Yes, because your narrow-minded self can't see past the idea that your perspective on intangibly defined ideas - like taste in humor, emotional resonance, and intellectual stimulation - can't extend beyond your own capability to comprehend such matters, a comprehension you exhibit poorly.
I'll dumb everything down for you here, because, let's face it, that's really what you're asking, your response is reeling.
And, believe it or not, there are more of us! Those who don't like Family Guy for one reason or another, whether it's as simple as them not finding it funny or as complex as people being disappointed that the show has evolved from something of wit to a pap smear of pop culture and misdirected commentaries. Reasons can be cast aside though, we don't need them. Together, as a group, we unite in this ridiculous war of taste and will take no prisoners. It's time for everyone to choose a side. You've chosen wisely.
and whatever i'm a pot fine, i guess it takes one to know one.
)
You know, I have seen the show and did get the "inside joke". I also understood you were being purposefully mocking.
I've addressed this already in this very thread.Duality said:you want to know why i pounce on your opinions more than others? because you tend to pass all of them off as universal truths, or at the least, that's how they usually always sound. it irks someone easily irkable like me
Tech said every show on Fox sucks except for Family Guy, which is something that a hell of a lot more people would "vehemently disagree with" in comparison to my own statement.
Quite an assumption that a group of people are smarter than the individual. Coincidentally, I'm not making the converse argument here, just pointing out the fault in your own.Duality said:i'm not exactly sure why you dislike family guy, if you care to share that go right ahead, but don't go saying that the show is unequivocally terrible when there are far MORE people who feel the way i do than you do (sure you're not alone in disliking family guy, but you're far outnumbered against those that do
Well aware, thanks.Duality said:
Yes, when you take it out of context and ignore the statement I made following this one, it would sum up the point you're trying to make, but, alas, I did make that statement. Thusly, this isn't how argument really works.Duality said:
I'm allowed to joke as well though, even if I wasn't here, but that isn't really the point anyway. You personally felt - in one way or another - "attacked" because my post conflicted with what your opinion of the show is and you felt I was being dismissive. However, instead of inquiring as to why I dislike the show (to your credit, you did kinda-but-not-really-ask later on) you felt the need to say my sense of humor is askew, which implies, as I stated in my last post, that I don't find it and its over-reliance on non sequiturs funny. But ask yourself, would I really call the show "terrible" if this were the case; if my sense of humor disagreed with someone else's, would I baselessly insult them? Come on, you know me better than this.
Of course it's applicable. You used the "strength in numbers argument" in order to weigh your opinion of the show and I'm telling you it's a shallow, evasive tactic in debate. I could care less what popular opinion is, as the American public doesn't exactly have the best barometer in taste, whatever the medium.Duality said:
I'd like to think I well represent the entire spectrum of online emoting.Duality said:ah, from demeaning to sarcastic, nice
I'm not sure what exactly you're digging for here. I mean, you generally argue with me about matters that you're completely outclassed in and, again, I've done well in representing and qualifying my opinions when asked to, as to avoid any dismissive labels. Regardless, my contention is that what you quoted has little to do with this and I find your reply tangential, either that or you're mistaken. I posted this:Duality said:
You can't take the sentence that comes before that out of context, especially because the above is the crux of my point. This is what doesn't work in your argument. This is what I was referring to. By ignoring it, you basically concede your argument, or at least this portion of it.Line said:
I definitly would of put it in this catergory of enjoyable films so for what your deriving your information from me saying true lies is a masterpeice is unknown to me and you clearly are the twat because They are bothe good movies. That was the point i was giving clearly, you need to repolish your english because I still think you have a hard understanding of what twat means or enjoyable film means for that matter. If you think true lies or commando or downfall isn't close to enjoyable then 1. you don't have a sense of humor, 2. You are a hater for action and drama.
Yeah i was wrong in saying they had bad taste because anyone and everyone is differen't and have different opinions but you stated me saying masterpeice, downfall was and refering to this
I definitly would of put it in this catergory of enjoyable films so for what your deriving your information from me saying true lies is a masterpeice is unknown to me and you clearly are the twat because They are bothe good movies. That was the point i was giving clearly, you need to repolish your english because I still think you have a hard understanding of what twat means or enjoyable film means for that matter. If you think true lies or commando or downfall isn't close to enjoyable then 1. you don't have a sense of humor, 2. You are a hater for action and drama.
