Tag History


Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55360, posted on November 27, 2016:
classy and adorable...
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55361, posted on November 27, 2016:
classy? snobby!
and what happened to her head? was it pumped with helium?
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55380, posted on November 29, 2016:
it's chibi style, Misha. relax.
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55381, posted on November 29, 2016:
So what? As if the name matters. Even if it was called gangnam style it would still be WRONG.
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55394, posted on December 2, 2016:
Do a google image search for chibi - it's an art style. It's meant to be cute, not realistic - and I hope you agree that this IS a cute picture even if you don't favor the character it portrays.
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55395, posted on December 2, 2016:
So what? I already knew all that. But that changes nothing about the fact that it's WRONG!!!
Not even babies have such a big head in comparison to their bodies.
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55398, posted on December 2, 2016:
Wow. Someone seems to be completely unfamiliar with such concepts as caricature and artistic license.
(And yes, it is a cute picture.)
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55400, posted on December 3, 2016:
What does any of that stuff you mentioned have to do with whether it's wrong or not? None of those things change the fact that the picture is anatomically incorrect.

If it's cute it's STILL anatomically incorrect.
If it's a caricature it's STILL anatomically incorrect.
No matter which license it's under it's STILL anatomically incorrect.

You can even write "caution: anatomically incorrect" on top of it and it will be STILL anatomically incorrect.
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55403, posted on December 3, 2016:
No one implied that this was anatomically correct. If you don't enjoy this art style and/or this fictional character and/or the creator(s) involved, I hope you seek out pictures you DO find pleasing - either here or elsewhere. (Life is hard - find enjoyment while you can!)
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55404, posted on December 3, 2016:
So what? I never implied that anybody implied that it was anatomically correct. But that changes nothing about the fact that it isn't anatomically correct.
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55405, posted on December 3, 2016:
You however actually did imply something without any evidence to support that: That I am ignorant. My ignorance or my lack of ignorance doesn't have anything to do with our topic anyway though. That's just a change of the subject in "ad hominem" style.
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55408, posted on December 3, 2016:
The whole point of this particular art style is to be anatomically incorrect as far as head size.
Your comments "appeared" ignorant of the chibi art style - and since that art style was a topic of conversation it was relevant.

...but this is getting too pedantic, even for my taste. If we're all really so intent on arguing this further (myself included) we should go jerk off, because we're clearly wound way too tight.

tl;dr If you don't like the picture stop bumping it to the top of the list.
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55409, posted on December 3, 2016:
The troll force is not very strong with this one...
Nice pic, BTW, I like it.
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55411, posted on December 3, 2016:

So what? If an art style is incorrect then it is incorrect. That doesn't debunk my statement as an incorrect statement. It only supports it.

So what? When something/someone appears to you to be somehow, it's your subjective opinion. And the problem with subjective opinions is that they are not convincing. So why even mention them? In this case mentioning them only changes the subject. And at the same time mentioning an opinion about the personal properties of your opponent leads to an "ad hominem" argument which counts as a logical fallacy.

The art style and your discussion opponent (in this case me) are two different subjects. The art style might be relevant, but not your discussion opponent. By accusing your opponent of not knowing stuff you change the subject from the first one to the second one. An that pretty much summarizes what an "ad hominem" fallacy is. If you want to win an argument you have to attack the opponent's opinion and not personally attack the opponent.

You mentioned that the art style AIMS at doing such anatomically incorrect distortions. But that doesn't make my statement that it IS anatomically incorrect false. The is no contradiction between those two statements. Your statement doesn't attack my statement. It complies with my statement.
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55423, posted on December 4, 2016:
holy shit, dude. it's just a fucking picture. So what?
Shiina "Misha" Mikado
CID 55443, posted on December 5, 2016:
No one truly "wins" an argument - and I don't wish to argue. I wish you had said you were specifically critiquing the art style here:
We could have spent this time discussing the art style, instead of discussing the discussion of art style. Now we're discussing the discussion of the discussion of the art style - how meta is that?