I don't really care if you're a homosexual or straight but sometimes it's just..no.
A male nurse akali? I seriously just want to shred my eyes. A female yasuo? Now that's some yes yes
I might be biased on this because im straight but even if I was homosexual I think i'd find that gross.
Am I bad person?
Divewing6 votesYou like one thing, and don't like the other, that is all your own opinion, and there is never anything wrong with it, it only becomes a problem when you FORCE/EXPECT OTHERS TO AGREE WITH YOU. eg:" Man i love pears" "eh...I like apples more" "you @#$% idiot, apples taste like @#$%, pears are way better, stupid @#$% @#$%" (you get the idea)
Trash MammaI8 votesWtf noob oranges are the best sh*t ever get your facts straight. Reported for trash
Jubbinaut6 votesI'm gonna straight-up state that the reason you find one acceptable and the other not is explicitly because of your sexual preferences.
I'm also gonna say that it's perfectly fine. Your tastes are your own, and you're always welcome to them. So long as you aren't attacking such persons - verbally or physically - for their choices, there's no problem.
EDIT: Also, while I'm pretty sure you intended "grossed" out in your title, I'm incredibly amused by the way you said it:
A male nurse Akali? Torasuto
Eleshakai3 votesYou're wrong if you actually consider it bad that they do it... because that's a double standard. If it's okay for women to crossdress its okay for men to do so as well.
If it is just unattractive to you, then no... that's completely normal. People are attracted to different things and there's nothing WRONG with being attracted to one thing and not attracted to another.
OhOkYea2 votesYou're not a bad person at all. Not being attracted to something that's unnatural and unproductive to the advancement of the human race is perfectly normal and you should be glad that you see things for what they really are.
bad arcade kitty4 votesi don't care, especially when it's cosplay which is kind of a mix of a masquerade and an actor play for both of which crossdressing is perfectly reasonable and has a history of many hundred years old. the main problem with cosplay it's usually either the costume is poor or the person too strikingly differs from the model, for crossdressing the second part is obviously quite common
You're not a bad person at all. Not being attracted to something that's unnatural and unproductive to the advancement of the human race is perfectly normal and you should be glad that you see things for what they really are.
you missed the second part that female crossdressing is ok for him, how it's more 'natural' than male one, lol
OhOkYea4 votesBecause it is a female regardless of what she is wearing.
bad arcade kitty1 votesBecause it is a female regardless of what she is wearing.
well, it obviously explains attraction, but it doesn't explain why you find one kind of crossdressing natural and another not
OhOkYea1 votesIt's not the cross dressing. Saying cross dressing is unnatural is the same as saying wearing any clothes is unnatural. It's just clothing/makeup/etc. It's the innate attraction which is unnatural.
Weedlayer1 votesIt's not the cross dressing. Saying cross dressing is unnatural is the same as saying wearing any clothes is unnatural. It's just clothing/makeup/etc. It's the innate attraction which is unnatural.
By unnatural, are you referring to natural law theology? Or simply saying "Not found in nature"?
OhOkYea1 votesI was expecting a legitimate source that would challenge my claims. Try again.
Jubbinaut2 votesExcept that there's no need to challenge that claim. That claim is inherently fallacious, based as it is on an Appeal to Nature. You offer no support for why what is "natural" should be better in this case beyond the fact that it is natural.
OhOkYea1 votesIt's not natural. Explain how you come to this conclusion.
Jubbinaut2 votesHow I came to the conclusion that your argument about it being "natural" and therefore "better" (or "unnatural" and therefore "worse") is fallacious?
I figured the link defining an Appeal to Nature fallacy did a fair job of that, but I can try to summarize it.
An argument which indicates that one thing is inherently better than another purely by virtue of the one being "natural" is fallacious. That's not to say that it's necessarily wrong or false, merely that it requires more support than the fallacious argument itself.
For example:
It is both fallacious and generally false to claim that "natural" remedies for illnesses are better than more "artificial" medicines such as antibiotics.
It is fallacious - but usually not false - to claim that eating raw vegetables is better than eating cooked vegetables because it's more "natural."
OhOkYea1 votesYou found a website with a quote. This is not a source you can cite as evidence for your claims. You are making a claim that you cannot prove, so you avoid it by using philosophical logic for a matter which is not philosophical to begin with. I understand it makes you feel smart, but you should at least try to back it up with some facts mixed in.
Anyone can use philosophical arguments to make their opinion appear to be correct. I can use them to argue that blue is green. Doesn't make it correct, though.
Jubbinaut2 votesYou found a website with a quote. This is not a source you can cite as evidence for your claims. You are making a claim that you cannot prove,
The only claim I have made is that your argument is fallacious. That claim requires no evidence beyond that presented in the argument so criticized. The website is nothing more than an explanation of what the fallacy entails.
so you avoid it by using philosophical logic for a matter which is not philosophical to begin with. I understand it makes you feel smart, but you should at least try to back it up with some facts mixed in.
