Originally posted by tdtd
Sorry Illustrious but Luke's blasts instakilled the Vong so if you're going to use your logic that it has never been shown to use on a force user, then I can use my logic and say Kun's blasts have never been shown to work on a living force user regardless of what it did. Since it was never shown to be used on a living force user it is on you to prove that it would work. To discredit my argument and use yours would be a logical fallacy.
However, whilst the emerald lightning has not been known to inflict any form of damage upon a living organism, its quite simply destroying the interior of the organism's structure, however, its quite logic to assume that a force empowered figure is able to prevent it from happening, yet the amulet blasts vaporize everything it touches, when comparing the power of both and the effect of the both instakills, it would be safer to assume the amulet blasts are superior to the emerald lightning.
How is it logical to assume that a force empowered figure would be able to simply stop the instakill? W00t are you forgetting Luke's ability to stop an AT-AT blast, which has shown to do the exact same thing as Kun's? No my friend, it's not logical to assume 1 and not the other.. At least we've seen Luke block a blast equivalent to Kun's. We've not seen Kun able to block a force attack like his lightning, whether or not it can be used against a force user. Oh and Kun's blast wasn't an instakill
Originally posted by tdtd
Unable to formulate an argument, unable to answer any question, only defense mechanism is dodging everything and copying the dictionary. Incredible.
Ad hominem.
Straw man.
Begging the question.
Hasty generalization.
Your ability to commit logical fallacies is incredible, indeed.
Originally posted by tdtd
Predictable Myriam-Webster.
I've decided to help you understand the concept of logical fallacies.
Ad hominem - Personal attack. But you know what that is, I'm sure.
Straw man - Rhetorically setting up a mockery of my actual argument in order to attack my argument. Fallacious.
Begging the question - X isn't true just because you say it's true, tdtd.
Originally posted by IKC
I've decided to help you understand the concept of logical fallacies.Ad hominem - Personal attack. But you know what that is, I'm sure.
Straw man - Rhetorically setting up a mockery of my actual argument in order to attack my argument. Fallacious.
Begging the question - X isn't true just because you say it's true, tdtd.
Let me help you understand the difference between a personal attack and an accurate or truthful statement since you seem confused..
Personal attack: Me calling you a moron and possibly a fan boy.
Accurate statement: You are dodging the questions, and the arguments and justifying them with dictionary definitions that don't necessarily have anything to do with this.
Now that you know the difference you continue the argument you disappeared from weeks ago because you had no rebuttal, or you can keep posting definitions..
No, it appears you don't understand ad hominem.
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
Oh, and you committed -
Hasty generalization
Straw man
Begging the question
No, it appears you need to look more closely. Here, this may help:
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
You're also, by extension, committing:
Circumstanstial ad hominem - A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
Begging the question
Hasty generalization
Straw man
Let me help you understand the definition of that since you seem to have difficulty understanding it although you've copied it 50 or so times. I make a claim, I back up that claim with proof(your inability to form an argument aind instead dodge the discussion with insignificant definitions). That claim becomes a logical statement.
Example. Titanic is the highest grossing movie of all time..
Proof. Search google..
Get it?
I'd go into the individual logical fallacies, but the over-arching one is:
Begging the question - Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.
i.e. Just because you claim it doesn't make it true. You're arguing from circular "reasoning."