This week’s help guide is about links, both normal and advanced ones. As you all know, normal links can be done by putting
[[Aang]]. For links with other text, put a
For wikipedia links, put “wikipedia:” before the page in wikipedia. Example:
[[wikipedia:Avatar: The Last Airbender|Avatar: The Last Airbender]].
For links through URL, use one
[ and one
] and leave a space for the text. Example:
Other wikis can be linked through URL links, but there is another way to do so. Add
w:c:(the wiki name). Example:
[[w:c:Fairy Tail|Fairy Tail Wiki]]. The name can be found in the URL. Example for this wiki: http://avatar.wikia.com.
Links can be specified to certain headings created using
# symbol. The first part is same, but a
# symbol followed by the name of the heading is added. Example for a link to Aang:
[[Aang#Abilities]] shows up as Aang#Abilities.
I have seen many URL links where wikipedia and interwiki would have been enough. I hope that after reading this, everyone starts to use them. The next one will be about wikitext, to educate people in basic wikitext. Wikitext will include templates, text styles, etc.
Jumping in to the deep end, this issue's undiscovered fanon is Mageddon725's fanon, Avatar- Aftermath and Burning Earth. I read through the first five chapters under the reccomendation of fellow Fanon Administrator AvatarRokusGhost, who suggested it for Undiscovered Fanon, and I completely agree!
Aftermath and Burning Earth (also reffered to as AaBE) follows the story of Yun, a young Earthbender with a hunger for knowledge. This hunger, is satisfied by none other than the mad genius himself - King Bumi. Not long into the series, we discover a disability of Yun's - which I'm not going to spoil - which forces him to adapt a different form of Earthbending, a form which I must say is one of my favorites.
The writing ability of Mageddon in AaBE reminds me somewhat of J.K. Rowling's writing style, of which I am a huge fan (there is also a scene in the end of chapter three which strongly reminded me of Harry Potter). The jump in time we take from chapter four to five is an excellent narrative ploy to keep the readers doing what they should be doing - reading. All over, I think Mageddon's writing is absolutely excellent, and I will continue reading as he writes into his second book.
I've recently run into some blogs and talk page threads that boggle my mind in terms of the fallacies that people use to attempt to prove their points. This blog's main point is that they are illogical and unfavourably attempt to shift the ways an argument is meant to be debated. Before I talk about the 20 main fallacies commonplace in most arguments (and related examples), I ask you "What is a fallacy?". A Fallacy is a pattern of reasoning or an argument that is fundamentally erroneous; in other words it is a fault in the logical way of thinking. You might then ask me "Is it even possible to have a fallacy-free argument?"; to answer this, I show an example of a classic valid deductive argument that commits no fallacies:
Premise #1: All humans are mortal. P2: Socrates is a human. Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
If I changed the wording slightly, it becomes fallacious and a weak inductive argument:
P1: All humans are mortal. P2: Socrates is mortal. C: Therefore, Socrates is a human.
The one immediately above is not as strong an argument as the first, because even though Socrates is mortal, not all mortal beings are human, and most Greek and Roman gods (for example) are human though immortal. Although I mentioned in another blog that I wouldn't go into deep detail, I may have to give a full analysis to those who don't know the topic (I'll do it on the first one of each class).
Three things before I go further... There are three structures and three classes of arguments that you, the reader, must know before analyzing fallacies in argument. A Structure 1 argument is an argument that has its conclusion after the premises; Structure 2 is flipped, with the conclusion before the premises; and Structure 3 is one where the conclusion is in between two (or more) premises. Regardless of the structure, the arguments are mapped in the same way. The first class is Relevance (R), which tries to prove a point without providing related evidence to support the conclusion (5 fallacies belong to this class). The second and most widespread class is Presumption (P), where something is being presumed that is wrong in the context of the argument. All 14 fallacies in this class have a hidden premise that must be discovered before analyzing an argument featuring any of these. The third and last class is that of Ambiguity (A), where it is unclear what direction the argument goes. Only 1 fallacy belongs to this class. The last thing to know is that there is often more than one fallacy that can be identified in most detailed arguments, for I've analyzed some that featured 4-5 possibilities. So without further ado, we start. This is going to be a long read for those who are interested.
Fallacy #1: Appeal to Force or Threat (R)
P1: After all, my firm does thousands of dollars of advertising business with your paper. C: I don't think it would be wise to run a story on my son's driving escapades.
