Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
Perhaps if you actually read what I was talking about, then you'd understand it.It is indeed A=B then B=A. What your failing to comprehend is WHY this is the case.
I will not repeat it because of other peoples lack of comprehension of it. So go back, read it. Then, come up (if you can) with a proper response to it. Thats the way debating works. You should try it sometime.
So far all you've given me is "No, your wrong". Sorry, but in debating, "No" isnt good enough.
Why is it A=B, and B=A? I don't remember what we were arguing about but I'm pretty sure that because youre powerful in the force, it does NOT necessarily mean you're good with a lightsaber, and vice versa. See Darth Maul, Ulic Qel Droma, I guess even Kyp Durron or whatever. Now apparently if I'm correct, you are stating Revan is NOT good with a saber just because he's good with the force, using some of those rare cases as backup. But you fail to realize that the things Revan did make him BETTER than good, and could categorize him as a saber prodigy. It doesn't have to explicitly state something for it to be true. Revan beat Malak, Revan beat Bastilla, Revan beat Bandon, Revan beat an empowered Malak, and Revan never lost. Revan was the most powerful with the force and the saber in an order of tens of thousands. I'd say that classifies him as pretty damn good, if not a lightsaber prodigy.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Why is it A=B, and B=A? I don't remember what we were arguing about but I'm pretty sure that because youre powerful in the force, it does NOT necessarily mean you're good with a lightsaber, and vice versa. See Darth Maul, Ulic Qel Droma, I guess even Kyp Durron or whatever. Now apparently if I'm correct, you are stating Revan is NOT good with a saber just because he's good with the force, using some of those rare cases as backup. But you fail to realize that the things Revan did make him BETTER than good, and could categorize him as a saber prodigy. It doesn't have to explicitly state something for it to be true. Revan beat Malak, Revan beat Bastilla, Revan beat Bandon, Revan beat an empowered Malak, and Revan never lost. Revan was the most powerful with the force and the saber in an order of tens of thousands. I'd say that classifies him as pretty damn good, if not a lightsaber prodigy.
How good was Malak in comparison to actual known saber prodigies?
How good was Bandon in comparison to actual known saber prodigies?
How good was Bastilla in comparison to actual known saber prodigies?
You don't know. Maybe they all sucked ass at saber dueling. And since Revan beat them, it might put him on the level of say Kit Fisto or something, hardly a "saber prodigy" status. The fact is you don't know, so saying that Revan beat all these people is useless, because you don't know anything about they're actual saber abilities. Malak was obviously a hell of a lot better then most of the rest of people Revan beat, but how good was he actually? There's no way to tell. So it means that Revan COULD be as good as Windu, or he could be as good as someone like Kit Fisto. Since it could be either or, calling him a "saber prodigy" isn't justified at all, since you just don't know.
TAK (traditional analysis of knowledge) is the way that we know if in fact we have actual knowledge about something.
It states that: S knows P = df. (i) S believes P (ii) P is true, (iii) S is justified in believing P
So here is what your saying "YOU know Revan is a saber prodigy"
(i) Do you believe it is true? Yes
(ii) Is it true? No, it cant be, given the lack of evidence. You cant have truth without it being absolute. Since there are blatant counterexamples to your argument, it cant be true. Since there are examples of something that defeats the (A=B) argument, by proving that (B /=A), which then makes the actual statement (A/=B) which makes (A=B) false. And since it is false it is not true.
(iii) Are you justified in believing its true? No, because you have no actual evidence of it being justified, because you don't have evidence of it being true. You cant justify something that isn't true. Therefore you have no justification.
So, all you have is: (i) You believe its true. Unfortunately given that TAK, which is the universal calculator for knowledge, says you lack 2 of the 3 components that are required for knowledge (facts etc) then all you have is untrue, unjustified opinion. Which, isn't good enough to argue with, Unfortunately.
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
How good was Malak in comparison to actual known saber prodigies?How good was Bandon in comparison to actual known saber prodigies?
How good was Bastilla in comparison to actual known saber prodigies?
