Which pony would tend to be chauvinist or patriot?
All of them
>>27594638
All of them
>>27594638
>>27594657
>>27594662
Does the amount of doublethink required to read stormfag nativist crap into the show ever become apparent to you guys? I mean based on that stormfag 'analysis' thread from a couple weeks ago you basically have to maintain numerous, incredibly autistic headcanons to avoid it, so surely the complete absurdity of the whole thing has to register at some point.
>>27594957
It's just an epin maymay, man. Though I do fucking hate Angela Merkel now.
>>27594957
>>27594980
>implying I'm mad
I'm seriously just curious. It would take a herculanean effort to actually believe this shit, and since some anons genuinely believe it, I would like to know how they do it.
>>27594989
>implying you're not
You dont have to lie to kick it
>>27594957
Now that's what I call irony. Have you watched the show, fan of the fandom?
>>27596048
Yes, /pol/ack, although evidently you haven't seen more than a few episodes at most. In what way does a show that supports tolerance, kindness, friendship, and the spirit of cooperation, features various strong female leads with the goal of showing that gender stereotypes are silly and individuals frequently defy them, and emphasizes the violence as a method of last resort in conflict resolution support your worldview?
>>27596385
I'm not a /pol/ak nor am I a Pole, and what you described fits perfectly into a cartoon displaying what these people in the other thread wish for us all, the biggest difference being that women are biologically unfit to take on leadership rules. I fucking love science and the testosterone-induced emotional skill the brain provides.
>>27596385
>you disagree with me?
>i'll label you with something I hate >:(
Believe it or not there are people in this world who disagree with your opinions and are not from /pol/, /b/ or whatever else you h8
>>27596545
So my response to his post should have focused on the fact that he called me a fan of the fandom, rather than his claim that the show supports his beliefs? Or is ignoring insulting false designations something only people ideologically opposed to you have to do?
>>27596516
>the biggest difference being that I completely disagree with a huge aspect of the show, one that is present in every episode
So what you're really saying is that the show actively undermines and assaults your beliefs in every episode? Thanks for conceding the entire argument.
>>27597023
Are you the same autist from the mlpg thread?
Is this your only interaction with Humans?
>>27597023
And what does any of that have to do with /pol/?
Because he disagrees with your opinion?
>>27597038
Sorry to disappoint, but I never go to mlpg, it's shit.
>>27597068
The OP image is nativist, and combined with the chauvinism should probably have led me more towards suggesting he browsed /r9k/. Although he didn't dispute being called a stormfag, and since /pol/ is the de-facto stormfag board, I went with that. Frankly it wasn't a serious comment so much as a response to him calling me a fan of the fandom. Why are you focusing so much on a casual insult thrown in for the sake of reciprocity?
>>27597151
You want to know how I found that image?
>Google search
>Bioshock mlp
>>27597151
The image is a edit of a bioshock game
Sounds like you apply labels on things that upset you and think that makes you right.
Did being called a fan of the fandom cut do deep?
You have committed Attribution Errors and Egocentric bias
You conclude, incorrectly and without considering other alternatives or testing your assumptions, that you understand how another person is thinking and what their reasons and motives are for taking a particular action.
>>27597023
Read again. It doesn't undermine something it strongly strives towards to. In a /pol/ak's world I'd've been gassed but I see their point being compatible. Any opinion is worth how I justify it, but in Europe opinions are seen as arguments. Luckily, I'm no europoor :^))) - see the American chin.
>>27597247
*cut so deep*
>>27597247
>it's an edit of a bioshock game
No shit genius, but seeing as more than a few tea-party groups unironically posted it on their normiebook pages and blogs back in '12, and trump days have co-opted it for the current election cycle, it clearly has appeal to actual nativists as well as those making fun of them.
>did being called a fan of the fandom cut so deep
No, and neither should being called a /pol/ack. It's amusing that you're obsessing over that instead of offering an answer to my question though.
>substanceless polemic about how I'm stereotyping people on an anonymous imageboard
This post reeks of pretension.
>>27597249
I read correctly, the show accurately presents women as entirely capable, functional individuals with value as leaders, which goes against your stated beliefs.
>>27597822
>No shit genius, but seeing as more than a few tea-party groups unironically posted it on their normiebook pages and blogs back in '12, and trump days have co-opted it for the current election cycle, it clearly has appeal to actual nativists as well as those making fun of them.
False attribution and false dilemma
>No, and neither should being called a /pol/ack. It's amusing that you're obsessing over that instead of offering an answer to my question though.
Straw man and Egocentric bias
>This post reeks of pretension.
Tu quoque and pot calling the kettle black
>>27597849
Quite literally pic related, you're horrendously guilty of the fallacy fallacy and all your posts amount to one prolonged attack on my tone rather than a substantive counterargument.
>>27598223
Thats rich coming from you
>>27594957
Here you use tone argument
You set the tone and quick put labels on the above posters using a false attribution loaded question.
Which is strange how you got all that out of those post. My guess is Projection
You believe you can correctly know a person's intent for behaving as they do.
Example of a loaded question
How many children have you molested today, pedophile?
From now on I will use your own logic against you, pedo
>>27596385
This brings us to your next post which sets you up for a strawman.
You already put labels on others and now attack those labels along with using false attribution. A false dilemma black and white mentality.
Your sense of justice may not be shared widely and is certainly not shared universally. The world may not be fair, or at least it may not always work according to what you feel is fair.
>>27597023
Here you attempt defend your actions when called out on it.
Using counterfactual thinking and Egocentric bias
>>27597151
Another example of false attribution along while demonizing
Don't get angry every time someone does not act according to your ideal
>>27597822
Here you use a anecdote along with yet another false attribution.
Your straw man is in full swing
Which brings up your tu quoque and pot calling the kettle black.
Basically one big appeal to hypocrisy
You started off with falsely labeling people then attacking those labels.
You had no argument from the get go.
And yet again use tu quoque and pot calling the kettle black.
>>27598405
>this entire post
You do realize that owing to the fallacy fallacy, none of what you posted matters, right? You can kvetch about fallacies all day, the existence of fallacious reasoning in a statement isn't evidence of the statement being wrong. And you still aren't offering anything to dispute my central premise, i.e. that the show's values run counter to far-right views (and even most moderate-right views) on gender, race-relations, international relations, etcetera. You're using fallacies as if they're magic spells that, when invoked, instantly invalidate any statement. Logical fallacies are a tool for studying arguments, not disproving them. Now, do you want to offer up an actual argument? Or just vomit 'false attribution' into the text field a few dozen more times so that everybody knows how super-sophisticated you are?
>>27598611
Nice use of mental gymnastics
Grasping at straws won't help your damage control.
I pointed out exactly what you are doing and once again you use false dilemma and egocentric bias
You simply repeat your opinion
Your straw man is obvious
Also you offer nothing except your labels and how they are wrong.
Labels you came up with from projecting on others.
I also like how you just ignore everything said and say no and continue to drone on about your straw man
Provide proofs for your claims
Your feelings are not valid
>>27599069
>another post listing various argumentative fallacies
>not one single piece of evidence to dispute my claim
>in fact, it isn't even a response to my post, just another angry gishgalop of fallacies
>clearly has never heard of the fallacy fallacy, or somehow doesn't understand its significance
I mean you can feel free to keep listing fallacies, but it seriously isn't an argument, and I don't plan on being party to it anymore. Bye.
>>27599174
Your bulverism proves nothing
You keep repeating yourself and attacking the strawman you set up.
>not one single piece of evidence to dispute my claim
You made the claims by the definition of burden of proof you have to prove them.
burden of proof
phrase of burden
1.
the obligation to prove one's assertion.
>in fact, it isn't even a response to my post, just another angry gishgalop of fallacies
Pot calling the kettle black again
>clearly has never heard of the fallacy fallacy, or somehow doesn't understand its significance
How is it listing fallacies wrong if they apply to you?
Also this doesn't disprove your projection on others and your labels
>I mean you can feel free to keep listing fallacies, but it seriously isn't an argument, and I don't plan on being party to it anymore. Bye.
You never had an argument only a flase attribution tone argument loaded question projection
But feel free to run away
>>27594957
>>27599271
Not him, but let's play that game:
In the show, three races of ponies come together to form a nation where, by the present we've arrived in, they live in a fully integrated, racially harmonious society, despite having blatant physical differences in ability, which would be a natural driver of racism. Females occupy many positions of power within government, make up the entire monarchy, and are good enough at their jobs that the society is by and large a utopia. However, there is no evidence that Stallions are discriminated against, and they too hold many positions of import, just not at the executive level of government. Civil liberties are largely unfettered, to the point that public obscenity will only result in a nasty look from a disapproving parent, and the government has control over some major services, like the weather, to prevent abuse of market power. Ponies also enjoy a high degree of social an economic mobility, with run of the mill citizens eventually ascending to become rulers and members of elite military units. Ponies are willing to deal with other creatures peacefully, such as the bison, and in that same episode it's demonstrated that they desire a nonviolent solution when possible, in the end preferring a collaborative living arrangement with the Bison as opposed to forcibly removing them. Celestia also references attempting to get Luna to back down before being forced to fight her and imprison her on the moon, and an entire episode revolves around diplomatic talks with the neighboring state of Yakyakistan. The enemies they directly engage with intent to destroy are ones that cannot be reasoned with and pose an existential threat to Equestria, such as Sombra and Tirek, and are generally non-state actors. By and large, these societal values indicate Equestria is mostly aligned with the left's beliefs in international cooperation, seeking peaceful solutions to conflict, gender equality, equal economic opportunity, and racial equality.
>>27599545
A questionable analogy?
Okay
>>27599558
Well I wrote it on my phone on a train, it isn't exactly my best work. I'm mostly interested in what Mr. Fallacies has to say about it.
>>27599615
Its a question begging epithet
Do you have any sources to back up your claims?
>>27599648
>sources to cite
>of my analysis of specific aspects of the fictional universe and episodes of the show
Are you serious? I guess I'm citing the show. Also, what question does it beg? It's a thesis, that the show demonstrates liberal values, and analysis of said show to back it up. That doesn't beg any question at all. I would've defined liberal values, but I hit the character limit.
>>27599690
>you expect me to back up my analogy?
You set it up
You made the claims
If it's just a thesis then it still needs to be proved
If anything its a hypothesis backed by only your reasoning
>>27599690
A question begging epithet means putting forward a argument only using your feelings and nothing else.
>a mistaking belief; misleading or unsound argument; faulty reasoning.
>Question begging Epithets. using biased or emotional language to convince people into accepting a position rather than using logic or evidence.
>>27599711
1) unless you're claiming my whole post is an analogy, which is absurd, you haven't defined what the analogy you take issue with even is
2) you haven't offered any critique beyond 'provide a source' which isn't how literary/film analysis works. The work is the source, and then the validity of the analysis provided is then disputed, usually using contradictory evidence from the work in question
3) I most definitely had a thesis by any literary or film criticism definition. It was a one-part thesis, but it's still a thesis. And I provided analysis with specific examples from show canon. If my reasoning is wrong, then provide analysis of your own supporting such an assertion. Media criticism isn't science, there are no outside sources to cite.
>>27599727
Neat, but seeing as I mentioned specific show examples I fail to see how my post fits that definition, hence why I asked.
>>27594957
this thread is the most entertaining thing on /mlp/ in years.