There's no facts to use, because I am not making a counterargument. I am merely being critical of your argument. I have nothing to prove here.
Anyone can use philosophical arguments to make their opinion appear to be correct. I can use them to argue that blue is green. Doesn't make it correct, though.
The only opinion I've expressed in relation to your claim is that you're making a fallacious argument. Since fallacies are flaws in the way an argument is presented, there's no need for any exterior evidence regarding them.
This post seems to be some form of straw-man, but frankly, I've no idea how to address it as such, because I genuinely don't know what claim or argument you think I'm making.
OhOkYea1 votesHere you go again, philosophical circle jerking without actually making a point.
Why don't you return to your original point and start over? Every post you make is the exact same as before. You're creating a LOOP so you can just recycle the same ideas over and over without making any progress.
I've no idea how to address it
Obviously
Eleshakai3 votesHere you go again, philosophical circle jerking without actually making a point.
Why don't you return to your original point and start over? Every post you make is the exact same as before. You're creating a LOOP so you can just recycle the same ideas over and over without making any progress.
Obviously
I see this sort of thing a lot. When a person presents an argument that someone is unable to understand well enough to refute, they try to discredit the argument rather than discuss it...
He stated that your argument was fallacious. He then provided an explanation of why he feels the argument is fallacious. If you'd understood what he was saying, the logical response on your end would've been to return to your original argument and provide further explanation, clarification, or examples to expand upon it to counter his point - to show that his statement that your argument was fallacious wasn't accurate.
But since you didn't understand his complaint well enough to do so, you in stead try to undermine his point by calling it 'circlejerking' or by trying to downplay the importance of philosophy... it's a common enough tactic. But it really doesn't do a good job overall.
OhOkYea1 votesI did. I reiterated my point several times. This person is going in circles with their own rhetoric and thinking they are making a point when in fact they are making a non-point. These types of arguments are counter productive and are specifically covered in any entry level course on logic (specifically how to avoid a cyclical argument that leads nowhere).
The main issue is that it is not a philosophical issue. I never made a statement that was open to interpretation. My statement was quite clear and so was my reasoning without being anywhere near over complicated. The response was open ended and made no definitive statement. That is circle jerking by definition.
Jubbinaut2 votesWhy don't you return to your original point and start over? Every post you make is the exact same as before. You're creating a LOOP so you can just recycle the same ideas over and over without making any progress.
Okay. Here's my original point, then: Your argument (specifically, this aspect of your argument: "Not being attracted to something that's unnatural ... is perfectly normal") is fallacious.
The implication of that statement is that being attracted to what is "natural" is both normal and preferable to being attracted to what is "unnatural." This is an Appeal to Nature fallacy - based on the invalid premise that something is better merely because it is "natural."
That is - and has always been - the entirety of my point. In fact, it's the only point I've made so far.
OhOkYea1 votesSo, you're doing the opposite of making a point.
Philosophical circle jerk. There's special places on reddit for special fedoras like you.
Jubbinaut2 votesSo, you're doing the opposite of making a point.
Oh, no. There's certainly a point. And it's both valid and useful.
Indicating the flaws in an argument allows the person making that argument to clarify his position or shore up weaknesses in his logic. This is of benefit to both participants in a discussion, because it allows for better understanding on both sides.
Specifically, pointing out fallacious arguments helps indicate when an argument doesn't follow from its premises. These kinds of failures of logic are common and easy to fall into, but when spotted can completely discredit an argument.
Making flawed arguments isn't terribly problematic - nor are flawed arguments necessarily false (as I've noted before). They are, however, far less meaningful and convincing than they could be.
OhOkYea1 votesI made a clear and direct statement that was not open to interpretation. It was straight forward.
You have yet to counter my claim while still attempting to make an argument. If it's trolling, it's not very good. You should work on it a bit more because you've done nothing but stagnate your own argument. If you are going to keep repeating the same thing over and over without actually coming to a conclusion, then what's the point?
Aerothal1 voteshey! i can do that!
like this:
Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
and
Mathew 7:5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
so to your claims: IF anyone burns in hell, that's not up to you! You have no idea if they do or not. Everyone answers to God (if you chose to believe in God, you should know that)
I wont judge you cause then i'll have to read and comprehend above verses yet again. (ah, whom am i kidding, i am judging you, you dumb fool)
off to praying for forgiveness!
IcyPepper3 votessomething that's unnatural and unproductive to the advancement of the human race
But he likes that female Yasuo. If male-to-female cosplay is wrong, isn't female-to-male cosplay wrong too?
So by your logic, he is attracted to something unnatural and unproductive to the advancement of the human race.
Unless you're pushing a subtle anti-homosexual agenda in your statement instead of addressing the actual discussion (cosplay) here.
