Thread:Dragonus Nesha/@comment-2168633-20170817185855/@comment-2168633-20170819064658

KingCannon wrote: I locked the page exactly because it would cause a controversy and an edit war (which happened). You know it was controversial and a lot of people would want to discuss it, yet you edited it anyway before have any real discussion and then locked it?

KingCannon wrote: You claim to be on the side of science, but cannot bother to correctly research stuff to help your arguments (the cornerstone of science). Well you got me there, I recalled incorrectly what was written in a comic book. I still can't remember where I read it either.

KingCannon wrote: Scientists and other professionals that don't research correctly lose credibility. No you are conflating doing research with being wrong about something. If say an anthropologist claimed that there was a really good restaurant just around the corner and it turned out he was wrong, he would hardly lose credibility as an anthropologist just because he was wrong about there being a restaurant.

KingCannon wrote: How am I supposed to take your word seriously when you say stuff like "I saw it once, but forgot where". You shouldn't, nor should you take anybody on their word simply because of who they are. Wiki's are actually a good example. When you edit and add new info you actually need to include a link to where that info came from. In other words the information should be judged on its own merit, not on who said it.

KingCannon wrote: You admit to not post anything. But hey, at least GamingEmpire provided links to support his views, but you didn't try to disprove them with counterevidence, just claims of "biased sources". Heck, at least they're sources I can see, regardless of whether they're credible. They aren't reliable sources. I could create a web page, write some stuff and then link to it. Wouldn't make my source reliable. But look at what you did yourself? You say I made claims of biased sources? Exactly where in my comment did I do this? I posted that they weren't peer-reviewed and thus not reliable. I never said anything about them being biased. In a case such as this, I'd actually argue that "bad sources" are a lot worse than "no sources".

KingCannon wrote: You also pointed out that Magne wasn't a transgender, but... based on what? "Magne is an Okama" was never that elaborated upon, not to mention that it works on the assumption that Okama can't be transgender as well. How do you even know the difference? Because of how he is portrayed. Look at Tiger. Tiger is portrayed as somebody that has actually changed their appearance in some manner. Magne hasn't. Since this is a wiki we can only base the information on what we can actually visually perceive. Take for instance Rappa. For all we know he could be a transgender as well yet we have written it as male because he has the appearance of a male. Same goes for Magne. Magne has the appearance of how Gay men are often drawn and parodied in manga. Thick lips that make a kissy mouth, a muscular large body and a somewhat girly way of speaking. Of course this isn't proof that he is an Okama, but we also saw in his flashback that he hung out with what looked like dragqueens. Again we only have visual proof to go by here. The only there is even suggesting that eh is transgender is that he wants to be called a woman. But that is just the thing, this is not an uncommon thing for Japanese, or at least parodies of Japanese homosexuals to ask for. True again we can't say if he is an Okama that is also a transgender, but we don't have any real evidence that proves he is a transgender.

KingCannon wrote: It's a fact though that four characters referred to Magne as female (Himiko, Spinner, Tomura and lately Twice) using specific female honorifics. Yes, and it doesn't prove a thing. Like I said, this is how homosexual men in Japan are often portrayed in manga.

KingCannon wrote: Your entire point on this was based on possible translating mistakes and the (erroneous) idea that Japanese doesn't have ways of addressing people through gender. No, please read my later comment where I elaborate on what I was saying before and explaining that I used the wrong word. I was talking about gender nouns such as "he" "she" "her" "him". I wasn't talking about stuff like "woman" or "man".

KingCannon wrote: Doesn't matter if they are pronouns, suffixes, honorifics or whatever. Actually it does. Take for instance the suffix "-chan", traditionally used with females as it is diminutive. However this does not mean that it can't be used on men.