pseudo-intellectual all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that I made a valid point, you committed a logical fallacy. Don't.

I didn't commit a logical fallacy; I called him out for comparing my reasoning to that of religious right-wing conservatives and pro-abortionists.

It's not your fault, but that doesn't remove you of the burden of addressing those arguments which are debatable.

I'll address arguments that are debatable as soon as said arguments are posted to me. I asked Shadowlink for such arguments, for surely there must be a veritable fountainhead of them or else you two wouldn't have gotten your collective panties in a knot over my post, and for some reason he declined to supply me with any. Odd.

And what was personal here? I never said you attacked him personally, a straw man fallacy is acting like somebody made an argument they didn't make and proceeding to tear it down (whether on purpose or by mistake). That was your error, don't do things like that and expect people not to call you on it.

Yeah, except it wasn't a strawman. I was responding to fallacious arguments in a manner that was called for.

 

[Atomsk_92]

So about this ball of fury known as MetaKnight

 

[aeghrur]

So about this ball of fury known as MetaKnight

Balls of fury sucked as a movie.

 

[brinboy789]

So about this ball of fury known as MetaKnight

atomsk your sig is so distracting and yea we're going totally off topic. since when did abortion have to do with MK?

 

[adumbrodeus]

I didn't commit a logical fallacy; I called him out for comparing my reasoning to that of religious right-wing conservatives and pro-abortionists.

But that's just it. HE NEVER DID!

Reread his post, please.



He said you were addressing the pro-ban arguments like people commonly address the arguments of pro-lifers and anti-homosexuals, that is acting as if the foolish masses' arguments are the only arguments that exists and ignoring any real arguments which are presented.

I'll address arguments that are debatable as soon as said arguments are posted to me. I asked Shadowlink for such arguments, for surely there must be a veritable fountainhead of them or else you two wouldn't have gotten your collective panties in a knot over my post, and for some reason he declined to supply me with any. Odd.

Both of us are anti-ban in case you haven't noticed (albeit, I have a very nuanced stance), but that's not the point.

It doesn't matter if any have actually been presented, anything which precludes logical arguments prior to presentment is an illogical argument.

 

[Ulevo]

I'll address arguments that are debatable as soon as said arguments are posted to me. I asked Shadowlink for such arguments, for surely there must be a veritable fountainhead of them or else you two wouldn't have gotten your collective panties in a knot over my post, and for some reason he declined to supply me with any. Odd..

Requesting arguments and information from the pro ban side tends to lead no where, since apparently, everything they could provide proof for has already been "proven" and thus it is no longer important to provide (even though they insist on continuing to argue). So you're wasting your time here. Even if you're indirectly making a point like I was, it isn't worth the effort.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I didn't commit a logical fallacy; I called him out for comparing my reasoning to that of religious right-wing conservatives and pro-abortionists.

I am rather getting annoyed with you RDK considering I did not compare your reasoning.

I'll address arguments that are debatable as soon as said arguments are posted to me. I asked Shadowlink for such arguments, for surely there must be a veritable fountainhead of them or else you two wouldn't have gotten your collective panties in a knot over my post, and for some reason he declined to supply me with any. Odd.

primarily because they are within the same thread and you are demanding that we go sorting through all these pages, where you could do the same.
Again if you want the argument, go get it, its been made plenty of times already.

Yeah, except it wasn't a strawman. I was responding to fallacious arguments in a manner tha was called for.

let us look back then.

The fact is that the majority of you pro-ban people are just lazy, and don't want to actually put in the effort or time to come up with a good strategy against decent MK's.

This is your post

So why do you and several other people continue addressing STUPID reasoning? -_-

Address what's been said thats actually logical. It lets you get to the meat of things.

This was the main subject of my post.
Where did I compare your reasoning?
In fact why are you getting so uppity about the examples to begin with?

Requesting arguments and information from the pro ban side tends to lead no where, since apparently, everything they could provide proof for has already been "proven" and thus it is no longer important to provide (even though they insist on continuing to argue). So you're wasting your time here. Even if you're indirectly making a point like I was, it isn't worth the effort.

Not true Ulevo .
For example the Snake vs Mk argument. Frame data, speed, range, gameplay style, advantage and disadvantages were all mentioned by both pro ban and anti ban side.

on the pro ban side, they stated that the reason MK has an advantage is because he is much less prone to make errors, which outweighs punishment that Snake can perform.
on the ground KM can also maintain his spacing in a variety of ways and can deal with Snake's ftilt by using his own Dtilt. Which is not only faster but has better range (1st hit only). If Snake were to attempt to punish MK after dropping his shield, he would either be too slow (as is the case with Ftilt) or would lack the range. (Utilt and Dtilt).
it was also stated how MK's aerial superiority, gimping ability and spacing ability allowed MK to restrict Snake.

