Originally posted by psy_blade
Sue once said to Emma Frost that Emma isn't the only one who has power that work at the speed of thought. Then she hit Emma with her force field.Then there was one villain who was able to blast through Sues shield because he said that his blast is of the same wave/energy that Sue has been letting pass through her force field to maintain communication with Reed. Storm's power had an effect through Sues shield because Sue was letting it. They were helping each other in that situation.
Wrong. Sue has no control over this. She had no control over whether or not Storm can use her powers through her force-field nor did she have any control over Wizard's weapon. Wizard created that weapon for the sole purpose of passing through her field. Again, Sue has no control over this.
Originally posted by 2damnloudThat's what you just commited because I never said that you said that. 🙂
Strawman
Originally posted by 2damnloudNo, the fact that that's what you think you're doing.
The fact that affirming the antecedent is a valid sound argument?Modus Ponens, Pal.✅
Deal
You're not doing an if A is true then B is true; A is true therefore B is true.
You're doing if A is true then B is true; B is true therefore A is true.
🙂
If Storm can effect the inside then she can effect the outside. She effected the outside, therefore she can effect the inside.
Your conclusion that Storm can effect the inside based on her effecting the inside has no supportive evidence and you're relying on Affirming the consequent in order to prove your invalid claim.
Originally posted by Rutog98Too bad you have no proof and are relying on pure storm fanboyism.
Wrong. Sue has no control over this. She had no control over whether or not Storm can use her powers through her force-field nor did she have any control over Wizard's weapon. Wizard created that weapon for the sole purpose of passing through her field. Again, Sue has no control over this.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Too bad you have no proof and are relying on pure storm fanboyism.
The burden of proof is on your side. You cannot just give Sue the power to allow powers to work through her field or not. You have to prove that she can block out Storm. There is nothing in the panel that gives Sue this ability.
Originally posted by Creshosk
That's what you just commited because I never said that you said that. 🙂
Lying.
Originally posted by CreshoskNo, the fact that that's what you think you're doing.
You're not doing an if A is true then B is true; A is true therefore B is true.
You're doing if A is true then B is true; B is true therefore A is true.
🙂
If Storm can effect the inside then she can effect the outside. She effected the outside, therefore she can effect the inside.
Your conclusion that Storm can effect the inside based on her effecting the inside has no supportive evidence and you're relying on Affirming the consequent in order to prove your invalid claim.
😂 Keep up kid
Btw, Strawman
If Storm can affect the weather through Sue's field from the inside(A), then she can affect Sue's shield from outside in(B). Storm has shown the ability to affect the weather through Sue's shield from the inside(A), therefore she can, in all probability affect the weather inside Sue's shield from the outside(B).
If A, then B
A
Therefore, B
Affirming the antecedant(Modus Ponens).
A valid and sound argument.
Moral of the story, Sue dies all kinds of ways. 😂
PWNED
Originally posted by Rutog98Nope, You have yet to prove that storm can effect the inside of the forcefeild... and affirming the consequent doesn't constitue as proof.
The burden of proof is on your side.
Originally posted by Rutog98You have yet to prove your claim that Storm can effect the other side of the forcefeild. You cannot prove a negative.
You cannot just give Sue the power to allow powers to work through her field or not. You have to prove that she can block out Storm. There is nothing in the panel that gives Sue this ability.
Originally posted by 2damnloudPost where I said you did then. 🙄
Lying.
Originally posted by 2damnloudWishful thinking fallacy. I did not exagerate any claims that you've made.
😂 Keep up kidBtw, Strawman
Originally posted by 2damnloudwishful thinking.
If Storm can affect the weather through Sue's field from the inside[b](A), then she can affect Sue's shield from outside in(B). Storm has shown the ability to affect the weather through Sue's shield from the inside(A), therefore she can, in all probability affect the weather inside Sue's shield from the outside(B).If A, then B
A
Therefore, BAffirming the antecedant(Modus Ponens).
A valid and sound argument.
Moral of the story, Sue dies all kinds of ways. 😂
PWNED [/B]
It's affirming the consequent. No matter how you reword it. You're saying that because she did it one way she can do it the other way.
And by this point you're trolling agian. Reported for trolling. 🙂
Originally posted by Creshosk
Post where I said you did then. 🙄
You implied it by asking a rhetorical question.
Originally posted by CreshoskWishful thinking fallacy. I did not exagerate any claims that you've made.
You presensted a falsified misconstrued version of my argument.
Strawman's still standing tall.
Originally posted by Creshosk
wishful thinking.It's affirming the consequent. No matter how you reword it. You're saying that because she did it one way she can do it the other way.
And by this point you're trolling agian. Reported for trolling. 🙂
Nope.
I didn't affirm any consequent. I affirmed the antecedant.
My conclusion was based on A being true(which it is).
Modus Ponens--A valid and sound argument.
Be off.
To put the nail in the coffin even more.
It seems that Sue had 0.000000 control over the atmosphere in her shield which further illustrates that my argument is valid.
She's sweating bullets here.
http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iw2qj6.jpg
Storm FTW.
NEXT!✅
Originally posted by 2damnloudYou infered it actually cause I never inended it... So you can't prove that I said that you said that? Then it's neither strawman nor lying. 🙂
You implied it by asking a rhetorical question.
Originally posted by 2damnloudsorry, has to be exagerated. 🙂 Which its not. so sorry, no strawman except on your part now. 😉
You presensted a falsified misconstrued version of my argument.Strawman's still standing tall.
Originally posted by 2damnloudWishful thinking fallacy.
Nope.I didn't affirm any consequent. I affirmed the antecedant.
Or as you'd call it. "Lying." 🙂
Originally posted by 2damnloudheh, taking the ad hoc litterally.
My conclusion was based on A being true(which it is).
Originally posted by 2damnloudWhich is not what you used. Wishful thinking fallacy to say that you did.
Modus Ponens--A valid and sound argument.
Originally posted by 2damnloudAnd more trolling. 🙂
Be off.
Sorry, but you're failing miserably to prove your case.
Originally posted by Creshosk
You infered it actually cause I never inended it... So you can't prove that I said that you said that? Then it's neither strawman nor lying. 🙂sorry, has to be exagerated. 🙂 Which its not. so sorry, no strawman except on your part now. 😉
Wishful thinking fallacy.
Or as you'd call it. "Lying." 🙂
heh, taking the ad hoc litterally.
Which is not what you used. Wishful thinking fallacy to say that you did.
And more trolling. 🙂
Sorry, but you're failing miserably to prove your case.
This was PATHETICermmhappy
I figured you couldn't get around it, but DAMN. 😂
Originally posted by 2damnloudNon-sequiter. doped
To put the nail in the coffin even more.It seems that Sue had 0.000000 control over the atmosphere in her shield which further illustrates that my argument is valid.
She's sweating bullets here.
http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iw2qj6.jpg
Storm FTW.
NEXT!✅
Her not having control of the atmosphere in her forcefeild does nothing to prove that Storm will. 🙂
