Ochobobo
Smash Lord
But OoT called her a man, lolol ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JuIHb4cWxw )
In Smash Games, Sheik became much more feminine than (s?!)he was in Ocarina of Time.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
ZGD: Livin by a thread.
- Thread starter KayLo!
- Start date
In Smash Games, Sheik became much more feminine than (s?!)he was in Ocarina of Time.
XFadingNirvanaX
Smash Champion
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Messages
- 2,605
Same here Kaylo.
SinkingHigher
Smash Lord
of course she's described as a man in oot. the zora girl fell for her disguise. Have you never mistaken a girl at a lesbian bar for a man?
Yeah I've heard of that as well! - it's apparently true of final fantasy apparently. I've heard that Kuja, the villain in 9, was actually a female in the japanese release of the game but for some reason was a male in the international release =O
mountain_tiger
Smash Champion
I've never met any lesbians, so I can't really say...
KayLo!
Smarter than your average wabbit.
In Sailor Moon, Fish Eye was actually a dude, but they made him a girl in the English dub.
I love this quote about American animation, btw:
Kiddie sandbox, lolol.
GodAtHand
Smash Lord
So true. And I loved Paprika!
mountain_tiger
Smash Champion
My guess is that since there are some extremist religious types in certain countries in the Anglophobe who disagree with homosexuality, they wouldn't want anyone thinking anime was portraying a gender-confused character. whereas Japan, which is much more secular, have no qualms with such a character. Or something like that, I don't know.
For example, there are quite a lot of homophobes around here. I used to get beaten up and kicked all the time at school because people thought I was gay.
For example, there are quite a lot of homophobes around here. I used to get beaten up and kicked all the time at school because people thought I was gay.
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
Dude... remember Birdo?
In the original japanese, Birdo was a male that wished it was female, then in America, that bit was removed and it was assumed to be male. Even paired as a love interest to yoshi.
Now birdo is called "it" and is neither.
yes it does... and is the only canonical reference to sheik's sex.
Everything else is speculation and theory, but the game calls sheik a man and there's less reason to think sheik would be physiologically female than male even without that. Sure you can make theories to support your hypothesis, but basing a theory on data BEFORE you make your hypothesis rather than making a statement and finding data to fit it can't support sheik as being a female.
NYMPHOMANIAC!!!
*points*
KayLo!
Smarter than your average wabbit.
Where?! =X
Awww, you right.
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
no problem.Where?! =X
Awww, you right.
it's fun to always have your mind on sex; mundane conversations are infinitely more exciting.
random aside:
one of the best songs ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QapwJpAe7w
Elder Sister
Smash Lord
would like to hear the song..
dang, again copyright restrictions...
guess kat will have the same prob
dang, again copyright restrictions...
guess kat will have the same prob
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
simple:would like to hear the song..
dang, again copyright restrictions...
guess kat will have the same prob
own the song
everyone should
Elder Sister
Smash Lord
meh it just says blabla vid cant be shown blabla
the title?
the title?
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
Elder Sister
Smash Lord
kyaaaa!!!!!Kenya><!!!!ähäm
GodAtHand
Smash Lord
I Fixed It.I didn't realise it was on a loop, I thought the song would have an end. I thoroughly enjoyed that 10 minutes of my life
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
I was gonna fix it, but you were on top of things
Edit:
Nice to see this toon getting the kind of props it deserves: totally titular man!
Ochobobo
Smash Lord
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
"fighting gear" is not just "armor". Armor is just the example, but Sheik's clothing is clearly designed to be reminiscent of Ninja gear for the exact same purpose, and if you take a look at it, you'll find most is similarly good at disguising gender as a secondary effect.
If you don't believe me, remember, I'm the board Ninja, I know this ****.
But, overall, there's no reason to assume that she changes gender and the burden of proof is on you to prove that she does.
The fact that it might've had some very small advantage is not sufficent evidence to prove that she actually did it.
Edit:
I figured I should make my profile official so I can go on the front page:
Name: AdumbroDeus
Location: Atlantic North, NY
Tournament: Yes
Teammates: Not really a teams player
Zelda Costume: OoT Zelda
Sheik: Yes
Secondaries: Marth is my main, secondaries other then Zelda/Sheik are Ganondorf, Ike, and MK.
Ochobobo
Smash Lord
Yeah lol, she was definitely a quadruple asterisk word.She WAS a **** if memory serves.
if that was your suggestion at least.
Is there a way to turn off that filter?
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
oh... wait... so, it's not pronounced: A dumb rodeus? oh the things you learn
4 letter word, this one was a synonem for "lady of the night"
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
Logicial fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof.
You made the claim that something occurred (namely the sex change), prove it.
Either that, or disprove the all-powerful invisible unicorn that created the entire universe 10 seconds ago and implanted us with all prior memories.
Lol, what the heck does that mean?
Adumbro Deus is two words in latin.
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
its a situation that is fictional and terefore unproveable, but the game called sheik a man. And you asserted that Zelda did NOT change sex. I have no more burden of proof than you unless you retract your assertion and change your viewpoint to uncertainty.
well, when there's no spaces in the name, it's hard to see where the intended separation of words is sometimes.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
An assertion that something does not exist is logically (and mathematically) equivalent to no assertion at all, and disproving that assertion is mathematically equivalent to making an existential assertion.
That is because non-existence is the standing null hypothesis, and an assertion to that effect is a mere reiteration of the null hypothesis, not an assertion in and of itself.
So, in a nutshell, the requirements to prove an assertion apply only to existential statements.
This is all discrete mathmatics, so... an illustration.
if I say: for all n, n^2=/= n*2, isn't it logically equivalent to saying not(there exists an n, where n^2=n*2). And isn't that the same as saying that an existential statement is false when put into plain English? The statement of course is, "there exists an n, where n^2 = n*2".
So, an assertion that something didn't happen or does not exist is disagreeing with an existential statement, and therefore, logically disagreeing with that statement is an existential statement and carries the burden of proof.
To cover all my bases, to establish why logically existential statements do not hold unless proven, take a look at the statement above.
In order to prove it true, only one example is needed, to prove it false, infinite examples are needed. Therefore it is impossible to prove something false, but it is impossible to build any sort of way of reasoning through the world that requires infinite examples (again, think back to my "disprove my invisible unicorn example), we'd be forced to assume everything exists. So non-existence is the operative null hypothesis, and it's disproven by a counter-example.
And there's basic logic conceptualization in a nutshell, I could go on with extended history of the scientific method, but generally speaking, to find the burden of proof, find the the existential statement, whoever is saying something "exists", or that "something should be done", or "something happened", or anything similar has the burden of proof. The person saying the opposite does not have the burden of proof.
*waits for the TL;DR*
Fair enough, my tag is "Deus" so I sort of assume everyone gets the separation, but, should probably have it changed at some point.
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
no. I read. I just think you're wrong and trying to strawman by distracting from the original point by arguing about who needs to be more right. When the two options are "she did" or "she didn't" and you assert that she most certainly didn't when there is an insunuation that she did and a logical reason to back that up, then you have to provide a reason to assume that that's wrong. And, you haven't. And you won't. Because you can't. Nothing canonical hints otherwise.
As such, the only arguments you can make would be based on non canon or your own personal theories/opinions. And I'll save you the breath of such endeavours because I'm not interested.
so... this is really not the place for this. I think you're wrong, but I'm not trying to force everyone to call sheik a man, I just deserve not to be crucified when I use a masculine pronoun or call zelda "brawl's transexual"
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
...
Reread.
You're not arguing with me about canon anymore, you're arguing with the foundations of modern science and discrete mathematics/logic (logic btw, is part of discrete mathematics).
Again, look at what I asserted.
I asserted something DID NOT HAPPEN, namely that Zelda did NOT change gender, that is not an existential statement. You disagree with me, therefore you are making an existential statement, that something HAPPENED.
Who starts a debate has no substantial value, only the positions themselves have value. Your position is that an existential statement is true, my position is that an existential statement is false, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
Seriously, read up a little bit on discrete mathmatics, you can skip down to disproving an existential statement.
From there, we have the problem of induction, which basically explains why outside of mathmatics, existential statements cannot be disproved.
And then we had the idea of working off falsification and corroboration, the corroboration ultimately becomes logically significant after infinite tests. That is the hypothetico-deductive model.
So, no. Just no.
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
you assert female genetalia, I assert male
both suggest the existence of something. You cannot prove your assertion just as I cannot prove mine .
your unicorn analogy is not an analogy because it's not an analohous situation.
your example with discrete mathematics is wrong because we're not WORKING with an infinite set of numbers. it's either option one or option two. To choose a side is to choose a side. It's just as easy to say "the game's only reference to sheik's gender is the word "man." You are the one making an assertion that that isn't true. The burden of proof is on you"
either way we know zelda used magic to alter her body. An event DID happen and saying it was an incomplete change is no more a null hypotheses than the alternative was.
Sorry, I know this is how one normally "wins" internet debates but, your references simply aren't applicable.
Now I am content to end this because it is quite obvious that it's a situation where nothing CAN be proven because there is insufficient data. You're the one who wishes to prolong the argument by saying "fine, but that means that Sheik is a she because you, not I have the burden of proof." seriously, this has stretched out FAR longer than it should have. If you wish to discuss it further, take it to my PM box and, even then, don't bother, you won't get anywhere unless you can do better than reasserting the points you've already raised.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
I'll end the debate,.
The game referred to Sheik as a male because it was a disguise and assumed a third person view that revolved around Link.
It makes sense for the game to refer to Sheik as a male because that was Link's interpretation of Sheik.
However Sheik was actually Zelda ins disguise, female.
Her gender did not change and this was confirmed in an interview a loooong time ago i regards to the debate.
Sheik is a female. End story. I win.
And yes I just jumped in randomly because this debate is stupid. QQ moar nubs.
Anyway GT, who is going? Who is not?
The game referred to Sheik as a male because it was a disguise and assumed a third person view that revolved around Link.
It makes sense for the game to refer to Sheik as a male because that was Link's interpretation of Sheik.
However Sheik was actually Zelda ins disguise, female.
Her gender did not change and this was confirmed in an interview a loooong time ago i regards to the debate.
Sheik is a female. End story. I win.
And yes I just jumped in randomly because this debate is stupid. QQ moar nubs.
Anyway GT, who is going? Who is not?
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
No.
There is no such thing as a debate with no burden of proof (as much as SCOTUS tries to invent one).
In the case of Sheik, each individual change has it's own burden of proof, however for the skin color (for example) that burden of proof is satisfied.
You can't say, "a change happened, therefore it's just as likely as not that you became half-apricot with a black hole in your chest because we know you changed something else about yourself".
Try again.
If you don't feel like responding, then fine.
But it's impossible to conduct a discussion without first establishing which side has the burden of proof. This refers to anything, from questions of religion (does God hate X?) to questions about whether the invisible unicorn is around.
What you don't seem to be getting is exactly what defines where the burden of proof is, and that's crucial to conducting any discussion of any sort.
More specifically, you seem to be relying on technicalities (that you didn't make clear that you were relying on) under the assumption that the standing rules don't cover it. X proven is not the same as X and Y proven, person asserting Y still has the burden of proof.
Furthermore, I'm not just rebringing up points, I'm responding dynamically. The only time I saw fit to reassert was to bombard you with sources since you didn't seem to believe my assertions.
fixed
Gender is view by society, sex is actual physical arraignment. Gender identity is view of oneself.
Sheik's gender changed (society, including Link, viewed her as male), but her sex (physical parts) and gender identity (gender view of herself) did not.
Yes, people use them interchangeably a lot, but they're different.
And as I already told you, GT ftw!
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
I'm sorry for what I did to this thread.
KayLo!
Smarter than your average wabbit.
I'll be back when y'all stop debating a video game character's gender/sex/whatever the **** you guys are talking about. x.x
Darkmusician
Smash Master
This is funny.
Chad is reading this from my laptop and he's laughing.
Chad is reading this from my laptop and he's laughing.
Elder Sister
Smash Lord
yeah. im wondering how they can talk bout this over pages(was too lazy to count)
If you guys really want to argue over the interwebs, apply to be in the DH. Seriously.
Anyone read any good books lately?
Anyone read any good books lately?
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
The "Sheik is male" debate is ALWAYS funny.
Edit: I posted the profile stuff already, when do I get my little profile on the front page?
FOR LOGIC! Sort of like "FOR SCIENCE!", but less popular.
im wondering how they can talk bout this over pages(was too lazy to count)
*checks title*
Hmmm, I think I'm already part of that.
SinkingHigher
Smash Lord
What kind of book are you looking for, lythium?
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
it's not a book I've read LATELY per se, but "Good Omens" is fantastic.
mature.
I stopped when I figured out you couldn't prove your point and were going to argue that you didn't have to.