While Snake can kil early and hits much harder, his margin of error is much smaller and MK has an easier time capitalizing on Snake's errors and racking up damage.

It is also pointed out that MK could survive a Utilt up to 160% through uair`jumping according to a member (I cannot recall whom exactly.)

there was also the fact that MK continuously gains on Snake while Snake falls behind. This was reasoned by the pro ban side that Snake dropped due to counters, but should be on the rise due to the incredible increase of MK's nationwide.

So it wasn't that things weren't proven, its that the interpretation of the data differed on both sides. least that is what I had seen anyway.

 

[RDK]

But that's just it. HE NEVER DID!

Reread his post, please.



He said you were addressing the pro-ban arguments like people commonly address the arguments of pro-lifers and anti-homosexuals, that is acting as if the foolish masses' arguments are the only arguments that exists and ignoring any real arguments which are presented.





Both of us are anti-ban in case you haven't noticed (albeit, I have a very nuanced stance), but that's not the point.

It doesn't matter if any have actually been presented, anything which precludes logical arguments prior to presentment is an illogical argument.

My bad then; it was a simple misunderstanding. No insult was meant to Shadowlink.

 

[aeghrur]

Brinboy, you can't simply read the topic, read the current discussion, and ask how it relates. You have to read back to see how it got there, the logical chain that got it there in the first place, which in this case, spans back one page. It went like this:
RDK makes argument
SL&adumbrodeus call it a strawman
SL also references abortion argument
Steel&SL discuss rather abortion should be legal or not
Logical chain no?

 

[da K.I.D.]

Pro choice stuff

thats like saying that if someone commits a crime, than they shouldnt go to prison if they dont want to, you have to man up to the consequences of your actions. in most cases, if she didnt want a kid, she shouldnt have been such a hore to begin with. or at least been safer and smarter about the things that she is doing.

So about this ball of fury known as MetaKnight

we should ban him, theres too much fury...

Balls of fury sucked as a movie.

funny thing, ive heard (and seen it for myself) that inui looks just like the main character from that movie.
the pic is on a thread floating around somewhere.

 

[Atomsk_92]

atomsk your sig is so distracting and yea we're going totally off topic. since when did abortion have to do with MK?

Mk was an abortion XD

 

[ShadowLink84]

My bad then; it was a simple misunderstanding. No insult was meant to Shadowlink.

None taken. you're too squishy to get angry at.

Mk was an abortion XD

Who suffered oxygen deprivation which is why he is blue!

 

[da K.I.D.]

technically speaking kirby can be discribed as an abortion

he was an under developed warrior that was sent on a mission before achieving maturity. or something along those lines

a friend of mine hates kirby for that line ofreasoning, she says hes just a fetus.
lol

 

[bobson]

Christ. The one debate topic worse than the ban on Meta Knight in a smashboards forum is that of abortion. Why is this thread not locked if we're talking about abortion now?

Stay relevant to the topic, or don't post. This is ridiculous.

If only I could find a way to segue it into religion, too... we would have the ultimate thread!

 

[aeghrur]

Psh, that just means he was born premature, not a fetus.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Catholics are evil mother****ers!

<_<

 

[Natch]

Requesting arguments and information from the pro ban side tends to lead no where, since apparently, everything they could provide proof for has already been "proven" and thus it is no longer important to provide (even though they insist on continuing to argue). So you're wasting your time here. Even if you're indirectly making a point like I was, it isn't worth the effort.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=5889816

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=5890101

ya stfu now kthxbai.

Mind you, the whole point of this is simply to demonstrate that what you're saying has been dealt with in the past, and is a completly null point.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Catholics are evil mother****ers!

<_<

they sho nuff are.

im usually a very open minded person, and i usually dont like to hate on other peoples beliefs since mine are in teh vast minority

but catholicism is like, the dumbest religion ive ever seen...

 

[Ulevo]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=5889816

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=5890101

ya stfu now kthxbai.

Mind you, the whole point of this is simply to demonstrate that what you're saying has been dealt with in the past, and is a completly null point.

You really pay no attention at all.

 

[Natch]

You really pay no attention at all.

You said the pro-ban side doen't deliver proof, because everything they say is already "proven" by default. I showed a case where proof was requested by you very adamantly, and subsequently given. You then say that was common knowledge and that providing proof wasn't required.

TL;DR: ya stfu now kthxbai

 

[aeghrur]

Pastafarian is the way to go.

 

[ExCeL 52]

Straight Up No No Ifs ands Or Buts

 

[Atomsk_92]

about it....

 

[DanGR]

A friend told me that the pro-life states are more MK-ban friendly. lol

 

[ShadowLink84]

A friend told me that the pro-life states are more MK-ban friendly. lol

@_@
we need a poll