User blog comment:ZXSpidermanXZ/PLEASE READ: Nyan Cat/@comment-4845243-20150317053159

Note: This critique is intended in good humor, and should not be construed to mean that I think an emoticon is worth having a massive debate over. I just enjoy nitpicking arguments and the author asked for critiques of his logic.


 * " If you see any faults in my logic, or any other reasons why the emote should be removed, please let it be known."

Okay.

RE: Your first point

You make two glaring errors in this point. First, you provide an incomplete summary of the argument you pretend to respond to. The argument cannot be reduced to a single sentence. The sentence you provide is an example that provides some support for a larger argument, the one you might want to actually respond to, which is this:


 * Premise 1: If we remove emoticons that are constantly and primarily for abuse/disruption, then we will mitigate said abuse/disruption.
 * Premise 2: Nyan Cat is an emoticon used constantly and primarily for abuse/disruption.
 * Conclusion: Therefore, removing Nyan Cat will mitigate said abuse/disruption {and thus we should remove it}

Support for the fact that "then we will mitigate said abuse/disruption" is found in the example of the (SS) emoticon. However, that is not the complete argument. Thus, the first "fault in [your] logic" is the straw man fallacy, as you have argued against an incomplete representation of your opponents arguments.

The second flaw in your logic under the first point is the fallacy of the red herring. This fallacy occurs when you present an argument that is simply irrelevant. The fact that spam and innuendo are different is true, but also has no affect on the actual argument you should be responding to. Telling us they are different is not helpful. You need to explain why this difference matters.

So, my advice for first point: correctly summarize the other side's argument and actually make relevant points regarding it.

RE: Your second point

I don't know who is making the argument about it being too large. They're probably not thinking about it too much.

RE: Your third point

...then why bring it up? I think this point is more like this: the emoticon is especially bright and irritating, so it is more annoying when people spam it as opposed to something like a tongue smiley. Again, you commit the straw man fallacy (unless someone seriously said "it's too colorful it should be banned" and nothing else, but if you want to make good arguments, then you need to respond to the best arguments against your position; anyone can refute nonsense).

RE: Conclusion

I really only have one question here. How do you know that "a large majority of the community" loves this emote? Why is it rarely if ever used in chat, and when it is, it adds nothing to the conversation?

Maybe we should be asking what benefit we get from having the emote. Honestly, I don't care if it's banned or not, but don't pretend your arguments are decisive. :P