Riversyde said:
pfffhahaha

Please give an example of an illogical argument I've used and explain why it is not logical.

Since no has yet provided examples of my illogical arguments, I just want to lay out my arguments in their entirety as a little help for you. I WELCOME you to find flaws in it, because if you do, that only helps me.

Please read, this will be the last one I will ask you to read with thought on this topic

All I'm trying to say is that... based on physical appearance, someone who looks like a clothed female appears no different from someone who appears as a clothed herm... and that it is a 'hasty generalization' fallacy to assume that they're female. It's an OK generalization in real life when less than .0001% of the human populus are herms. But on imageboards, the herm picture statistic move up to about 20% of the pictures that are tagged as a gender with a female body shape.

Thus it is illogical to jump to such a generalization about the gender of the being in the picture without outside information... thus artist opinion should be brought into the equation.

My OTHER main argument is that we're allowed to use the 'default gender' concept on batman because he is mainstream, yet we are not allowed to use it on less mainstream characters like Dryak. This is unfair to lesser-known character creators... and you should be able to use the default gender on all of them or none of them. I dislike inequality.

SoulLess said:
Please give an example of an illogical argument I've used and explain why it is not logical.

SoulLess said:
Images will never be tagged "Female" when there is not a vagina visible.
Images will never be tagged "Male" when there is not a penis visible.

This is not logical because you can be female/male without having to flash your pussy/dick everywhere. It also makes the site seem porn-oriented, which is not what we want to convey.

Riversyde said:
This is not logical because you can be female/male without having to flash your pussy/dick everywhere. It also makes the site seem porn-oriented, which is not what we want to convey.

I can be a herm without having to flash my pussy and dick everywhere... which is what I was trying to point out with that statement. It is, of course, illogical to have those as rules.
This was in response to the "Images will never be tagged as "Herm" unless a penis is visible", which someone else stated as a rule for herms... it is trying to impose that same set of illogical rules, but they are all the sudden passing as logical (and accepted by this thread) rules when they are imposed on a minority.

ALSO, this is a legitimate question.

What if a picture is (by current tagging rules) a picture of a female... but there is text in the picture's captions or something (maybe speech bubbles) that suggests that the character is a herm? What if it is the character flat out talking about being a herm?

What if that text is in you're non-native language and you cannot tell? Are you supposed to fight with the person who can read it and claim that it is female?

Riversyde said:
It also makes the site seem porn-oriented, which is not what we want to convey.

huh? since when?

SoulLess said:
I can be a herm without having to flash my pussy and dick everywhere... which is what I was trying to point out with that statement.

Yes, of course you can BE a herm, but chances are you will not LOOK like one.

SoulLess said:
ALSO, this is a legitimate question.

What if a picture is (by current tagging rules) a picture of a female... but there is text in the picture's captions or something (maybe speech bubbles) that suggests that the character is a herm? What if it is the character flat out talking about being a herm?

What if that text is in you're non-native language and you cannot tell? Are you supposed to fight with the person who can read it and claim that it is female?

>suggesting being a herm
>talking about being one
Chances are they're not one.
If they were a herm, they wouldn't need to fantasize about being one.

JustFrame said:
huh? since when?

Unless I'm mistaken, it's supposed to be an art site first, a furry site second, and a porn site 3rd. That's how I've always looked at it.

JustFrame said:
huh? since when?

uhhhh, since forever?

>suggesting being a herm
>talking about being one
Chances are they're not one.
If they were a herm, they wouldn't need to fantasize about being one.

Yeah... but 20% of the female body shaped images on here are herms.. with the female to herm character ratio it is much more likely for a character to be a herm than for a human to be a herm with the female to herm human ratio.

Yes, of course you can BE a herm, but chances are you will not LOOK like one.

What does a herm look like? It looks like a female.

SoulLess said:
Yeah... but 20% of the female body shaped images on here are herms.. with the female to herm character ratio it is much more likely for a character to be a herm than for a human to be a herm with the female to herm human ratio.

What does a herm look like? It looks like a female.

Thank you for answering your own hypocritical question as to why we tag Herms that do not appear as herms, FEMALE. Then again, I doubt this ironic truth will get through that thick nugget you call a skull.

SoulLess said:
Yeah... but 20% of the female body shaped images on here are herms.. with the female to herm character ratio it is much more likely for a character to be a herm than for a human to be a herm with the female to herm human ratio.

What?

What does a herm look like? It looks like a female.

So that is what we will tag it as, unless there is conflicting evidence IN THE PICTURE.
Artist/character statements are invalid.

