The boobs are great, but what about the butts? :-(

  • Topic Archived
  1. Boards
  2. Dead or Alive 5
  3. The boobs are great, but what about the butts? :-(
3 years ago#51
That butt is from PN. 03. It's actually a pretty fun arcade-style game. Think of Sin and Punishment, only you can move your character.

Anyway, what is this stupid argument doing here? I came to talk about butts!
---
"If less is more, just think how much more more will be!" - Dr. Frasier Crane
http://www.backloggery.com/main.php?user=presea_hater
3 years ago#52
SterlingFox posted...
xhominid posted...

Augh. You're seriously bending yourself out of shape because of a fallacy? I proved my point, but I stretched it, it doesn't suddenly make it void, it means I exaggerated it which means pretty much nothing except I overstretched it, so congratulations, you pointed out a fallacy...
I hope you feel intellectually superior.


That's the entire point of an argument. Pointing out fallacies. Because an argument with fallacies is an invalid argument.

So neat, we agree that you're wrong and like to exaggerate. Now we're done.


That's not true. Example: Cars are a more a faster way to travel than horses. Nobody in the world would rather travel on a horse than a car.

Here, my argument is completely correct. My evidence, however, is fallacious in that a) it's an overgeneralization and b) it looks at evidence that is unrelated to the core argument. This is why picking apart any single mistake and saying it negates the entire argument is wrong, misguided, oversimplistic, and generally idiotic. It's also how most people argue on the web basically viewing an argument as fact checking point gathering.
---
Laissez les bons temps rouler.
3 years ago#53
siframe posted...
Sorry, missed this worthy thread until now- butt bounce update ftw!



eurololicon posted...
There are so many beautiful girls in this game, and yet...

why do none of them have a butt like this:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/714/posesa.jpg

Compare her butt to Kasumi's pancake. I hope I'm not the only one who sees a big difference.


Whilst Im here though, who is in these pictures? I thought my knowledge of games you could equip thongs in was pretty encyclopedic... Now i find its just a wiki.


That's Vanessa from P.N.03. What do you think about her buttocks?
---
I'm using a 3DS for browsing, so please understand I can't see large images or sites.
3 years ago#54
Cheers for the answer mate- and i wouldn't have asked if i didn't kinda like what i saw...
3 years ago#55
The Masked Mage posted...
SterlingFox posted...
xhominid posted...

Augh. You're seriously bending yourself out of shape because of a fallacy? I proved my point, but I stretched it, it doesn't suddenly make it void, it means I exaggerated it which means pretty much nothing except I overstretched it, so congratulations, you pointed out a fallacy...
I hope you feel intellectually superior.


That's the entire point of an argument. Pointing out fallacies. Because an argument with fallacies is an invalid argument.

So neat, we agree that you're wrong and like to exaggerate. Now we're done.


That's not true. Example: Cars are a more a faster way to travel than horses. Nobody in the world would rather travel on a horse than a car.

Here, my argument is completely correct. My evidence, however, is fallacious in that a) it's an overgeneralization and b) it looks at evidence that is unrelated to the core argument. This is why picking apart any single mistake and saying it negates the entire argument is wrong, misguided, oversimplistic, and generally idiotic. It's also how most people argue on the web basically viewing an argument as fact checking point gathering.


It is true, because those are two different arguments. They are two unrelated statements. "Cars are a faster way to travel than Horses" is one argument, and "Nobody in the world would rather travel on a horse than a car" is a second argument.

Your second argument is a supporting argument for the first, and because it is ridden with fallacies it is invalid. If you want it to be one argument, you'd need to combine them into "Cars are faster way to travel than horses, therefore nobody in the world would rather travel on a horse than a car."
In which case, that single argument is made invalid by the fallacies present in the latter half.

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Because we're speaking of being "generally idiotic", you ought to educate yourself on the subject you want to talk about.
---
Underwater Spartans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djp5dtz02eQ&feature=plcp
3 years ago#56
Dude, I go to Harvard Law School. You're engaging in nitpicking. It is extremely common in judicial decisions that parts of arguments will be rejected without rejecting the whole. If you really think the lack of a "therefore" fundamentally changes what I was saying, then you're being dense on purpose. Anyway, there's no point in arguing further, however I recommend you read briefs before the Supreme Court and then the decisions themselves, say FCC v. Fox or Brown v. EMA or something.
---
Laissez les bons temps rouler.
3 years ago#57
The Masked Mage posted...
Dude, I go to Harvard Law School. You're engaging in nitpicking. It is extremely common in judicial decisions that parts of arguments will be rejected without rejecting the whole. If you really think the lack of a "therefore" fundamentally changes what I was saying, then you're being dense on purpose. Anyway, there's no point in arguing further, however I recommend you read briefs before the Supreme Court and then the decisions themselves, say FCC v. Fox or Brown v. EMA or something.


Everybody's a master of everything on the internet.
Like I've argued with lawyers, professional game designers, master historians, an aerophysicist, a couple doctors, and once even somebody who worked for NASA about the astronomy in Skyrim.

Its very coincidental that I argue with so many people on gamefaqs who happen to be a master of whatever it is we're talking about and/or going to a prestigious college that educates in that exact area. Almost as though they're making **** up to sound more authoritative.
---
Underwater Spartans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djp5dtz02eQ&feature=plcp
3 years ago#58
Give me your email address and I'll prove it. Plus, why take my word for it when you can just read the Supreme Court? Are they not authoritative enough for you?

In addition, an alternative explanation could be you're wrong a lot, and the people who will be most offended by the error and thus most likely to respond to you will be people with expertise in an area you're butchering.
---
Laissez les bons temps rouler.
3 years ago#59
siframe posted...
Sorry, missed this worthy thread until now- butt bounce update ftw!



eurololicon posted...
There are so many beautiful girls in this game, and yet...

why do none of them have a butt like this:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/714/posesa.jpg

Compare her butt to Kasumi's pancake. I hope I'm not the only one who sees a big difference.


Whilst Im here though, who is in these pictures? I thought my knowledge of games you could equip thongs in was pretty encyclopedic... Now i find its just a wiki.


That's Vanessa Schneider from PN .0.3 or however you spell it.
---
"lol thankfully Obamacare covers butthurt" - CruelBuffalo
  1. Boards
  2. Dead or Alive 5
  3. The boobs are great, but what about the butts? :-(

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived