Originally posted by Creshosk
You're really starting to sound paranoid with all this talk of concpiracies to get out of proving your claim.Now quit weasling and provide your evidence. I'm not going to say that it doesn't exist. Because I don't know if it does or not, but for some reason you don't seem to feel like you have to prove your claims. I think its the "it is NOT up to us to provide proof" that gives me that impression.
It's isn't up to us.
If nvr is incapable of providing due cause for doubting Jurgen's description of the events, then there is no reason to call his description of the events into question.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Circular reasoning fallacy."It's true because it says its true."
I can claim the bible is true, because it says its true in the bible?
Correction, it's true because Dan(the guy who made the comment in question) said it's true.
Posted by Dan Jurgens on Monday, February 23 2004 at 20:11:06 GMT
After numerous e-mails from friends pointing to a minor firestorm of sorts regarding my comments relating to the power levels of Thor and Superman, I thought some clarity might help.
Yes, in the exchange, I was asked if Superman was a million times more powerful than Thor. I said yes.
I also chuckled as I said it, a very important part of the response that did not translate into print. I don't blame Rich as he gave me the chance to edit the interview. Quite frankly, it never occurred to me that anyone would seriously think that statement was an accurate representation of my belief on the matter.
So... we screwed up.
Superman is NOT a million times more powerful than Thor. In my book, he is probably not even twice as powerful as Thor. Superman has more expansive powers than Thor, IMO, thanks to his vision powers, etc.
I also think they fight quite differently. Thor tends to be more of a brawny reactionary type, while Superman probably fights with a more strategic approach. Thor is more likely to cut loose with the full measure of his powers as he does not have the "dampers" on that power that Superman was raised with. Both qualities can be an advantage or disadvantage, depending on the circumstances.
If they fought ten times, neither would win all ten, or even seven, eight or nine battles, for that matter. Not anymore than the Miami Dolphins would beat the Jets ten games out of ten.
I apologize for any confusion.
DJ
Originally posted by Silent MasterCircular reasoning fallacy again.
Correction, it's true because Dan(the guy who made the comment in question) said it's true.Posted by Dan Jurgens on Monday, February 23 2004 at 20:11:06 GMT
After numerous e-mails from friends pointing to a minor firestorm of sorts regarding my comments relating to the power levels of Thor and Superman, I thought some clarity might help.
Yes, in the exchange, I was asked if Superman was a million times more powerful than Thor. I said yes.
I also chuckled as I said it, a very important part of the response that did not translate into print. I don't blame Rich as he gave me the chance to edit the interview. Quite frankly, it never occurred to me that anyone would seriously think that statement was an accurate representation of my belief on the matter.
So... we screwed up.
Superman is NOT a million times more powerful than Thor. In my book, he is probably not even twice as powerful as Thor. Superman has more expansive powers than Thor, IMO, thanks to his vision powers, etc.
I also think they fight quite differently. Thor tends to be more of a brawny reactionary type, while Superman probably fights with a more strategic approach. Thor is more likely to cut loose with the full measure of his powers as he does not have the "dampers" on that power that Superman was raised with. Both qualities can be an advantage or disadvantage, depending on the circumstances.
If they fought ten times, neither would win all ten, or even seven, eight or nine battles, for that matter. Not anymore than the Miami Dolphins would beat the Jets ten games out of ten.
I apologize for any confusion.
DJ
And now you're starting to do an activity I think is called post spam by repeating a large block of text repeatedly.
It's not concrete evidence as it commits the circular reasoning fallacy.
Originally posted by KK the GreatInsulting me isn't helping your case.
You have done no such thing.Liar.
Third party independant research would be an example.
And you've also just commited the surpressed evidence fallacy.
Do you want me to quote myself where I initially said that a trusted third party would suffice?
Or are you going to keep trolling?
That's a rhetorical question by the way, I don't expect an answer.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Insulting me isn't helping your case.Third party independant research would be an example.
That's not an example.
I asked you to make up a theoretical piece of evidence that would be capable of offering the proof you demand.
Anyway, what would stop me from calling into question the third party's validity by supposing that Marvel was holding the researcher's daughter hostage and forcing him to trump up fake research?
Originally posted by Silent MasterI have given you an example, be it essay or interveiw with someone else, I don't particularly care. It could be documents of some sort.
Since you won't tell me what kind of proof you would actually accept, how about giving me one good reason not to believe Dan in regards to what he meant by his comments.
So you have no evidence. By this point in time it's pretty damned clear.
Originally posted by Creshosk
I have given you an example, be it essay or interveiw with someone else, I don't particularly care. It could be documents of some sort.So you have no evidence. By this point in time it's pretty damned clear.
You have already stated that you wouldn't trust Dan's word so why should I beileve you'll trust the words of someone who has no way of knowing Dan's thoughts.
I find it odd that you can't even tell us what kind of proof you'll accept.
Originally posted by Silent MasterYou haven't even tried anything else. So you're a mind reader now that knows exactly what I'm going to say and what I'm going to do?
You have already stated that you wouldn't trust Dan's word so why should I beileve you'll trust the words of someone who has no way of knowing Dan's thoughts.I find it odd that you can't even tell us what kind of proof you'll accept.
I've already given you plently of examples. That's the slothful induction fallacy.
Now please provide the evidence of your claim. You expect others to provide evidnce of their claims, but cannot return the curtousey?