Is It Weird for Girls to <3 LOZ

[DARK MASTER]

It was arrogant because she said that we are socially inept for not sharing her opinion.

I've almost zero interest in this garbage thread, but ffs arrogance doesn't necessarily = wrong.

 

[Feverish]

I've almost zero interest in this garbage thread, but ffs arrogance doesn't necessarily = wrong.

Telling someone that they're under you since they don't share your opinion isn't arrogant? If I recall, you just call this "polarizing."

 

[Justac00lguy]

Weird in what context?

I don't get this question

 

[DARK MASTER]

Telling someone that they're under you since they don't share your opinion isn't arrogant?

@Feverish were you actually responding to my post? It had so little to do with what I actually said I'm really not sure.... Though back to your statement, arrogance is having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities, which doesn't necessarily make them wrong. You can exaggerate your own importance or abilities while still being right in your argument. Your last two posts did not actually address what you were presented with.

 

[Feverish]

@Feverish were you actually responding to my post? It had so little to do with what I actually said I'm really not sure.... Though back to your statement, arrogance is having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities, which doesn't necessarily make them wrong. You can exaggerate your own importance or abilities while still being right in your argument. Your last two posts did not actually address what you were presented with.

I wasn't really trying to argue against it, I was asking if what my interpretation of your post was right. This is just another unarguable case of disagreement in what a word means. I already made the mistake of trying to argue with that once

 

[Alita the Pun]

I don't think it's weird, the Zelda experience should be shared with all people!

 

[DARK MASTER]

This is just another unarguable case of disagreement in what a word means. I already made the mistake of trying to argue with that once

You may find this material to be useful: http://www.csun.edu/~bashforth/098_PDF/06Sep15Connotation_Denotation.pdf

 

[el :BeoWolf:]

Why is this thread still alive?

 

[Feverish]

You may find this material to be useful: http://www.csun.edu/~bashforth/098_PDF/06Sep15Connotation_Denotation.pdf

I don't find it useful, I know about that very well. You find the definition of arrogant to not apply here, I do find it to apply here. That's what's inarguable, or just a waste of time, because we both know this, and neither of us will change our minds. I'm just trying not to repeat mistakes

Why is this thread still alive?

We get bored and new members are interested

 

[Misty]

I don't find it useful, I know about that very well. You find the definition of arrogant to not apply here, I do find it to apply here. That's what's inarguable, or just a waste of time, because we both know this, and neither of us will change our minds. I'm just trying not to repeat mistakes

I may be very wrong, but I don't think either of you are arguing about the meaning of the word arrogance.

All Dark Master said, was that being arrogant does not automatically make an individual wrong. It has little to no bearing on the truth value of their statements.

Say for example, I'm arguing with Dark Master about whether or not a girl is mean to harshly reject the unwanted advances of a man after she's made clear to him multiple times she doesn't find his way of addressing her respectful or acceptable.

Now, in this scenario, you've got a person with giant, ludicrously inflated ego and head (Dark Master), and a person who has been described as a humblesexual (me).
If in the course of the argument Dark Master were to, for example, state that the girl could take a "there but for the grace of God go I" position with this terribly annoying and rude male, a sound argument if there was one for tolerating creepy and disrespectful lameos, the fact that Dark Master believes the toots which come out his bottom have a pleasing aroma isn't here nor there. The fact he's an arrogant, good for nothing southerner doesn't make him wrong. It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion of how to best handle the situation put above. And were I to point it out, it would be very unfair and worse, irrational of me to do.

It is, what many people if they were to coin a term, might coin as a "ad hominem" attack. Which is almost always a fallacy and almost always useless and quite unfair as tactics go. Imagine if I rejected all your arguments about food, art, politics, and culture based on you being into furryism or having a narutard avatar. You should rightly feel that is unfair. Yet, you seem to think that arrogant, like the word bigot, is a shut down to the conversation that somehow makes you correct...when in fact, it indicates the opposite. If you have to fall to name calling, you really must have a weak argument on your hands.

 

[Feverish]

I may be very wrong, but I don't think either of you are arguing about the meaning of the word arrogance.

All Dark Master said, was that being arrogant does not automatically make an individual wrong. It has little to no bearing on the truth value of their statements.

Say for example, I'm arguing with Dark Master about whether or not a girl is mean to harshly reject the unwanted advances of a man after she's made clear to him multiple times she doesn't find his way of addressing her respectful or acceptable.

Now, in this scenario, you've got a person with giant, ludicrously inflated ego and head (Dark Master), and a person who has been described as a humblesexual (me).
If in the course of the argument Dark Master were to, for example, state that the girl could take a "there but for the grace of God go I" position with this terribly annoying and rude male, a sound argument if there was one for tolerating creepy and disrespectful lameos, the fact that Dark Master believes the toots which come out his bottom have a pleasing aroma isn't here nor there. The fact he's an arrogant, good for nothing southerner doesn't make him wrong. It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion of how to best handle the situation put above. And were I to point it out, it would be very unfair and worse, irrational of me to do.

It is, what many people if they were to coin a term, might coin as a "ad hominem" attack. Which is almost always a fallacy and almost always useless and quite unfair as tactics go. Imagine if I rejected all your arguments about food, art, politics, and culture based on you being into furryism or having a narutard avatar. You should rightly feel that is unfair. Yet, you seem to think that arrogant, like the word bigot, is a shut down to the conversation that somehow makes you correct...when in fact, it indicates the opposite. If you have to fall to name calling, you really must have a weak argument on your hands.

