need I say any more, please keep it coming, im laughing, its really funny.
as i said janus, "asswad Canada" phew, that was good, so intelligent. please keep things like that coming, it really makes me laugh.
you continue to prove your intelligence to me, please keep going, its rare to meet someone of your intelligence level
yes, I lose the EU argument, but not the Canon argument.
I had expected to be corrected with the EU. as I dont read EU.
I had come here to get the correct information and argue it as i saw fit. which incedently i was corrected (read my post, i had siad many times correct me if i was wrong)
however, i went from the official info i had, 2 formations of the republic, and the movies. which contridicted. i had been unaware of the other 2 books or whatever. (since i dont read EU)
and yet, you still find it nessassary to jump all over me? why i ask? i dont know...
maybe your as smart as i thought you were.
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
yes, I lose the EU argument, but not the Canon argument.I had expected to be corrected with the EU. as I dont read EU.
I had come here to get the correct information and argue it as i saw fit. which incedently i was corrected (read my post, i had siad many times correct me if i was wrong)
however, i went from the official info i had, 2 formations of the republic, and the movies. which contridicted. i had been unaware of the other 2 books or whatever. (since i dont read EU)
and yet, you still find it nessassary to jump all over me? why i ask? i dont know...
maybe your as smart as i thought you were.
Uh just one question? Since when have there been two arguments in this thread? EU and canon? You confuse me with your fawed logic.
the EU argument = weather EU and Canon movies fit together and do not contradict. (which apparently they do not)
the Canon argument = weather Canon (the movies) have a contridiction withim themselves.
and...lol, please do not tell me what flawed logic is, as you more then likley do not know what logic is in the first place. (this is not an insult btw, most people mistake logic for many things that it is not)
Attention, everyone. The resident genius is leaving. Note how could only attack me and try and mock my intelligence and that of the rest of us here at EU including Ush, but he couldn't refute a damn thing we had to say.
I could only attack you? Mr. "asswad Canada"? yes, your one to talk about attacking someone.
as for Ush, i did refute what he said, perhaps you missed it.
ill quote myself.
as for Ushgarak, you say a "cogent argument " you have no idea who your talking too, MY LIFE IS AGRUMENTS. thats what I do, I specilize in both Inductive and deductive argumentation. as thats what I've studied for all of my post secondary career. I will tell you that i refrain from agruing formally here becasue none of you would prolly have any sort of idea what im talking about, as it is more like a math equation. and might I point out that an "obvious conclusion" means nothing. there are still no facts, you are talking in hearsay, using opinions to formulate a very unstable inductive argument, because in fact, as i said, all of what you say is hearsay, and I only go with known truths. as for they are the only things that can leave any sort of stable inductive argument. and the only known facts in the movies is that the republic is apparently 1000 years, as well as seveal hundered generations. which leads to a completley illogical conclusion, that the movies contrdict, as I said.now we might "say" (as you have) that something like another formation happend in the Canon movies, but as i said this is all hearsay, and while it makes sense, is based upon no fact, other then semi-plausable reasons based upon your opinion.
now apparently with EU this problem is cleared up. sort of.
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
maybe i will, for i see that you people are incapable of being at all civil and for no reason like to insult people. which, in responce, gets insults from me, and in turn creates pointless squabbling.
Oh great. Mention that this is coming from the person that told me to "F*ck off."
as for Ushgarak, you say a "cogent argument " you have no idea who your talking too, MY LIFE IS AGRUMENTS. thats what I do, I specilize in both Inductive and deductive argumentation. as thats what I've studied for all of my post secondary career. I will tell you that i refrain from agruing formally here becasue none of you would prolly have any sort of idea what im talking about, as it is more like a math equation.
Stop boring people.
If you want to "argue formally" just give it a try. Hic Rhodus, hic salta.
and might I point out that an "obvious conclusion" means nothing.
there are still no facts, you are talking in hearsay, using opinions to formulate a very unstable inductive argument, because in fact, as i said, all of what you say is hearsay, and I only go with known truths.
Oh great. Might I point out that "truth" means nothing ?
as for they are the only things that can leave any sort of stable inductive argument. and the only known facts in the movies is that the republic is apparently 1000 years, as well as seveal hundered generations. which leads to a completley illogical conclusion, that the movies contrdict, as I said.
Oh great. Let's see. You use the statement of a single person within the movies (a politician saying: "It's unthinkable! There hasn't been a full scale war since the formation of the Republic!"😉 as a "fact" ?
And you are specialized in argumentation ?
Just to play devils advocate here:
- Sio Bibble might be bad at history
- what does the term "full scale war" mean ?
- If there were no "full scale wars" from the formation of the republic (1000 GENERATIONS = 25,000 years) on than tell how do you think the Sith were "extinct" (KI-ADI in TPM:"Impossible! The Sith have been extinct for a millenium."😉 and why does Yoda replies on that with "The very Republic is threatened, if involved the Sith are."
You surely can tell me why Yoda is thinking the Republic is threatened by people if they didn't even need a "full scale war" to "extinct" them a millenium before ?
now we might "say" (as you have) that something like another formation happend in the Canon movies, but as i said this is all hearsay, and while it makes sense, is based upon no fact, other then semi-plausable reasons based upon your opinion.
