Darth Nihilus vs. Darth Revan

Except yet again, you fail. Maybe you should brush up on your logic. The difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is with deductive reasoning, if the two premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true, while with inductive reasoning, if two premises are true, the conclusion COULD be true. Furthermore, the examples you've just given me have absolutely nothing to do with your previous example and claim of logical deduction, which was one of the dumbest things I've ever seen from someone attempting to sound intelligence. Maybe I should point it out for you but at the risk of wasting more of my time reading your blabbering nonsense, I'll just leave that alone and let you figure it out, seeing as how I've already explained it to you.

Deductive does not have to be true. Don't be foolish. Both the conditional claim and the antecedent must be true for the consequent to be concluded. If one is not with the other, the consequent is false.

1. What does that say about your abilities if this is indeed truth?
2. What does debating my way out of a paper bag even mean? Or is it more nonsense you've heard somewhere, and still couldn't decipher its meaning?

I hope you don't have reading problems on top of everything else. Yikes!

I never disagreed with you about Inductive reasoning, as seen here:

Although the second equation leaves more room for apparent elaboration, the equation is not fallible because it remains as a truth.

Originally posted by Thousand
Deductive does not have to be true. Don't be foolish. Both the conditional claim and the antecedent must be true for the consequent to be concluded. If one is not with the other, the consequent is false.

Wow. I think I made it pretty clear when I said "YOU COULDN'T DEBATE YOUR WAY OUT A PAPER BAG."

I hope you don't have reading problems on top of everything else. Yikes!

Wow.. Unbelievable. I should tell Rex that there should be an IQ test before one can join this forum (you would fail obviously).
In deductive reasoning, if both premises are true, the conclusion HAS to be true. What don't you understand about that? Are you daft? Incapable of understanding simple concepts? So one more time for the reading or intellectual impaired:
Deductive Reasoning: If two premises are true, conclusion must be true or the argument is invalid
Inductive Reasoning: If two premises are true, the conclusion COULD be true. YOu understand? One is black and white while the second one has room for a grey area? I don't know why I have to spell this out for you.

Furthermore, your example on "logical deduction", wasn't "logical", nor was it "deduction" in any way. You completely missed the point by confusing your second premise with the conclusion. Stop embarassing yourself with these posts. Pseudointellectuals don't belong here.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Wow.. Unbelievable. I should tell Rex that there should be an IQ test before one can join this forum (you would fail obviously).
In deductive reasoning, if both premises are true, the conclusion HAS to be true. What don't you understand about that? Are you daft? Incapable of understanding simple concepts?

That's exactly my point. Both of what you said was dependant on possibility. This is why it wasn't a deduction. Hell, you said it yourself to contain possibility and that it wasn't 100% true. Listen carefully now, I'm going to say this ONCE:

This is why what you said was not a logical deduction because it wasn't 100% true. It was inductive logic.

As I said previously, patronizing me won't strengthen your argument.

Furthermore, your example on "logical deduction", wasn't "logical", nor was it "deduction" in any way. You completely missed the point by confusing your second premise with the conclusion. Stop embarassing yourself with these posts. Pseudointellectuals don't belong here.

If Pseudo intellectuals do not belong here, why are you posting?

Yes, I admit that was an accident. I meant to have them the other way around. That was a fallacy on my part and I apologize ...

BUT this does not change that what you said simply was NOT a logical deduction.

Yes, I admit that was an accident. I meant to have them the other way around. That was a fallacy on my part and I apologize ...

BUT this does not change that what you said simply was NOT a logical deduction. [/B]

Assertion, deduction, whatever. My mistake on that part, I didn't properly introduce the premises nor conclusion so its hearsay.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Assertion, deduction, whatever. My mistake on that part, I didn't properly introduce the premises nor conclusion so its hearsay.

Alright then. I've got to jet. My friend has arrived.

My apologies. I wasn't even reading what I myself wrote.

Eh, don't worry about it. I did the same thing.

😂

What the..

Originally posted by kamhal
Actually you did no less then the fallacy of the modus ponens...

There's no such thing as a "fallacy of modus ponens."

Rather, there are only instances where modus ponens can't be applied. Modus ponens can only be applied in the absolute, i.e. with the quantifier "all."

zOMG! Illustrious!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_4r6GjgWDI this neva gts old I don care how Non canon it is. But Seriously I say Nihilus just because of his whole killer of worlds thing. Only one who sands a chance is palpy with Force Storm

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Sadly it is. Revan pillaged the underground cities while NIhilus gained the technique while on the surface, for a shorter time. It is LOGICALLY possible and probable that Revan knew this technique because of this. Not to mention POD and his holocron. That IS logical deduction.

Revan may have known of it, but he sure as hell wouldnt have been able to use it even if he's life depended on it. Kreia explicitly stated that that particular Force-Drain Technique of Nihilus is not something that can be learned, rather one must experience it first hand. And I dont recall Revan personally going through a kind of tragedy so severe as what Nihilus experienced in Malachor V in the Mandalorian Wars, that wouldve allowed him to use it, much less do it on the same magnitude as Nihilus did.

I don't recall anything about having to experience to learn it but Revan wasn't on Malachor V when the mass shield generator was released, Nihilus was.

She did say it. When you(as the Exile) ask her about Nihilus. As for the Malachor issue, I was merely referencing it to point out how Nihilus acquired that technique which was due to the horrors he experienced in Malachor(i.e releasing the Mass Shadow generator for the first time) and how I dont recall Revan experiencing something of that kind throughout his lifetime, that wouldve allowed him to use that drain ability as well.

*Raises hand*I would only like to point out it's almost impossible for Revan to have learned the technique on Malachor, as by Kreia's own words it is something which cannot be taught, but must be experienced firsthand(or something like that, I'll look for the quote).

I would also like to point out that this technique seems to rely on force bonds. Basicly nihilus creates a force bond with the target and suck his life out. Now, i don't want to disapoint anyone but it seems Revan knew a lot about force bonds. Mical says Revan was the one who most studied such subject("It was rumored that Revan studied Force Bonding deeply during his many apprenticeships before leaving for the Mandalorian Wars."-Wookipedia), kreia implies that Revan used force bonds to turn all Republic's soldiers to his own soldiers and i think HK-47 even said that Revan said that the Exile's ability to easily create force bonds would be his doom (not sure what he mean by this though). So, if Revan knew so much about force bonds, he may have been able to counter Nihilus' technique, and maybe that's why he was the Dark Lord and Nihilus stayed in Malachor after the end of the Mandalorian Wars...

But like the exile, he made force bonds easily, which would make him easier to use the technique on. You might be right but there is no proof for that.

That's the problem with Nihilus. His abilities don't exactly seem ones from a sith but more like a semi-god or something... I always find it literally a crap that he killed hundreds of jedis and the miralukas with 1 simple attack...

it is pretty lame