>>27598611
>the existence of fallacious reasoning in a statement isn't evidence of the statement being wrong
It does mean that the reasoning behind said statement is invalid- and that if you don't have another argument that IS valid, the statement cannot be proven.
>>27599946
Senpai he left. But since I (>>27599545) technically took up his mantle, I guess I'll try to damage control for the poor bastard. I provided a rather lengthy, fallacy free statement of what I presume would have been his case.
>>27599821
1. How is it absurd when that's exactly what it is. Your questionable analogy?
Elaborate how this doesn't apply
2. Again it's your opinion backed by your emotions nothing more leaning towards your biases
This is a failure to consider all the evidence in a balanced and objective assessment. We go where our attention is, and our attention is inherently limited.
Selectivity is a failure to consider a neutral, or balanced, point of view.
In any case evidence that supports your bias is selected, favored, or weighted more heavily than evidence contrary to your bias.
3.see above
You put forward you opinion nothing more
You conclude, incorrectly and without considering other alternatives or testing your assumptions, that you understand how another person is thinking and what their reasons and motives are for taking a particular action. Based on your opinion backed up by your emotions.
>>27600038
Continued
I'm gonna repeat myself but
This is counterfactual thinking.
Don't get upset every time someone does not act according to your ideal. Your “opinion” is a plea to behave according to a particular set of values and beliefs.
It is unreasonable to expect that others will act according to your ideal vision of their behavior or role, especially when your preferences are put forward as the best position?
>>27600038
What? How is this in any way a counter to >>27599545 or >>27599821 ? What analogy? What assumptions about what others are thinking? Are we even discussing the same thing? But I digress.
As of now you've done nothing but demonstrate that you don't understand how film analysis works, and that you either can't or are unwilling to provide any analysis of your own, instead choosing to impugn the credibility of mine with accusations, accusations that you provide no evidence for. If I failed to consider all the evidence, show where it contradicts me. If I'm biased, point to the biased language. If I made an emotional argument, then explicate it. But until you do, you haven't satisfied your burden of proof, while I've more than satisfied mine.
>>27600135
Nothing I've posited is counterfactual thinking, to the contrary, it is 100% in line with the events of the show. Nor have I claimed that liberalism is superior, only that the show's values are liberal. These are both your assertions, assertions you've made with not so much as a single example from one of my posts to back them up.
>>27600241
>What analogy
This >>27599545
You inject your basis into the show using selective information.
If flim analysis is "just take my word for it" then you're right I dont understand it.
I understand scientific analysis which uses logic and reasoning instead of opinions.
With a few exceptions the ponies are xenophobic.
Rarity and Pinkie repeatedly called iron will a monster even when Fluttershy tried to correct them.
The ponies are no longer afraid of Zecora but they still keep themselves separate.
She lives in the forest
An example of your bias
You overlooked this because it went against your position.
You didn't give a neutral position but a left leaning position in favour of your biases.
As for your burden of proof
I didn't make claims you did
It your responsibility to prove your assurestions.
>Nothing I've posited is counterfactual thinking, to the contrary, it is 100% in line with the events of the show. Nor have I claimed that liberalism is superior, only that the show's values are liberal. These are both your assertions, assertions you've made with not so much as a single example from one of my posts to back them up.
See above you used selective evidence that supports your bias is selected, favored, or weighted more heavily than evidence contrary to your bias.
Again you are putting forward a biased argument and calling it show fact
>>27600326
See, now we're making progress! Let's examine your examples:
>the thing with iron will
They're calling him a monster because of how his lessons transformed Fluttershy's personality. The joke is that she, like you, misinterprets it.
>the ponies keep themselves separate from Zecora
She chooses to live in the everfree anon, nothing in the show even remotely suggests that they force her to live way outside of town. And she frequently interacts with the residents of Ponyville, to the pint that they entrust their children to her on nightmare night.
I didn't overlook it, it simply isn't valid evidence, as it relies on interpretations of the show that fly in the face of canon.
>I didn't make claims you did
No, see, that's where you're wrong. I made a claim, but you made and are actively making a counterclaim. I provided evidence for mine, which means that I've satisfied my burden of proof. You didn't, prior to now, provide any evidence for your own claims, meaning that your burden was left unsatisfied.
>See above you used selective evidence that supports your bias is selected, favored, or weighted more heavily than evidence contrary to your bias.
No, in that quote I pointed out that your claims against me in the post linked above it didn't include any evidence, just accusations. That isn't being 'biased' it's pointing out that you're making claims without offering anything in the way of proof.
>>27600452
Progress?
You are making excuses
They called him a monster before Fluttershy changed.
As for zecora
It's just like any other tightknit community. They know she isn't a threat anymore and will mingle with her but they prefer her and her strange brews stay in the forest.
>no, see, that's where you're wrong. I made a claim, but you made and are actively making a counterclaim. I provided evidence for mine, which means that I've satisfied my burden of proof. You didn't, prior to now, provide any evidence for your own claims, meaning that your burden was left unsatisfied.
by the scientific reasoning of burden of proof you are wrong.
You gave your opinion and said disprove it.
>No, in that quote I pointed out that your claims against me in the post linked above it didn't include any evidence, just accusations. That isn't being 'biased' it's pointing out that you're making claims without offering anything in the way of proof.
Of course
that's my opinion of your opinion.
If you can't provide something concrete then I will dismiss it
But let's take a step back
The ponies of Appleloosa took the buffalos land because they felt they weren't doing anything with it besides just running around on it.
This is manifest destiny
They took land and created a community out of it and started to fight with the buffalo because they considered the buffalo a nuisance. Of course the mane 6 six fixed this but before they showed up they were attacking each other constantly.
Also you forget equestrian is a monarchy
And they do have imperial qualities.
Take the unicorns that live in Canterlot.
They look down on ponies not of their station and same class as them.
This was made very apperant when they ignored rarity for talking to a lowly earth pony window cleaner.
Ponies bow to the monarchy
As for the yaks they tried to be accommodating but realised they shouldn't try to appease them if it meant they had to change their way of life for it.
This shows your bias
>>27600594
Continued
I should also point out that you didn't address these issues until I brought them up as they go against your reasoning.
You would not have addressed them had I not brought it up. You would have ignored them until pointed out and you were forced to address them.
Selective is the word
You paint a picture of what you want others to see in line with your reasoning and biases.
>>27594657
>trump
>>27600664
>I should also point out that you didn't address these issues until I brought them up as they go against your reasoning.
>You would not have addressed them had I not brought it up. You would have ignored them until pointed out and you were forced to address them.
Not the same guy, but no shit he wouldn't have? I'm not sure you understand how debates work anon, it's not like a scientific paper where you have to prove you controlled for all possible variables or whatever. He provided his thesis and gave at least some evidence for it; from either a literary criticism or legal standpoint he's good. It's not his problem if there's evidence available that might be seen as contradicting, it's someone else's job to bring that up and argue against him. Get out of the lab and watch a debate every now and again.
>>27600594
>They called him a monster before Fluttershy changed.
In a different context. The first time Pinkie called him a monster, they didn't know what he was, and used it as a descriptor, which is correct, as the Minotaur of Greek myth was a monster placed in a maze to do the bidding of King Minos. The second use, when it's an insult/potential slur, is the one I figured you were referring to, and in that instance they make sure to emphasize that it's a slight on his character and not a racial remark by including his name afterwards 'that monster Iron Will'
>They know she isn't a threat anymore and will mingle with her but they prefer her and her strange brews stay in the forest.
That's one hell of a headcanon you have there, seeing as her frequent appearances and all scenes with her interacting with the ponies post-introduction are overwhelmingly positive, it doesn't seem to be supported by the show at all.
>Of course
that's my opinion of your opinion.
If you can't provide something concrete then I will dismiss it
And the same to you, so since you've provided nothing concrete to back up those assertions I'm dismissing them.
>The ponies of Appleloosa took the buffalos land because they felt they weren't doing anything with it besides just running around on it.
This is manifest destiny
Wrong, they took it in the period of time between traditional stampedes, during which they didn't see the buffalo using it at all.
>This is manifest destiny
They took land and created a community out of it and started to fight with the buffalo because they considered the buffalo a nuisance.
Yes, because they didn't understand that prior to their arrival the Buffalo had been using it. By your own admission, the mane 6 found a peaceful solution.
>before they showed up they were attacking each other constantly
Which is presented as a bad and irregular thing, the mane 6 are appalled and frustrated that they can't get the two sides to just sit don't and talk it out.
I never actual understood how /pol/tards can watch this show. If an episode like Bridle Gossip came out this season half of /mlp/ would be in flames screaming WE WUZ ZEBRAS and other stale shit.
>>27600938
con't:
The whole affair is presented as a failure of pony society, a lesson in what not to do.
>Also you forget equestrian is a monarchy
I actually explicitly stated it in my original post. "Females occupy many positions of power within government (and) make up the entire monarchy"
>And they do have imperial qualities.
Not according to the definition of the term I'm most familiar with:
Imperialism-a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force
They do engage in diplomacy, but for the purpose of making friends as opposed to leveraging power over other states. And they certainly don't go around annexing territory from other states.
>Take the unicorns that live in Canterlot.
They look down on ponies not of their station and same class as them.
This was made very apperant when they ignored rarity for talking to a lowly earth pony window cleaner.
For the record, all three races live in Canterlot. And Prince Blueblood calls the snobs out on their poor behavior, making it an example of ponies failing to live up to Equestria's values rather than demonstrating them.
>Ponies bow to the monarchy
And people in the US stand up when their governor or president enters the room, it's a sign of respect, not submission.
>As for the yaks they tried to be accommodating but realised they shouldn't try to appease them if it meant they had to change their way of life for it.
Actually they realized, to paraphrase fro the episode, that trying to imitate yak culture was silly, as their imitation would be inferior, and so they should just show off the best aspects of pony culture instead.
>I should also point out that you didn't address these issues until I brought them up as they go against your reasoning.
No, as I said before and just demonstrated again, it's because your interpretation goes against canon, and I can't magically anticipate all the headcanons you've dreamed up to support your interpretation of the show.
>>27601015
I should probably also add that I'm headed to bed now, so don't expect any response after this post until approx. 0530 PST tomorrow at the earliest.
>>27600938
Not him but your Iron Will argument is really weak. They called him a monster consistently throughout the episode even before he did anything wrong. Other characters have acted far worse than IW without being called that. And when you don't know what something is you don't call it a 'monster'. A 'creature' or 'thing' maybe, but 'monster' carries with it all sorts of bad connotations.
The ponies feared Zecora until they got to know her. She still lives separate from them though so she can still practice her way of life. That is very pro-right. The left seems to think the right wants to gas anyone different from them but it's more "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" because they don't want other cultures influencing their established traditions and ways of life. That doesn't mean you can't come and visit or do business together if there is mutual benefit.
It's like having a family of Jewish bankers move into an entire Christian town and now the town can't put on its traditional Christmas play because it offends them. HUGE buzz kill. But if I want a bank loan I'd still do business with them.
And someone is mis-remembering the buffalo incident. The ponies 1st attempt at ending the dispute was indeed violence. When that failed they used diplomacy.
Opposite happened in Dragonshy.
Speaking of dragons, they are another example of xenophobia. Every pony is too afraid to talk to them and avoids them. They also don't know the "pony way" as Spike (an Uncle Tom) so aptly puts it.
