…but she is. that dragon is
HUGE! |
|---|
i think everyone is just bored of talking about alex. 
I want disney/pixar alex form that reveal cinematic.
Good job guy with the proportion post (Xenterex) you effectively closed this thread.
Well said! 
To sum up the thread: Hail doesn’t realize that Warcraft has a stylized aesthetic and is only familiar with oddly stubby women.
1 Like
The issue does not persist on the same scale as it does between the two of us. While I may exchange a few words of off-topic banter with other people I post to (with the same exchange returned in turn), the majority of the post stays on the topic, meaning those ‘issues’ you pointed out don’t stand out as a major part of their argument.
The focus with “You” statements present in your arguments often make up the majority of your post. To be clear, if you want to try and point out something you don’t like about my argumentation style, that’s okay (I do it to) but only as long as it doesn’t become excessive.
With many posts I’ve seen from you, paragraphs #1, #2, #3, and sometimes #4, are comprised of you complaining/pointing out why you don’t like the style of someones argument while only 1-2 paragraphs at the end pertain to the topic at hand.
Notice in the example I used in the other thread, only paragraph #1 was a personal exchange between me and Planar. Paragraphs #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7 were all me formulating my argument and presenting evidence to support my hypothesis.
Banter in and of itself is not a major problem unless it goes to extreme lengths, which it often goes to in your cases. When debating with someone, you almost always include a paragraph (or two, or three) that details your problems with their post structure and logic/reasoning.
The portion you see as “semantic arguments” based on personal preference (oh, i think you should structure/phrase this stuff this way) and because its what you do, to the extent you know how, its what you assume of what I (attempt >.<) to do.
Most of the points of where I do the “arguing semantics” aren’t about suggesting my ‘personal preference’ to someone on how they present their argument, but in pointing out pragmatic defects of what they argue: that’s part of why when I argue that stuff, I avoid putting out my opinion on the topic as the basis of what I think pertaining to the hero/balance/whatever has less to do with the realization of what’s presented, and how it’s argued because its a symptom of an issue on why the argument is defective.
So the “1,2,3,4 complaining” bit you see has details pertaining to pattern/prediction as a means for identifying marked issues with pragmatic problems that are used as steps to try to address topic issues that are otherwise overlooked, and often repeated.
akin to how you replied in the hammer topic along the lines of “just telling someone to does’t help much” so the same would go for how other people do the “git gud” or other terse replies that regulate the “solution” of a topics “problem” to being on the OP, but not really expressing what the issue entails.
People are content to regulate certain types of posts as just “trolling” even when it might not be as such.
If [they] don’t realize the ‘problem’ is personal perspective, then they’ll likely persist in the same issues: that’s why its a pragmatic defect, not a semantic one.
While you dissect into presentation pertaining to audience, detail, choice of words and the like is my attempts to identify particular aspects of certain bias (neglect of probability, anchoring, framing, etc) as some of the ways people offset certain cognitive faults is through awareness, information and training.
Some of consequence of the sort concern I express can be seen in your choice of attempts to ‘refute’ the posts I did in the topic. Rather than verify the searches and evidence i presented, you went off onto different areas to then try to assert a sort of proof of absence that doesn’t make sense, but one that felt empowering for you to do.
The ‘practical’ application of deviant red herrings just diverts someone away from what is presented in favor of them fixating on what they want instead. The only means by which the ‘prove a negative’ sort of approach would have in that regard would pretty much come down to invalid logical jumps that essentially become strawmen arguments.
Right… because you bemoaning the usage of the phrase “change my mind” helped everyone understand the difference between Imperius’ and Orphea’s traits. I’m sure after reading what you had to say, everyone magically understood the OP was wrong because you corrected his terminology.
Debating the usage of the word “Tone” really helped everyone understand why Sylvanas’ rework was a bad thing, didn’t it?
Arguing about Tyrande’s lore really helped the OP understand why the new Tyrande is better than the old.
Explaining to Hailfail who Khaldor was most definitely enlightened him as to why ming was actually a good pick all along!
In reality, this is a very poor excuse to not engage in the subject material and instead pick on people who are not as articulate in formulating opinions as you are. The sad thing is, you would actually have a point if you selected words and phrases that were crucial to the integrity of the OP’s argument, which is almost never the case.
