Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Yes, and did you not read what i said about "I argued against that point today, and everybody switches opinions"?
Amazing how, in all of your opinions, you try to pass them off as fact due to "logical deduction".
Logical deduction can support both cases completely? Wow.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Gee, I wonder what you think it means when I said "my opinion changed, which is why I argued against it today". What does "Argued" mean to you? Amazing how you are having trouble with interpretation.
No, apparently you are, when we've proven that you already contradicted yourself in a single post.
Aren't you the one who always credits his stance to Ragnos as "logical deduction"? If it were logical deduction, then I suppose that there would be no reason to change your opinion. Unless you're going to suggest that logical deduction supports both cases.
In which case you've just locked yourself in a stalemate.
Whoops! Logical deduction failed you there, didn't it?
Originally posted by Escape81
No, apparently you are, when we've proven that you already contradicted yourself in a single post.Aren't you the one who always credits his stance to Ragnos as "logical deduction"? If it were logical deduction, then I suppose that there would be no reason to change your opinion. Unless you're going to suggest that logical deduction supports both cases.
In which case you've just locked yourself in a stalemate.
Whoops! Logical deduction failed you there, didn't it?
WE? Lol.. Who's we? And apparently you fail to understand the fact that there are two sides to logical deduction. I could use logical deduction to argue FOR character X, and against character X. Just because I realized and understood some new stuff, does not make it a contradiction, just adds more points to a for or against argument..
But I suppose reading comprehension failed you on this one, unless of course Logical deduction has 1 side.. Oh wait.
WE? Lol.. Who's we?
You and myself. You helped me prove your own contradictions.
And apparently you fail to understand the fact that there are two sides to logical deduction. I could use logical deduction to argue FOR character X, and against character X. Just because I realized and understood some new stuff, does not make it a contradiction, just adds more points to a for or against argument..
You used logical deduction to support that Palpatine knew more and then to support that Ragnos knew more.
Point being that logical deduction doesn't amount to ironclad proof. If it did, there'd be no reason for you to ever change your opinion.
But I suppose reading comprehension failed you on this one, unless of course Logical deduction has 1 side.. Oh wait. [/B][/QUOTE]
Rofl. Apparently it failed you. You're the one who claimed "I didnt contradict myselff!!! Lol!1133!".
Let me make this clear for you so you can understand what you're saying.. You're apparently saying Logical deduction has one side.
Then you say logical deduction=/ironclad proof, otherwise I wouldn't change my opinion. So in essence you're helping me prove my point, that with logical deduction I didn't contradict myself, I just found and understood more points to logically argue against the statement I made a week earlier. I don't know if you did this intentionally or you are really not understanding what's going on.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Let me make this clear for you so you can understand what you're saying.. You're apparently saying Logical deduction has one side.
Then you say logical deduction=/ironclad proof, otherwise I wouldn't change my opinion. So in essence you're helping me prove my point, that with logical deduction I didn't contradict myself, I just found and understood more points to logically argue against the statement I made a week earlier. I don't know if you did this intentionally or you are really not understanding what's going on.
No offense, but when one makes some of the "arguments" that you have, one isn't really in a position to lecture anyone. Bearing that in mind, to show you how I respect your opinion (however misguided it is), I'll listen.
a. Humans naturally don't possess the same interpretation of "logic". If that were so, we'd never argue or debate. Therefore, "logical deduction" is not foolproof. Am I clear?
b. Ironclad proof supercedes your opinion, my opinion, and any one else's opinion. It supercedes your so-called "logical deduction", and holds more weight than anything else.
Furthermore, you did contradict yourself. In that statement. In that one statement, you confessed that Palpatine possessed the Ancient Sith's knowledge and his own, but that he didn't know more. I'm not saying that you contradicted yourself overall, but in that one statement. If Palpatine knew all that they knew, and his own techniques, then he knows more in the end.
As for your "changing opinion", my point is that ultimately - logical deduction (if it were as foolproof as you imply) - then it would only have one single logical route. How else would it be logical?
My point is, you've proven that - if you have to change your opinion - your logical deduction isn't foolproof.
I'd advise, then, not passing it off as so, and much less passing it off as something that can decide the debate.