As for females being rulers, they are only rulers because of their status as alicorns; not their gender.
This isn't even getting into the plethora of conservative morals and messages the show espouses.
Personally I don't see the show as either completely right or left. It has a bit of both and tends to take a very middle of the road approach, making it moderate more than anything.
>>27600692
How is this debate?
He did a summary of the show then injected his bias into it.
That's dumb as shit
One should be as neutral as possible when describing the show not.
Not sum it up then say the show is left leaning while ignoring glaring evidence contradicting this
>>27601015
See the Dragon lord competition
They used spike to gain control over the dragons to be more favourable to them.
>For the record, all three races live in Canterlot. And Prince Blueblood calls the snobs out on their poor behavior, making it an example of ponies failing to live up to Equestria's values rather than demonstrating them.
And you where complaining of headcanon wew
>And people in the US stand up when their governor or president enters the room, it's a sign of respect, not submission.
One you clearly haven't been to the US as this is not the case.
There was even a case a few years back where Obama was giving a speech and it started to rain. Nobody got him a umbrella and when he asked for one they threw it at his feet instead of handing it to him. Not bothering to leave their seats.
And claiming that bowing is not a sign of submission is bullshit. Because it's exactly what bowing is
>Actually they realized, to paraphrase fro the episode, that trying to imitate yak culture was silly, as their imitation would be inferior, and so they should just show off the best aspects of pony culture instead.
Thank you for agreeing with me
They put forward their culture instead of the yaks culture.
As they felt it was superior to the yaks backwardness
>No, as I said before and just demonstrated again, it's because your interpretation goes against canon, and I can't magically anticipate all the headcanons you've dreamed up to support your interpretation of the show.
That whole post is pot calling the kettle black.
You're the one injecting your bias into the show not me.
I clearly showed this and you continue to put your fingers in your ears and say "no you are wrong"
Every time I call you out on it you make excuses and backpedal
>>27601015
Your argument is basically you are right with very weak arguments
It's like you don't even watch the show.
You are contradicting yourself throughout this. Especially with the "it's not manifest destiny okay maybe it is but they corrected themselves" and you are backpedaling on the iron will argument.
First it was "they called him a monster because of how Fluttershy is acting" to " they called him a monster because they didn't know what he was"
Honestly you are all over the place desperately trying to salvage your weak arguments.
And it's funny you bring up headcanon as th his is your whole argument.
>Equestria is mostly aligned with the left's beliefs in international cooperation, seeking peaceful solutions to conflict, gender equality, equal economic opportunity, and racial equality.
You say this while injecting your own beliefs onto the show and not being neutral and presenting all evidence
In other words, personal bias
The new episodes with Fluttershy's brother throws some of these out.
Spikes infiltrating the Dragon lord competition to make the dragons views more favourable to Equestria.
the flim flam bros, filthy rich and even rarity are pretty capitalist.
Pinkie pie even chased away a filly and tried to get Twilight the most money for her stuff when all she wanted to do is give it away.
bumping to save thread so I have time to write my counters
>>27601144
>They called him a monster consistently throughout the episode even before he did anything wrong. Other characters have acted far worse than IW without being called that. And when you don't know what something is you don't call it a 'monster'. A 'creature' or 'thing' maybe, but 'monster' carries with it all sorts of bad connotations.
But as I pointed out, he technically is a monster. Steven Magnet is referenced as a 'sea monster' numerous times in both episodes he's in, and takes no offense. It clearly has a place in the equestrian lexicon as both a general descriptor for various creatures, and as an insult to a creature's character.
>The ponies feared Zecora until they got to know her. She still lives separate from them though so she can still practice her way of life. That is very pro-right. The left seems to think the right wants to gas anyone different from them but it's more "you leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" because they don't want other cultures influencing their established traditions and ways of life. That doesn't mean you can't come and visit or do business together if there is mutual benefit.
It's like having a family of Jewish bankers move into an entire Christian town and now the town can't put on its traditional Christmas play because it offends them. HUGE buzz kill. But if I want a bank loan I'd still do business with them.
The modified their Nightmare Night traditions to incorporate her in a prominent role after knowing her less than a year. Which contradicts all that no cross-cultural influence stuff. And besides Zecora, who is a different species, the three pony races themselves go against that by coming together and fusing their respective cultures over thousands of years, taking elements from all and forming one common culture that they all share. Like the great American melting pot/salad bowl but given a longevity far greater than the few centuries it's had so far.
continued
>>27602714
>And someone is mis-remembering the buffalo incident. The ponies 1st attempt at ending the dispute was indeed violence. When that failed they used diplomacy.
In response, I will block quote myself:
"(This) is presented as a bad and irregular thing, the mane 6 are appalled and frustrated that they can't get the two sides to just sit don't and talk it out. The whole affair is presented as a failure of pony society, a lesson in what not to do."
>Speaking of dragons, they are another example of xenophobia. Every pony is too afraid to talk to them and avoids them. They also don't know the "pony way" as Spike (an Uncle Tom) so aptly puts it.
Per Gauntlet of Fire and Dragon Quest, dragons hate ponies, and many dragons would like to destroy pony society or at least assault it. It's a fairly justified fear.
>As for females being rulers, they are only rulers because of their status as alicorns; not their gender.
Well yes, but you're missing the point, which is that they are in fact the rulers at all. And that they make up a good share of the non-executive positions in government as well, showing that the ponies have achieved some form of de jure and de facto gender equality, which is one of the hot button issues for the left at the moment.
>This isn't even getting into the plethora of conservative morals and messages the show espouses.
Well since you didn't name a single one I'm not terribly convinced there are any.
>>27602095
>>27602106
>How is this debate?
Ok, not that guy, but seriously how is it not?
>He did a summary of the show then injected his bias into it.
No, I staked out a position that a given interpretation of the show is the most valid, and then provided evidence for it. I assumed you would then reply in kind, only to discover that you were attempting to apply scientific principles to the analysis of a work of fiction. I've been trying to humor you for a while now, but the poster you were replying to was entirely correct.
>>27602247
>They used spike to gain control over the dragons to be more favourable to them.
That wasn't their intention to begin with, and they only engaged in direct action after it was evident that their nation was facing an existential threat if they didn't. Regime change may go against the liberal mainstream, but seeing as the current US government has been involved in several regime change actions, with a liberal president, it fits into the liberal realist international relations paradigm.
>And you where complaining of headcanon wew
Nice non-argument, I can block quote the episode transcript if you'd like, but that is the way their behavior is portrayed.
>One you clearly haven't been to the US as this is not the case.
Well I grew up in Massachusetts, and worked in the state house, where we treated our governor with the utmost respect. And I'll want a news article for that supposed incident with Obama, it seems like exactly the sort of silly alt-right blog fantasy that was dreamed up because it sounds good despite it being untrue.
>Thank you for agreeing with me
>They put forward their culture instead of the yaks culture.
>As they felt it was superior to the yaks backwardness
No, it was because they realized that anything they did to imitate Yak culture would be a poor imitation of it i the Yak's eyes, so they decided to showcase their culture rather than try to appropriate the Yaks'
>I clearly showed this and you continue to put your fingers in your ears and say "no you are wrong"
>Every time I call you out on it you make excuses and backpedal
Funny, I'd say the same of you.
>Your argument is basically you are right with very weak arguments
Well that's your strawman of my argument, feel free to torch it and insult me, that doesn't help your case.
>It's like you don't even watch the show.
Nice Ad Hominem.
>it's not manifest destiny okay maybe it is but they corrected themselves
Another strawman, that isn't a direct quote.
More coming, but I can't write it until about 1030 hours PST due to work.
>>27602772
No, you are put your personal bias into the show and called it show fact and then said prove me wrong.
So pretty much you gave your opinion of how equestria is and called it fact
>>27602823
>That wasn't their intention to begin with, and they only engaged in direct action after it was evident that their nation was facing an existential threat if they didn't.
There you go making excuses again
You continuously backpedal when your view on things is challenged.
>Nice non-argument, I can block quote the episode transcript if you'd like, but that is the way their behavior is portrayed.
Quote it then also pot calling the kettle black. I dont ever remember blue blood correcting their behavior.
>Well I grew up in Massachusetts, and worked in the state house, where we treated our governor with the utmost respect. And I'll want a news article for that supposed incident with Obama, it seems like exactly the sort of silly alt-right blog fantasy that was dreamed up because it sounds good despite it being untrue.
Nice anecdote and you could have fooled me with your terrible grasp of the English language and how you think Americans should act.
Nice bootlicker mentality though I guess
Pic related and link http://www.sportsmenvote.com/news/obama-delivers-henrico-campaign-speech-in-pouring-rain/
>Funny, I'd say the same of you.
And to think just up your own post you accused me of a non-argument
Pot meet kettle
>Well that's your strawman of my argument, feel free to torch it and insult me, that doesn't help your case.
Elaborate how it is a strawman
You are giving your opinions as fact then backtracking when I point out something from the show
>Nice Ad Hominem.
Nice Tu quoque
>Another strawman, that isn't a direct quote.
See above
Elaborate how it is a strawman
And look at your own post
Do you willingly overlook your own logic when it goes against your position?
>>27602772
>Well yes, but you're missing the point, which is that they are in fact the rulers at all. And that they make up a good share of the non-executive positions in government as well, showing that the ponies have achieved some form of de jure and de facto gender equality, which is one of the hot button issues for the left at the moment.
Nice headcanon but this has nothing to do with the left and gender equality.
Equestria is a Matriarchy of course females will be in position of power.
Stop injecting your personal bias into the show
>>27602823
Your quotes
>Wrong, they took it in the period of time between traditional stampedes, during which they didn't see the buffalo using it at all.
>Yes, because they didn't understand that prior to their arrival the Buffalo had been using it. By your own admission, the mane 6 found a peaceful solution.
You are contradicting yourself
>>27603984
>maintaining in two separate posts that the settlers didn't see the buffalo make use of the land at all before settling there is contradicting myself
You don't appear to know what a contradiction is.
>>27603893
Okay, you have an obviously photoshopped pic, that's a real nice source.
>>27603792
Yes, I do strongly believe in my analysis. That's to be expected. But nowhere did I say it was fact.
>>27603893
>muh backpedaling
Well I'm not going to uncritically accept your interpretation of evidence, I'm obviously going to stake out my own position demonstrating how it still lines up with my thesis. That's how arguments work. This isn't trench warfare, I'm not going to stay static and fail to adapt my arguments to each new challenge. I can give a ton of ground off my original assertions and still win as long as the end consensus is that Equestria is even moderately left-leaning. Stay tuned for more at 12, when I have half an hour to type instead of 10 minutes.
>>27604112
>You don't appear to know what a contradiction is.
That's rich coming from you
Especially Since you can see it clearly but I guess that saying is true "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink"
>okay, you have an obviously photoshopped pic, that's a real nice source.
That's a funny way of saying you got called out on your bullshit.
This made the news in China because over there even school principals wouldn't have suffered such indignation.
http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/videos/chinese-netizens-once-again-cynically-impressed-by-obama.html
>Yes, I do strongly believe in my analysis. That's to be expected. But nowhere did I say it was fact.
That's because its your opinion
How is it any different than the threads claiming equestria is communist or national socialist?
