Based off of this trailer, I won't be buying. I like my blatantly trashy video game women a little less blatant. Maybe, if the reviews are good....

having watched the trailer again, i realise how shite the voice acting is. it is beyond cheese. gameplay looks okay, but what wins me over is what looks like a giant statue boss like in dmc1.

Oh how I had hoped that you would not rise to that.

Please. The only opinion expressed in my post is that your post was tasteless and made poorly operative assumptions concerning gender's role in determining one's views on the role of sexuality in advertising. Extrapolation beyond that is not paraphrasing, it is base conjecture, making things up to fit a pre-established expectation concerning a set of circumstances. It is even worse than just lying, because it is a lie attributed to another person.

And assuming that any people "couldn't follow the conversation" is so needlessly condescending it borders on the comical.



I am not saying that you attempted to excuse yourself, simply that your explanation fails to excuse you. The fact that you don't realize you are in error in this context has nothing to do with anything.



You have nothing on which to base this except that your post was in poor taste. If it has taken you this long to realize exactly why, I will explain at the end of this post, but that I have to tell you is embarrassing.



This is the most ridiculous post I have ever seen on these message boards, and I saw Paul_Warren predict that the PS3 would pass up the Wii by 2011. I mean, this is just breathtaking.

I have said nothing concerning my "general perspective on the entire subject of ideology" except that you were in error to make such generalized assumptions about gender perspective. You have no basis for this statement! You are assuming some greater agency in the wind.



Being offensive without realizing it is no more readily excusable than attempting to be acidic about the same subject matter. In many ways it is worse.



This isn't about public opinion. We are not performing for an audience. We are having a conversation between you and me concerning a faux pas you committed in assuming (or joking about assuming) that KylieDog was a woman.

If you are having this conversation to sway "public opinion" in your favor, you are having it for all of the wrong reasons.



My opinion on that subject is irrelevant, and has never been stated in this topic, and will not even be implied in this topic.

Where you committed your error was in assuming that KylieDog's opinions indicated he was a woman. He's male. Quod erat demonstratum, your assumption was wrong, and revealed presuppositions concerning certain perspectives on gender representation. The fact that you could be wrong was why I said your post was tasteless, but the fact that you were wrong illustrates much more clearly why your assumption was inherently fallacious.

ZenfoldorVGI said: outlawauron said: I don't think I've seen you be arrogant and then humble in the next sentenance. Although, whether you are making VGC a better place is completely an opinion. While I do think have do have a bit of respect as you do put out good posts, and we have quite a large variety of intellegence levels on the forum. Oh, come on. Do you know how redundant most of these forums would become, without me? I'm not saying I am the life of VGChartz forums, however I certainly contribute heavily to real debate, and weed out or scare off a ton of the most viscious trolls that exist here. Simply because we are often at odds doesn't mean that we should wish each other off this forum. Nothing I say should ever be taken personally. What is good without evil, my friend? Heaven without hell? Crime without justice? It's absolutly unthinkable.

I didn't wish you off. I admitted I respected you (as an intelligent and arrogant poster) and I said you make good posts.

My favorite debaters going at it, epic!

Actually, I can't really follow Khuutra's logic this time around, while Zen's is crystal clear to me. Probably says somethin about me, hmm...

c0rd said: My favorite debaters going at it, epic! Actually, I can't really follow Khuutra's logic this time around, while Zen's is crystal clear to me. Probably says somethin about me, hmm...

I apologize, and will rephrase.

When ZenFoldor says "Let me guess, you're a woman?" it means that he's assuming that someone who has that opinion is a woman. That's reflexive, right?

But that's wrong. Men have that opinion too. KylieDog is proof of that, because he's a man, and he is the one who said Bayonetta's use of sexuality was in poor taste.

My position is that it is tasteless to assume one's gender based on their opinions.

Khuutra said: c0rd said: My favorite debaters going at it, epic! Actually, I can't really follow Khuutra's logic this time around, while Zen's is crystal clear to me. Probably says somethin about me, hmm... I apologize, and will rephrase. When ZenFoldor says "Let me guess, you're a woman?" it means that he's assuming that someone who has that opinion is a woman. That's reflexive, right? But that's wrong. Men have that opinion too. KylieDog is proof of that, because he's a man, and he is the one who said Bayonetta's use of sexuality was in poor taste. My position is that it is tasteless to assume one's gender based on their opinions.

Ah, I get that much.