I didn't indicate the arrogance in an attempt to disprove her arguments, as you said it would be idiotic. No, I was miffed about it and wanted to say that I was miffed about it. You'll never hear me say that I'm the most mature one here

 

[Misty]

I didn't indicate the arrogance in an attempt to disprove her arguments, as you said it would be idiotic.

Oh, I'm aware you didn't. But I'm also aware it came off that way seeing as you lumped both her ad homs and her arguments into the same response without making it clear what you were responding to. So I'm not surprised it came off that way to Dark Master or anyone else.

No, I was miffed about it and wanted to say that I was miffed about it.

This sounds terribly irrational, not very useful for the discussion, and a bit self-serving. I mean, to put it to you another way, that sort of thing derails threads like this fast and helps to encourage the environment of name-calling that makes what she wrote that miffed you seem like it's par for the course and acceptable. In other words, if you're going to be miffed at name-calling, turning around to call names just makes you look like a hypocrite, while encouraging that behaviour in the future and fanning the flames of the present.

In fact, hilariously, she looks and is acting better than you because while she did in many ways begin the name-calling, she also did offer constructive discussion material and remarks in the same post. You only offered name-calling and self-righteousness. If I had to pick one of you to keep in the discussion, I'd choose her because anyone can call names and derail.

I dare say, you shouldn't be doing that and the fact you're self-aware just makes me think you want to go on a self-righteous crusade...which is all well and good, but you are destroying the fun, socialization, and time that other members could, would, and should be having if it weren't for people doing what you're doing. It is...wait *looks up frequent criticisms of self from other ZD members including yourself as directed at myself* ah! Yes! Here it is: Rude.

You'll never hear me say that I'm the most mature one here

No, but you put on the airs from time to time. If I were her, I'd just respond by saying "which do you want to be today, the pot or the kettle?" Although, of course, once we're firing nursery rhymes back and forth, there really is no point in discussion, is there? And it was a semi-interesting discussion until just then.



To try to return it to the track and a genuine question: To all the people saying that they know girls who like Zelda or that it isn't weird because you do you, babe...when you answered, did you take into account this is a Zelda Forum, that it is likely you're all above-average zelda fans, and also that it is likely the women you will meet, befriend or form some sort of relationship petty or large with will share common traits with you particularly this trait seeing as it is a more pronounced trait of your own?

Follow Up: When you answered the question, do you think you were validating yourself at all? By which I mean, do you think that you felt some sort of internal pressure not to say it is weird because doing so would suggest that you yourself may be abnormal?

 

[Feverish]

Oh, I'm aware you didn't. But I'm also aware it came off that way seeing as you lumped both her ad homs and her arguments into the same response without making it clear what you were responding to. So I'm not surprised it came off that way to Dark Master or anyone else.


This sounds terribly irrational, not very useful for the discussion, and a bit self-serving. I mean, to put it to you another way, that sort of thing derails threads like this fast and helps to encourage the environment of name-calling that makes what she wrote that miffed you seem like it's par for the course and acceptable. In other words, if you're going to be miffed at name-calling, turning around to call names just makes you look like a hypocrite, while encouraging that behaviour in the future and fanning the flames of the present.

In fact, hilariously, she looks and is acting better than you because while she did in many ways begin the name-calling, she also did offer constructive discussion material and remarks in the same post. You only offered name-calling and self-righteousness. If I had to pick one of you to keep in the discussion, I'd choose her because anyone can call names and derail.

I dare say, you shouldn't be doing that and the fact you're self-aware just makes me think you want to go on a self-righteous crusade...which is all well and good, but you are destroying the fun, socialization, and time that other members could, would, and should be having if it weren't for people doing what you're doing. It is...wait *looks up frequent criticisms of self from other ZD members including yourself as directed at myself* ah! Yes! Here it is: Rude.



No, but you put on the airs from time to time. If I were her, I'd just respond by saying "which do you want to be today, the pot or the kettle?" Although, of course, once we're firing nursery rhymes back and forth, there really is no point in discussion, is there? And it was a semi-interesting discussion until just then.



To try to return it to the track and a genuine question: To all the people saying that they know girls who like Zelda or that it isn't weird because you do you, babe...when you answered, did you take into account this is a Zelda Forum, that it is likely you're all above-average zelda fans, and also that it is likely the women you will meet, befriend or form some sort of relationship petty or large with will share common traits with you particularly this trait seeing as it is a more pronounced trait of your own?

Follow Up: When you answered the question, do you think you were validating yourself at all? By which I mean, do you think that you felt some sort of internal pressure not to say it is weird because doing so would suggest that you yourself may be abnormal?

I'd agree that it was derailing but while I was telling that I was miffed about it, I also sought to disprove what she had said. If I had only said that it was arrogant and left it at that then it would be an ad hominem attack and be selfish. But I didn't, I explained why that part of the post seemed arrogant to me and why I simply found it to be, well, dumb. An ad hominem attack goes to the person, not the argument. In this case, I had attacked the argument. I think this all derailed the thread more than my comment about arrogance, which I meant to avoid earlier, and I feel that I provoked it. So I do apologize

 

[TattooArtist]

I play Zelda and I'm a girl, I'm literally obsessed with it. I think it's great that females play Zelda because its freakin' amazing, I mean, how can you not like Zelda

 

[WindFishTacos]

It is absolutely acceptable for girls to like Zelda. Boy or girl, if you like fantasy, adventure, action, puzzles, great story, silly moments then the Zelda series is for you