Sonic Boom

Sonic Boom

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Did... Did Eggman try to fuck Cubot to live out his weird SonAmy ship? Did Cubot know what was happening? Wow this show for dark fast.

Perhaps so

Personally I find Eggman and Amy a cute couple, at least in this show.

I kinda agree

...

this show is some shit. its a fucking show about sonic and yet it does good shit like this. I wanna believe its just pandering to non-feminists but at the same time i have to admit this was bold

Disagreeing with his point. If there is a professional position for which there exist intentionally or unintentionally, limitations power structure, or social pressures that make it more difficult for a gender (male or female) to access to it. it need to be pointed out and be celebrated when it is broken.

Why?

if you disagree, explain your reasoning.

Ignoring an existing problem and pretneding it isn't there just don't make it go away. An there is no reason to not show happiness when a problem is solved.

Knuckles's speech is based on the assumption that there exist no outside force outside of the person's own competences to attain a a goal. in that context, he has a point.

But once the limitations come from outside force of the one trying for achievement, not pointing those limitations out is not the right solution and only allow to make it worst.

This is begging the question hardcore.

?

Google will tell you what the fallacy means.

No, I am asking how is it a "begging the question fallacy".

also, pointing out a falacy isn't enough, you have to elaborate on what it make irrelevant exactly and why.

Didn't you intend to quote this post instead?

It's not most likely, going by the writers on the show.

Eggman just really wants to be Sonic

he doesn't actually want to debate with you, he just wants to tell you you're wrong.

Simple.

You insist that there are limitations to gender roles or breaking out of them as true without proving these limitations are there.

There was no circular logic there, so no.

WILL THE GLASS CEILING BE BROKEN?! THE FIRST PROFESSIONAL MALE CHEERLEADER

Circular logic is not the same as begging the question.

Begging the question requires you to present unproven statements as true to support a conclusion.

>You insist that there are limitations to gender roles as true
Wrong. Please, learn to read
>Knuckles's speech is based on the assumption that there exist no outside force outside of the person's own competences to attain a a goal. in that context, he has a point.
>In that context, he has a point

>If there is a professional position for which there exist intentionally or unintentionally, limitations
>if
>IF

Both posts clearly establish that the existence of limitation isn't an absolute nor always true and doesn't hide that those are required to exist to be valid AND admit that it isn't always the case.

As long as there are case where such limitation exists, there is no flacy in that logic.

I was talking in a more general way, not in that specific case. Knuckles speech was stemed from what Amy was saying, but it seems he was talking in a broader general way.

>As long as there are case where such limitation exists

The onus is on you to prove it does.

>Begging the question requires you to present unproven statements as true to support a conclusion.
Which, as said therewasn't the case, here. so no..

>it needs to be celebrated when broken
Begging the question. Again. WHY does this need to be celebrated?

You really want to turn this thread into femposting don't you?

Are you saying you do not believe that our society is free from assigned gender norm norms that restrict both genders from fully blooming and cussed on their competences alone.

Are you saying you are not convinced that this exist?

Do you need this to be part of what need to be established, that the existence of gender restriction simply can not be part of the axioms of this conversations?

>Are you saying you do not believe that our society is free from assigned gender norm norms that restrict both genders from fully blooming and cussed on their competences alone.

The most "gender equal" nation on earth also has the most rigid gender roles. This is the gender paradox. In nations with gender equality, where the genders are free to pursue any vocation or hobby they wish, there is a correlation between those nations and the genders choosing to remain in what are considered "traditional" gender roles.

>Are you saying you are not convinced that this exist?
In our society? No. I am entirely unconvinced.
Conversely. In nations with LESS gender equality, such as states with strict cultural and religious traditions that cause the nation to prohibit gender equality, the opposite occurs, and the restricted gender (typically female) generally goes outside the traditional gender roles.

>that the existence of gender restriction
Gender restriction comes, in western and free society, from choice. It's elective.

In societies that are more regressive to women, that restriction is more founded, but causes women to try to break gender roles by choice more often.

>WHY does this need to be celebrated?
Need to? in case you didn't notice, you just committed a loaded question fallacy

You never really need to celebrate, you do it because you want to.

Someone making a difficulty cease to exist will rejoice, regardless of whether or not it's needed.

>Need to?

> it need to be pointed out and be celebrated when it is broken.

>femposting
You mean shitposting?
Wasn't it already a shitpost thread?

First of all, a lot of of shiposting could have been avoided if you hd simply stated from the very beginning "THERE IS NO SOCIETAL CONSTRUCT BASED ON GENDERS LIMITING LIFE CHOICES", instead of playing at captain fallacy.
>The most "gender equal" nation on earth also has the most rigid gender roles. This is the gender paradox. In nations with gender equality, where the genders are free to pursue any vocation or hobby they wish, there is a correlation between those nations and the genders choosing to remain in what are considered "traditional" gender roles.
I notice you switched form "it need to be proven to exist" from "there are good reason for this to exist".

>In our society? No. I am entirely unconvinced.
And yet you last statement defended its existence. Be consistent, please.
Also, see pic in that post, then >Gender restriction comes, in western and free society, from choice. It's elective.
Gender restriction, by definition, stem from gender, not choice. Choice only stem choice restriction.