How does pointing out bias or incorrect syntax help to change people’s opinion on a subject they themselves have created? Answer: It doesn’t. If you want to change someone’s mind on an issue, explain to them why the contrary of what they are arguing is true. The fact that you would have the audacity to sit here and preach that correcting people’s syntax is actually an EFFECTIVE means of countering their argument just reeks of delusion and arrogance.
Notice how very rarely anyone wants to go back and forth with you when you comment on a thread. You could chalk this up to a variety of reasons but I’m willing to bet that it’s more than just a “tl;dr” issue. Most people that I know want to have their opinions challenged by other opinions which contradict their own. I don’t know a single person who wants to have their opinions challenged by another people who just wants to point out why their opinion isn’t supported by proper syntax and word usage.
*cue inigo montaya meme
The written medium breaks down into 4 groups:
informative, persuasive, expressive and narrative.
One key component of reading comprehension of an audience is for them to ascertain the “intent of the author” and assess what type of writing they are reading.
Is the intent to inform?, to argue?, to entertain?, and so on. Part of a particular flaw on your “oh xen just does the same things over” is that it conflates a lot of telling distinctions to try to make that claim.
→ asserts all given examples fall into one form (to ‘debate’)
→ ignores vernacular distinctions to suit ‘known’ terms over unknown
→ ignores evident self-contradiction to persist in the above
[which yea, pointing that out is immediately going to be made problematic by this reply being “more of the same”]
Some of the replies you post at me are impulsive, fixated, and ignore pertinent context, even when from yourself.
You’re content to rationalize self-contradiction and hypocritical behavior in favor of "going on the offensive’ and subsequently ‘pull a mekkagoo’ where the desire for exceeds the evidence present.
I’m a bit more particular on the [you] there as the response to some of the posts in this topic could be seen as examples of the “Backfire Effect”. While a number of summaries of the extent of the ‘backfire’ entail a person reinforcing a held belief in light of evidence contrary to what they want, I would personally say the mark of the effect is the manifest hostility to the evidence presented.
[insert examples]
One issue with some of the questions you pose at me (rhetorical or not) is that they’d be answered before you asked them if you were reading the posts through. So that can be telling to me that you ‘beg the question’ from material presented on it, which ‘begs’ a different sort of response. Per missing details in one instance, the follow-up comes to demand a repeat of what was missed rather than one going back to check themselves – they demand more time be put out by someone else, but they don’t have the interest in perusing more length to find new posts to verify the concern. So, its a response that seems dubiously not ‘honest’ and could save either/any part more time if someone checks what was already given 
Here’s a telling detail in that vein: at one point here you tried to accuse me of skimming or skimping on reading your posts through. Despite the accusation, the evident consequence of your reading habits would suggest that you don’t read my posts through.
Now I don’t fault people for not reading the whole of anything I write,
(so long as they don’t lie about having done so >.<)
but the consequence of demanding someone to do something oneself aren’t willing to do is “not fair…”
[if one isn’t willing to compensate accordingly 
]
“Fair” is something you’re particularly keen on, but your value for the term is one more of conviction and belief than not. Because you reaffirm yourself on “conviction” then the effect comes that you “backfire” at information contrary to ‘belief’ and the impulsiveness and severity of a response will be based on the extent of how much you ‘believe’ something to be contrary to your expectations.
[For comparison, I ‘backfire’ at particular forms of repetition and seeing or being asked to do as such sometimes reflects in my tone at those times]
So how you use and see “fair” can have contradictory effects because its something more ‘felt’ through belief than is concrete and objective to every or any one else.
Belief-driven replies are less about the ‘content’ present, and more on suiting the ‘feel’ of what is posted, usually by means to reaffirm previous notions. Or more particularly, in drawing out conclusions to suit only two possibilities (usually for/against) instead of considering particulars and variation beyond just two outcomes.
[I like to claim I’ll consider at least 3 outcomes out of happenstance, but I’ll also argue myself into a concern if there really are only 2 options >.<]
The for/against polarization can be seen in the posts where you have one response when you thought the ‘proof’ affirmed that something was ‘wrong’ with the legs, and a different response when the “adverse” followed.
→ oh you agree with me, then why [so on and so on]
→ what, but you agreed with me! how dare you now [etc etc]
The presented information only breaks down into agree/disagree and distinctions apart from those are completely thrown out: there isn’t a check for other “flaws”, such as the torso, or anything else beyond
leg or ¬leg.
[¬ is the negation symbol]
Imma just overgeneralize the naysay you’re presenting via quotes from other topics to just suit the same flowchart made evident with how you reacted to the ‘reveal’ of information evidenced by the pictures in this topic and lump it to my claim of backfire to anything not suiting the demands of evident cognitive bias.
(mostly cuz other posts tried to address those in a previous topic that isn’t this one, and I’m not quoting them herenow)
So it was read (again) but I’m moving on 
Its [a little] less about me, and more as a typical internet thing that people don’t step into length “sides” drawn out into wallwars, esp not between two people. (I didn’t invent the popcorn meme)
The resultant posts become less about the topic
(that the audience cares about)
and more about trying to attack the other person.
People don’t engage in that for not wanting to commit to both the time and the unneeded crossfire esp when the violent vitriol extravasates elsewhere as the particularities fuel fanned flames from venue to venue.
The longer the ‘debate’ goes, the more backwash the posts pull from other sources which increases the investment into prior/unspoken context for an audience to process to try to stay engaged, which just increases how taxing the affair gets to be for them on the sideline.
It’d be like watching a ‘sport’ event without score, commentary, referee or knowing the rules – without something to remotely relate to the ‘action’ its a mundane moot mess. (and without that info, would it really be a ‘sport’ to watch o-O)
Granted, I think a very telling aspect of the neglect of your arguments is already available in how you responded to evidence in this topic, but here’s a bit of ‘backwash’ from me:
The bit you posted on “confirmation bias” suits a quick one-line from a dictionary and is rather inadequate to utilizing that information to form and analyze patterns more objectively than just confirming belief and dismissal of evident contradiction.
Confirmation bias , also called confirmatory bias or myside bias ,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias is a variation of the more general tendency of apophenia
Apophenia (/æpoʊˈfiːniə/) is the tendency to mistakenly perceive connections and meaning between unrelated things.[1]
eg: assertions that I made a post in a topic I didn’t, the ‘leg’ search here, preference of a single dictionary line to feign personal knowledge and experience; those fall into symptoms that can demonstrate how bias has influenced the processing and retrieval of information.
–Everyone is biased; the people that assert they aren’t are the ones most prone to being blind-sided by it. Its helpful to being able to recognize personal bias, understand its influence, and then accounting for that before getting too headstrong with disagreement 
What you lump as my ‘pointing out incorrect syntax’ is using presented evidence to try to demonstrate evident issues in what a person claims, esp if it is as ‘odds’ with something else presented
(such as claim vs want)
Its not “correcting grammar” as you say, but more akin to a diagnostic report for longstanding concerns and generally demands more length to try to inform that a problem persists, what its an issue, and then how it might be curtailed.
[Hailfalls bit with khaldor’s name would have influenced the later topic they made regarding HGC as an example of a post-effect of a previous showcase. However, since they demonstrate a resilience to provisional information in a number of other topics, I just did a name-drop instead of trying to (again) provide more particulars that they’re just going to ignore]
The type of argument you tried to pose here is the same sort of dismissal of information you’d make in previous topics (such a on vernacular) and may persist in other topics unless you allow self-awareness to curb agree/disagree impulses.
(though that seems less an outstanding issue and one prone from specific stimulation <.< >,>)
To bring this round-about back to where I started: writing breaks down into 4 groups: informative, persuasive, expressive and narrative. Sure, if anyone looks that up, the choice of words may vary, but the effect of the categories remain*.
[*similar applies to literal literariness; words are arbitrary, but the information they represent influences how people use that information, and yada yada symbolism]
Typical piece-work writing may stick to one ‘type’ (ie a book to inform is different than a novel to entertain), but writing can vary from one section to other. Yea, I write walls people may not read, but, if they do, I try to make it worth their while with the quality of information presented, some literary quirks people may know [such as alliteration] and some they don’t [the dropped word in paragraph 3]
Before I wrote about the audience’s portion of the reading contract, but I didn’t specify the obligations of the author … and I’m gonna leave that part hanging.
