Easy to say that you were being facetious after the fact, when nothing resembled a facetious remark. I'm not sure how being alive for 25,000 years, or rather in stasis, or being one of the most powerful dark jedi of her time, has anything to do with anything else. That time period is even more unknown than anything else and she could have either been a force titanic, an average force user, or somewhere in between.
DS
Btw, the fact that you don't find a distinction between actually being immortal and living for 1,00 years, and happening to be in some kind of stasis for 25,000 years, concerns me.
DS
That's a strawman? By claiming LS was being facetious and as a result, THATS not a strawman but somehow my statement is? You have got to be kidding me faunus. I want what you're smoking. Btw, he sounded dead serious.You have GOT to do better than that. At least make sense when you're defending someone, not illogical excuses.
Originally posted by Eminence
Who says I don't? I already acknowledged that he's erred with some of the routes he's walked that issue through. Stop deflecting.
You'll have to point out the logical discrepancy. You [deliberately or otherwise] misconstrued his words, and blatantly so. There are plenty of cases in which he used her age as a factor of poor arguments, but that wasn't one of them, and [b]I honestly doubt that anyone but you is actually having any trouble detecting the facetiousness. I suspect that this would be where your limited comprehension leaves us unable to progress any further. The one time I can recall you acknowledging a glaring comprehension error, which was back on PE in '09 or something, it took two or three pages and the collective efforts of Slash, S66, Nemesis, and myself, and I had to use not just boldface red, but boldface blue. Never again. [/B]
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.
Claiming that the other part was being facetious is about the only excuse you can make in this regard, and a horrible one at that. Why don't you just admit you (as usual) misused the term and needed to think quickly. I'll say this again so the smoke from that pipe leaves your brain. There is no discrepancy between our text and therefore there is no strawman.
DS
There isn't a deflection.
DS
I find the bolded part hilarious because you're the only one to point it out as facetiousness.
DS
I'm suspecting that you're not sober right now
DS
so I'll try and spell it out for you. Regardless of whether he was being facetious or not, there was no discrepancy between my text and his text. Therefore it's not a strawman. And it's "never again" because this time, you've lost your mind. Here, I'll help you out.Claiming that the other part was being facetious is about the only excuse you can make in this regard, and a horrible one at that.
Swiftly Google'd Page 1 Sources
[quote]Straw Man occurs when an opponent takes the original argument of his/her adversary and then offers a close imitation, or straw man, version of the original argument
"straw man" [...] relies on the creation of a false image of someone else's statements, ideas, or beliefs.
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[/quote]
DS
Why don't you just admit you (as usual) misused the term
Prove it.
Originally posted by Eminence
I'm one of the two other people to have addressed it, the other being the original poster and in agreement with my [correct] interpretation of very basic sarcasm.
I actually lol'd.
or by means of [false] assumptions.
Prove it. [/B]