Definition: Adamantly defending a certain belief by believing in it with strong convictions regardless of how much evidence stacks up against it. Believing something with conviction does not necessarily prove it right.
Sample: For instance, when you criticize or shoot down Confused Matthew or Super Godzilla 12's Lion King reviews, there is quite often a storm of apologetics from either fan boys or the reviewers themselves. SG12 uses outright apologetics and yells at me for shooting him down in his videos about me.
They are just using sheer conviction to defend their beliefs and SG12 yelling at me does not prove anything, it just shows that he has a bad temper like when he yells at Timon and Pumbaa in his review of The Lion King.
Definition: An informal logical fallacy that distorts and/or oversimplifies and opponent's position and/or argument and later claims to heroically defeat their opponent in a debate. This is fallacious because distorting and/or oversimplifying things does not constitute addressing the addressing the points as they were intended to be addressed.
This is perhaps the most commonly used fallacy by those who dogmatically maintain that Simba is a brat and that Timon and Pumbaa are villains as demonstrated throughout both Confused Matthew and Super Godzilla 12's retarded reviews of The Lion King.
Sample 1: "Simba deliberately puts others lives in danger."
There is so much wrong with the above argument since first of all it has no basis in reality on how the character of Simba is written. In the elephant graveyard scene, we actually learn that Simba cares more about others' safety than his own such as telling the Hyenas to pick on someone their own size after they launched Zazu in the "birdy boiler" and swiping Shenzi with is claws to save Nala. This is a total distortion of Simba's character and there are many other distortions of Simba's character as well as distortions of Timon and Pumbaa's characters throughout those two aforementioned mind-numbing nit pick "reviews" of The Lion King.
Sample 2: "You are just a Lion King fan boy who is bigoted against anyone who dislikes or criticizes The Lion King."
There is so much wrong with that argument too, and I am very sick and tired of hearing it from those to defend CM and SG12's ALKF from criticism. I have no problem if some people dislike The Lion King or even criticize it, I only have a problem with people running down light-hearted characters like Timon and Pumbaa for no good reason for example. Savage Broadcast said, "There is a DIFFERENCE between having an opinion and being wrong on something!"
Defintion: Any informal logical fallacy that involves verbal attacks against their opponent without addressing any of their opponent's points in an effort to discredit what they say. This is fallacious because verbally attacking one's opponent is not the same as addressing their points.
This is another commonly used family of fallacies by the proponents of the belief that Simba, Timon, and Pumbaa are bad guys.
Ad Hominem Abusive: An informal logical fallacy that heaps verbal attacks such as name-calling and profanity onto their opponent to discredit anything that they say without addressing the substance of the argument.
Sample: I hate your ugly face and I don't care what you have to say and I will still rightfully say that Timon and Pumbaa are evil."
The desperate fanatical Lion King hater called their opponent nasty names and did not address a single point that their opponent has made as to why they are wrong.
Ad Hominem Circumstantial: An informal logical fallacy that argues against their opponent's circumstances to discredit anything that they say without addressing the argument at hand. This is fallacious because arguing against one's opponent's circumstances is not the same as addressing what they say.
Sample: "Of course who hate Confused Matthew's glorious review of The Lion King because you had The Lion King as part of his childhood along with Star Trek and Toy Story."
The fact that The Lion King was a part of their opponent's childhood has noting to do with their actual arguments. For instance, Savage Broadcast does not have The Lion King on his top ten favorite movies list and he too was disgusted by the sloppy review of The Lion King that Confused Matthew posted. So that Lion King basher did not address a single point made by their opponent.
Poisoning the Well: A form of ad hominem circumstantial that presents unfavorable information about their opponent whether it be true or false to discredit anything that they say without addressing their argument. This is fallacious because presenting unfavorable information about one's opponent does not constitute addressing their argument itself.
Sample: "I don't care what any Lion King fan say and who knows, it was all about money, money, money!"
The Lion King hater presented unfavorable information about The Lion King to discredit anything that his opponent says without addressing the actual substance of the argument. The unfavorable information is only part true since when The Lion King was first started, it was like an experiment and they did not know if anyone would want to see it where they thought that Pocahontas would be the hit. Boy were they surprised when The Lion King first came out and that it was a huge hit.
Appeal to Hypocrisy (Ad Hominem Tu Quoque): An informal logical fallacy that tries to make their opponent appear hypocritical as to discredit anything that they say without addressing the argument. This is fallacious because making one's opponent appear hypocritical does not necessarily constitute addressing an argument.