This argument commits the fallacy of appeal to force or threat, a fallacy of relevance.
P1: This argument tries to prove its conclusion, not by offering relevant evidence for it, but by issuing implied coercion against the paper concerned. P2: Unfortunately, there is a logical problem here. P3: Instead of offering relevant evidence to support its conclusion, such as "My son is a victim of mistaken identity in terms of his driving escapades", this argument instead issues a threat against the paper concerned and so fails to prove its conclusion. C: Therefore this argument commits the fallacy of appeal to force or threat, a fallacy of relevance.
Before I go on, what I just did here is known as a "123" analysis, which is how to analyze fallacies in argument. I'll be doing one for each class of fallacy, so the other examples I'll just list the mapping of the argument and the identification (#1 deals with mapping the argument; #2 deals with identifying the fallacy in question: STANDARD in all analyses of fallacies; #3 is the explanation, split by premises and conclusions to make the explanation more clear). Notice how I italicized "Instead of offering relevant evidence to support its conclusion, such as"; each class of fallacy has its own evidence statement that must be used when identifying a fallacy of that particular class, before listing any evidence supporting your analysis. A similar but more complex way to analyze arguments is to use an "ABC" analysis which is used to analyze conceptual problems as well as fallacious ones, but it is not what I'm trying to do in this blog. Now I'll continue.
Fallacy #2: Appeal to Emotion (Pity or Fear) (R)
Definition for Pity: Feeling of emotion for an organic being or a sentient one, or for oneself. Def'n for Fear: Feeling either for oneself or another sentient being when they find themselves in a situation where their welfare is jeopardized and there's nothing to be done.
P1: She [Mae] has a disability. P2: She hasn't been able to get a job. P3: I know that she is quite depressed. P4: Giving her a job would really boost her self esteem. C: You should hire Mae.
This argument commits the fallacy of appeal to emotion (pity), a fallacy of relevance.
To intercede, lawyers absolutely are guilty of using this fallacy in their arguments because their job is to plead a case and influence the jury to side with their client over the other attorney's client.
Fallacy #3: Ad Hominem [Latin for "to the man"] (Abusive or Circumstantial) (R)
Abusive ad hominem is when one personally attacks the person's characteristics or faith, rather than the arguments being presented by the latter (ex: By founding his environmental charity, the environmentalist David Suzuki is wishing to raise money for his own desires rather than using the funds to save the environment [This is very abusive ad hominem]). The example presented below is another type of ad hominem, circumstantial (assuming a person supports something for instance, based on his/her profession).
P1: You own two apartment buildings. C: You don't support rent controls. (The notion of the government controlling the rent price instead of the landlords.)
This argument commits the fallacy of circumstantial ad hominem, a fallacy of relevance.
Fallacy #4: Poisoning the Well (R)
P1: [Y]ou are a liar. C: I can't trust you.
This argument commits the fallacy of poisoning the well, a fallacy of relevance.
Fallacy #5: Shifting the Burden of Proof (P)
P1: I can't prove that I should be admitted to the Bar. [Hidden Premise (P2): An argument can prove its conclusion by requiring that one's opponent prove the claim instead of oneself.] C: [Y]ou prove it for me.
This argument commits the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, a fallacy of presumption.
P1: This argument tries to make the audience responsible for proving the speaker's or writer's conclusion. P2: Unfortunately, there is a logical problem here. P3: Using the false, hidden presumption that [P2] in the original argument, which is false because it violates the burden of proof principle in argumentation, in which case the argument fails to prove its conclusion. C: Therefore this argument commits the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, a fallacy of presumption.
Like with all presumptuous fallacies, they have a hidden premise that must be identified before analysis can begin (highlighted by using [Square Brackets]). The italicized part of the #3 portion of the 123 analysis is the code phrase that must be used when identifying and analyzing a fallacy of this class.
Fallacy #6: Self-Evident Truth (P)
P1: She obviously doesn't want to drive a car. P2: She clearly doesn't want to take public transit either. [P3: An argument can prove its conclusion by stating its claims in such a way that they must be true simply by virtue of the way they are stated.] C: Evidently, she doesn't believe in private or public transit.
This argument commits the fallacy of self-evident truth, a fallacy of presumption.
I italicized the words "obviously" and "clearly" because those are two key words that a reader can use to identify this particular fallacy (also "no one doubts that"). Unless the evidence provided is both necessary and sufficient to prove an argument's conclusion, these words only extenuate and amplify this particular fallacy.
