Chezspeak

Usually don't update, but otherwise just a collection of random jumbles of characters forming sentences. That or reblogs.

September 4, 2011 4:15 pm
brennablog: Recently, we've been getting lots of flame from a certain someone...

kawaiisweetberry:

Or should I say, EVERYONE. We all need to stand up against this fool, this person, who idolises herself as a ‘goddess’. She runs a blog, that is very well known to some anime and manga fans. This blog is called WeabooStories. We need to fight against this. The hate in this…

This could be an example of the following logical fallacies:

(circumstantial) ad hominem: The writer of this argument first begins with calling weeaboostories’ “goddess” a fool. An insult used to prove a point in an argument is the first sign of ad hominem. She encourages the demise of her blog, which is another negative blow to her figurative body. The arguer also states that she is using this supposed “hate” to make her popular, thus making this a circumstantial ad hominem.

Poisoning the Well: Unfavorable information, NOT necessarily true, about weeaboostories was presented, therefore, weeaboostories becomes wrong in the arguer’s mind, and in the minds of her readers.

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: The arguer claims that weeaboostories is the cause of flaming. She assumes that because weeaboostories came first, it is the reason why people flame “weeaboos.”

Biased Sample: The runners of the arguer’s blog are into all things Japanese and “kawaii.” Weeaboostories wishes to stop people limiting their mindsets to only Japanese-anime culture and expand their knowledge, which is not in the interests of the arguer. Therefore, the arguer is biased.

Bandwagon: The arguer claims that weeaboostories uses this strategy by encouraging that people flame others, and then uses it him/herself by asking everyone to “join the fight.”

Appeal to Spite: Claim X is said to be spiteful, so claim Y must be correct. Self-explanatory.

Appeal to Ridicule: see above.

Appeal to Consequence of a Belief: The arguer believes that the elimination of the blog will produce a positive outcome without any proof.

Your argument is invalid.

This is all kinds of awesome, as well as true.

EDIT: Oh how do I do double quotes, I don’t know.

(via brennabuns)

  1. clara-stone reblogged this from kawaiisweetberry
  2. postmortemtsarina reblogged this from antiheroandcompany
  3. li-li-li reblogged this from sinsoo
  4. loves-young-nightmares reblogged this from quattrovagina
  5. randomnow reblogged this from kotesticle
  6. zealteal reblogged this from molilii and added:
    This is so awesome. My inner rhetoric nerd is squealing right now.
  7. pch0oooo reblogged this from kawaiisweetberry and added:
    Hm… Not sure whether...laugh, or feel extremely sorry for you for actually thinking that.
  8. destituteluminary reblogged this from mcsassins
  9. darkcream reblogged this from gryphblogzone
  10. anti-comunista reblogged this from molilii and added:
    That dude who analyzed that whole argument daaaaaamn. And also the first line of the OP’s YouTube channel info says: “A...
  11. ludicrouscupcake reblogged this from johndavefanfics