"You're a casual if..."

BluntForceTrama

BluntForceTrama

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
11,414
Reaction score
6,783
Philosophy 1 or critical thinking was a favorite of mine back in college

big bonus points for anyone who can tell me what fallacy is being committed with the above, the presumptuous premise in this being I'm an expert and you're a noob

it's a terrible argument especially when the fights indeed sucked ass

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
 
...I dont know, but I suppose one could argue that the use of the term "casual" on here could be labeled a definist fallacy.

That said, I was editing through the majority of the card, so wasn't really entertained or disappointed. It happened - that much I believe.
 
If you're crying when the Irishman got knocked out
4wyjti16a1d035bfc77cb5.gif
 
I think the definition of casual is someone who only know popular fighters.
And because they are popular, they think it means good (or great, GOAT, whatever).
And they want their opinion to be considered as much as someone who has followed the sport for long, knows most of the aspects of MMA (Ground game, grappling, Standup) and knows all fighters in that specific fighter's division, so they are able to proper assess if said fighter is truly good or not.
 
Last edited:
BluntForceTrama said:
Philosophy 1 or critical thinking was a favorite of mine back in college

big bonus points for anyone who can tell me what fallacy is being committed with the above, the presumptuous premise in this being I'm an expert and you're a noob

it's a terrible argument especially when the fights indeed sucked ass

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Click to expand...
Philo is a stupid subject.
No true Scotsman
 
You’re a pathetic casual if you ever use mmath in any way, shape, or form. I don’t care if you’ve watched every UFC fight live since UFC 1. In fact the longer you’ve been watching only makes you look more ridiculous if you ever use mmath.
 
It's so lazy to call someone a casual because he/she didn't 'appreciate ' the same fights as you
 
Casuals don't like strategic fights without KO's
You didn't like this strategic fight without a KO
Therefore you're a casual

It's fallacious because casuals aren't the only ones who don't like strategic fights without KO's, there's plenty of hardcores that don't like them either. You can disagree with them, but that doesn't mean they are casuals, if we define casuals as "having a passing interest" or "only watching main events".

Not sure which fallacy it would be, It might depend on how it's being presented. But it could be "affirming the consequent". It might be true that casuals don't like strategic fights, but it doesn't follow that because you didn't like a strategic fight, then you're a casual. Just like all dogs have four legs, but it doesn't follow that any animal with four legs must be a dog.

With that said, last night's fights were dogshit anyway.
 
Last edited:
13Seconds said:
Yes it does man... Even if you don’t like WMMA as a hardcore, you know who Nunes, Shevchenko and Zhang are...
Click to expand...
I had to google it to remind myself. For some reason I thought Nicco Montano was still a champ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,049
Messages
55,463,674
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top