Originally posted by Silent MasterWhich doesn't prove its not an insult, but it does confirm the socially inept accusations I made earlier. Disregard for another's feelings...
I don't care if he considers it an insult,
Originally posted by Silent MasterSo are you confirming or denying that you yourself are guilty of what you accuse others of? Of being a liar?
I don't, I believe I have already stated my reasons. As for being a liar and a hypocrite, most people are in regards to something, this topic just isn't one of them for me.
Originally posted by Silent MasterCan you prove Dan's motivations for such an action?
And he did lie, he stated that Marvel made Dan recant it, when Dan himself stated he was merely clarifying his comments once it became apparent people were taking a joke the wrong way.
How would it look for the company to openly admit they forced someone to take back comments about their intellectual properties? This does not prove that they did force him to, however its meant to shed doubt on the unproven supposition that it was merely clarifying comments by hinting at the possablity that Nvr might be right, and thus not a liar.
Originally posted by Creshosk
I'd suggest against giving suggestions that indicate that you don't know what you're talking about.Argumentum ad ignorantium is not just "a latin term".
Yes it is.
It absolutely is a latin term.
I's the name of a logical fallacy that is basically "an appeal to ignorance". Basically stating "We don't have any evidence of it, the opposite MUST be true."
Congratulations.
You've mastered the art of faking intelligence. I can tell you've been to college.
It would be much more convincing, though, if you used the term correctly.
We don't have information about WHY he recanted.
Au contraire (it's French--means "on the contrary"😉, we *do* have information about why he recanted. Specifically, that he didn't recant at all, but merely noted that he had been joking.
He states his intentions plainly. Speculation only comes into play when one asserts that he is lying to cover up some seedy Marvel conspiracy. At this point, the burden of proof falls firmly on the person making conspiratorial claims.
Originally posted by Silent MasterStrawman argument, and ad hominem.
I'm sorry, but you just lied, Dan stated why he clarified his comments in the links I provided.
Try again. And this time without the invalid arguments. I did not say that that was not the reason for certain. However I now challenge you to prove that that really IS the only reason like you imply it is.
A person might not openly admit to certain activities due to duress. This being certian pressures put upon a person to entice or force them to act a certain way.
Obviously he would not have stated that he was being forced to recant. As this would negate the spirit of it being recanted.
Now I'm not going to say that he was being forced to OR that he was doing it of his own free will. However I would like to see YOUR proof that it was of his own free will.
Originally posted by KK the GreatDid you miss where I used the word "just"?
Yes it is.It absolutely is a latin term.
Originally posted by KK the GreatAnd I can tell you haven't. Because you just failed at faking your intelligence by missing the word just. It IS a latin temr, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying its not JUST a latin term. As this latin term represents an idea.
Congratulations.You've mastered the art of faking intelligence. I can tell you've been to college.
It would be much more convincing, though, if you used the term correctly.
Originally posted by KK the GreatThis doesn't prove he did it of his own free will. As obviously him saying he wasn't would negate the nature of it being recanted.
Au contraire (it's French--means "on the contrary"😉, we *do* have information about why he recanted. Specifically, that he didn't recant at all, but merely noted that he had been joking.
Originally posted by KK the GreatIncorrect. I say I don't believe a person it is not suddenly on my shoulders. You are making the claim that he is doing it of his own free will. I chalenge you to prove the claim. And if you use the interveiw itself I'll call you on your circular reasoning fallacy.
He states his intentions plainly. Speculation only comes into play when one asserts that he is lying to cover up some seedy Marvel conspiracy. At this point, the burden of proof falls firmly on the person making conspiratorial claims.
Originally posted by Silent MasterCircular reasoning fallacy.
Dan stated it was the reason, I believe he would be the one person to know why he did something.
You cannot use that which is in question as evidence to support your claims that that which is in question is true.
It'd be like claiming the bible is ture because the bible itself says that it's true.
So again, where is your proof?
Originally posted by Silent MasterIt's not up to me to do your legwork for you. Do you have ANY proof that he was doing it of his own free will? Or are you as guilty as nvr of speculatiing without evidence?
Since we have established that you will not take Dan's word that he was just clarifying a comment. just what would you accept as proof?
Originally posted by Creshosk
It's not up to me to do your legwork for you. Do you have ANY proof that he was doing it of his own free will? Or are you as guilty as nvr of speculatiing without evidence?
I need to know what you consider proof, it would be a waste of time for me to start posting only for you to say 'this isn't proof' over and over again.
So, what would you consider proof?
Originally posted by Creshosk
Neither is trolling.Discussion of the interveiw is on topic, however harassing me in the manner that you are is trolling. Now do you have any proof or are you just going to keep trolling?
Proof please.
I'm not even going to bother pointing out the irony in a guy obsessed with naming fallacies simultaneously demanding proof of a negative.
And yes, I realize that it isn't really irony, but more the pop-culture bastardization of irony.
Originally posted by Silent MasterObviously as DAn saying it might be further masking any duress if it does indeed exist, and Marvel saying it would be the same, evidence from a trusted third party source that knows what they're doing would work.
I need to know what you consider proof, it would be a waste of time for me to start posting only for you to say 'this isn't proof' over and over again.So, what would you consider proof?
Know however that even if you are wrong (and I'm not saying that you are for sure) it will not destroy your credibility. Simply being wrong on one matter does not mean that you are wrong on every matter. If you find evidence to prove your claims I will apologize to you for my being wrong.
I will apologize now for the insults I hurled at you as well.
Originally posted by KK the GreatI'm not demanding proof of a negative. I'm demanding proof of claims that Dan WAS acting of his own free wil.
I'm not even going to bother pointing out the irony in a guy obsessed with naming fallacies simultaneously demanding proof of a negative.
Originally posted by KK the GreatAnd you still haven't provided proof of your claims that Dan recanted the statement of his own free will.
And yes, I realize that it isn't really irony, but more the pop-culture bastardization of irony.