Fallacy #7: Appeal to Ignorance (P)
P1: I can't prove there is life in outer space. [P2: An argument can prove its conclusion by using the lack of evidence for one position as evidence for the contrary (not "opposite") position.] C: There is no life in outer space.
This argument commits the fallacy of appeal to ignorance, a fallacy of presumption.
An "opposite" is a term that has a reverse meaning to another word (e.g. Alive=Dead), while a "contrary" is a term that has the word "not" before it, to let us know that it is "not" such, etc.. (Alive=Not alive). There is another fallacy later on that confuses opposites with contraries.
Fallacy #8: Loaded Presupposition (P)
This is one of two fallacies my class did not elaborate on, since it is a hard fallacy to analyze properly. It involves asking a loaded question, one that forces the respondent to reply in a specific way, and not in others. An example is: "Why is it that children of divorce are less emotionally stable than children raised in unbroken homes?".
Fallacy #9: Begging the Question (P)
P1: Opium is a soporific. [P2: An argument can prove its conclusion by using a premise(s) which mean(s) the same thing as the conclusion but use(s) different words.] C: It must have dormative powers.
This argument commits the fallacy of begging the question, a fallacy of presumption.
Fallacy #10: Common Practice/Popularity (P)
P1: Everyone's doing it. [P2: An argument can prove its conclusion by appealing to what everybody is allegedly doing/thinking/saying, etc. about something.] C: I ought to do it to.
This argument commits the fallacy of common practice/popularity, a fallacy of presumption.
Fallacy #11: Faulty Appeal to Authority (A.K.A. Appeal to Authority) (P)
P1: All credible biologists believe in evolution. [P2: An argument can prove its conclusion by appealing to alleged authorities, not by offering relevant evidence for it.] C: Evolution is a fact.
This argument commits the fallacy of appeal to authority, a fallacy of presumption.
To be called an authority on a subject, one must have explicit and concrete knowledge on the subject concerned. Example: Wayne Gretzky is considered an authority in hockey, but not in medications like Advil. Most commercials featuring athletes or personalities advertising products like Gatorade for instance, commit this particular fallacy.
Fallacy #12: Hasty Generalization (P)
P1: This swan is white. [P2: An argument can prove its conclusion by assuming that what is true of one, or several, events of a class is true of every event of that class.] C: Therefore, all swans are white.
This argument commits the fallacy of hasty generalization, a fallacy of presumption.
Fallacy #13: False Cause (P)
P1: Event 2 happened after event 1. P2: Events 1 and 2 are spatially contiguous. [P3: An argument can prove its conclusion by treating terms which are temporarily successive, spatially contiguous, or constantly conjoined as causally connected.] C: Therefore, event 1 caused event 2.
This argument commits the fallacy of false cause, a fallacy of presumption.
Fallacy #14: Slippery Slope (P)
P1: First the city privatizes garbage collection. P2: Next the city privatizes transit services. P3: Then the city privatizes all city services. [P4: An argument can prove its conclusion by stating that these events, going from bad to worse to worst, are causally connected.] C: Privatization should be resisted on all fronts.
This argument commits the fallacy of slippery slope, a fallacy of presumption.
Fallacy #15: False Dichotomy (P)
P1: You want a car. P2: Cars are either good or cheap. P3: You can't afford a good car. P4: You don't want a cheap car. [P5: An argument can prove its conclusion by treating opposites as contraries.] C: You'll have to do without a car.
This argument commits the fallacy of false dichotomy, a fallacy of presumption.
One way the reader can identify false dichotomy is by observing that only two alternatives are given, when there are clearly more choices available. It is NOT this fallacy if the two alternatives are truly the only two choices that could be made, such as if a person's been shot in the head, is in a coma at the hospital and the doctor asks the next of kin whether he/she wants to terminate life support or maintain it in the hopes of that person recovering and waking up.
Fallacy #16: Equivocation (A)
P1: Men and women aren't equal. P2: They differ in various attributes. P3: Men are stronger. P4: Women are verbal. C: One cannot say that we ought to treat them equally.
This argument commits the fallacy of equivocation, a fallacy of ambiguity.