You are selective with your analysis putting your bias position in the show
>Well I'm not going to uncritically accept your interpretation of evidence, I'm obviously going to stake out my own position demonstrating how it still lines up with my thesis. That's how arguments work. This isn't trench warfare, I'm not going to stay static and fail to adapt my arguments to each new challenge. I can give a ton of ground off my original assertions and still win as long as the end consensus is that Equestria is even moderately left-leaning. Stay tuned for more at 12, when I have half an hour to type instead of 10 minutes.
Thats a funny way of saying you will use a question begging epithet to promote your position and of course you wouldn't bring up things in the show that go against it.
Also not an argument
It's your opinion backed up by your rhetoric nothing more
>>27604390
Also explain how it's not backpedaling when you did it constantly whenever I brought up something from the show proving you wrong.
Your iron will argument was nothing but backpedaling
Also as for the buffalo thing
How is taking land from natives then fighting with them not contradicting to your position?
You even agreed with me saying it took the mane 6 to solve the issue
>>27603893
>Quote it then also pot calling the kettle black. I dont ever remember blue blood correcting their behavior.
You're actually right about this one, I never rewatched Sweet and Elite because I didn't really enjoy is very much on the first go-around, it's Fancy Pants who dresses down the other partygoers for acting like snobs. Blueblood isn't even on screen, he shows up and makes a classist boor of himself at the gala.
>Nice anecdote and you could have fooled me with your terrible grasp of the English language and how you think Americans should act.
Nice bootlicker mentality though I guess
Pic related and link http://www.sportsmenvote.com/news/obama-delivers-henrico-campaign-speech-in-pouring-rain/
Wow, an ad hominem, an article that only supports the idea that Obama was rained on, with nothing to indicate that the story you told was true, and you impugn my use of the English language while apparently forgetting how to use commas. Very impressive.
>And to think just up your own post you accused me of a non-argument
Pot meet kettle
Charchoal calling granite black.
>Elaborate how it is a strawman
It's a disingenuous summation of my arguments intended to portray them in the worst possible light.
>nice tu quoque
Nice tu quoque, made all the more amusing by the fact that it's both an example of the fallacy and an invocation of the same fallacy.
>Elaborate how it is a strawman
And look at your own post
I did, and everything I said before applies here as well.
>>27604443
>Wow, an ad hominem, an article that only supports the idea that Obama was rained on, with nothing to indicate that the story you told was true, and you impugn my use of the English language while apparently forgetting how to use commas. Very impressive.
Not ad hominem if it is part of the argument.
Also I like how you dismiss evidence if it goes against your argument
"These proofs prove nothing"
But again nice use of Tu quoque
>Charchoal calling granite black.
A non-argument color me surprised
>it's a disingenuous summation of my arguments intended to portray them in the worst possible light.
You should look up what a strawman means and its a neutral argument to your own biased argument.
So of course you would feel like it's being attacked.
you used selective evidence that supports your bias that is selected, favored, or weighted more heavily than evidence contrary to your bias.
And look at your own post
>I did, and everything I said before applies here as well.
see above
You dont even know the meaning of the word
>>27604523
As for fancy pants
He was a exceptions to the rich elite
Prince Blueblood can attest to that
Especially how he acted around Rarity and Applejack.
Applejack even finds out that the reason no one wants her food is because it's considered commoner food
>>27598611
>run counter to far-right views (and even most moderate-right views)
The "right wing" is a vague term covering a lot of people. Many people who call themself right wing would support the morals in FiM.
>>27602823
>appropriate
Do you think creating art inspired by a different culture is immoral?
>>27602648
>The highlight of this dudes life is arguing with another anon on /mlp/
Bruh...
>>27604561
What? No, this is entertaining
The only views that are acceptable are my own. All others are degenerate and don't deserve to exist.
>>27594638
The mane 6 at the very least as they've been shown openly antagonistic to zebras and to bisons, outright fearful towards dragons, and probably most inhabitants of Canterlot see changelings as outright despicable, and it would make sense to extend this over all ponies.
Read the oxytocin "paradox"; friendship is comparable to love, and love is xenophobic:^)
>>27605063
It loses its thrill when they're repeating their "points" time after time, using high school debate class jargon in long, drawn-out paragraphs of bullshit, trying to put a pathetic veil of 'professionalism' over their butthurt, and bringing up modern political views in their midst, disgracing those they agree with and bashing those they don't agree with.
>>27603943
>Equestria is a Matriarchy of course females will be in position of power.
No it isn't you moron, there's no evidence whatsoever of that. There's no indication that either gender is advantaged or dominant, not socially, not economically, and not culturally. There are ponies of both genders in all sorts of positions and various walks of life, and both genders have been portrayed as equally influential, capable, and respected. The current alicorns being female means you can refer to the top of their government as a matriarchy, but this is more a technicality than anything, and the same definition could EASILY apply to the UK simply because it has a queen; so it doesn't mean much.
Equestria is quite clearly and factually gender-egalitarian, with gender equality both de-jure and de-facto. The show focuses more on female characters with screentime, but it has never, ever portrayed either gender as superior or dominant.
>>27605114
>openly antagonistic to zebras and bison
But that's wrong. The only reason the ponies were afraid of Zecora was because she was this mysterious figure from the everfree forest, and once it was clear she was in fact a friend, she's been welcomed and treated just fine.
And the Mane 6 most definitely don't hate the bison, or any race for that matter. The bison had some conflict with the ponies of appleloosa, but that ended pretty damned peacefully and even when they did start to fight somewhat it was pretty fucking tame.
Many of the dragons seem to live far from Equestria and in general away from the other races, with some exceptions like Spike who are perfectly happy among their good pony friends, but if the others became more social with the ponies, there's no reason to assume they wouldn't be accepted. Most of the other races like dragons, griffins, etc, we don't get much of a chance to see though.
>>27605241
Anyway, character limit reached on that post, and I'm kind of tired, so I'm gonna refrain from replying to any of the other previous comments in this thread, especially the ones that go into real world politics. I mean, I guess I could anyway, but not without contributing to the long walls of text in this thread, and exhausting myself further.
>>27605209
Well, the original prompt was to discuss about political leaning, the result is pretty obvious
>>27605241
>Equestria is quite clearly and factually gender-egalitarian, with gender equality both de-jure and de-facto. The show focuses more on female characters with screentime, but it has never, ever portrayed either gender as superior or dominant.
Prove it gives examples and actually make a point instead of just saying "take my word for it"
Also look up what Matriarchy means, dip
>>27605290
The original prompt was asking if ponies are patriotic or chauvinist
Nothing about political leaning in there
>>27605414
I did give examples. The whole show, five seasons and counting, we've been observing the ponies, we've seen both genders in all sorts of careers and walks of life, and there's no evidence whatsoever of any sort of inequality there, de-jure or de-facto. If you can't see that it's gender-egalitarian at this point, then you're just delusional or haven't been paying enough attention.
>>27605532
You gave your opinion and backpedal when something from the show was brought up that went against your view.
Take the 3 pony tribes for example.
All had mares as the leaders with another mare being the second in command.
Equestria has had a 1000 year old Matriarchy Monarchy
And before sombra took over the Crystal kingdom it was ruled by a unicorn princess
>>27605532
>we've seen both genders in all sorts of careers and walks of life, and there's no evidence whatsoever of any sort of inequality there, de-jure or de-facto. If you can't see that it's gender-egalitarian at this point, then you're just delusional or haven't been paying enough attention.
Wrong only you see this
Then you conclude, incorrectly and without considering other alternatives or testing your assumptions, that you understand how another something works and what its reasons and motives are for making a particular action.
You have presented a bias view
>>27605568
You what mate? My argument is pretty strong, and yours is nonexistent.
>Take the 3 pony tribes for example
We're talking about Equestria my friend, not the pony equivalent of the dark ages which has not much in the way of relevance to the present day situation in the world in MLP. Besides, our only view into that time period was a play that doesn't necessarily accurately portray the gender of all characters based on actor alone, and if you want to give any credit to the novels, it's actually confirmed outright that Hurricane in particular was a stallion.
In modern Equestria, the show doesn't give us many examples of ponies in positions of power, regardless of gender. There's the princesses and princes, a few politicans of both genders, and not much else. Simply isn't the focus of the show. There has been plenty of prominent celebrities, business owners, and others like that of both genders however, as they are more likely to play a role in MLP's slice of life stories.
And I said that the current alicorns being female means you can refer to the top of their government as a matriarchy, but it's merely a technicality, as you could also do just the same to the UK by that particular definition. The definition in question really only states that the head of state be female, after all. And as far as alicorns go, there's no reason whatsoever to assume that gender is relevant to who can become one, especially when it's a merit based position and it would destroy their legitimacy to deny someone based off of something so irrelevant. Starswirl came close, pretty clearly, but he didn't understand friendship, which was important for the position.
Anyway, it's pretty fucking clear that Equestria is gender-egalitarian. Five and counting seasons, again, and there's a mountain of proof and precedent that supports gender equality in Equestria, built up from all the little and big things we see throughout the series. It's pretty fucking clear at this point.
>>27605591
Don't be ridiculous. There's no evidence whatsoever of either gender being advantaged or dominant.
You can call me biased all I want, but I watch the show, I've payed attention to this stuff (and believe me, I have to when I'm fighting people over it every other day), and the conclusions should be pretty clear for anyone with half a brain.
You have no argument.
>>27605659
>biased all I want
All you want*
Honestly, I should slow up on the typing speed, but eh.
Anyway, repeatedly calling people biased and making other baseless claims while you lack anything approaching a convincing argument isn't going to win you these sorts of arguments. And you've been doing that this whole thread.
ctrl-F reveals 36 mentions of the word, which is alarming density if I do say so myself. Maybe not all yours, but as far as I can tell, that's what you've been arguing to everyone, no?
>>27605644
>my argument is pretty strong, and yours is nonexistent.
You have no argument only an opinion backed up by your rhetoric
You make all these claims say it obvious and if others cant see it they are "delusional"
Equestria was founded by the 3 pony tribes and the Royal Sisters took over
Watch the show
>Anyway, it's pretty fucking clear that Equestria is gender-egalitarian. Five and counting seasons, again, and there's a mountain of proof and precedent that supports gender equality in Equestria, built up from all the little and big things we see throughout the series. It's pretty fucking clear at this point.
It's only clear to you because it's your opinion nothing more
You have no point
And your bulverism won't make it right
>>27605688
>Watch the show
My claims are fully backed by the content of the show, buddy; it's a fact that Equestria is gender-egalitarian. Stop being a delusional cunt, you aren't even making an argument of your own other than repeatedly spouting the "personal bias" rhetoric, which at this point boils down to an ad hominem, considering it's your only attempt at a counterargument.
>>27605659
>There's no evidence whatsoever of either gender being advantaged or dominant.
I gave the examples from the show if you dont want to believe it.
Then there's nothing I can do about your dogma
>You can call me biased all I want, but I watch the show, I've payed attention to this stuff (and believe me, I have to when I'm fighting people over it every other day), and the conclusions should be pretty clear for anyone with half a brain.
I'm not the one making grandiose claims and calling them factual.
>you have no argument
Pot meet kettle
>Anyway, repeatedly calling people biased and making other baseless claims while you lack anything approaching a convincing argument isn't going to win you these sorts of arguments. And you've been doing that this whole thread.