Originally posted by Darth SexyI'm contradicting myself by being ass right now but:
Let me make this clear for you so you can understand what you're saying.. You're apparently saying Logical deduction has one side.
Then you say logical deduction=/ironclad proof, otherwise I wouldn't change my opinion. So in essence you're helping me prove my point, that with logical deduction I didn't contradict myself, I just found and understood more points to logically argue against the statement I made a week earlier. I don't know if you did this intentionally or you are really not understanding what's going on.
DS, you contradicted yourself, accept it and let it drop. Stop being an ass.
Originally posted by Tangible God
I'm contradicting myself by being ass right now but:DS, you contradicted yourself, accept it and let it drop. Stop being an ass.
Tangible, thank you. He was arguing it so fiercely, I was wondering if - perhaps - I was the one mistaken. But surely if others see it...
Originally posted by Escape81
No offense, but when one makes some of the "arguments" that you have, one isn't really in a position to lecture anyone. Bearing that in mind, to show you how I respect your opinion (however misguided it is), I'll listen.a. Humans naturally don't possess the same interpretation of "logic". If that were so, we'd never argue or debate. Therefore, "logical deduction" is not foolproof. Am I clear?
b. Ironclad proof supercedes your opinion, my opinion, and any one else's opinion. It supercedes your so-called "logical deduction", and holds more weight than anything else.
Furthermore, you did contradict yourself. In that statement. In that one statement, you confessed that Palpatine possessed the Ancient Sith's knowledge and his own, but that he didn't know more. I'm not saying that you contradicted yourself overall, but in that one statement. If Palpatine knew all that they knew, and his own techniques, then he knows more in the end.
As for your "changing opinion", my point is that ultimately - logical deduction (if it were as foolproof as you imply) - then it would only have [B]one single
logical route. How else would it be logical?My point is, you've proven that - if you have to change your opinion - your logical deduction isn't foolproof.
I'd advise, then, not passing it off as so, and much less passing it off as something that can decide the debate. [/B]
Why are you telling me that I said Logical deduction is foolproof? Look at my statement dude.. What does =/ mean to you? And furthermore I didn't argue that I contradicted my original statement, I argued that I didn't contradict the afterward fact of "changing my stance". You seemed to be saying I contradicted myself by changing my stance and I was letting you know that I realized different things or began to think about a certain situation differently. Nowhere did I say logical deduction was foolproof, I actually agreed with you on that.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Why are you telling me that I said Logical deduction is foolproof? Look at my statement dude.. What does =/ mean to you? And furthermore I didn't argue that I contradicted my original statement, I argued that I didn't contradict the afterward fact of "changing my stance". You seemed to be saying I contradicted myself by changing my stance and I was letting you know that I realized different things or began to think about a certain situation differently. Nowhere did I say logical deduction was foolproof, I actually agreed with you on that.
Jesus, DS!
Tangible God just sat here and verified that you were denying that you were contradicting yourself. And I recall specifically stating that you contradicted yourself "in that statement", and you still denied it!
God Almighty.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Jesus Escape, show me where I said logical deduction=foolproof, because that is what you're claiming. I'm arguing with you not Tangible God. No really, show me.
You're the one who's using (in all of your arguments) the so-called "logical deduction", which I've just proven - measures up to crap when you have nothing to base it off on. Which is why I have - and will continue - to reiterate that iron clad proof is above and beyond your "logical deduction".
Now, you show me where you admitted that you contradicted yourself in the original statement.
I'll tell you what, since you like to change the subject, I'll show you where I admitted my contradiction to the initial statement, if you show me where I said logical deduction=ironclad proof. I really don't need a lesson on logical deduction, if you can't find it just say so, because I'm looking at exactly what I said about logical deduction.
Originally posted by Darth SexyWait a minute, are you saying you're aware that you contradicted yourself, but were just waiting for a good time to barter with it?
I'll tell you what, since you like to change the subject, I'll show you where I admitted my contradiction to the initial statement, if you show me where I said logical deduction=ironclad proof. I really don't need a lesson on logical deduction, if you can't find it just say so, because I'm looking at exactly what I said about logical deduction.