- 594
- 17
so we allready have an extensive page on fallacies but I feel that a new one has poped up in recent years that we should make mention of. That being arguing for a character based on the apperent iintention the creator had for said character or there role in cannonical material.
A prime example of this is Saitama who has had people argue that he could defeat anyone because his character is a joke where he is meant to be OP and the strongest so he can never not be the strongest.
another semi-recent case is Screwattacks arguement that Superman is potrayed as this stoic font of good and thus could defeat Goku who is often potrayed as an underdog and needing to improve.
and this isn't even limited to super heroes, on youtube there is a video called something along the lines of "how video games get Cthulu wrong" that states that since Cthulu is meant to be a being beyond all human comprehension, the idea that there is someone who can harm him or even kill him should be impossible.
Now, I'm not sure if this is enough proof or if I somehow missed a fallacy that already covered this genre of missunderstanding already, but I feel this type of arguement bares specific mentioning as a fallacy due to its recent popularity and general missunderstanding.
A prime example of this is Saitama who has had people argue that he could defeat anyone because his character is a joke where he is meant to be OP and the strongest so he can never not be the strongest.
another semi-recent case is Screwattacks arguement that Superman is potrayed as this stoic font of good and thus could defeat Goku who is often potrayed as an underdog and needing to improve.
and this isn't even limited to super heroes, on youtube there is a video called something along the lines of "how video games get Cthulu wrong" that states that since Cthulu is meant to be a being beyond all human comprehension, the idea that there is someone who can harm him or even kill him should be impossible.
Now, I'm not sure if this is enough proof or if I somehow missed a fallacy that already covered this genre of missunderstanding already, but I feel this type of arguement bares specific mentioning as a fallacy due to its recent popularity and general missunderstanding.