You don't know. Maybe they all sucked ass at saber dueling. And since Revan beat them, it might put him on the level of say Kit Fisto or something, hardly a "saber prodigy" status. The fact is you don't know, so saying that Revan beat all these people is useless, because you don't know anything about they're actual saber abilities. Malak was obviously a hell of a lot better then most of the rest of people Revan beat, but how good was he actually? There's no way to tell. So it means that Revan COULD be as good as Windu, or he could be as good as someone like Kit Fisto. Since it could be either or, calling him a "saber prodigy" isn't justified at all, since you just don't know.
So here is what your saying "YOU know Revan is a saber prodigy"
(i) Do you believe it is true? Yes(ii) Is it true? No, it cant be, given the lack of evidence. You cant have truth without it being absolute. Since there are blatant counterexamples to your argument, it cant be true. Since there are examples of something that defeats the (A=B) argument, by proving that (B /=A), which then makes the actual statement (A/=B) which makes (A=B) false. And since it is false it is not true.
(iii) Are you justified in believing its true? No, because you have no actual evidence of it being justified, because you don't have evidence of it being true. You cant justify something that isn't true. Therefore you have no justification.
So, all you have is: (i) You believe its true. Unfortunately given that TAK, which is the universal calculator for knowledge, says you lack 2 of the 3 components that are required for knowledge (facts etc) then all you have is untrue, unjustified opinion. Which, isn't good enough to argue with, Unfortunately.
And unfortunately you fail to comprehend the concept of a star wars versus forum and logical debating through logical deduction. Your philosophical "truth is absolute" nonsense is thrown out when you realize there's a fraction "absolute truth" in the star wars universe, while the other 99% is up for debate. Welcome to the Star Wars Versus Forum.
Seeing as you didn't address anything I actually said, your wrong.
Go read up on the traditional analysis of knowledge, since you obviously have absolutely no idea what it is. Which is not my fault, its not up to me to teach you how logic works and how things are addressed in epistemology, simply because you dont know or dont understand them does not make you correct. So go learn it. When you do that then come back here and make relevant points. Until then, stop doing the same things, which I have pointed out, are completely fallacious, and don't even adhere to what is acknowledged as the basic necessities for knowledge.
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
Seeing as you didn't address anything I actually said, your wrong.Go read up on the traditional analysis of knowledge, since you obviously have absolutely no idea what it is. Which is not my fault, its not up to me to teach you how logic works and how things are addressed in epistemology, simply because you dont know or dont understand them does not make you correct. So go learn it. When you do that then come back here and make relevant points. Until then, stop doing the same things, which I have pointed out, are completely fallacious, and don't even adhere to what is acknowledged as the basic necessities for knowledge.
What didn't I address. I think I addressed your "truth is absolute" nonsense perfectly. I don't need for you to spew out the "traditional analysis of knowledge". Save that for EOD. Let me simplify for you. Character X's abilities aren't 100% known, Character Y's abilities aren't 100% known.. Solution.. Ah yes, logical deduction. If we went around with your "Truth is absolute" logic, this forum wouldn't exist.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
What didn't I address. I think I addressed your "truth is absolute" nonsense perfectly. I don't need for you to spew out the "traditional analysis of knowledge". Save that for EOD. Let me simplify for you. Character X's abilities aren't 100% known, Character Y's abilities aren't 100% known.. Solution.. Ah yes, logical deduction. If we went around with your "Truth is absolute" logic, this forum wouldn't exist.
You obviously still have no idea what I'm talking about. Your only choosing to hear little parts and saying "this is teh wronggg!!!" when you don't even understand the overall concept. Again, I'm not going to give you a crash course in logic and epistemology. In terms of the basics of language and logic what you said is incorrect. In terms of epistemological fact what you said is incorrect. Because this is a matter of underlying foundations on which knowledge is made up, it makes absolutely no difference in which context it is applied. The fact is, that if you don't have the necessary parts that make up knowledge, then you DO NOT have knowledge. The Star Wars universe does not fall out of these set foundational rules, because they are necessary NO MATTER WHERE they are applied. Maybe, if you had read about it, or had some basic skills in logic, then you'd know. But again, I'm not explaining it to you. Go learn it yourself.