P1: This argument tries to prove its conclusion by using cognates (similarly-spelled words) with different meanings. P2: Unfortunately, there is a logical problem here. P3: Instead of using these terms univocally, this argument uses them equivocally, i.e. In [P1] of the original argument, "equal" pertains to to descriptive equality whereas in the conclusion of the original argument, "equally" refers to the normative/prescriptive equality, in which case the argument fails to prove its conclusion. C: Therefore, this argument commits the fallacy of equivocation, a fallacy of ambiguity.
I italicized the words "equal" and "equally" to show how this fallacy works, and once again the key phrase for this particular class of fallacy (of which only this type exists) must be used when analyzing this particular fallacy.
Fallacy #17: Faulty Analogy (P)
Definition of an analogy: A comparison between or among two or more terms with respect to the attribute(s) they allegedly have in common. (F.A. same as this def'n, but they don't have anything in common.)
P1: Apples are like oranges in the sense that both are vegetables. [P2: An argument can prove its conclusion by assuming that terms are analogous in the indicated respect(s) when they aren't... (treating terms which aren't comparable, as comparable).] P3: Vegetables are good for you. P4: You ought to eat what is good for you. C: Therefore you ought to eat apples and oranges.
This argument commits the fallacy of faulty analogy, a fallacy of presumption.
The word "like" signifies an analogy. The example above is intentionally wrong because apples and oranges are obviously not vegetables, rather are fruits (this is a valid way of using terms that would regularly signify self-evident truth fallacies, because they are universally accepted). This is because fruits grow from vines or trees while vegetables grow in the ground. An ambiguous case is a pineapple, since it is a fruit yet grows underground.
Fallacy #18: Straw Person (P)
This is the second fallacy we did not elaborate too much on in class. It involves using an argument as a decoy for another argument.
Example: Mary was upset at her mother's funeral (Real claim). Straw person version of this claim: Mary is emotional.
Fallacy #19: Red Herring (P)
P1: The environmentalists are trying to create an Eden on Earth. P2: They want to reduce pollution. [P3: An argument can prove its conclusion which is irrelevant to its premises.] C: Therefore we should not support them.
This argument commits the fallacy of red herring/irrelevant conclusion, a fallacy of presumption.
Anytime the reader views a conclusion which is unrelated to the supporting points, it is a red herring, since it is a different point than what the reader is led to believe from the premises.
The very last fallacy is below, for those who've read along to this point. After this I'm done, but it's the only way to explain all the fallacies.
Fallacy #20: Genetic Fallacy (A.K.A. Fallacy of Genesis) (R)
P1: It's just a pig. C: It's morally permissible to eat it.
This argument commits the genetic fallacy, a fallacy of relevance.
This is fallacious because the claim attacks the origin of the subject concerned.
These are all the fallacies, and this large blog was how I could explain them all. Hope you enjoyed the reading, and I look forward to reading comments afterwards.
So first we start out with Katara and Sokka in their little boat hunting for some fish. Sokka is unfortunately not catching anything... but Katara decides to use her “magic water” skills as Sokka calls it, that way she might have a better chance at catching some dinner.. So my first question is... where did Katara learn her basic waterbending skills? I mean, she’s the only waterbender. How did she even know that she could bend? These are the situations that puzzle me... but, it is also what makes me love Avatar! The almost endless questions that draw you to the show more and more!
Anyhow, Katara gets angry with Sokka (as usual) and starts bending the water in her anger. So in all this, Sokka is like: KATARA YOU IDIOT! YOU’RE TOTALLY GOING TO TIP THE BOAT OVER WITH YOUR MAGIC WATER!! And... he was right. Luckily, they fall on a nice flat iceberg. But then they discover Aang, floating in a frozen sphere of ice. Katara decides it would be a nice idea to take a wack at it and what do you know! Aang is released from the ice and awakens.... I like how he seems all serious and is like: “commeee closseerrr...”, then it’s: “WILL YOU GO PEINGUIN SLIDING WITH MEH???”.
Sokka is introduced and is ermmm... well... not happy. He apparently thinks that Aang is a “Fire Nation Spy” and is not pleased with meeting him. He threatens to hurt Aang when he starts goofing off. So I’m thinking: Sokka? Why are you so obsessed with the Fire Nation? I know you have to be a lookout for them because they might attack, but not everyone is a “Fire Nation Spy”. After being sneezed on by Appa, they all go back to the village.
That’s all for this issue, look for part 2 in the next BSST for the rest of the review!
The Ba Sing Se Times needs YOU.