When I put effort into a post its because I enjoy the written medium; I enjoy that it persists beyond just a moment and that it can be revisited; that a change in perspective, a shift in mood, and span of time can change what anyone can or will notice. There really isn’t some obligation to have to respond to something at the here & now, which is amazingly referencing from reactions people have on texts, at work, and so on and so forth.
Sure, a typical forum demands quick replies, and there’s social stigma against stuff being left alone for too lone, but the best part of writing is the distinction in time/gap responses and its longevity.
oh, and ya know what;
tl;dr
You frame a lot of my stuff as “debate” and phrasing those a means to an "argument.’ Problem there: some of it just isn’t an ‘argument’. You might want to pick one up and start something, but then it just boils down to grasping at straws to skirt around what’s actually meant to be conveyed versus what is actually presented.
So here’s a whole lot of actually presented that can be dissected as a refrain on the “pictures are worth a thousand words”
**fun fact: this is less than 2000 words 
This thread is still ongoing?! The Xen and OJ show. The baffling continuation of this argument over a troll topic in a troll thread over something that is amazingly trivial.
5 Likes
All of this, over legs.
2 Likes
Please lock this thread and ban Hailfall thank you.
3 Likes
![:heart_eyes:](https://d3rakab8gpdsa3.cloudfront.net/en/heroes/images/emoji/twitter/heart_eyes.png?v=6" ":heart_eyes:")
This thread was a catfish that has managed to devolve further into a personal disagreement between two contributors that would be better taken somewhere private.
I’ve seen people get temp bans and have posts deleted for being slightly off topic, these posts are Iliad length diversions, yet continue unmolested. It’s not surprising as the topic had little substance to begin with. I feel like I’ve somehow been transported back to WW2 where soldiers are in a fistfight over who has the best legs, Betty Grable or Rita Hayworth.
Like WW2, can this also come to and end please?
1 Like
Is he really doing anything against Community Guidelines? I guess you could argue for spam and he can be a bit repetitive, but I doubt he’s a troll ya know?
With this thread:
Got trolled, banned for trolling ![:monkey:](https://d3rakab8gpdsa3.cloudfront.net/en/heroes/images/emoji/twitter/monkey.png?v=6" ":monkey:")
, ban expired ![:blush:](https://d3rakab8gpdsa3.cloudfront.net/en/heroes/images/emoji/twitter/blush.png?v=6" ":blush:")
, and the thread is STILL going on
smfh ![:bearded_person:](https://d3rakab8gpdsa3.cloudfront.net/en/heroes/images/emoji/twitter/bearded_person.png?v=6" ":bearded_person:")
![:stuck_out_tongue:](https://d3rakab8gpdsa3.cloudfront.net/en/heroes/images/emoji/twitter/stuck_out_tongue.png?v=6" ":stuck_out_tongue:")
[Actually wasn’t this exact but similar thread rly]
Point being = don’t reply to SJW-inspired threads, just ignore those “things”
2 Likes
Where’s Daft when you need him? He wears that Forum Police Badge like a boss.
This thread is not SJW.
What can I say? We love legs, and they help us get to where we want to go.
IT IS though
It’s inspired by “why are women portrayed as” type of motive therefore 100% SJW thread… Now the only thinhttps://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/heroes/t/whitemanes-legs-are-unnaturally-long/13815/132g that remains to be “calculated” is the contribution-factor on top of it
Sure, some “useless” threads can bring some usefulness and contribution despite low-issue priority/ies but at this point as you yourself can see is = hardly even that is a thing
You’re also looking at a specific skin where the “anomaly” looks worst, so it’s not just a SJW-based thread but also cherry-topped on top of it
“sjw” is an arbitrary label with no real meaning. It’s just a rude word used to describe anything “too progressive” for you.
I made this thread because I thought her model was odd looking. I didn’t expect it to get this big but it looks like some serious debate has risen up which is not a bad thing.
If you knew HailFail, you’d understand.
This is why I feel HailFail thinks this (Incoming self qoute):
Google - “high cut swimsuit” and you will see images that points fairly clear to what I’m talking about. Thinner legs also help make your legs seem longer.
The standard skin of Whitemane is the biggest offender. Xenterex ALREADY proved her dimensions are fairly accurate to humans on the alternate skin.
Moderator: Locking thread due to lack of constructive conversation.
1 Like