Big words for somebody that based his oppinion on a single line from a politician.
as for me doing my "homework" i must tell you that Im not going to go and read every bit of EU out there (as most of it is not worth my time) nor do I have the time to do such things anyways. some people have lives outside of reading star wars books.
Oh great. I just translate that: "People who do read Star Wars books don't have a live outside of it". Just keep in mind that this is coming from a person that accuses other people here of "incapable of being at all civil and for no reason like to insult people".
Now...that's what I call "selfownage".
Originally posted by Nai Fohl
Oh great. Mention that this is coming from the person that told me to "F*ck off."
In response to when you said "thats what I call smart?" which was a meaningless insult that was not needed. You started the hostility, where it was never given before hand on my part.
Stop boring people.
If you want to "argue formally" just give it a try. Hic Rhodus, hic salta.
Unfortunately, as i said, if i do, you wont understand it. not unless you study symbolic logic equations.
Oh great. Might I point out that "truth" means nothing ?
the truth? as i said, truth based upon hearsay, not fact. and while logical, it is still based upon opinion.
Oh great. Let's see. You use the statement of a single person within the movies (a politician saying: "It's unthinkable! There hasn't been a full scale war since the formation of the Republic!"😉 as a "fact" ?
And you are specialized in argumentation?
its in the movies, the "character" has no bounds on the comment. as it was written by lucas. Making it Canon. character attributes are irrelevant. Sio's comment holds as much weight as anyone in the SW universe. him being a politician is irrelevant.
Just to play devils advocate here:
- Sio Bibble might be bad at history
- what does the term "full scale war" mean ?
- If there were no "full scale wars" from the formation of the republic (1000 GENERATIONS = 25,000 years) on than tell how do you think the Sith were "extinct" (KI-ADI in TPM:"Impossible! The Sith have been extinct for a millenium."😉 and why does Yoda replies on that with "The very Republic is threatened, if involved the Sith are."
"Sio Bibble might be bad at history"
hearsay, he could just well have been one the greatest historians in the republic equally has he may know nothing about history. it was never mentioned that he was bad at history nor good at it, both points are equally vaild.
all hearsay, and opinion. No fact. Making this point irrelevant.
"what does the term "full scale war" mean ?"
well since the clone wars and the rebellion constitutes a "full scale war" then it would mean the entire republic is at war, not just a specific group. as know other examples are given, the clone wars and the rebellion is therefore, in canon, the definition of a full scale war. Since there are no other examples.
"If there were no "full scale wars" from the formation of the republic (1000 GENERATIONS = 25,000 years) on than tell how do you think the Sith were "extinct" (KI-ADI in TPM:"Impossible! The Sith have been extinct for a millenium."😉 and why does Yoda replies on that with "The very Republic is threatened, if involved the Sith are"
it could have just been the Jedi vs. the Sith. no full scale war needed. hearsay? yes. but since not mentioned, both a full scale war and just a small battle between the jedi/ sith are equally valid, making this point also irrelevant.
You surely can tell me why Yoda is thinking the Republic is threatened by people if they didn't even need a "full scale war" to "extinct" them a millenium before ?
because the Sith are more dangerous then any war. a war was never implied by anyone in the movies, except by you just now. Making this point irrelevant.
Big words for somebody that based his oppinion on a single line from a politician.
irrelevant. its Canon, as stated before, and holds as much weight as anything, since the character's attributes are not relivant.
Oh great. I just translate that: "People who do read Star Wars books don't have a live outside of it". Just keep in mind that this is coming from a person that accuses other people here of "incapable of being at all civil and for no reason like to insult people".Now...that's what I call "selfownage". [/B]
selfownage? interesting since all the points you just gave are irrelevant and mostly hearsay.
if you are truly intrested in formal argumentation, and logic, this is what it looks like. if your intrested.
....Actually, it is traditional to adopt a different way ofsymbolizing identity, using h = t instead of Iht to express ¡°h Iidentical with t¡±. This gives:St & ("x){Sx ¨¡x = t}, h = t \Sh
(Note that the ¡®~¡¯ in ¡®hh, which would be meaningless. ¡®~¡¯ is a statement operator.We may also write this h ¡Át.)A proof would now run as follows:(1) St & ("x){Sx ¨¡x = t}Prem(2) h = tPrem(3) St1 Simp(4) ("x){Sx ¨¡x = t}1 Simp(5) Sh ¨¡h = t4 UI(6)
Sh2, 5 MTTry this example, adapted from William Newton-Smith:
The only MONETARISTS are Reagan and Thatcher.
Neither Reagan nor Thatcher is an ECONOMIST.
Therefore no monetarists are economists.We can now express statements like this:
There is a least positive integer. (UD positive integers,Lxy = x is smaller than y).
Notice that if we had tried to symbolize it without identity, forinstance by($x)("y)Lxy this would not do, since it would allow the deduction of Lii forsome arbitrary integer i. But no integer can be less thanitself.
Similarly, we can now use identity to symbolizeconnexivity:
("x)("y){x ¡Áy ¨¡ (Rxy ⁄Ryx)}...
thats a short example of true formal logic and argumentation.