What does a herm look like? It looks like a female

.. what does a female look like? IT LOOKS LIKE A HERM. There are two sides to that coin. If you can use the first statement "What does a herm look like? It looks like a female.. so tag it female" as valid logic, then a statement that uses the SAME logic also must be valid "what does a female look like? IT LOOKS LIKE A HERM... so tag it herm"

~~
To clarify: A Hasty Generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence.

The inductive generalization is that the clothed character is female, the evidence is that 80% of the sample population(pictures that would look female when clothed and bulge is hidden) are female where 20% are herm. A 80:20 ratio is inconclusive when trying to make accurate assumptions of the gender...

SoulLess said:
.. what does a female look like? IT LOOKS LIKE A HERM. There are two sides to that coin.

Females look like females. What are you, retarded?

ippiki_ookami said:
Unless I'm mistaken, it's supposed to be an art site first, a furry site second, and a porn site 3rd. That's how I've always looked at it.

hahahaha, okay.

I mean, yeah, you can make the argument that it can't be a furry porn site unless it is an art site and furry site to begin with. But seriously?

This site is for porn, like pretty much any 'furry art site'. If we "don't want to convey that" then you might want to start by taking down the porn ads.

Minor gripe, but seriously, really stupid statement.

SoulLess said:
.. what does a female look like? IT LOOKS LIKE A HERM. There are two sides to that coin. If you can use the first statement "What does a herm look like? It looks like a female.. so tag it female" as valid logic, then a statement that uses the SAME logic also must be valid "what does a female look like? IT LOOKS LIKE A HERM... so tag it herm"

~~
To clarify: A Hasty Generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence.

The inductive generalization is that the clothed character is female, the evidence is that 80% of the sample population(pictures that would look female when clothed and bulge is hidden) are female where 20% are herm. A 80:20 ratio is inconclusive when trying to make accurate assumptions of the gender.

A female does not look like a herm, that has never been the case. The only way to tell a hermaphrodite from a FEMALE is by certain dangly bits that tend to expose them, or a more masculine body structure. Female>herm, we're going to default to the majority because theirs a BETTER CHANCE of them being female.

Riversyde said:
Females look like females. What are you, retarded?

Females look like herms, herms look like females. Oranges look like orange lemons, Lemons look like yellow oranges.

If I look like you, then you MUST look like me. (We either look the alike or we don't... you can't look like me but me not look like you... that's just silly.)

Metaknowledge: The knowledge about knowledge.

A female does not look like a herm, that has never been the case. The only way to tell a hermaphrodite from a FEMALE is by certain dangly bits that tend to expose them, or a more masculine body structure. Female>herm, we're going to default to the majority because theirs a BETTER CHANCE of them being female.

There is most certainly not a BETTER CHANCE when the artist says its not female. And Even if there is a better chance, It's not conclusive enough to claim with any accuracy.

Furthermore, tell me one distinguish feature (besides the penis) that a female has that tells it apart from a herm. Once again: If I look like you, then you MUST look like me. It either goes both ways or it goes none. You cannot say that I look nothing like you, yet you look exactly like me... It's just not logical. (We either look the alike or we don't.)

ALSO

Why has no one addressed what happens when there is speech bubbles in the picture that tells you that a "Female" is actually a "herm".. and what happens when it is in your non native language?

JustFrame said:
hahahaha, okay.

I mean, yeah, you can make the argument that it can't be a furry porn site unless it is an art site and furry site to begin with. But seriously?

This site is for porn, like pretty much any 'furry art site'. If we "don't want to convey that" then you might want to start by taking down the porn ads.

Minor gripe, but seriously, really stupid statement.

The porn ads are there because Varka hosts us for free, so he gets all the advertising he wants.
Nothing we can do about that.

JustFrame said:
hahahaha, okay.

I mean, yeah, you can make the argument that it can't be a furry porn site unless it is an art site and furry site to begin with. But seriously?

This site is for porn, like pretty much any 'furry art site'. If we "don't want to convey that" then you might want to start by taking down the porn ads.

Minor gripe, but seriously, really stupid statement.

Wasn't an argument. I was just stating my opinion. You sure are quick to insult people...

Riversyde said:
The porn ads are there because Varka hosts us for free, so he gets all the advertising he wants.
Nothing we can do about that.

You say that as if you'd rather he wasn't hosting you for free.

But never mind, I forgot the owner of the site is completely irresponsible for the content appearing on it.

ippiki_ookami said:
Wasn't an argument. I was just stating my opinion. You sure are quick to insult people...

Oh, that wasn't aimed at you. Just the "we don't want to convey this as a porn site" thing. Sorry if that wasn't quite clear.