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
You obviously still have no idea what I'm talking about. Your only choosing to hear little parts and saying "this is teh wronggg!!!" when you don't even understand the overall concept. Again, I'm not going to give you a crash course in logic and epistemology. In terms of the basics of language and logic what you said is incorrect. In terms of epistemological fact what you said is incorrect. Because this is a matter of underlying foundations on which knowledge is made up, it makes absolutely no difference in which context it is applied. The fact is, that if you don't have the necessary parts that make up knowledge, then you DO NOT have knowledge. The Star Wars universe does not fall out of these set foundational rules, because they are necessary NO MATTER WHERE they are applied. Maybe, if you had read about it, or had some basic skills in logic, then you'd know. But again, I'm not explaining it to you. Go learn it yourself.
And once again, instead of preaching to me about how I lack logic, maybe you should really sit down and think about what you're saying, as it applies to the entire SW Universe. You can't just pick and choose, otherwise your logic covers about 99% of the unknown star wars universe, and destroys any need for logical debating on a star wars theory. I don't need any crash course in knowledge or logic. Instead I would like for you to think about what you're saying, instead of trying to spew out irrelevant information pertaining to this and coming off as a quasi intellectual. I had enough of that on the other forum.
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
You obviously still have no idea what I'm talking about. Your only choosing to hear little parts and saying "this is teh wronggg!!!" when you don't even understand the overall concept. Again, I'm not going to give you a crash course in logic and epistemology. In terms of the basics of language and logic what you said is incorrect. In terms of epistemological fact what you said is incorrect. Because this is a matter of underlying foundations on which knowledge is made up, it makes absolutely no difference in which context it is applied. The fact is, that if you don't have the necessary parts that make up knowledge, then you DO NOT have knowledge. The Star Wars universe does not fall out of these set foundational rules, because they are necessary NO MATTER WHERE they are applied. Maybe, if you had read about it, or had some basic skills in logic, then you'd know. But again, I'm not explaining it to you. Go learn it yourself.
*Draws a lightsaber from beneath a black robe and ignites it, casting a crimson shadow over his deeply lined face*
If you battle with my Apprentice, you shall battle with me!!!
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
And once again, instead of preaching to me about how I lack logic, maybe you should really sit down and think about what you're saying, as it applies to the entire SW Universe. You can't just pick and choose, otherwise your logic covers about 99% of the unknown star wars universe, and destroys any need for logical debating on a star wars theory. I don't need any crash course in knowledge or logic. Instead I would like for you to think about what you're saying, instead of trying to spew out irrelevant information pertaining to this and coming off as a quasi intellectual. I had enough of that on the other forum.
No actually, it destroys nothing, as a lot of SW material fits well within the TAK. Unfortunately, in this instance, it does not.
Almost all things in Star Wars that have sufficent evidence and can be justified can be considered knowledge. Again, IF you understood it, then you'd understand what I mean.
It does not undermine anything, its been used in debate since Descartes. It, in fact, is a major help in debating, and actually further improves upon what we know by giving it a foundation in which to steam out of. ALL I did in this instance is disprove that it is a fact that Revan is a saber prodigy. I in no way undermined this forum and debating, as almost ALL actual fact (like DE Sidious being the strongest Sith lord for example) does in fact fit perfectly into the TAK and is thus considered actual knowledge. I guarantee that probably 75% of all things taken as fact on this forum are in fact justified and true, Revan being a saber prodigy however, is not.
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
No actually, it destroys nothing, as a lot of SW material fits well within the TAK. Unfortunately, in this instance, it does not.Almost all things in Star Wars that have sufficent evidence and can be justified can be considered knowledge. Again, IF you understood it, then you'd understand what I mean.