How is it baseless when it's exactly what you are doing? You make a claim and call it factual and if anyone disagrees they are delusional.
Not an argument
>ctrl-F reveals 36 mentions of the word, which is alarming density if I do say so myself. Maybe not all yours, but as far as I can tell, that's what you've been arguing to everyone, no?
And this is part of an argument how?
again I'm not the one making claims only showing examples that go against the claims.
This is ad hominem
>>27605644
>dark ages
They're called the Middle Ages now, because, you know, we found out what happened in them. One day we'll stop calling dark matter and dark energy, well, "dark", because we only call things like that when we don't know about them or their inner workings.
Having queens as head of states doesn't make a society matriarchal, mothers having the main social power makes it a matriarchy, Elephants are matriarchs and the oldest others constantly verbally abuse each other. The Berbers, Tuareg and Apachees were matriarchies, and human matriarchies are know for being very protective of their sons, just like how patriarchies care more for their daughters.
>>27594638
We've seen Equestria as being pure traditionalist, so the more tradionally sensitive ponies would see themselves as superiorrightfully so.
>>27605726
>My claims are fully backed by the content of the show, buddy; it's a fact that Equestria is gender-egalitarian. Stop being a delusional cunt, you aren't even making an argument of your own other than repeatedly spouting the "personal bias" rhetoric, which at this point boils down to an ad hominem, considering it's your only attempt at a counterargument.
Prove it
No question dodging or question deflection
>>27605759
>I gave the examples from the show if you dont want to believe it.
Your posts have consisted of;
Claiming I'm biased.
Claiming it's my opinion.
And a couple of vague statements about the far back Equestrian history that have little to nothing to do with the arguments I've put forward.
>I'm not the one making grandiose claims
If you're making any claims at all, you certainly haven't even attempted to put forward an argument for them.
>How is it baseless when it's exactly what you are doing?
Certain things are factual Anon. After this long of watching the show, Equestria being gender-egalitarian should be obvious by now. If you tried to tell me the sky was neon green, I'd probably call you delusional too, unless of course you have some sort of condition. Now MLP isn't some sort of thick novel discussing gender and stuff, but it's slice of life theme has given us plenty of ponies of both genders going about their lives and interacting, and it's pretty clear that they're totally equal.
>And this is part of an argument how?
I don't know, it's more pointing out your lack of argument than strengthening my own. At this point all I can do is point out the silliness in your arguments here. You aren't making an argument, you don't have one, other than "you are biased and this is your opinion because reasons". A lot of the things in the show can boil down to some level of opinion, something as obvious and clear as this is not one of them. Equestria has gender equality, period.
>>27605644
>you what mate?
>Stop being a delusional cunt
Watch out >>27605688
You be arguing with an Australian now
>>27605644
>There's the princesses and princes
Of which only the prinesses hold power
>a few politicans of both genders
There's mayor Mare, and...?
>, as you could also do just the same to the UK by that particular definitiom
No, because the Queen is ceremoinal and holds no de facto political power.
>there's no reason whatsoever to assume that gender is relevant to who can become one
Except the fact that the entire sample pool is female.
>>27605769
Gee Anon, have you watched the show? I mean, beyond simple casual viewing, you'd need to put some thought into it. I don't know if you've noticed thus far, but my argument isn't based on any single specific point in the show, it's based on the sum of things we've seen thus far, which covers a lot of material. I could do stuff like point out the lack of gender roles, or start pointing out examples of prominent ponies of both genders, like say, Photo Finish or Fancy Pants, or Filthy Rich and Sapphire Shores, but those should be obvious and easy to remember no?
We have more than enough material to make factual statements about the nature of Equestria's society. Not in every way, but stuff like gender-equality and other similar things can be observed in the everyday slice of life themes of the show, and there's mountains of proof and precedent for it in Equestria.
>>27605760
>They're called the Middle Ages now
My mistake.
>Having queens as head of states doesn't make a society matriarchal
I agree, though if I didn't at least bring up the 'head of state' definition, someone would make a stink about it. I was only referring to the government though, and it's just a technicality more than anything of significance. Equestria as a society clearly isn't a matriarchy or patriarchy.
>>27605813
>Claiming I'm biased.
If you can't see that it's gender-egalitarian at this point, then you're just delusional or haven't been paying enough attention.
>Claiming it's my opinion.
See above
>If you're making any claims at all, you certainly haven't even attempted to put forward an argument for them.
I put forward a neutral argument
Not my fault it upsets you
>And a couple of vague statements about the far back Equestrian history that have little to nothing to do with the arguments I've put forward.
Elaborate how they are vague and how equestria's history doesn't count
>Certain things are factual Anon. After this long of watching the show, Equestria being gender-egalitarian should be obvious by now. If you tried to tell me the sky was neon green, I'd probably call you delusional too, unless of course you have some sort of condition. Now MLP isn't some sort of thick novel discussing gender and stuff, but it's slice of life theme has given us plenty of ponies of both genders going about their lives and interacting, and it's pretty clear that they're totally equal.
Factual only to you and now you ad nauseam your opinion
>I don't know, it's more pointing out your lack of argument than strengthening my own. At this point all I can do is point out the silliness in your arguments here. You aren't making an argument, you don't have one, other than "you are biased and this is your opinion because reasons". A lot of the things in the show can boil down to some level of opinion, something as obvious and clear as this is not one of them. Equestria has gender equality, period.
So ad hominem?
Got it
>>27605825
I noticed the change in posting style and how he keeps repeating "it's a fact that Equestria is gender-egalitarian. Stop being a delusional cunt, you aren't even making an argument of your own other than repeatedly spouting the "personal bias" rhetoric, which at this point boils down to an ad hominem, considering it's your only attempt at a counterargument.
>>27594657
MAGA
>>27605870
>Gee Anon, have you watched the show? I mean, beyond simple casual viewing, you'd need to put some thought into it. I don't know if you've noticed thus far, but my argument isn't based on any single specific point in the show, it's based on the sum of things we've seen thus far, which covers a lot of material. I could do stuff like point out the lack of gender roles, or start pointing out examples of prominent ponies of both genders, like say, Photo Finish or Fancy Pants, or Filthy Rich and Sapphire Shores, but those should be obvious and easy to remember no?
So you can't prove what you say?
Got it
>We have more than enough material to make factual statements about the nature of Equestria's society. Not in every way, but stuff like gender-equality and other similar things can be observed in the everyday slice of life themes of the show, and there's mountains of proof and precedent for it in Equestria.
Who is we?
You're just shitposting now
While calling your opinions fact
>>27605870
>I could do stuff like point out the lack of gender roles
Literally irrelevant to the discussion
>or start pointing out examples of prominent ponies of both genders, like say, Photo Finish or Fancy Pants, or Filthy Rich and Sapphire Shores
Because, obviously, having prominent individuals of both genders makes a society gender-egalitarian. Which is why there are no prominent female individuals in our own patriarchal history.
Oh, wait..
>I agree, though if I didn't at least bring up the 'head of state' definition, someone would make a stink about it.
So rather than make a wrong argument, you made a completely irrelevant argument to make it seem like you had more basis in fact that you actually do?
Good job proving your point
>>27605868
>Of which only the prinesses hold power
Not true. The alicorns may hold some level of extra responsibilities, and the current ones are female, but I've already argued why there'd be no sort of restriction on who can become one, so moving on...
I'm going to assume you see the comics as canon, based on your reference to the crystal empire princess, so let's point out the fact that they've shown that Shining Armor plays a big role in governing the Crystal Empire, and Blueblood is apparently a skilled diplomat, among other potential things he may be up to.
>There's mayor Mare, and...?
As I said, there aren't many examples, male OR female. It's not within the scope of the show. What we have seen though includes ponies of both genders in games ponies play and a couple of other episodes, the delegate ponies, and if we're still counting the comics, there are some examples there too, like the duke of Appleloosa, who was a stallion.
>No, because the Queen is ceremoinal and holds no de facto political power.
The definition I was referring to only says that the head of state be female. It can be a president, queen, princess, of any sort, they just needs to be the head of state. The definition is meaningless and outdated, but it's the only one you could stretch to apply to Equestria's government at present.
>Except the fact that the entire sample pool is female.
You might have a point if there was a whole race of hundreds or thousands of them, but there's only a small few. And considering the precedent and consequences, it would be absolutely fucking bonkers to restrict it based on gender or anything like that. And as mentioned, Starswirl almost became one, he just didn't understand friendship.
>>27605825
>You be arguing with an Australian now
Sorry, but nope. American
I can't get paid for shitposting on /pol/ like those lucky aussies surely do.
>>27605209
It hasn't stopped being fun for me, the liberal. I'll be home from work in an hour, at which time I can post a few more thousand characters. As to why I enjoy this, I'm an International Relations major, and as a quick perusal of something like Foreign Affairs will show you, writing pages of invective and spin-doctoring is literally our highest calling. That, and proving for the 10000th time that Realism is the best and all those International Peace Theorists can go suck Woodrow Wilson's decrepit racist cock.
>>27605915
>Sorry, but nope. American
Funny the posting style is obviously Australian especially the "you what mate" and "cunt".
So you're just imitating their shitposting style then?
>I can't get paid for shitposting on /pol/ like those lucky aussies surely do.
You browse /pol/?
You sure do seem to know how aussies post and apparently get paid for it too concerned troll
>>27605888
>Claiming I'm biased.
Pointing out facts and being annoyed when people attempt to deny them is not bias, it's common sense.
>I put forward a neutral argument
You put forward a total lack of argument.
>Elaborate how they are vague and how equestria's history doesn't count
Obscure or long-past, then. And it's not as though it's unimportant, it's just not very relevant to my arguments about modern Equestria. I mean, Celestia and Luna are still around, but I've addressed them, and I doubt anyone considers their gender relevant.
>>27605905
>So you can't prove what you say?
I've made my points, if you can't understand them or simply refuse to see the writing on the wall, then it's your own problem. No amount of this back and forth nonsense will change anything though.
>Who is we?
Everyone who watches the show? We as in we the fans have that information at our disposal to analyze and consider, if we so choose.
>Literally irrelevant to the discussion
Gender roles are far from irrelevant in any discussion about gender-inequality. The lack of them in Equestria is a massive point of proof.
>Because, obviously, having prominent individuals of both genders makes a society gender-egalitarian.
No, but combined with the lack of gender roles and the presence of these individuals in all walks of life and in equal amounts, yes. There's no evidence of either gender being advantaged or dominant in any way whatsoever.
>So rather than make
I saved myself some time. If I made my arguments without pointing out that definition and how it could apply in a technicality, someone moron would have come along and dragged me into having to clarify it anyway.
It's not irrelevant, it's just deflecting a weak argument before it even surfaces. Attempts to make my post without deflecting it often end in that same weak argument popping up and wasting my time.
>>27605915
>already argued why there'd be no sort of restriction on who can become one, so moving on...
And your argument was shit.
>I'm going to assume you see the comics as canon, based on your reference to the crystal empire princess
>comics
>canon
>Cadence only demonstrates political power in the comics
Holy shit, you're retarded...
>As I said, there aren't many examples, male OR female.
There are several, actually.
Mayor Mare, General Hurricane, Princess Platinum, Chancellor Puddinghead, Princess Celestia, Princess Luna, Princess Cadence, Princess Twilight...
All of them female, you'll note.
>The definition I was referring to only says that the head of state be female.