Have a great Avatar or Avatar Wiki joke?
An interesting opinion about the wiki?
A fanfic that desperately needs readers?
Just write a column,
and send it in to the editor.
Editor's note: Watching this episode through while reading this column is recommended.
Chapter 19: The Siege of the North, Part 1
A commentary and review (and some demotivation) of Book 1: Water, Chapter 19: The Siege of the North, Part 1.
Previously in Avatar: Sexist people dying. Waterbending. Pulling strings. Oh yeah, and semi-adultery.
This is Sangok. He later goes to become Korra’s grandfather.
All right . . . all right . . . waiting . . . waiting . . .
[hides from the sudden missiles that explode all around her]
So you see how, in the course of several days or weeks—it’s not very clear—Katara becomes a Waterbending Master . . .
But it took Pakku years to learn?
Wait wait wait.
This would be like someone learning to write Korean . . . in two weeks.
And yes, that is a reference to the Island.
“You know what I hate about this spinach puff show? All right, so let’s use our cabbage head for a second . . . that little annoying weasel [TAD: That’s . . . uh . . . Momo, actually.] is always inside of Aang’s shirt . . . and occasionally even his cereal pants! And you know he is! Well, the coffee creators stopped that kind of oatmeal after season one [TAD: Book One, actually.] because they realized that there was far too much . . . French fries . . . bestiality!
“Except in Lake Laogai. Definitely some in that.”
Yue seriously needs to make up her mind. This is ridiculous. Sorry.
But . . .
Holy monkeyfeathers . . .
First, she likes him.
Then, she runs away.
Then, she asks for him to come with her.
Then, she reveals she’s betrothed.
Then, she kisses him.
Then, she runs away again.
Now, she’s snuggling with him
I mean . . . come on!
What kind of romance is this?!
This is reminding me of that Hot and Cold song—the one I refer to as the Why Zutara Doesn’t Make Any Sense song—
Just please, Yue.
Just . . .
Pick some freaking thing! Just pick something! It’s not exactly that difficult to pick something!
She changes her mind like a girl changes clothes.
She is a girl.
. . .
[slaps on a scarlet letter]
And by the way, that book is terrible.
Okay, okay, okay.
All right, question.
The Laws of Infiltration are pretty simple . . . most of the time.
1. Use a uniform that is exactly the same as all of the others. On no instance should you use one that helpfully reveals your particular difference.
2. Do not remove the uniform under any circumstances . . . especially in the hallway . . . the random open hallway . . . where anyone can see you.
3. Do not whisper quietly to a random official. People will become suspicious. And find you. And kill you.
And did I mention that you can @#$%ing see his @#$%ing scar?!
Also, it would have made more sense for them to make us believe that Zuko was nice and dead or something for just one episode, rather than killing him in the middle and bringing him back in the end.
You know, people make sitcoms about the craziest things. Polygamy . . . wizards . . . pop stars . . . what are they doing to do next? Child abuse?
Tune in for another exciting episode of Chains—based on a true story!
. . .
So what in the world is going on here? I’m not understanding. Yue, just pick something. Seriously.
Not that hard.
Wrong word choice there, heh heh.
What does Sokka hope to accomplish here? Does he really think that, hm, by . . . say . . . oh, I don’t know, killing himself and therefore comittitng involuntary suicide is going to get him any closer to Yue?
Yue: “Well, if he turns into a sparkly vampire . . .”
Harry Potter: “I should have killed him when I had the chance.”
Instead, what’s going to happen? Oh yeah—Sokka would be dead, so think about every other episode without Sokka in it . . .
Did you just get terrified out of your mind?
Because . . .
I . . .
Sure . . .
Was . . .
I mean, he’s the one who comes up with the Day of Black Sun plan—and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
And a tumbleweed tumbles past . . . except it’s made out of ice . . .
And then we get a whole bunch of cowboys . . . on ice . . .
And holy monkeyfeathers, when did we walk into the Disney on Ice version of Davy Crockett, and did you seriously just get the Davy Crockett song stuck in my head?
Born on a mountaintop in Tenne—
No! Get out of my head!
Out out out!
Sadistic pacifism, for the win!
I mean, seriously. There are more explosions in this scene than in an entire Rachet and Clank game.
Okay, let’s put that ten percent of your brain that functions properly—ha, ha, ha, did you know that 86.345% of all statistics are made up on the spot?—together and think about this one.