It does not undermine anything, its been used in debate since Descartes. It, in fact, is a major help in debating, and actually further improves upon what we know by giving it a foundation in which to steam out of. ALL I did in this instance is disprove that it is a fact that Revan is a saber prodigy. I in no way undermined this forum and debating, as almost ALL actual fact (like DE Sidious being the strongest Sith lord for example) does in fact fit perfectly into the TAK and is thus considered actual knowledge. I guarantee that probably 75% of all things taken as fact on this forum are in fact justified and true, Revan being a saber prodigy however, is not.
Jesus christ, you still don't get it. 99% of these versus threads are pure spculation. Besides the obvious canon quotes of Yoda, Sidious, and Luke, EVERYTHING else is speculation that could be deduced through logical arguments. Since you seem incapable of grasping this concept I'll give you a simple example.
Premise: Marka Ragnos is the most powerful of the ancient sith and likely more powerful than any other except for Sidious
Evidence: Very little
Logical Deduction: He ruled for a century with an iron fist, he died of old age, and the two most powerful sith after him cowered to his image. He was THE dark lord who crowned other DLOTS, he was THE Dark Lord who spoke for the ancient sith..
Now, as you see, there's very little evidence on Ragnos, but we can logically deduce that he was at the top. Is it absolute truth? Certainly not. Neither is 99% of star wars.
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
[b]Jesus christ, you still don't get it. 99% of these versus threads are pure spculation.Bull crap. 99% have speculation in them, but 99% of MY post are based on logical deductions. I see you weren't around here a year ago when all threads were based on logic. [/B]
1. Who the hell was talking about you?
2. You've proven my point
3. Ive read arguments from a year ago, and as far as I can say, a year ago there was no logic. There was nothing but Ancient Sith fanboyism without any logic in an argument. "OMG THEY CAN CHUCK STARS!!". There's a LOT more logic now then there was a year ago, which clearly explains why none of those people are here now. You seem to be going the exact same way.
In all seriousness, I've been too hard on Glentract today. I was wrong, and it kind've shames me for being as cruel to him as I was. I sounded like Janus or Illustrious.
Though, I do agree, Glentract - some of the arguments and claims made by you and your ilk have been very odd. I bring up the old Dooku > Sidious debates; Ragnos owns all (despite being an unknown); Exar > Luke. DE Sidious > Luke (IKC's theory); Ancient Sith 'hurl stars'; Sadow's powers being purely from him (despite being performed by Force-based technology).
Dooku > Sidious debates;
For one, you can't call the misguided actions of some of us old time members the misguided actions of all of us old time members. This argument was based on what they knew at the time. It's been disproven as far as I'm concerned, but hey, times change. There were times when we'd call Revan the best of all time. Not true any more. They just went on what they knew at the time.
Ragnos owns all (despite being an unknown);
All? I never recall saying that he owns all. These arguements took place BEFORE LOTF or DN were written. Even now I think even you'd say he's still way up there.
BTW, what qualifies him as an unknown exactly? We know that he ruled the Sith unchallenged for over a century even though they all hated him and wanted nothing more than to take him down. And we know that his spirit was so powerful that Sadow, who was quite the powerhouse in his own right, feared him. And for the Ancient Sith in general, we know (from PoD) that they had techniques so powerful that Darth Bane doubted that he would ever even ATTEMPT them.
Exar > Luke.
Again, this was before LOTF or DN was written. And even still it might hold true. I recall Lord Darkstar stating that it took the combined strength of the ENTIRE Jedi Order to take him down and that by the time he died he had gotten so powerful that the entire planet shok beneath his feet as he walked.
DE Sidious > Luke (IKC's theory);
Again, you can't call the misguided actions of some of us old time members the misguided actions of all of us old time members
Ancient Sith 'hurl stars';
Due to misinformation. We did the best with what we had though.
Sadow's powers being purely from him (despite being performed by Force-based technology).
Again, due to misinformation. Resources like swcomics.com were unknown to us at that time. We did a lot better with what we had than people (including myself) do now with what they have.
Again, it didnt TAKE all of the combined Jedi to stop Kun, they just USED everybody, to destroy Yavin. It's unknown how many it would take,
Wrong. It was specifically stated that it would take all of their strength.
but we know that to defeat Sidious for good, every jedi's spirit that came before, was used.
Prove it.