So it's completely irrelevant? Glad to see you finally admit to being wrong.
>The definition is meaningless and outdated, but it's the only one you could stretch to apply to Equestria's government at present.
Except that the princesses ACTUALLY HOLD POLITICAL POWER, you retard.
> And considering the precedent and consequences, it would be absolutely fucking bonkers to restrict it based on gender or anything like that.
No, that's just you being biased and confusing opinion for fact.
>>27605940
Not trying to imitate anyone, I guess I'm just a bit salty because I've been fighting people over this for far too long, and it gets tiring.
And no, I look at /pol/ sometimes, but I try not to spend much time there, as it's always unpleasant.
>>27605967
>debate might possibly be winding down...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnKfz0rkyNI
>>27605955
>Gender roles are far from irrelevant in any discussion about gender-inequality. The lack of them in Equestria is a massive point of proof.
Except that every position of power is still held by females. Indicating that there ARE gender roles where power is concerned.
There is more evidence that medieval Europe was gender-egalitarian that Equestria being gender-egalitarian.
>And your argument was shit.
You can believe whatever helps you sleep at night, sweetie.
>>27605964
>Holy shit, you're retarded...
You mentioned the unicorn princess of the crystal empire here >>27605568
when you brought up sombra. I believe she's only appeared in the comics. I certainly wasn't referring to Cadance. Was that someone else, then?
>There are several, actually.
I did mention the princesses and princes and a few others. It's several, but it's not many at all in the end, so you can hardly attempt to argue that there's any sort of female supremacy or any of that nonsense.
And the Hearth's Warming Eve/Pony Tribe founders bear no relevance to this argument, for the last time. This is modern Equestria we're talking about. We don't know much at all about the world in MLP before Equestria was founded, and the situation then does not in the slightest represent the situation now. Far from it, it's obvious a lot of things have changed for the better since that time.
>So it's completely irrelevant? Glad to see you finally admit to being wrong.
It's the only definition you could apply to Equestria's government, and it's irrelevant. That seems to hurt your argument, not mine. Equestria is no matriarchy, period, and that only further proves it.
>Except that the princesses ACTUALLY HOLD POLITICAL POWER, you retard.
Alicorns may hold some level of extra responsibility compared to non-alicorns, but as mentioned, there isn't gonna be a connection between gender and alicornhood. More to the point, it's obvious that both the princesses and princes hold political power. Shining Armor is a prince consort, but that doesn't mean he can't help his wife with governing. Besides, we don't see many examples of political power being used in the show, ironically the comics are the only source we see that in.
>No, that's just you being biased and confusing opinion for fact.
No amount of repeating this will make you any more right, Anon.
>>27605955
>Pointing out facts and being annoyed when people attempt to deny them is not bias, it's common sense.
What facts?
It obvious you lost the argument and are now resorting to shitposting.
>You put forward a total lack of argument.
Thank you for proving my point
>Obscure or long-past, then. And it's not as though it's unimportant, it's just not very relevant to my arguments about modern Equestria. I mean, Celestia and Luna are still around, but I've addressed them, and I doubt anyone considers their gender relevant.
Modern equestria is still the same as old equestria
A monarchy ruled by royal sisters
There's that ad nauseam again
>i've made my points, if you can't understand them or simply refuse to see the writing on the wall, then it's your own problem. No amount of this back and forth nonsense will change anything though.
You made grandiose claims and called them facts
>Everyone who watches the show? We as in we the fans have that information at our disposal to analyze and consider, if we so choose.
That's a big claim to make and to assume they would agree with your point of view is ad populum
>Gender roles are far from irrelevant in any discussion about gender-inequality. The lack of them in Equestria is a massive point of proof.
The mares on the show prove this wrong
>I saved myself some time. If I made my arguments without pointing out that definition and how it could apply in a technicality, someone moron would have come along and dragged me into having to clarify it anyway.
another ad hominem with insults thrown in?
Seems I struck a nerve
>It's not irrelevant, it's just deflecting a weak argument before it even surfaces. Attempts to make my post without deflecting it often end in that same weak argument popping up and wasting my time.
You already were wasting your time the moment you claimed your opinions as fact and insult anyone that disagrees with you.
Not an argument
>>27605967
>Salty faggot resorts to shitposting because he lost a internet argument
Ayy lamo
>>27605955
>It's not irrelevant, it's just deflecting a weak argument before it even surfaces. Attempts to make my post without deflecting it often end in that same weak argument popping up and wasting my time.
No, you moron, it's completely irrelevant because at the time when that definition was relevant, the heads of state held power.
The Queen is one of the heads of state that in modern society DOESN'T hold power. Therefore, the argument that the UK is matriarchal because the Queen is female is retarded, wrong, and retarded. As is anyone making the argument.
>Attempts to make my post without deflecting it often end in that same weak argument popping up and wasting my time.
The fact that the definition is outdated and wrong in modern society means that you can not apply it on modern occurrences. It's an argument, you retard, it's a non sequitur.
You could have had a point had you made the argument with Queen Victoria I, Queen Elizabeth I, or any of the other female regents through history, but you used Queen Elizabeth II, marking yourself as an idiot
>>27606013
>Except that every position of power is still held by females.
There, again, aren't many examples of either gender in positions of power in the show. You aren't making argument there. Also, there are obviously going to be far more positions of power in Equestria than the one the show feels the need to show us. It has democratic elements on the local level at the least, as well as things like dukes and duchesses. A lot of potential there. Most definitely no gender roles though.
>There is more evidence that medieval Europe was gender-egalitarian that Equestria being gender-egalitarian.
Now you're just being an inbred retard. Even if you DID make an argument that Equestria was SOMEHOW matriarchal to some extent, the most you could do is argue that it is very mildly so. Either way, that's not about to happen at this point considering everything points to it being gender-egalitarian. It's a fact at this point that it's gender-egalitarian.
I wonder how long this conversation is going to keep up?
>>27606030
>It obvious you lost the argument and are now resorting to shitposting.
Sorry huh, I'm putting real effort into my posts. You can't be serious with that claim, unless you're trying to keep your world championship title of top shitposter :^)
>Modern equestria is still the same as old equestria
No it isn't. That isn't true of any society, not real ones and not Equestria either. A lot has changed since then, starting with the fact that the magic of friendship allowed the tribes to start to work together and found Equestria so that they could live in peace.
>A monarchy ruled by royal sisters
This remains true, obviously. It's not really relevant to my arguments, though. Celestia and Luna are there through their merit of being good leaders, their gender is and always has been irrelevant.
>to assume they would agree with your point of view is ad populum
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but like climate change deniers, they're in the wrong when the information and facts are right in front of them. Comparing MLP to climate is a bit extreme, but the same principle applies when it comes to dissenters of established things that should be obvious.Note that I'm aware of the ongoing debate about how much is anthromorphic and bla bla, don't want to get into it
>The mares on the show prove this wrong
Nope. We've been through this, though. There are ponies of both genders in all sorts of careers and walks of life.
>Not an argument
Am I arguing with Stefan Molyneux? Is that why this conversation has been so cancerous
>>27606074
>Therefore, the argument that the UK is matriarchal
Not the UK as a society, just their government. Which is the same as I mentioned in my argument; you can argue Equestria's government is matriarchy at the top levels, just like you could the UK, but for both of these it's a mere technicality and it certainly doesn't suggest a matriarchy in the societal sense or anything like that.
I think you've misinterpreted my intentions with that part of my argument, but whatever. And keep in mind, I don't at all agree with the idea that female head of state = matriarchy, but last time I didn't point out the definition in my argument, peoples attempts at a rebuttal consisted of "muh princesses" and I had to explain why that doesn't make it anything approaching a matriarchy except in the technical sense at the government level.
The UK is not a matriarchy. Neither is Equestria. But if you want to be a pedantic shit and get technical with the definitions, the fact that the current reigning head of state is female means you can call their GOVERNMENT a matriarchy, even if it doesn't really mean anything significant.
>>27606028
>You mentioned the unicorn princess of the crystal empire here >>27605568
That was an other anon.
>I did mention the princesses and princes
Of which only the princesses were relevant as no prince has ever been showed to hold any sort of office in canon.
>This is modern Equestria we're talking about.
>Far from it, it's obvious a lot of things have Except that in modern Equestria, nothing has changed. Every holder of official power is still female.
>It's the only definition you could apply to Equestria's government, and it's irrelevant.
Holy shit, you're retarded...
That definition applies if, and only if, the head of state holds political power.
The princesses hold political power, therefore the definition applies. This means that Equestria is literally a matriarchy.
The Queen does not hold political power, therefore it does not apply. This means that we can't determine, from this alone, whether the UK is matriarchal.
>Alicorns may hold some level of extra responsibility compared to non-alicorns, but as mentioned, there isn't gonna be a connection between gender and alicornhood.
That's your headcanon, not actual canon.
In canon there are no male alicorns. Fact
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, retard.
>More to the point, it's obvious that both the princesses and princes hold political power.
No, it's obvious that only the princesses hold power, as they are the only ones shown to hold power. Anything else is headcanon.
>Shining Armor is a prince consort, but that doesn't mean he can't help his wife with governing.
Yes... SHE holds the power, he helps HER govern. I.e. he holds no power save the proxy of power as the consort.
That's what a prince consort is, the husband of the regent.
> Besides, we don't see many examples of political power being used in the show, ironically the comics are the only source we see that in.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>No amount of repeating this will make you any more right, Anon.
Ditto.
>>27606166
>just like you could the UK
No, you can't because the Queen holds no power while the Princesses do hold power.
You literally have no argument, just mental retardation.
>The UK is not a matriarchy.
Correct. The seat of power rests neither on a female of females in general.
>Neither is Equestria.
Wrong. All instances of power is held by females, therefore it is ruled by females.
>>27606236
>all instances
we haven't seen all
>>27606277
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>>27606205
>Of which only the princesses were relevant as no prince has ever been showed to hold any sort of office in canon.
It's clear that both have power, though. The show probably does have a bias towards giving the princesses more screentime because "gotta sell muh toys" however, and that may create bias in the perceptions of the fans. Not that it's huge, I mean, Celestia has no episode yet.
>That definition applies if, and only if, the head of state holds political power.
The definition I'm referring to literally states this. "a system of society or government ruled by a woman". The government part is the only relevant one, and ruled is a vague term, but there's no explicit reference to political power, so it can just as easily apply to the government of any country with a female head of state, monarchies especially.
And I'm not sure I agree with the suggestion of the queen of the UK having no power. It's my understanding that they have plenty, they just choose not to use it in favor of democracy. The situation may be the same in Equestria, who knows, we've seen plenty of democratic elements.
>That's your headcanon, not actual canon.
It's the sort of common sense assumption that would be pretty much impossible to argue against. Alicornhood is primarily gifted through being a good and benevolent leader, AKA merit, so to suggest that gender would play a role in that is silly, as gender is completely irrelevant to being a good leader. And as mentioned multiple times already, Starswirl clearly came close.
>No, it's obvious that only the princesses hold power, as they are the only ones shown to hold power.
Not true. But you know, the show hasn't exactly shown the princesses exerting their power much, either. Twilight seems to be treated fairly normally most of the time, and she hasn't been bossing ponies around or anything. It doesn't seem like the show intends to show us much in the way of princesses or princes exercising their powers.