SoulLess said:
Females look like herms, herms look like females.

Except when the herm is a maleherm :)

Furthermore, tell me one distinguish feature (besides the penis) that a female has that tells it apart from a herm.

The lack of testicles?

Riversyde said:
Except when the herm is a maleherm :)

Right, but then you cannot distinguish the clothed version from a male.

The lack of testicles?

Though your statement doesn't add any features that can separate the physical appearance of a clothed female from that of a herm (when 'the goods' aren't apparent), I have to admit... you got me on that one. A wording error on my part... now I feel trolled.

JustFrame said:
You say that as if you'd rather he wasn't hosting you for free.

What? That's not how I said it at all! I'm very grateful Varka took over the site out of goodwill.

SoulLess said:
Right, but then you cannot distinguish the clothed version from a male.

You were talking about normal herms...

SoulLess said:
.. what does a female look like? IT LOOKS LIKE A HERM. There are two sides to that coin. If you can use the first statement "What does a herm look like? It looks like a female.. so tag it female" as valid logic, then a statement that uses the SAME logic also must be valid "what does a female look like? IT LOOKS LIKE A HERM... so tag it herm"

~~
To clarify: A Hasty Generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence.

The inductive generalization is that the clothed character is female, the evidence is that 80% of the sample population(pictures that would look female when clothed and bulge is hidden) are female where 20% are herm. A 80:20 ratio is inconclusive when trying to make accurate assumptions of the gender...

Please do a little research before you say things.
It's tag what you see people. It isn't hard.
Female
Herm
'nuff said.

It's tag what you see people. It isn't hard.

Right, and when I see a clothed female (http://e621.net/post/show/147648/air_elemental-amara-belt-blue_eyes-boots-brown_eye) I could just as easily be seeing a clothed herm... I don't see what is under the belt... the conflict here isn't whether or not you tag what you see... It's who you listen to when you DON'T SEE ANYTHING CONCLUSIVE... do you listen to the artists or the admins?

I think the artists know and understand the picture better than some admin who may or may not of even seen the picture in question.

A female does not look like a herm, that has never been the case. The only way to tell a hermaphrodite from a FEMALE is by certain dangly bits that tend to expose them, or a more masculine body structure.

You need to look at this both ways... the only way to separate a FEMALE from a HERM is by prooving that it lacks those dangly bits. You cannot say a "Herm looks like a female" but not say that a "Female looks like a herm"... Either they look alike or they don't.

OK. So maybe it is a better idea to go with the majority (although pleasing majority at the cost of the minority is against the idea of equality, and the statistics seem to not be strong enough to conclude accurateness)...

WHY DID you say Batman~~ wait, Atani said that... is she even an Admin? Nevermind. I'm done. My fault there.

SoulLess said:
Right, and when I see a clothed female (http://e621.net/post/show/147648/air_elemental-amara-belt-blue_eyes-boots-brown_eye) I could just as easily be seeing a clothed herm... I don't see what is under the belt... the conflict here isn't whether or not you tag what you see... It's who you listen to when you DON'T SEE ANYTHING CONCLUSIVE... do you listen to the artists or the admins?

I think the artists know and understand the picture better than some admin who may or may not of even seen the picture in question.

You're kidding me, right? You can't tell if that is a female?

I don't see a bulge or anything that would make me believe that she has a penis.

You're trying to believe that there is something there when there clearly isn't.

If you can't see it, then don't tag it.

Edit: It's not who do you listen to, its tag what you see.

skeeter said:
You're trying to believe that there is something there when there clearly isn't.

If you can't see it, then don't tag it.

Edit: It's not who do you listen to, its tag what you see.

You're trying to believe that a vagina is there instead of a dick, when there is no good indication. (You say that there is no bulge, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... conversely, there is also no good evidence that there is a vagina there instead of a dick.)

I can't see any good indication one way or the other, so I see Ambiguous Gender.

Of course I WOULD like to tag it as a female... as that is what it most likely is... but if I'm just TAGGING WHAT I'M SEEING... I'm not seeing any good evidence that it's a female and not a herm. Thus, I'm tagging based off my own assumptions/generalizations of what the picture is about.

I swear, if there is anyone who has read the whole thread and does still not agree with wiki entries for characters instead of stated gender tags, I will launch a flaming bag of explosive dinosaur poop at their basement.

I'm locking this thread. Continued "discussion" at this point is proving fruitless.

We've had some decent suggestions and will consider implementing some of those to alleviate the concerns and counter-arguments mentioned in this thread.

As things currently stand though, the tagging policy is still no different than before: tag what you see, always.