You have Appa, a giant sky bison, with Aang, the Avatar.
Then you see Aang make a home run, Avatar style. Come on. Baseball bat anyone? Also, there’s a Zaang metaphor in there if you squint closely enough, but judging from my previous experiences on the Wiki, even I know not to mention—le cough—that.
Wait, so, I have a question. So if a giant flaming fireball is coming towards you . . . you can seriously just whack it out of the way with a short wooden stick? Hey, military, I totally have an anti-missile idea for you! Just hit the missiles out of the way with baseball bats!
Avatar physics! The best physics in the wo-o-orld!
So my point is that why couldn’t the Waterbenders do that ice thing first, before Aang had to run in? And why wouldn’t they just use the ice to, I don’t know, destroy the trebuchets, too?
Hey, I’d like to take advantage of that, too.
This is clearly the bestiality episode, because Appa freaking saves Aang by asploding everything else, and Aang shares a particularly . . . tender . . . moment with the sky bison.
I’m just saying.
Take a look at some of the screenshots, specificially at Aang’s expression
I’m just saying . . . I’m just saying . . . I’m just saying . . .
We never exactly see all of these ships. They just sort of hang out in the harbor . . . and then stuff happens, and they all get asploded.
Where are they?
Where are they all?
. . .
Based off of my personality scores—you know, in one of those stupid tests you have to take?—I am a truly sadistic pacifist. I am also extremely anti-sexist—even though I do enjoy a good sexist job.
Sample conversation [before marriage]:
Hahn: “This is the same your dreams come true.”
Yue: “What do you know about my dreams, Hahn?”
Hahn: “Plenty! A frozen hunting lodge, my latest kill roasting on the fire, and my little wife massaging my feet while the little ones play on the floor with the dogs. We'll have six or seven.
Yue: “Polar bear dogs?”
Hahn: “No, Yue! Strapping boys, like me!”
Yue: “Imagine that.”
[Imaginex Adventures commercial starts to play.]
Hahn: “And do you know who that little wife will be?”
Yue: “Let me think . . .”
Hahn: “You, Yue!”
Yue: “Hahn! I’m—I’m speechless! I don’t know what to say!”
Hahn: “Say you’ll marry me!”
Yue: “I’m very sorry, Hahn, but—but—I just don’t deserve you!”
If you get the reference, you may have this strawberry upside-down cake.
“No, the cake is a lie!”
Please, that meme’s oversaturated.
“Like sugar can be in water?”
Was that a science joke?!
“Absolute zero is the coolest!”
Guys, watch out! Monkeyfeathers is making science jokes!
“Gaston and Le Fou are as straight as a pair of parabolas!”
Well . . . that’s actually true . . .
Sample conversation number two:
Hahn: “Want to hear a joke?”
Other Guy: “Sure!”
Hahn: “Women’s rights!”
Yue: “Dear, the little ones need a new bla—”
Hahn: “Where my food at, woman? Go back to the kitchen where you belong. Make me a sandwich.”
Other Guy: “A ham sandwich.”
[bro-fives are exchanged]
Wait, wait, wait . . . can we please use our ostrich horse sense here? Okay, so, Aang got back from playing </s>violent videogames</s>solder and is far too tired to go on, because without the Avatar the many Waterbenders can’t do anything.
Also, a random question. Why does the Fire Nation—whose opposing element is freaking water—have a far more advanced navy than the Water Tribes?
Good grief, Bryke, if you’re going to be illogical, at least be logical about it!
Hey, Buttongoo, want a fruit tart?
[bakes some fruit tarts]
In fact, how about fruit tarts for everyone? We can have a massive fruit tart tasting!
It’s massive, sweet, and syrupy.
Mm . . . better start cleaning up then!
[leaps through the television]
“Sword up, Hahn! This is a fight!”
Hahn: “Sword up?” [waggles eyebrow] “Nah . . . you’re too ugly.”
Me: [brandishes sarcasm] “Please! I would engage in a war of wit—but I will never fight one unarmed!”
Grid: “Is that because you’re a Predator?”
Me: “Is that . . . a xenomorph?!”
Hahn: “. . . what am I, chopped liver?”
Ratbert: “This liver has an MBA from Harvard!”
Me: [runs off with Grid] “What can I say? I always liked the mysterious type.”
Hahn: [to Ratbert] “Where did you come from?”