However, isn't it possible that the majority of people sharing KylieDog's opinion are female? Assume it were the case, for the sake of the argument. Say, 90% of the people with such an opinion were female.

Would it still be tasteless? (Not quite sure what that means, anyway). Perhaps Zen was just playing the chances, and got unlucky in this particular case.

Take another example - if KylieDog said he loved Gears of War. I'd say it's a pretty safe bet he were a guy, between his appearance on these internet forums and the fact he's into a videogame mainly played by males. Is that different?

That's the reason he brought up the question to you: if you believe women tend to dislike exploitation to a greater extent than men. It seems to have relevance, though you dismissed it (not quite sure how).

Erm, yeah. I normally avoid this kind of discussion. My thought process often conflicts with what society finds acceptable, so...

Yes, it would still be in bad taste, because one never assumes something about an individual based on general trends. That's just a nicer phrasing for bigotry, though the context here means that the subject matter is much less serious than in most.

Using another example that tends towards the same thing: look at my icon. Kreia is used as something of a banner for the feminist movement when it comes to gamers (which I only agree with in so far as her maternal qualities are intrinsic to her character, but that's a discussion for another time). Now, let's assume that most people with "feminist" views (this meaning those who push for gender equality in representation rather than for those who believe women are better than men) are women. Would it be fair to assume that I'm a woman, based on my avatar? No.

Would it be fair to assume that you don't play Western games, based on yours? No.

If I think that Japanese games are inherently superior to Western games, does that mean it would be fair to assume I'm Japanese? No. That one's not only fallacious, it's blatantly racist.

It's the same concept, only separated by degrees. One cannot make assumptions about an individual based on general trends.

Khuutra said: Yes, it would still be in bad taste, because one never assumes something about an individual based on general trends. That's just a nicer phrasing for bigotry, though the context here means that the subject matter is much less serious than in most.

 

This is where you and I inherantly disagree. I believe that predictions are valid, when you base them on past trends, wheather they end up being true or not.

As for everything else I've said, your bigotry comment makes me assume I was spot on. You sound like you follow the whole speil about racisim and political correctness the news tells us is the right frame of mind. However, again, my belief is that your state of mind, while vastly popular, is a result of a massive group think, with the biggest sin being "offense."

I enjoy being offensive. I have quite a few opinions that you would consider vastly offensive, I'm sure. They aren't wrong, in most cases, but they are what you would consider "tasteless."

 

...and while you consider accepting stereotypes as offensive and call it biggotry...those stereotypes exist for a reason. My realist attitude will make predictions based off of them, offensive or not. Just because a prediction is wrong, doesn't mean it wasn't intelligent.

As for your accusation that I was generalizing the poor guy, let me respond by saying that I wasn't. I was venturing a guess, which while wrong, was perfectly valid.

Once again, I would appreciate it very much if you would answer my question. One thing that you're doing that is pissing me off a little is adamantly denying that I'm right about your ideology, yet refusing to discuss it when directly asked. Come on. Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining. I know your ideology better than you do. You drink the femanist cool-aid, most likely. The fact that you could even be offended by a "sexist" statement on a message board, or that what I said qualified as the "most tasteless" statement you've seen, even today, tells me enough about you to know that what I'm saying is more than a guess.

We've spent a lot of time discussing me, and my excellent, if controversial posts, but lets shift the discussion towards you. Won't you defend yourself against my alligations? In your mind, there is nothing wrong with your ideology, why then, should you be ashamed to discuss it with a group of teenage boys and a "biggot" on a message forum?

I'm off to work. I expect a full explaination when I get back.

The fact that you use a clearly failed methodology to justify itself is kind of bizarre. Yes, one may make note of general trends and use them to predict other general trends, but using them to predict individuals is fallacious. That's not how statistics work.

Being "offensive" has nothing to do with it - assuming things about individuals based on groups is repugnant because of its inability to produce accurate results. Whether this is just morally wrong or fallacious from a utilitarian perspective is up to debate, but it is still obviously very wrong, and your assumption that KylieDog was a woman is the only example that's ever going to be needed to prove that point.

Your conjecture concerning my personal beliefs holds exactly as much water as it did when I answered your previous post, which you seem to have conveniently ignored.

Why aren't I discussing my "ideology"? because it's irrelevant. You are using fallacious methods, no matter how you look at it, and have failed to provide an explanation for why failed methods should continue to be used.

You're free to make as many demands as you want, but it will not distract from the point that you stuck your foot in your mouth and then, instead of removing it, simply proceeded to chew.