OhOkYea1 votesUm, what? You're making this way too complicated. Being attracted to the same sex, regardless of whether they are dressed up or not, is wrong.
IcyPepper3 votesBut this conversation isn't about homosexuality, so why are you pushing that agenda?
We're talking about cosplay here, dude. Get with the program.
OhOkYea1 votesSeveral quotes rom the OP:
you're a homosexual
im straight
I was homosexual
So the OP is more about homosexuality than about cosplay.
IcyPepper2 votesI don't really care if you're a homosexual or straight but sometimes it's just..no.
This basically says that sometimes sexual orientation is irrelevant when it comes to shitty cosplay.
I might be biased on this because im straight but even if I was homosexual I think i'd find that gross.
He's bringing that up because he's recognizing that bias may be involved, but believes that maybe it might be irrelevant because a homosexual might find a particular male-to-female cosplay gross.
So yeah, dude, this is about cosplay. Sexuality may play a part, but cosplay is the matter at hand. So can you shove off with your opinions on homosexuality and focus on the cosplay for once?
Personally, I find that some genderbender cosplay is better than others. Female Garen or male Lux, for example, are definitely neato, but stuff like male Zyra or female Blitzcrank might be harder to pull off. Personally I'd like to see a male Pentakill Sona and Pentakill Karthus (of either gender) for the sheer metal factor.
OhOkYea1 votes[deleted]
Jubbinaut3 votesThe answer is yes because fag enablers will burn in hell.
Nevermind. You can hereby ignore all my previous posts - this clarifies your position more than well enough.
And establishes quite clearly that your argument isn't worth paying any further attention to.
OhOkYea1 votesBecause you have no logical argument to refute my claim. You cannot prove that homosexuality is not a mental disease.
Jubbinaut2 votesBecause you have no logical argument to refute my claim.
Your claim that they'll burn in hell? I could certainly make quite a few logical arguments against it, but there's no real purpose to doing so. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.
You cannot prove that homosexuality is not a mental disease.
I could supply pretty strong evidence that it's not. But even if it is a mental disease, you haven't established that there's a compelling reason for there to be anything wrong with that.
To put all this another way: I don't need to have a logical argument to refute your claim, because you haven't established any basis for your claim - you're in the unassailable position of having no legs to stand on.
OhOkYea1 votesI haven't had a chance to change your mind because you never took a stance in the first place. You say I have no legs to stand on while you don't even have the conviction to take a stance. Your argument is loose. You can literally use the same argument you're using here to claim that green is blue, or that bricks are planets. Have some conviction and say what you want to say.
Jubbinaut2 votesSorry, all I heard was, "No, you have to prove that I am wrong!"
And, well... that's fallacious.
If you expect someone to actually respect your argument enough to respond to it meaningfully, try actually supporting it with something. Establish your own point first.
IcyPepper4 votesI never understood that argument, tbh.
"If you're gay, you'll go to hell with all the other gay people to have gay sex and stuff and be denied a heaven full of bigots!"
Like, let's be honest here, are we even trying? I'd like to make it upstairs just the same as the next guy, but if we're going to preach then we might as well make it look like we're trying.
fag enablers will burn in hell.
Isn't lung cancer enough punishment?
ImHerVoice2 votesI prefer ass over chest am I bad person? No. I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Trash MammaI1 votesI'm more of a boob person myself.
.>.... ( Y )
JustMyBassCannon2 votesWell, it depends. Is the guy dressing as Nurse Akali built properly? Much in the same way you wouldn't want Lady Gragas cosplaying as Yasuo, I wouldn't want Urgot cosplaying as Nurse Akali.
Now that I have given myself nightmarish images, I'm going to play Soul Calibur and rethink my life.
(and you're a biased person, but not horrible if you're simply saying "this is my bias")
Sirsir2 votesWhat about a female cosplaying Gragas(with his build)?
Heh, personally it depends on the person doing the cosplay, and who they are cosplaying. If some 280 lb neckbeard is cosplaying Riven, I share your sentiment.
Aerothal2 votescrossed out? cross-dressed-out? I'll cross you out. maybe you gross me out!
all spelling aside though, i find it slightly weird as well. but hey, it's a free country...live and let live they answer to god, not to us...if you believe in god, that is...this is getting complicated
beam me up, scotty! no wait, he died. beam me up spock...no...QQ
IcyPepper1 votesWell... there are double standards here, so let's address them.
If females cosplay as males, do you get grossed out? Consider that for a moment.
Now, there is a difference between personal taste and being a jerk. As a straight dude, of course I'm not going to like the image of a male nurse Akali. But that doesn't mean every woman who dresses up will catch my eye. Either way, I'm going to keep my opinion to myself and let the other people have their fun.
And hey, good cosplay is good cosplay. If someone dressed up as an actual male version of nurse Akali and it looked cool, then it looks cool.