´n.n.n.n´ where the dot does not represent decimal notation but a less significant variation (of the software) than the previous number. This is universally true for the first two numbers but not always for the rest.
903 karma · joined September 10, 2011
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.
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?
Twitter is a more accessible version of RSS feed allowing way easier access to subjects of interest for non-tech-savvy people.
But don't use Flash ads; those can have sound and can slow down the PC and don't work on many devices, making it a very high price to pay for visiting your site.
And say what you want, Im pretty sure white female rape-victims is not a valid meet up.
But is not the classic case of Ad-hominem, you did a deduction from point B to make a personal attack to deny the validness of point A. Interesting.
Have you heard about civil war? That was one group trying to convince another that some people should be allowed in.
And anyway; I wasn't making an abstraction but the very evil segregation such as rape victims meetups excluding men. Unsurprisingly these meetups don't exist in reality; there are some about violence or abusive relationships in general.
>disempowering present participle of dis·em·pow·er. Verb. Make (a person or group) less powerful or confident.
Do you honestly think that there are less woman in congress because Dinosaur Planet was never released? In today world political power is the most important kind of power, that's why saying "disempowering women" is extremly ambiguos.
> But objectification means "denial of autonomy, inertness."
That's clearly NOT what it means in the mind of most people. In most people's mind it means "To become/transform into an object", no more no less; even the formal definition I found (different from yours) implies this: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectification
>Where does the presenter say that games where women are not the main focus are necessarily sexist?
Quote: "Is not about women at all!"... are you trying to tell me she is not suggesting that is about men? A honest non-biased person would add that men are also NOT the main focus; the relevance of the genders is not given by the players but by outsiders interested in judging those and accommodating those judgement inside their agendas.
> The goal of this video was to examine the 'damsel in distress' trope
False, as you can see in one of my arguments you didn't respond she makes unrelated proverbial quotations and commentary victimizing women for the lack of their presence in video-games.
All the claims are extremly biased; 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.
Cherry picking 1:18 - Dinosaur Planet, probably the only game where the main role was changed after significant publicity and development had been done.
Equivocation (Ambiguity) 3:06: When she says "Disempowering"
False attribution 10:38 - If one is a secondary character therefore is an object of the main character, therefore is being objectified.
Slippery Slope 10:48 - Kidnapping is equal to stealing, you only steal "things", therefore women are always objects when they are kidnapped.
Black or white fallacy 11:19 - Because woman are not the main focus, therefore men are, therefore games are sexist (Hint: False, its about entertaining subjects plus supply and demand eg: Hitman = Killing silently, GTA = Anarchy). Strawman and appeal to emotion 11:39 - Provincial quote just to focus anger on the game industry. ("Is said that in the game of monarchy woman are not the opposing team, they are the ball.").
Strawmen - Saying that browser and mario are the important characters and the princess is just "the ball", Browser is not important and you don't even think about him until the end of the game. And Mario for its lack of emotional and psychological traits becomes more of representation of the player (the human) than a character by itself. She uses an image of Peach inside a bubble jail in order to persuade the viewer in favor of her position.
Cherry picking 12:30 - Showing games of the 80s and 90s purpousolly omiting titles such as Metroid (Woman character), Tomb Raider, Resident Evil 1, 2 , 3 and 5. Mortal Kombat (All, Kitana, Sonya, Jade, Sheena) Rogue (X-Men), Kirby (unknown sex femenine characters), genderless games (Metal Warriors, arcanoid, tetris, Sim City, Uni Rally, lemmings), all sport games (most people who play soccer are men, more people playing videogames are men, therefore is so obvious why the game only haves men that she better omit this enterely to not let anyone make a correlation of this same logic in other area of her critique. This also happens with games and proffesions, more firefighters are men, therefore the main player in the game "The Firemen" is a man)
Omitting information [all video] - Soldiers are historically the ones to go to war and kill, therefore most representation of soldiers and similar roles will be man. Real-life reasons to go to war are corrupt or/and highly controversial; games try to be more friendly and less controversial by using a well accepted premise from centuries ago and one of those is the cliche of Knights fighting to rescue women.
Not a established logical fallacy but introduces a lot of history that doesn't support any of the facts she is talking about but she speaks as it does; plus doing it in a overly-formal tone just to look more serious to gain credibility with mostly biased, false or unrelated claims.
BTW, this discussion is just silly because there are millions of meet Ups in tech filled with only men, but in the other hand meet ups of rape survivors not accepting men would be just evil, men are a minority in that group, it would be like a tech company not accepting any women.
But of course there are alternatives for visual clues that still look flat-ish: http://i.imgur.com/jXN2tpe.jpg
PD: Apple please don't sue me for the patent and copyright violation this may contain; I have no money and this image is just a non-profit parody so it is covered by "fair use" under US trademark law.
[0]https://github.com/AltIvan/programando.la (MIT License)
You mean P2P connections? Oh we have that now in Firefox and Chrome. You mean video chats? Oh we have that. You mean thousands of libraries to create and develop videogames for the web? Oh we have that. You mean easily extensible browsers via plugins/extension? Oh we have that. I need you to be very specific about what we are lacking.