Cats aren't creatures that are like animals? Er, okay. I really don't see the point of arguing with people who don't substantiate their arguments with something other than "you are wrong because I am right". It's obvious that you and I disagree on what makes a mascot a mascot, and neither of us are likely to accept the other person's point of view. Therefore, let's just agree to disagree. I don't want to inundate this thread with these petty squabbles.

An animal cannot be animal-like, it IS an animal!
A factoid (-oid means "like") is a false statement that looks like a fact.
An android (andro=man) is a man-like robot. A man is not an android.

Sure Luna in Sailor Moon is a cat, but she's not just some normal cat. She's magical, unnaturally wise/intelligent and able to talk.
Nyamusas and Tama are perfectly ordinary cats.

I have nothing to substantiate my arguments, other than saying that I am right and you are wrong?
That is utterly baseless slander!
I have pointed out that frequency of appearance, doesn't work and that cats aren't animal-like ...thus I've shown all of your arguments, for why they could be mascots, to be wrong.

Could you please state what you consider to be the defining characteristics of a mascot? ...and how those characteristics, makes them differ from side-characters?

Last edited by zarlan at 1:21 pm, Nov 12 2013

To be like something means having the traits of something or resembling something. An animal has animal traits and resemble animals. Ergo, being animal-like is not mutually exclusive to being an animal. I hate arguing semantics though, so I'm not going to pursue this further.

I stated my opinion (frequency of appearance is a trait of mascots). You say my opinion is wrong (frequency doesn't matter). Then you reiterate that I'm wrong based on the fact that you're right (mascots can appear infrequently). That's your entire argument. So no, you didn't substantiate anything other than saying I'm wrong. If you don't think regular animals can be mascots, then fine. That's your prerogative. I don't have to agree with you.

Animals do not resemble animals. They are animals.
You cannot be said to resemble something that you are. That is simply nonsensical and goes against any definition of the word.

Arguments that are purely about semantics, and stray from the issue, is one thing. Semantics that are central to the issue, however...
To avoid that, is to make any argument meaningless.
What use is there in trying to talk, if one does so with mutually incomprehensible words? You would have a better understanding of the conversation, speaking to someone who speaks a different language.

Without semantics, there is no language. Without language, there is no possibility for communication.
Communication without semantics, is pure nonsense.

In which case Misty and Brock are mascots. Thus, frequency of appearance is not really a defining trait of a mascot. Even if it is a trait of a mascot, it is not nearly enough.

I said your opinion was wrong, and then presented clear evidence that it was wrong.
That is all there is to my argument, because that alone is enough.
If you think that you aren't wrong, just because such pitiful things as mere reason and evidence isn't enough...
Well, you may reject such things, if you wish to do so.
Clearly trying to argue about anything with you, is a waste of time. I obviously overestimated you.

Indeed.

Fine, animal-like was a poor choice of words on my part. I agree that the intended meaning and the stated words were in conflict, though I've made the intended meaning abundantly clear (i.e. the inclusion of cats in my example). The fact that you are arguing based on semantics and have not addressed my actual claim makes your arguments quite pointless. That said though, I never once stated frequency was the sole defining trait. The fact you missed this point makes your "clear evidence" inconsequential due to it being based on a false premise. If you really want to continue this farce, PM me, because I don't see the point of continuing this in public.

Last edited by Damnedman at 3:09 am, Nov 13 2013

I think I'm the third person to point out that it should be "couldN'T care less".

Good.

So... You mean "animal-like or cat"? Or rather "animal or animal-like"?
Problem is, I don't know of any case of a character, which is clearly and unambiguously stated to be a mascot, that is just a normal animal.
As far as I am concerned, a mascot cannot be just a normal animal.

I refuted what you stated.
If that isn't your actual claim, then that is a failure on your part, in expressing yourself. Now express yourself properly, so that I don't have to waste my time.

I never said you did.
You said that Nyamusas and Tama could count as mascots, because of their frequency.
I pointed out that, that isn't enough to make them mascots, and pointed out that you need more than that to be a mascot. Thus making it clear that you'd need to demonstrate more than just frequency, to support the claim of them being mascots, for that claim to have any basis.
Surely you would agree?
Yet you have failed to provide any further characteristics of Nyamusas and/or Tama, which would make them mascots.
Even the point of "animal or animal-like", if I were to accept it, would still not be close to enough, by any means.
Neither of these are characteristics which truly make a mascot, be a mascot.

BTW: Merle in Escaflowne is a cat-girl (e.i. animal-like) that appears frequently. I cannot see how any sane person would call her a mascot.

What, so that you may hide your views from others?
Why should I go from expressing my views to many, to just one? I see no benefits to me, whatsoever.
We could split of into a separate thread, but... it's not like this thread has any other use, from what I can see. (please do correct me, if I'm wrong)
If you want to end discussing the matter in the forum, that's your choice, but I have no intention of continuing it in PMs, either way.

Last edited by zarlan at 5:38 am, Nov 14 2013

I don't see the point of continuing this here because this entire exchange is just you arguing against what was supposed to be an offhand comment. Have you noticed the only ones replying are you and me? That's because no one cares about your opinion or mine (except you since you're making such a big deal out of it). Further comments in this thread will be ignored. If you want to say you won this argument, be my guest. If you actually want to complete this discussion, you know where to find me.

Edit: Ahhh, I see. We've been arguing against different statements. I clarified the argument in my PM.

Last edited by Damnedman at 8:10 pm, Nov 14 2013

I wish there was a 'couldN'T (grammar, people!) care less' option in last week's poll... Funny dat!

It takes two to tango.