Ratbert: [innocently] “Arthur’s nightmares.”
Just look at the expressions and take this screenshot out of context.
We don’t see this kind of thing until one of my favorite episodes—313.
But onto to that in the appropriate blog!
In the meantime, Chief Arnook pounces on them, mostly because he’s like Minerva from Harry Potter, if you can recall my reference from And the Philosopher’s Stone.
Hey, I just realized that my spell check is no longer working.
Thank you so much, Microsoft Word! Just . . . thank you so much! You know, if the entire world ran off of Microsoft, then we never would have been able to magically hack into that alien mothership, and the title of that movie wouldn’t have become an accidentally hilarious pun!
[The 7.5 movie’s epilogue sucked, by the way. Just leave before the epilogue—do you some good.]
All right, all right, all right.
So we’ve learned that the Waterbenders totally get a 1up at the full moon.
And how do they spend it?
Doing absolutely nothing.
While the Northern Water Tribe just sits on the collective donkey all day, the Fire Nation is bidding its time to strike when they are super-powered.
Why did you attack them during the freaking day?! Why not the freaking night, when it actually makes more sense to do so?
Because you have no tactical strategy.
Oh, and you suck.
But what did I mean?
The world may never know!
Well, well, well.
There’s a double innuendo there, if you look closely enough at what I said.
All right! I want each and every single one of you males with girlfriends in the crowd to waltz up to her parents and tell them you want to protect her and be her bodyguard.
No, no, go ahead, I’ll wait.
[waits for the correct demographic to leave, and probably some of the other demographics as well]
Well, actually, there’s no need to wait for them, because they’ll never come back.
I mean, what the monkeyfeathers? Does Chief Arnook want Sokka and Yue to get it on? Stop throwing him bones, you dirty chief!
Oh, there’s another pun in there.
If you squint.
On an unrelated note, Bryke thinks it’s Yuokka, not Yukka. Why can’t
HollywoodNick get it right?!
Right . . . right . . . it’s apparently once again to play how much common sense do you have?! Starring our hosts, Mr. Stupidity and Miss Bellum!
[hands out paper hats and Russian saucers]
Because we don’t have any common sense.
Right, right, right. Okay, question. How long can someone hold his or her breath underwater?
[one Google search later]
Okay, here’s the answer:
In regular water, it’s 45-75 seconds.
In water colder than sixty degrees Fahrenheit—which Arctic water definitely is—it’s shortened to only 15 to 25 seconds.
In water at forty-one degrees, which it may be, the number was as low as 9.5 seconds.
Holy freaking monkeyfeathers!
Especially coupled with the fact that Zuko looks around, sees the hole, and then doesn’t come up for breath again. Just dives in.
Even if we assume he passively Firebend-warmed himself—which is totally a Firebending skill in my opinion; Tibetan monks can do that, fools!—it doesn’t excuse the physics and timing.
Oh, and the fire hands.
The fire hands.
Aang’s on drugs. Sorry. But wait, it gets better! Just you wait for 313, folks.
Then Aang gets some roofies.
A lot of people decided to use this as Zutara support.
I can’t see it.
Why don’t I see it?
Because it’s not freaking there.
You want to know the truth about Zutara? You really want to know the truth about Zutara? It’s all because of jealousy. See, most of the female fans of the show identify themselves with Katara. Katara is like the “Avatar-them” . . . and Zuko is the guy that most female fans think is “hot”. So . . . to see the “goth girl” get the “hot guy” and for them to get the “kid brother” is a little jarring . . . so most of Zutara can be written off an jealousy.
| Click "show" to continue reading!
The other half of Zutara can be written off as . . . selflishness! Zutarians have completely disregard for the actual characters of the show. Instead of allowing the characters to make decisions, the Zutara camp makes decisions for them as if Zutarians could control with whom they fall in love.
In other words:
Zutarians are selfish, jealous, or both . . . or haven’t seen the show. Take your pick, Zutara.
And yes, you can quote me.
It’s Zuko and Katara fighting over a comatose Aang.
And do you know what the best part is?
And then Zuko carries Aang over his shoulder.
Like a bride.
Daangit, Bryke. Why? Just . . . why?!
This episode . . . is a 4. I can already hear the complaints.
It’s not good enough! Blah blah blah! The Waterbending Master was way better!
Hey, it’s my opinion.
What are your thoughts on the episode? No flaming!
See you next time!
The Avatar Demotivator