Sample: "You are making a stance that I should not attack the The Lion King or say that Timon and Pumbaa are evil, but you say bad things about Titan AE all of the time!"
The ALKF-infected goon was arguing against their opponent's opposition towards Titan AE to discredit anything that they say that proves that Timon and Pumbaa are good protagonists. A person hating Titan AE has nothing to do with why Timon and Pumbaa are not evil.
Definition: Not as much a logical fallacy as a distraction technique to draw one's opponent off track from the argument at hand.
Sample: "I have been getting constant requests that compelled me to make my Lion King review that I would not have made otherwise."
The above argument is a distraction from the opponent's argument that the arguer is repeating the exact same garbage as found in another very similar Lion King review.
Definition: A logical fallacy in which the arguer looks for things to try and make their defeated argument appear valid. This is fallacious because making a defeated argument appear valid does not change the fact that such an argument has already been proven invalid.
Sample: "The Scar scenes earlier on in The Lion King proves that the song Be Prepard is pointless to the plot and not part of plot development."
The scenes of Scar prior to Be Prepared showing how he wants to be king and tricked Simba into going to the elephant graveyard does not change the fact that Be Prepared is proven to move the plot forward.
Definition: A logical fallacy that suddenly changes the standards of proof once their opponent has met them by the letter to claim that their opponent has not proven anything when in fact they did. This is not only fallacious it is CHEATING! And remember that CHEATING is totally UNFAIR! This is done in an effort to claim victory when one has clearly lost the debate.
Sample: "The concept of character development does not change the fact that Simba is so bratty or that Timon and Pumbaa are evil."
The ALKF apologist changed the standards of proof in a desperate bid to save his cherished belief that Lion King protagonists are evil. It is a FACT that character and plot development totally destroy the belief that Sumba, Timon, and Pumbaa are bad.
Definition: An informal logical fallacy that applies a general rule to an atypical specific case to which it does not apply. This is fallacious because applying a general rule to a specific case where it may not apply does not necessarily prove the conclusion right. This is a frequently used fallacy by ALKF when they call their incorrect claims "an opinion".
Sample: "Timon and Pumbaa being evil is called an opinion, so please chill out and leave me alone and stop telling me that I am wrong for believing it."
The ALKF goon applied a general rule that is a beauty of movie reviewing that it is about opinions to a specific rare case in which they were basically mistaken on something to justify their flaws. For instance, someone saying that Timon and Pumbaa are annoying and mood killers is called an OPINION just like when some people find Star Trek boring is; which is totally DIFFERENT from the INCORRECT claim that Timon and Pumbaa are villains.
Definition: An informal logical fallacy that uses confusing words and is fallacious because using confusing words does not necessarily prove a point.
Sample: "Me saying that Simba should have been killed by the Hyenas is just a joke."
The ALKF goon is saying that just because it was a joke that their opponent should calm down. He failed to recognize that not all jokes are funny and that some jokes are outright cruel.
meaning argument of the "stick" or the "CUDGEL"!
Definition: An informal logical fallacy in which the arguer threatens the persuadee that unpleasant consequences will follow if they do not accept the conclusion. This is fallacious because the threat of force does not necessarily prove the conclusion to be correct.
Sample: "Colo Claw Fish, Anti-Lion King Fanaticism is glorious and you must accept the fact that Timon and Pumbaa are scum. If you don't believe me and continue to defend The Lion King and say that Timon and Pumbaa are good, I will summon Godzilla and he will come over and roast you alive and slaughter you!"
As you can see ALKF Jack's threat of having Godzilla kill the Colo Claw Fish does not necessarily prove that ALKF is good or that Timona and Pumbaa are bad. Jack will be told to leave and never return for this as in the classic oldie song Hit The Road Jack by Ray Charles!
I hope that you are now fully aware of the various types of frequently used logical fallacies in the defense of Confused Matthew and Super Godzilla 12's devastating, asinine, disjointed, unsound, egregious, unintelligible, unreasonable, silly, muddled, confused, illogical, idiotic, retarded, dumb, mind-numbing, anti-reality, deceptive, cruel, unfunny, hack, and ugly reviews of The Lion King. An anti-reality movie review is astonishingly rare, and CM and SG12's TLK reviews are two examples of that.