Also, to address your main point. We live in a society that try to give to individual as much freedom as possible while respecting each other life choices. the rules we have come up with aren't always perfect and beyond them also exists social norms, that if not imposed by law still exist as, sometimes, source of social shames, something that can be only countered by pointing it out and showing pride in it. Hence my disagreement with knuckles.

Need only applied "pointed out" not "celebrated".

At worst, it's poor grammar and poorly worded out points you are scratching there.

>"THERE IS NO SOCIETAL CONSTRUCT BASED ON GENDERS LIMITING LIFE CHOICES"
Do not misrepresent what I'm saying. That said, what limits life choices in our society, is in fact, free will. Mostly.

>I notice you switched form "it need to be proven to exist" from "there are good reason for this to exist".
From the standpoint of argument:
The same.

>And yet you last statement defended its existence
It didn't. I explained why these things exist. People choose to follow gender roles in a more equal society. Why, I couldn't tell you. But that's what happens. I didn't say it's wrong or right, but, objectively, in our society, anybody is free to do what they want. In this case, the only thing that is stopping people is their own free will.

>Gender restriction, by definition, stem from gender, not choice.
In our society it's entirely by choice. People are choosing to follow gender roles in free societies. and even in societies more "equal" than our own, the gender divide is even more rigid than this ours, if you can believe it.

>sometimes, source of social shames
You haven't shown me there's anything other than people making decisions on their own. You're presenting this argument as fact without proving it. Begging the question.

>At worst, it's poor grammar
Which is your fault. Not mine.
>needs to be pointed out
Again though. The question remains: Why?

>Here is an anecdote!
For your sake, I will ignore you tried to appeal to an anecdote.

Here is something more factual.
youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE

>That said, what limits life choices in our society, is in fact, free will. Mostly.
?
Sorry, but that sentence has no meaning. Choices itself is what limit our future pathways. but choice is the manifestation of free will. Free will does not limit life choices, it enable them in the first place. Free will is at the source of life-choices. everything else restrict it.

>From the standpoint of argument:
>The same.
Definitely not. You are trying to justify something that you consider does not exist. This is a pointless exercise if you think it does not.

>I explained why these things exist.
Once again, be consistent. If the existence of social limitations is part of the axioms of this conversation, this make our thread of shitposting even more pointless.
>People choose to follow gender roles in a more equal society.
People also chose to impose gender role on those who don't want to. And that's my point.

>You haven't shown me there's anything other than people making decisions on their own.
I have showed you this pic Which clearly establish an impairment on a woman not caused by her own choices.
I can also mention how, in many divorces case, the guard of the kids will often be given to the mother in case of guard dispute because "mother know best", regardless of the personal history of the parents.

>Again though. The question remains: Why?
As already said several time, a problem is not solved by being ignored.

>Here is an anecdote!
>For your sake, I will ignore you tried to appeal to an anecdote.
You asked to prove that something exist. In this case anecdote is suffisnet to prove exitence. Anecdote falacy come when you try to prove absolute or general rule.

Anecdotal prove are sufficient to prove something exist.
-I don't believe in dolphins
-here is one dolphins, you can see it
-okay.

Try to understand the fallacy you are complaining about.

>Sorry, but that sentence has no meaning. Choices itself is what limit our future pathways. but choice is the manifestation of free will
Correct. Literally, I'm saying people do stuff because they want to. Mostly. Details would cause this to segue into a different topic.

>People also chose to impose gender role on those who don't want to.
Sometimes, very rarely?
Most of the time that's not what happens.
By and large, in a free society, this doesn't happen. It's entirely self-imposed. Nobody's forcing them to follow these roles, that's the point. The point is the more free you make people to make the choice for themselves, the more likely they are to follow "traditional" gender roles.

>I have showed you this pic
Which clearly establish an impairment on a woman not caused by her own choices.
>You asked to prove that something exist. In this case anecdote is suffisnet to prove exitence. Anecdote falacy come when you try to prove absolute or general rule.
What you've proven is that it happened once, not how often it happens.
What you have shown then, is that it happened. Not how often it happens. Which, again, the vast majority of the time, is someone just WANTING to do something, which coincides with gender roles. As stated:
This is rare in our society.

>This thread

Feminism always goes wrong eventually.

>Sometimes, very rarely?
And this is enough to make the points made there valid.
>What you've proven is that it happened once, not how often it happens.
How often it happens was never the matter of the discussion.

I initially simply stated that WHEN it happens (and I was quite clear about that), it need to be pointed out.

You answered by saying I wasn't allowed to state that up until it was proven it could happens at all.

Frequency was never part of the argument.

This fighting is silly.

And I don't think you can pin your confusion of existence with frequency on bad grammar.

I didn't make this thread for you clowns to moan about women.

this conversation is surprisingly sophisticated, though.

>I initially simply stated that WHEN it happens (and I was quite clear about that), it need to be pointed out.

The problem isn't being addressed if you're pointing it out in this context. If it's not pointed out, it's not necessarily being ignored.

Or even a tremendous problem. In this context, pointing it out is a meaningless gesture, as it's been addressed. Girls can play soccer. Or not. Girls can knit, or not.
By saying it's a gender role, and pointing it out, you are implicitly stating it's a problem.

When it's not. It's the direct result of free will/choice. Most girls don't play or want to play soccer? That's because they're exercising their desire (or not) to play (or not.)

Unless you think women having their own decision to NOT do something is a problem.

Look at all the chimps waving their internet cocks around.

QUICK POST MORE SONIC BOOM

THERE'S STILL TIME TO SAVE THE THREAD

Thread has AIDS. Just accept it.

>No season 3
IT HURTS, IT BURNS ME

>The problem isn't being addressed if you're pointing it out in this context
I didn't give any context and make a point to be as broadly general as possible.

>If it's not pointed out, it's not necessarily being ignored.
When it come to social norms, it usually is. What is considered the norm will remain the norm unless it is actually challenged.

>Or even a tremendous problem. In this context, pointing it out is a meaningless gesture, as it's been addressed
Pointing a problem out and doing nothing else IS meaningless, nevertheless, pointing it out is a necessary first step.

>Girls can play soccer. Or not. Girls can knit, or not.
>By saying it's a gender role, and pointing it out, you are implicitly stating it's a problem.
I have never listed those as being a problem.

Again read >Knuckles's speech is based on the assumption that there exist no outside force outside of the person's own competences to attain a a goal. in that context, he has a point
>But once the limitations come from outside force of the one trying for achievement, not pointing those limitations out is not the right solution and only allow to make it worst.

you keep listing case where I have specifically said my point do not apply and surprise surprise, it does not apply.

WHO FUCKING SAID WE WERE MOANING ABOUT WOMEN? YOU FUCKING MYSANDRIST!

Sonic Boom was cancelled in some countries after Season 1, so Season 2 was never dubbed there.

Anyone knows the reasons?

>I have never listed those as being a problem.

>pointing it out is a necessary first step.
Then why point it out if, in this specific instance, it's not a problem?

Specifically this scene was, if memory serves, Amy playing soccer. Or dive-grass.
Saying, "I'm breaking this gender role" seems pointless in this instance, since, that role exists as a function of choice/free will.

Presumably. I don't know about mobius culture.

>Then why point it out if, in this specific instance, it's not a problem?
Like I siad
>>But once the limitations come from outside force of the one trying for achievement, not pointing those limitations out is not the right solution and only allow to make it worst.
>but once the limitations come from outside force
>but once
>BUT ONCE

Like I said before, in this instance, Knuckles has a point. I am simply disagreeing with the generality of his statement.

I think the generality of his statement is usually the rule rather than the exception. It'd be semantic to point out that it only doesn't hold up in exceptions where it doesn't.

Then "anytime" shouldn't have been used (I am talking about the knuckle quote). One should always be careful when using absolutes.

Requesting the Knuckles "I try not to" scene.

Language is implicit. In this context, it seems implicit that, "anytime," has meant that he hasn't come across a situation where it hasn't.

And again, this feels a little bit semantic if we're to dissect the choice of words rather than the veracity of what's implicit in them.

>muh patriarchy

>Lan
>>At worst, it's poor grammar
>Which is your fault. Not mine.
guage is implicit. In this context, it seems implicit that, "anytime," has meant that he hasn't come across a situation where it hasn't.
see>>At worst, it's poor grammar
>Which is your fault. Not mine.
Knuckeles is at fault.

>"anytime," has meant that he hasn't come across a situation where it hasn't.
It actually does.

anytime as an implicit absolute value, not an "overall" one.

You think men aren't victim of that too?

Everybody is a victim except for the eight super rich assholes that own half the globe.

You know, Amy, anytime someone calls attention to the breaking of the patriarchy, it ultimately undermines the concept of patriarchy by implying that this is an exception and not the status quo.

Surprisingly, only 2 of them are jews.

>, it ultimately undermines the concept of patriarchy
Isn't that the goal, though?

>Based on one of the worst sonic games
>When info and designs first trickled out people immediately thought it was going to be shit
>Ends up being gold

How did they do it?

Fair enough I guess

>sonic has aids
>several rape scenes
>sonic almost raping his alter ego (???)
>painkillers - do not overdoes
idk who it was who storytimed this a while ago but thank you

>Based on one of the worst sonic games
They were developed seperately

>When info and designs first trickled out people immediately thought it was going to be shit
Yeah, autists like Chris-Chan who can't deal with blue arms

>Ends up being gold
>How did they do it?
Made and written by people who do comedy.

Might be because it got moved to Boomerang in America for no reason. I heard it did really well in other countries too, so it might just be due to how popular it was in given places.

What I would give to hang out with the writers and storyboarders. Imagine all the raunchy jokes they've come up with and decided not to use. The visuals they dreamed up and knew even they couldn't get away with it. They probably animated a lot of porn of the characters for fun as well.

>Make the same thread with the same image twice
>Didn't make it to shitpost
suure

Reminds me of that dll comic, shits cute.