For example, I said that the presenter did not make the argument that 'Because woman are not the main focus, therefore men are, therefore games are sexist'. You have never present the reasoning behind that assertion, and I did not get the same conclusion from the presentation.
For example, you said "Dinosaur Planet was transformed to a StarFox game because it makes so much business sense but unsurprisingly she didn't mention this _extremely_ obvious fact.", and I show that while it wasn't explicitly said, it was a simple inferences from two other statements, to wit "the transformation used the damsel-in-distress trope" and "game companies often use the damsel-in-distress trope to make more sales".
This does leave the possibility that the change was done for other reasons, but I think it's reasonable to infer that the speaker knows that it makes business sense, but also believes it doesn't make good moral sense.
For example, you describe 'objectification' as the dictionary definition of "To become/transform into an object", and argued that the speaker was using "false attribution." I responded by pointing out that the speaker was using the definition as it's used in the philosophy of ethics, with a heritage dating even back to Kant, and that that was the appropriate definition for this presentation. I don't see where the presenter used false attribution.
As as for ad hominem, I realize that you do have experience in that matter. The phrase "doing it in a overly-formal tone just to look more serious" is ad hominem, in that it references the presenter's style, rather than the logic.
So please, justify your original assertions rather than making new statements. Otherwise I could just as easily say that you used the "overly-formal tone" of naming common logical fallacies "just to look more serious" in your opposition to the contents of the presentation. And where's the fun in me being a parrot?
jQueryIsAwesome> Dinosaur Planet was transformed to a StarFox game because it makes so much business sense but unsurprisingly she didn't mention this _extremely_ obvious fact
dalke> No? The logical implication was clear to me.
Ask anyone after watching the video "why do you think Dinosaur Planet was never published?"; they will tell you that is because society is sexist or because Yamamoto said so or because Nintendo is misogynist. Very few people will go the logic route and try to convey the very logical reason that it just made business sense.
> I responded by pointing out that the speaker was using the definition as it's used in the philosophy of ethics, with a heritage dating even back to Kant
Didn't you know that words mean what most people think they mean? Not the definition of "philosopy of ethics" or Khan.
...you are the uploader of this submission and/or part of the same feminist group aren't you?
Ahh, since "very few people will go the logic route" then must I avoid using logic when talking with you, and only use emotional arguments? You started off by highlighting what you thought were logical fallacies in the presentation. I assumed that you wanted a discussion based on logic.
Am I to infer instead that your objections here are based in emotions, and not in logical thinking? That would explain your frequent leanings towards the ad hominem arguments, including the attempt in the last line of guilt by association.
Once you appeal to the abstract "anyone", then you are making an argumentum ad populum. An equally invalid counter-argument from me would be "no, only fools would draw the same conclusion as you do." Neither point is based on logic, and easily dismissible. (Though you could use that argument if you've done an appropriate random statistical sampling, I strongly doubt that's the case.)
Therefore, your reply just now does nothing to strengthen your original argument, and I believe your reach towards arguments by fallacy undermines the emotional component of your position.
You say it "just made business sense". Please explain the "just" part. How come it didn't make business sense during the original development?
"Didn't you know that words mean what most people think they mean?"
You know that isn't true. Words have multiple meanings and different meanings to different groups of people. I presume you are making another emotional argument here rather than a logical one. I will explain the logic, starting with the same example I used earlier. (I doubt it will make a difference. Perhaps I'm an optimist, or a masochist, at heart.)
Words can have multiple meanings. Most people think "theory" means something like "speculation." You'll see that in dismissive claims against evolution, saying "it's only a theory." But scientists will also use "theory" to mean a 'general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena', as in "Einstein's theory of gravitation" or "the germ theory of disease."
Most people will say that a "clip" and a "magazine" are the same thing, but someone who knows firearms will point out that a clip lacks a feed mechanism. Most people will ask "is that snake poisonous?" when they mean to ask if the snake is venomous. Is there really a vehicle inside your computer or does "bus" mean something else when talking about computers?
To insist that everyone use the general understanding of a word and hence deny subgroups the use of appropriate technical vocabulary is absurd.
Instead, the correct analysis is to examine the context. Is the presenter using terminology appropriate for the domain and audience? is the terminology well-established in that field? etc. I then showed that the presenter is using the appropriate terminology for this sort of video, with a long established history. (And that's "Kant", not "Khan". Should I infer from that typo that you know little about philosophy?)
It is valid to propose that the presenter used terminology that was inappropriate for the audience. I would disagree with the proposition, but not the logic behind it. It is muddled thinking, however, to outright reject the existence and usefulness of specialized vocabulary.
I don't know the exact name of this logic fallacy but you are basically over-amplifying the variations implicit in the definition of something; in this case the meaning of words.
Yes, words can mean different thing for different people but if you say "Fuck you." to someone the possible interpretations are a very limited range centered mostly in the definition of being "aggressive slang to dismiss or show strong disagreement towards a person and/or an specific action done by an individual or group".
In the same way "objectification" is mostly centered in "transform something into an object"; bringing all subjective negative connotations this may have in the mind of the viewer (e.g. objects have no rights, objects can't think by themselves, objects have no soul, etc)
May I add that the extend of the words in your argument and the complexity of the words you are using in it helps nothing to your point.
> I would appreciate my lies being pointed out. I am unable to see them myself.
I already did but you will never see them, like a colorblind asking where the color green is.
PD: Yeah, I accept I did some ad-hominems against you, not a very smart thing but I also presented logic refutations against your arguments that you don't seem to acknowledge.
You've now twice in this thread made the claim that the person whose views you disagree with used a style that was too complex. Have you considered that you may be beyond your intellectual depth?
You have not established that "objectification" is used incorrectly here. You have acknowledged that it can have multiple meanings, and stated that the most common usage as defined in a dictionary does not apply. You have not shown that all alternative definitions of the term, including specifically, the one used in the philosophy of ethics, is also incorrect for this use. I gave a citation to Martha Nussbaum as a relatively recent reference for this definition.
You'll noticed that in my replies I summarized the relevant points I had made earlier. You do not do the same courtesy.
I am not able to see in radar frequencies. I still know where X-band is, and I've measured its wavelength. I am not able to hear the ultrasonic sounds of dolphins, but I can hear it after shifting downwards. I cannot feel distant earthquakes, but I can read the output from a seismograph. Yes, I can explain to a colorblind person where green is. Can't you?
You pile specious arguments on top of ad hominem ones, yet still consider yourself assailable on a mountain of logic? Do you have the humility to examine your logic for faults, and the grace to help others? Or are you only out to win internet debating points?
Now I am 100% sure you are just another silly troll.
"doing it in a overly-formal tone just to look more serious to gain credibility with mostly biased, false or unrelated claims"
"the extend of the words in your argument and the complexity of the words you are using in it helps nothing to your point."
I observe that statements like this are rare in just about every conversation, HN thread, or other debate that I've participated in or read. I believe then that this is part of your debate style.
Those quoted statements are prima facie ad hominem statements, and lack the followup to show that they are otherwise. The frequent use of fallacies is, as I've shown, characteristic of your arguments. That you disparage others for using those fallacies does not mean that you yourself avoid them. Indeed, it seems that your argument style is to attribute fallacious reasoning on your opponent, rather than explain why it is actually fallacious. This, of course, is a fallacious appeal to authority.
Based on your resistance to explaining the logic behind your reasoning, including even your disdain at providing citation references for the quotes you gave, and combined with the rest of this discussion, I have come to the tentative conclusion that you enjoy rhetoric for the edge that it gives you during debates. But you have been swayed by its power at making an easy attack, and do not care for the slower, more difficult job of using it as a tool to understand your own prejudices and inconsistencies.
In other words, you prefer to call people names than to explain yourself.