1/2
>>27606312
>Yes... SHE holds the power, he helps HER govern.
No evidence for that, it's pretty logical that both would govern. Alicorns may have different responsibilities than non-alicorns in certain situations, regardless of gender, but for domestic affairs and stuff like that, I'd imagine Shining Armor and Cadance hold equal responsibility and influence. No reason to think otherwise.
>>27606236
>because the Queen holds no power
Not using power doesn't mean not having it. I'm not terribly familiar with the structure of the UK government though, so I wouldn't know the specifics of what the royalty can and can't do.
>>27606236
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
When there's a clear precedent set for gender-equality, not to mention the guarantee that there are things we don't see, considering the show's extremely limited perspective of Equestria, it certainly can be. And with Equestria clearly having pretty perfect gender-equality and a lack of any real gender roles, something that can be confirmed through watching the show, the precedent is pretty fucking strong.
>>27606380
Honestly though, as I've repeatedly stated... no indication of either gender being advantaged or dominant, no real gender roles, ponies of both genders in all sorts of careers and walks of life. The de-jure and de-facto gender equaltiy is pretty clear, certainly moreso than our society.
We ARE talking about a show that is being marketed to little girls, so female characters DO get more screentime on average, and we see into their lives more, but it's never portrayed them as superior or dominant or more influential or more capable or anything.
If you can't see all that, then I think you're delusional, but at this point the conversation is going nowhere, and I don't think I want to be sitting here for the next few hours anymore than you do. Equestria's government is far and away something we lack information on, because the show isn't about politics, and the little information we do get is often inconsistent or confined to sources like the comics that people will contest the canon status of more than they actually argue the information. We can go back and forth about it all day, but we don't know much about their government, unlike their society where things are pretty clear at this point. I find it to be common sense that there's a lot of it we don't see, and that alicornhood is a gender neutral endeavor and would be treated as such, unless you want to argue that Celestia is a massively sexist and incompetent fool, which obviously isn't true, but beyond that I have not much to say about the specific structure of things or anything like that.
>>27606312
>It's clear that both have power, though.
No, that's just your baseless claim.
>The show probably does have a bias towards giving the princesses more screentime because "gotta sell muh toys" however, and that may create bias in the perceptions of the fans.
muh headcanon - The argument
>The definition I'm referring to literally states this. "a system of society or government ruled by a woman".
Which Equestria IS and the UK ISN'T.
How is this helping your analogy?
> and ruled is a vague term
No, it isn't.
>so it can just as easily apply to the government of any country with a female head of state, monarchies especially.
Except if those heads of state don't actually rule anything.
>It's my understanding that they have plenty
They don't. Closest thing is the ceremonial task of "approving" a new government before it can form. But in reality, even if they didn't approve, everyone would just do it anyway. Because they hold no actual power.
>It's the sort of common sense assumption that would be pretty much impossible to argue against.
Simultaneously making it impossible to argue for, yet you keep trying.
>Alicornhood is primarily gifted through being a good and benevolent leader,
Ok, let's apply synthetic logic.
>Can males be bood/benevolent
Yes.
>Can males be leaders
This has yet to be demonstrated.
Turns out it's an invalid argument. Who'd have thunk it?
>I'm not terribly familiar with the structure of the UK government though
>literally making arguments from headcanon of reality
>When there's a clear precedent set for gender-equality
Unfortunately, the opposite is true in this case.
> not to mention the guarantee that there are things we don't see
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>And with Equestria clearly having pretty perfect gender-equality
Except for all positions of power being held by females. You know, the definition of matriarchy.
>can be confirmed through watching the show
more baseless claims
>>27606498
>No, that's just your baseless claim.
Nope, it's common sense, but let's move on from that for a moment.
>muh headcanon - The argument
Do you disagree with the idea that Hasbro's marketing department has a vested interest in featuring the princesses in ways that will sell more toys? A fairly meta argument, but it's clearly true.
>Which Equestria IS and the UK ISN'T.
Equestria's government currently has a female head of state. There's no evidence of anything systematic there however, or any sort of discrimination. And both genders have been portrayed as equally capable. So, regardless of where we're going to draw the line for comparisons to the UK, it's a mere technicality and doesn't mean much.
>They don't.
If you say so, I'll look into it more. I've heard claims that they hold plenty of power and choose not to utilize it, but we'll see when I get the chance.
>Simultaneously making it impossible to argue for
Not true, there are some things that should be obvious, and precedent is a pretty powerful argument.
>This has yet to be demonstrated.
Are you really going to argue that a gender can't be a good leader? How ridiculous, regardless of the bottom line for your argument. Both genders have been portrayed as equally capable in the show, even with stuff like physical strength it's more equal than with humans.
>Unfortunately, the opposite is true in this case.
There's not even remotely true, stop being retarded. My whole point in being here is to crush the silly argument that Equestria is some sort of matriarchy, because it's clear they have gender-equality at this point. I've made many reasonings on why this is the case, these walls of text aren't just for show, you know. You can try to disagree with them if you really must, but that's your problem, I'm afraid.
1/2
>>27606440
>o indication of either gender being advantaged or dominant,
Except for literally every character of note being female or only notable trait is related to a notable female in some way.
>but it's never portrayed them as superior or dominant or more influential or more capable or anything.
Except they are, holding every known position of power.
>If you can't see all that, then I think you're delusional
Right... I'm delusional because I rely on facts and not on wild extrapolation... Makes perfect sense.
>Equestria's government is far and away something we lack information on because the
Absence of evidence...
>and the little information we do get is often inconsistent or confined to sources like the comics that people will contest the canon status of more than they actually argue the information.
Because the comics are written by a separate group of writers, hence not canon, hence, not applicable in discussions of canon.
>we don't know much about their government
And everything we do know points to matriarchy. So the only correct assumption is matriarchy, until further data reveals itself.
>unlike their society where things are pretty clear at this point.
I agree, it's very clear that the society is matriarchal, glad you finally stopped being moronic.
>I find it to be common sense that there's a lot of it we don't see
Absence of evidence...
You really suck at this whole 'logic' thing, huh? That's literally one of the first things you learn, right after "just because all As are Bs, does not mean that all Bs are As"
>>27606558
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Do you also disagree with the idea that there are things offscreen? Doesn't have to be specific with what they are, but surely you see that they exist. And the precedent is set for ponies of both genders in all walks of life, it's only natural that it extends to there. We've already seen politicians of both genders, for example, even if they were for the most part background ponies.
>Except for all positions of power being held by females. You know, the definition of matriarchy.
Once again, not many examples of either gender. The argument you're making there is especially weak when you can count the number of females in a position of power shown directly onscreen with your fingers.
And as a society, Equestria has gender-equality. Mares and stallions in all walks of life, no sign of one being advantaged or dominant, etc, etc, do I really need to keep repeating this?
>more baseless claims
Whatever you say buddy. I don't think you pay much attention to the show, personally. The fact that Equestria has gender-equality de-jure and de-facto is something pretty clear at this point. Maybe my argument would have been weaker in early Season 1 where we haven't seen much at all, with some exceptions because gender-inequaltiy goes against the message of the show in the first place, but at this point, halfway through season 6? Get over yourself. Mares and stallions are completely equal in Equestria.
>>27594957
Elaborate.
>>27606585
>Except for literally every character of note being female or only notable trait is related to a notable female in some way.
Bullshit. Plenty of business and shop owners of both genders, celebrities and other famous ponies, high society aristocratic type ponies of both genders, and just ponies with normal everyday careers. There are just as many as female ones.
>Except they are, holding every known position of power.
We've already gone over why this isn't the case, right? Among the many other things we've already flung back and forth over it.
>Because the comics are written by a separate group of writers
Fair enough, but I think they're a decent source worth considering.
>And everything we do know points to matriarchy.
A mere technicality due to the female heads of state, though. There's no evidence whatsoever of any discrimination or restrictions based on gender, and both genders are equally capable.
>I agree, it's very clear that the society is matriarchal
Don't be ridiculous. Society is a very different thing from government, and while you can argue their government can technically be referred to as a matriarchy since the current alicorns are female, the same can not be said for their society or even the levels of government below the alicorns. Their society is gender-egalitarian, if you disagree, you are wrong, plain and simple. Society is the thing we see in every episode, unlike government, and we've seen more than enough that the only correct assumption is that it's a gender-egalitarian society with no real gender roles to speak of.
>You really suck at this whole 'logic' thing, huh?
I could say the same about you. But it's clear we aren't exactly on the same page of argument methodology.
>>27606660
>Except for literally every character of note
Of course, expanding on this, as mentioned, the show IS more focused on female characters. The primary protagonists are mostly female, and female characters get more screentime overall. From an in-universe perspective, neither gender is more 'notable' or dominant, but the cartoon itself does give the female characters more screentime and we see more into their lives as a result. Neither gender has been portrayed as superior or dominant, but there's a clear bias in which gender gets more screentime, although in recent seasons that has been evening out a lot in the side character department.
>>27606558
>Do you disagree with the idea that Hasbro's...
No, that much is obvious. Therefore, they set their toyline in a matriarchal setting. That is canon.
Your insistance that what Hasbro is showing us is not actually what Equestria is. That's headcanon
>There's no evidence ...
Absence of evidence...
>Are you really going to argue that a gender can't be a good leader?
No. I'm not arguing anything. I'm simply pointing out the fact that no good male leader has existed in canon.
<My whole point in being here is to crush the silly argument that Equestria is some sort of matriarchy
I've yet to read a single valid argument from you on this.
>because it's clear they have gender-equality at this point.
Baseless claim.
> I've made many reasonings on why this is the case
No, you've made rationalizations, no reasoning has been demonstrated.
>Do you also disagree with the idea that there are things offscreen?
Absence of evidence...
>And the precedent is set for ponies of both genders in all walks of life
Except people in power.
>The argument you're making there is especially weak
Correct, unfortunately. It is, however, the only argument that can be made, given the data.
Anything other than that is headcanon.
>Plenty of business and shop owners of both genders...
Same is true of real history, yet you still claim that was patriarchal.
>We've already gone over why this isn't the case, right?
Yes, we have. And you have yet to counter it.
>There's no evidence whatsoever of any discrimination or restrictions based on gender
Absence of evidence...
>both genders are equally capable.
Except the data does not demonstrate this.
>the same can not be said for their society or even the levels of government below the alicorns.
Mayor of Ponyville: Female
Head of Apple clan: Female
Elements of Harmony: Female
>we've seen more than enough that the only incorrect assumption is that it's a gender-egalitarian society with no real gender roles to speak of.
ftfy
>>27606660
>it's clear we aren't exactly on the same page of argument methodology.
True. Though given that I'm using actual logical argumentation and you're using... whatever it is you're using, I can't really agree that we're both using argument methodology.
>Neither gender has been portrayed as superior or dominant
Except for the female gender, which is the only gender in positions of power.
Which is the only position that actually matters when discussing something like matriarchy.
>>27606799
Other liberal here:
>no good male leader has existed in canon
Except Blueblood, shown to be the mayor of Canterlot, Soarin, who as Spitfire's XO steps in when she's not around in Rarity Investigates and is highly effective. Plus there are plenty of male mayors in Princess Spike, which is cool despite it being as shit episode otherwise.
