Comments
it's chibi style, Misha. relax.
@55380:
So what? As if the name matters. Even if it was called gangnam style it would still be WRONG.
So what? As if the name matters. Even if it was called gangnam style it would still be WRONG.
@55381:
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.
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.
@55394:
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.
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.
Wow. Someone seems to be completely unfamiliar with such concepts as caricature and artistic license.
(And yes, it is a cute picture.)
(And yes, it is a cute picture.)
@55398:
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.
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.
@55400:
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!)
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!)
@55403:
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.
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.
@55403:
PS:
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.
PS:
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.
@55404:
The whole point of this particular art style is to be anatomically incorrect as far as head size.
@55405:
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.
The whole point of this particular art style is to be anatomically incorrect as far as head size.
@55405:
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.
The troll force is not very strong with this one...
Nice pic, BTW, I like it.
Nice pic, BTW, I like it.
@55408:
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.
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.
holy shit, dude. it's just a fucking picture. So what?
@55411:
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:
@55361:
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?
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:
@55361:
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?
CID 55360, posted on November 27, 2016: