Forum - View topic

Hey, Answerman! - ANTI-PIRACY HYSTERIA

Agreeing on which things go to which category is really irrelevant though. What matters is how much, on average, people think are crud, e.g. ask a million population how much each thinks is crud and average it out. Some may say 10%; some may say 90%. If the average turns out to be, say, 70%, then that's what that population thinks - that 70% of what they see they consider crud. As ya can see, we didn't even have to ask which things they agree on, just how much they consider are crud.

enurtsol wrote:

Agreeing on which things go to which category is really irrelevant though. What matters is how much, on average, people think are crud, e.g. ask a million population how much each thinks is crud and average it out. Some may say 10%; some may say 90%. If the average turns out to be, say, 70%, then that's what that population thinks - that 70% of what they see they consider crud. As ya can see, we didn't even have to ask which things they agree on, just how much they consider are crud.

But then you run into the issue where most of what they will say is "crud" are things they've never even seen, which makes the entire exercise worthless. You can't say something is crud unless you actually watch it, since at that point you're just ASSUMING its crud.

Hmmmm............ Maybe put a qualifier like: "only out of all those you've seen/played/used/etc., how much do you think is crud?" It's not the things themselves that matter; it's the numbers we're looking, after all.

Ugh. Can we please dump Sturgeon's Law into the rubbish bin designed to contain all other reasoning fallacies? It is simply a way for certain people to justify their scathing cynicism.

I repeat Sturgeon’s Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud. Using the same standards that categorize 90% of science fiction as trash, crud, or crap, it can be argued that 90% of film, literature, consumer goods, etc. are crap. In other words, the claim (or fact) that 90% of science fiction is crap is ultimately uninformative, because science fiction conforms to the same trends of quality as all other artforms.

Also, you never stopped watching cartoons Lav, ANIME ARE CARTOONS TOO!!! *Just from our buddies in Japan* *runs away from angry fans*

Also, you never stopped watching cartoons Lav, ANIME ARE CARTOONS TOO!!! *Just from our buddies in Japan* *runs away from angry fans*

Soundmonkey44 wrote:

Also, you never stopped watching cartoons Lav, ANIME ARE CARTOONS TOO!!! *Just from our buddies in Japan* *runs away from angry fans*

Why are you even here?

Soundmonkey44 wrote:

Also, you never stopped watching cartoons Lav, ANIME ARE CARTOONS TOO!!! *Just from our buddies in Japan* *runs away from angry fans*

you know that's pretty much like saying something like das rheingold is the same as something like Mary poppins.

Fencedude5609 wrote:

Soundmonkey44 wrote: Also, you never stopped watching cartoons Lav, ANIME ARE CARTOONS TOO!!! *Just from our buddies in Japan* *runs away from angry fans* Why are you even here?

Because he's a fan of anime? Anime--Western Animation is not a black-white dichotomy, jesus christ.

yurihellsing wrote:

Soundmonkey44 wrote: Also, you never stopped watching cartoons Lav, ANIME ARE CARTOONS TOO!!! *Just from our buddies in Japan* *runs away from angry fans* you know that's pretty much like saying something like das rheingold is the same as something like Mary poppins.

Nice No True Scotsman there. Just admit that you have no argument and rely on denial of facts in order to make yourself feel "mature".