>>27606799
>Therefore, they set their toyline in a matriarchal setting
Not remotely canon. I think it's pure fantasy from you and contradicts the setting of the show, not to mention one of the big goals of the show in the first place, which is gender-equality. Female focused screentime wise, but from an in-universe perspective the gender equality should be clear.
>I've yet to read a single valid argument from you on this.
I've made plenty. Maybe you don't agree with them, but I'm 100% confident in them, and if you somehow still don't agree, then we won't ever be seeing eye to eye. It's quite clearly canon that Equestria is gender-egalitarian.
>Baseless claim.
It's canon. Everything in the show and the interactions between the ponies confirms gender equality.
>no reasoning has been demonstrated.
The content of the various seasons of the show we've seen so far is pretty strong reasoning. Sorry you're too braindead to see that fact.
>Except people in power.
Not many examples regardless of dick or vagina. We also don't seem to agree with what counts as a position of power either. There's political power, and also social and economic power. Few examples of political power, mare or stallion, but the latter has plenty of examples of both genders. Fancy Pants is an immediate one that comes to mind, Rarity clearly thought he was quite important and influential.
>It is, however, the only argument that can be made
That's not true, but you clearly don't value precedent and the common sense that comes with that as much as I do. If it's a good enough concept for things like law though, you can bet your ass it's good enough for MLP of all things.
1/2
>>27606850
>shown to be the mayor of Canterlot
When was this?
>Soarin
Technically a proxy, but given the rank shows that the wonder-bolts are reasonably egalitarian.
>Princess Spike
Forgot those. Or rather, didn't pay attention during that episode.
Good job, you've in one post provided more evidence on the egalitarian nature of Equestria than the other guy has in the entire thread.
>>27606891
>yet you still claim that was patriarchal.
Strictly speaking, yes. Gender inequality has always gone both ways though, so it's not stacked in favor of one gender in a way that's clear. Equestria clearly has an even distribution of ponies of both genders in all of those careers and walks of life though, with no signs of gender roles or their gender giving them an advantage or disadvantage. The same can't be said for our history.
>And you have yet to counter it.
So you say, but I think I have. We'll agree to disagree on that :^)
>Except the data does not demonstrate this.
Of course it does. Any other conclusion would take a special sort of retarded. Even with physical strength, something humans are dimorphic at, ponies of both genders have been shown to be evenly capable.
>Mayor of Ponyville: Female
Mayor of a small town. Nice place, but there are plenty of others.
>Head of Apple clan: Female
The old grandmother being the head of the family is a common trope anywhere, but there's no evidence of any sort that it's because of their gender. All the families we've seen show that the genders are equal in relationships and family matters. There's nothing to suggest otherwise.
>Elements of Harmony: Female
The protagonists of the show are primarily female? GASP, next you'll be telling me the protagonists of G.I Joe are primarily male. The gender of the protagonists is irrelevant in this case, it's simply what you'd expect from any cartoon Hasbro is marketing at little girls.
>ftfy
Funny joke, but no.
>>27594957
>>27606891
>I've made plenty
None of them hold up to logic, therefore none of them are valid.
Me agreeing is irrelevant.
You being confident is irrelevant.
>It's quite clearly canon that Equestria is gender-egalitarian.
>Everything in the show and the interactions between the ponies confirms gender equality.
Baseless claims.
>The content of the various seasons of the show we've seen so far is pretty strong reasoning
No, that's data.
Reasoning would be making a valid argument based on that data, rather than simply claiming it agrees with the conclusion you're trying to achieve.
>Not many examples regardless of dick or vagina
Irrelevant. All available data points to A, therefore A is the correct assumption.
> Fancy Pants is an immediate one that comes to mind, Rarity clearly thought he was quite important and influential.
This may come as a surprise to you, but there were plenty of important and/or influential females in our own history.
That doesn't make it not a patriarchy.
>, but you clearly don't value precedent and the common sense that comes with that as much as I do.
Like the precedence of the only alicorns to ever ever exit being female, therefore male alicorns must be possible?
At least try to be consistent in your non-logic...
>Equestria clearly has an even distribution of ponies of both genders in all of those careers and walks of life though,
Which is why female rulers were more prevalent in our history than in Equestria...
>We'll agree to disagree on that
Again, agreeing is irrelevant. You've yet to counter, this is fact. If you feel you have, point it out.
>Of course it does.
Please point out the males capable of being alicorns.
>All the families we've seen show that the genders are equal in relationships and family matters.
No, you've interpreted all families as equal.
>There's nothing to suggest otherwise.
Except the Apple clan.
>G.I. Joe
So you're saying that MLP is the inverse to G.I.Joe in gender representation? Yet MLP is egalitarian...
>>27607091
>None of them hold up to logic, therefore none of them are valid.
Merely your opinion.
>Baseless claims.
Nope.
>No, that's data.
When we're simply observing the nature of gender equality in Equestria, the data in question is kind of the most important part. You know, watching the ponies interact and go about their lives, kind of the critical step in determining these things.
>All available data points to A, therefore A is the correct assumption.
What a close minded way of thinking. It's totally wrong, though. Precedent matters, and the precedent is gender-equality.
>there were plenty of important and/or influential females in our own history.
Not to the same extent as with Equestria, though. And it's not just influential ponies, it's average ponies too. No gender roles. Big deal. In our history, women running businesses or men being stay at home caretakers would have been the exception, but in Equestria it's clear that ponies of both genders in all walks of life is the norm and is prevalent everywhere and noticeable in every episode.
>If you feel you have, point it out.
I already have. That you don't find my reasoning agreeable doesn't change the fact that I've provided perfectly good reasoning for this stuff.
>Please point out the males capable of being alicorns.
Shining Armor is good natured and a good leader. He's the obvious example. Whether we'll actually see it onscreen, I dunno, but if it was gonna happen he's certainly the obvious candidate.
>No, you've interpreted all families as equal.
I've watched the families in the show interacting and have come to the conclusion that it's a fact that they are equal.
1/2
>>27607163
>Except the Apple clan.
Nothing in the Apple family suggests gender-inequality, unless you intend to make the ridiculous argument that if the current head of the family is one gender or another means sexism. We've seen in Granny Smith's past that there were ponies of both genders making decisions for the family, and Granny Smith is the oldest member of the family in present, so it's obvious that she has her authority based on that, not her gender.
>So you're saying that MLP is the inverse to G.I.Joe
No, but Hasbro designates a target audience, and the screentime reflects it. It doesn't indicate any sort of in-universe bias or sexism or inequality, it just indicates that the cartoon focuses more screentime on one gender or the other. The show is a limited window into their world, and where it chooses to focus the most screentime is going to affect the perception of the viewers. It doesn't mean that in-universe one gender is superior or dominant, however. Not in G.I Joe and certainly not here, where the gender equality is both more obvious over time and is even an explicit goal of the show itself.
Anyway, how long are we gonna keep this up? We're never gonna see eye to eye, at this point that seems obvious, so it's either sit here and wear ourselves out, or grit our teeth and VERY firmly agree to disagree or something of that nature.
>>27606921
Fancy Pants is shown to be the Canterlot mayor in Princess spike.
>>27607163
>Merely your opinion.
No, that is the "opinion" of logic.
You know, the system we made by which to examine the validity of ideas.
>the data in question is kind of the most important part.
Correct. Now you have just have to demonstrate how that data supports your conclusion.
> It's totally wrong, though.
>science is wrong
Well, I guess we figured out why you can't make arguments.
>Precedent matters
Precedence is a legal term to refer to past judgements to equivalent criminal actions.
Not a form of proof of said actions.
The only way to apply precedence to logic would literally be
>All available data points to A, therefore A is the correct assumption
>Not to the same extent as with Equestria, though.
I agree, in some extents there is less, in some there are more.
>in Equestria it's clear that ponies of both genders in all walks of life is the norm and is prevalent everywhere
Except positions of power.
>I already have.
Link it, retard.
>Shining Armor
Your example of a stallion being an alicorn is a stallion who isn't an alicorn?
Well done! Really shut me up!
>have come to the conclusion
Right, that's what I said... now you have to actually demonstrate it.
>Nothing in the Apple family suggests gender-inequality
Except for the fact that all known heads of the family were female and the fact that AJ clearly outranks BM, even though BM is said to be older.
>The show is a limited window into their world
Absence of evidence...
> how long are we gonna keep this up?
I was thinking of doing it until you actually substantiated any of your claims.
I was hoping that by being your antithersis, you could achieve a synthesis and actually produce a valid basis for Equestria being gender-egalitarian...
But I guess there's no chance of that ever happening, since you're just going back to your appeal to ignorance over and over and over...
>>27607215
That explains it, thanks.
>>27594989
don't bother. your frank assessment of their retardation has been repackaged as you just being mad that they're right so that it no longer challenges nor causes them cognitive dissonance.
>>27607398
>No, that is the "opinion" of logic.
I just don't find the supposed 'logic' you're using to be very agreeable. It most definitely is merely your opinion.
>Now you have just have to demonstrate how that data supports your conclusion.
We're discussing the show. The data in question is the content of the show. The conclusion is right there. It's not complicated.
>Link it, retard.
Reread my arguments. You may not agree with them, suit your damned self, but they're most definitely there.
>Your example of a stallion being an alicorn is a stallion who isn't an alicorn?
You asked for someone capable, not someone who already is one. :^)
>now you have to actually demonstrate it
If the cartoon and the things we see happening in it, as well as all the interactions between ponies we see isn't enough of a demonstration for you, nothing will be.
>Except for the fact that all known heads of the family
Family appreciation day seems to disagree with that little claim of yours, there's no basis for one gender dominating the apple family. And there's no evidence whatsoever that Applejack or Big Mac hold more authority than the other. At most we see Applejack more often.
>since you're just going back to your appeal to ignorance
I could say the same about you. You're going on about how much you think my arguments are weak and illogical, but I feel the very same way about yours.
But yeah, I think we're gonna have to do that passive aggressive strongly agree to disagree thing, because I'm tired and I have an ear infection. I'm gonna go get some rest, so won't be replying for at least a few hours. Trust me when I say this has been another quality andheadache inducing/mlp/ experience.
Saging this post. Appreciate if you'd do the same. I think we've already covered just about every point you can reasonably expect from arguing about a children's cartoon, so may as well let it 404. Goodnight Anon, for now.
>>27607494
>I just don't find logic to be very agreeable.
>The conclusion is in the data, I don't need to demonstrate or substantiate any claims I make.
>No, really! I made arguments! What do you mean arguments have to make sense and adhere to logic?
>He's capable of being one, he just isn't. It definitely isn't because he's male though! I know this because reasons!
>I don't have to substantiate by claims.
>You're making claims?! WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?! HUH!? HUH?!
>I could say the same about you. You're going on about how much you think my arguments are weak and illogical, but I feel the very same way about yours.
Oh for fuck's sake...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
See this? This is not just some fancy way of saying "I don't agree with you". This is a logical fallacy. It means that your argument is invalid.
Every time I responded with "absence of evidence" this is what you were doing.
You basically did this once per post and every "point" you had was based on this, or you just flat out refused to substantiate your claim at all.
I've barely even made arguments, I've mostly just pointed to facts and called out your fallacies.
Seriously, if your high school has a course on fundamental logic and argumentation, take it!
No, don't join the "debate team", they're just practising populism.
It might be rolled into some early philosophy course, so look around...
Which ponies would be easier to bribe in order to fight against Celestia and/or Equestria?
