| Deviant Login | Shop |
 | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
| deviantART Related / Devious Fun / Memes | ©2013 *Raynaldo |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More
|
Sta.sh
More like logical fallacy. This one is called "non sequitur," specifically a sub-set called "affirming the consequent."
"If A is true, B is true. B is true, so A must be true." A = real horses, B = MLP ponies. "If you are attracted to MLP ponies, you also are attracted to horses. Bronies are attracted to MLP ponies, so they must also be attracted to real horses."
However, this is like saying the following:
If Jackson is a human (A) then Jackson is a mammal. (B)
Jackson is a mammal. (B)
Therefore, Jackson is a human. (A)
While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises: 'Jackson' could be another type of mammal without also being a human. The truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of its premises - it is a 'non sequitur'.
Affirming the consequent is essentially the same as the fallacy of the undistributed middle, but using propositions rather than set membership.
Yay logic!
and actually the monkeys are from a different species like apess, our ancestors are the same but they took a different road in the path of evolution making them at the point to be different from us humans
There have been several studies done on the psychology of sexual attraction, and one thing they've discovered is that humans are attracted to a specific set of external and internal characteristics, such as hair color, body type, personality type, etc. It's hard to deviate from these normally. MLP ponies are physically different in many ways from real horses: body size, body shape, facial features, mane style, fur and hair color variety, eye color variety, and most importantly, an MLP pony, if it were real, could return affection in a human way, while horses cannot.
Try not to look at it so simply. Psychology of any kind is always more complicated than "Harry likes (X)".
So are you saying that they are not humans plus is a cartoon aimed for little girls is natural hosed ponies look like that for a cartoon but they're equines alright like bugs Bunny it looks like humanoid but is a rabbit in cartoon
If that was the case, there will be zero cloppers or "sexy" pics of ponies here on DA
Let's take this even further: F-14s and B-52s are both warplanes, but I would never choose the bomber to dogfight.
Again, just because one thing resembles another doesn't mean that they're equal qualitatively.
I never needed to establish that they're not humans. I needed to establish that they are not the same thing as real horses, and that it would be illogical to assume that attraction to one would lead to attraction to another. The ponies of MLP do in fact have several humanlike characteristics which make them attractive to some people, but those things do not exist in real horses.
I'm having a difficult time parsing your English, though. Could you please try and make your sentences make more sense? I can muddle my way through most of it and get the gist of what you're saying, but it's not easy, and being more clear would keep misunderstandings from happening.
but they are both planes and thoses are sub categories just as the ponies and domestic horses are subcategories of the equines
because they are cartoons but they even said each other to be ponies, unicorns, pegasus etc. just like bugs who consider himself a bunny or daffy who consider himself a duck but they look like that for the kids
look wim discusting about this in a group in skype here's my id is aruel45acp waiting there
The same applies to ponies. They're different from normal horses in several important ways, not the lest of which is they can talk, so they're not the same as horses, therefor it would be a leap in logic to assume that a person who is attracted to one would be attracted to another.
To put it another way, I'm trained to fly a Cessna 150. Does that mean then that I'm also capable of flying a 747? Hardly. There is a world of difference in those planes, and the 747 requires you to know how to operate jet-powered aircraft. In other words, it would be a leap in logic to assume I could fly a 747 without training just because I could fly small prop-driven aircraft.
So if it's illogical to assume that I can fly a 747 on the basis that I can fly a single-engine Cessna, why would it be any more logical to assume that someone who is attracted to MLP ponies would be attracted to a horse in real life?
I'll think about joining, but to be honest, I'm much better at debating online because I've got a slight speech impediment and I don't really like doing it without a script to keep me from stuttering.