>"poor quality" flag
It is called quality, sir.

flatrute said:

>"poor quality" flag
It is called quality, sir.

It's also called a strawman argument.

Provence said:

It's also called a strawman argument.

I'm not seeing any strawmanning.

Provence said:

It's also called a strawman argument.

... that's not what a strawman is.
strawman is misrepresenting the opposing side by presenting their argument in the most superficial and ridiculous way.

You flagged this because the joke /woosh ed above your head, didn't you?

CitrusC said:

... that's not what a strawman is.
strawman is misrepresenting the opposing side by presenting their argument in the most superficial and ridiculous way.

You flagged this because the joke /woosh ed above your head, didn't you?

From a strawman to an ad hominem?

Provence said:

From a strawman to an ad hominem?

And of course "that ist called artistic style / quality / whatever" is a strawman against poor quality flags.

That's not what a strawman is. Why are you always so stubborn about being wrong?

blindVigil said:

That's not what a strawman is. Why are you always so stubborn about being wrong?

Hey, it's already deleted. I have no idea why you are warming that up again.
Anyways, I stay by this being an ad hominem now.

Provence said:

Hey, it's already deleted. I have no idea why you are warming that up again.

Because blindVigil didn't refresh the page? It was only posted two minutes after your edit.

Anyways, I stay by this being an ad hominem now.

It isn't. And this isn't the first time you were wrong about ad hominem, either.

This is an ad hominem:

You're wrong because you're stupid.

This is not:

You're stupid.

And neither is this:

You're wrong, stupid.

See the difference? Ad hominem is not simply an insult or an accusation. It's trying to use personal traits as evidence for disproving an argument. No argument, no fallacy.

If you take blindVigil's accusation literally, then the actual fallacy being committed would be faulty generalization.

CitrusC said:

You flagged this because the joke /woosh ed above your head, didn't you?

Ironically, this is closer to what a strawman actually is, though I don't think merely accusing someone of something is enough on its own to count.

Blank_User said:

Because blindVigil didn't refresh the page? It was only posted two minutes after your edit.

It isn't. And this isn't the first time you were wrong about ad hominem, either.

This is an ad hominem:

This is not:

And neither is this:

See the difference? Ad hominem is not simply an insult or an accusation. It's trying to use personal traits as evidence for disproving an argument. No argument, no fallacy.

If you take blindVigil's accusation literally, then the actual fallacy being committed would be faulty generalization.

Ironically, this is closer to what a strawman actually is, though I don't think merely accusing someone of something is enough on its own to count.

Whatever you want to name it, accusing someone of something they didn't do is not a good argument.

The last paragraph quotes something that is both a strawmen and ad hominem (because it attacks me in order to discredit me). That's what I meant with it in the first place btw.

Provence said:

It's also called a strawman argument.

Is it? I just used the tag based on this description:

This tag can be applied to any posts that intentionally recreates the disfigured art or animation frame for humorous purposes.

The coloring is up to our (to be frank, sometimes ridiculously) standard and the bad shapes are clearly intentional in references to the memes.

Provence said:

Whatever you want to name it, accusing someone of something they didn't do is not a good argument.

The last paragraph quotes something that is both a strawmen and ad hominem (because it attacks me in order to discredit me). That's what I meant with it in the first place btw.

Then it's a false accusation, which you could simply respond with "I wasn't the one that flagged it," though calling flatrute's argument a strawman right off the bat kinda implies you did flag it.

I suggest you avoid calling out perceived fallacies and just explain in a straightforward manner why you disagree with the other person. Better to use simpler words than risk misusing a "smarter" term. It will make your arguments sound more intelligent and we won't have to get sidetracked by conversations like this.

Regarding the image itself, I know intentionally bad art styles are a point of contention, but I agree with flatrute that most of the drawing actually looks pretty good. The only bad parts are the faces, and it's clearly intentional (I mean, the faces actually look okay if you ignore the placement). It's not like post #9132677, which looks pretty rough overall. Whether this is enough to justify approving it, I don't know.

Blank_User said:

Then it's a false accusation, which you could simply respond with "I wasn't the one that flagged it," though calling flatrute's argument a strawman right off the bat kinda implies you did flag it.

I suggest you avoid calling out perceived fallacies and just explain in a straightforward manner why you disagree with the other person. Better to use simpler words than risk misusing a "smarter" term. It will make your arguments sound more intelligent and we won't have to get sidetracked by conversations like this.

Regarding the image itself, I know intentionally bad art styles are a point of contention, but I agree with flatrute that most of the drawing actually looks pretty good. The only bad parts are the faces, and it's clearly intentional (I mean, the faces actually look okay if you ignore the placement). It's not like post #9132677, which looks pretty rough overall. Whether this is enough to justify approving it, I don't know.

I think you should be more worried about that false accusation than an allegedly wrong usage of a rhetorical term. But hey, that's just me.