😐
KT, you said it's "downright laughable" and "dead square in the middle of stupid" to say Sidious "would solo somebody he lost to and has never beaten."
You are more than welcome to try and explain how that doesn't mean Sidious can't beat Mace, but it's precisely BECAUSE I am "better at English" [than you] that I know you can't.
There's also this:
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
I would even touch your utterly laughable idiotic view that Sids woudl Solo.. He would do no such thing.. In fact, by canon sources... Sids couldln't even beat Mace.. let alone solo.
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Agreed but an even worse slippery slope is that Sids woudl Solo somebody that he already lost to.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
😐KT, you said it's "downright laughable" and "dead square in the middle of stupid" to say Sidious "would solo somebody he lost to and has never beaten."
You are more than welcome to try and explain how that doesn't mean Sidious can't beat Mace, but it's precisely BECAUSE I am "better at English" [than you] that I know you can't.
Either you're being obtuse on purpose because your ASSumption on my post was wrong... or I gave you more credit than you deserve for your english. There is literally no in between. We'll see from your next post which it is.
You do understand the difference between can't and hasn't right? Saying somebody hasn't done something in no way shape or form means that can't do something. Could it mean that...yes.. does it always mean that or even mean that most of the time... no. That simple break down of the english language proves exactly where you went wrong.. and how I never said he couldn't beat Mace... Well besides the obvious of me NEVER using the word can't.
Not only was that your first reading comprehension error but it was made worse by a quote mining fallacy. The context of the conversation was saying it's not logical to think somebody would beat TWO... yes TWO people.. when he hasn't even beaten one of those people one v one.. and in fact lost. I am 100% correct in saying that is not logical and falls into the category of possible but certianly not probable. Let's use a real world example....
Would it be logical to say GSP could beat a Prime Matt Hughes AND Carlos Condit at the same time? Doesn't seem so because GSP already lost to a prime matt hughes. So how would adding condit not further tip the scales into the highly unlikely category? Sure he could, but more than likely he wouldn't. Same thing here... Sids already lost to Mace.. has never beaten Mace.. yet you're going to give Mace strong help and still think Sids can win? That is bording on stupid.. yet nobody is saying it's not possible.
Another example... Is it safe to say the Patriots have NEVER beaten the Giants in a superbowl? Of course it is.. because they haven't. However, that isn't teh same thing as they couldn't beat the Giants in a superbowl. In fact, it's beyond me how you could even make that comparison. Those two words aren't mutually inclusive.. in fact they are mutually exclusive. The most you coudl say about my quotes is that it's possible I'm saying Sids can't beat Mace... that would take a lot of inference and assumptions to reach such a conclusion.. but sure.. one could. However, that wasn't what I was sayign nor is that the likely conclusion that one would reach with what I said.
Again, I simply said Mace HASN'T beaten Mace... That isn't the same as saying Sids couldn't beat Mace. Now, we're going to see if I gave you too much credit or you're being obtuse on purpose.
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Point is, it's a worse slippery slope and done right laughable to say Sids would solo somebody he already lost to and has NEVER beaten. That is pretty much beyond logic and dead square in the middle of stupid.
^ You fail entirely to mention Starkiller. All you mention is "somebody [Sidious] has already lost to and has NEVER beaten" [Mace] and claim that it's "laughable," "beyond logic," and "dead square in the middle of stupid" to believe Sidious could beat that person [Mace].
If your intention was to claim it is "laughable" and "beyond logic and dead square in the middle of stupid" to argue Sidious could beat Mace AND Starkiller, you probably should have mentioned Starkiller to begin with.
QED, you apparently mistyped and the error is yours. 👆
Originally posted by The_Tempest
^ You fail entirely to mention Starkiller. All you mention is "somebody [Sidious] has already lost to and has NEVER beaten" [Mace] and claim that it's "laughable," "beyond logic," and "dead square in the middle of stupid" to believe Sidious could beat that person [Mace].If your intention was to claim it is "laughable" and "beyond logic and dead square in the middle of stupid" to argue Sidious could beat Mace AND Starkiller, you probably should have mentioned Starkiller to begin with.
QED, you apparently mistyped and the error is yours. 👆
Actually I didn't.. you quoted mine something and were called out on your fallacy for doing so. If you read the conversation yo u would KNOW I was addressing int. post about him SOLOING Mace and starkiller. Then I even mention him SOLOING in the very post you quoted. What else could I be talking about when using the word SOLO? How do you solo a one v one fight? Solo is used when referencing ONE PERSON.. ON A TEAM... not needing help and beating another TEAM.. is that not when the term solo is used?
At least I'm glad you concended that NO PLACE in my post did I mention Sids not being about to beat Mace. Concession accepted on that point.
facepalm
Saying Sidious couldn't solo Mace makes contextual and syntactical sense even if the argument is dumb. What it means is that Sidious alone can't beat Mace: in other words, he can't solo him.
Based on your mistyped sentence, the unintended point read fine. Your sentence very clearly intimates that it is laughable and beyond logic to argue that Sidious could beat Mace alone.
If that's not what you intended, your sentence should have named Starkiller or alluded to his presence.
QED, the error is yours. Try not to be so clumsy next time.
Incorrect.... this is only addressing your quote mining fallacy which you were guilty of. Don't think I didn't notice you not addressing what I said. I'll ask again to see you squirm again... When the term Solo or soloing is used... Is that not used when talking about a person on a TEAM beating another TEAM by themselves? Is that not when that term is used?
Now, this wasn't your only error and don't think I didn't notice your exclusion of the other point. Even if you say I didn't mention StarK... that doesn't change the fact that I never EVER said Sids COULDN'T beat Mace.. I said he HASN'T beaten Mace. So I'll ask again.. you do understand the difference between Hasn't and can't right? Here's a hint.. they aren't mutually inclusive. Should I repeat the examples I used to show how can't isn't worlds apart from hasn't?
Solo means alone, KT. Sure, it's common usage here refers to situations with multiple opponents. But your sentence vey clearly only mentions ONE opponent. You said it's laughable that Sidious "would SOLO SOMEBODY."
Guess how many people SOMEBODY refers to, KT. Hint: it's less than 2.
And you have yet to explain how determining that arguing X would occur is laughable, beyond logic, and in the middle of stupid means you think X is possible.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Your jealousy of my skills as a wordsmith is amusing, but it's not my fault that you have all the finesse of an epileptic with polio.
From a guy who can't even quote my post correctly, this is a knee slapper.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Kindly direct me to where in this thread I said as much.
Isn't this what you were driving at with your 'We can't logically conclude that the outcome of a singular contest between peers represents a general rule unless otherwise notified.' It seems to be exactly in line with what I said you said.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Its hardly a strawman when I'm merely questioning what your argument is. You did and do seem to be arguing that the fact that Windu has beaten him is irrelevant. When I tried to say that Windu winning is still an important piece of evidence you flatly mocked me and ignored it. I can hardly be blamed for taking away that impression, now can I?
Originally posted by The_Tempest
By their very different definitions, the two terms are very different. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or if your fluency in the English language is tenuous but I'm not interested in that rigamarole in either case.
Your own definition refers to an 'instance' as being part of 'process or series of events'.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
I never claimed Windu couldn't replicate his win, but you seem so keen on combating a caricature rather than the real deal, so feel free to have this debate (both sides of it) on your own if you aren't up to the task. 👆
No, you merely implied it oh so subtly by pointing out that Sidious is his equal is dueling and his superior in the Force. You are clearly arguing for him, even if you are not outright stating it.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Perhaps if Mace demonstrated a clear and decisive advantage I would be amenable to the idea that he would take a majority, but he didn't and I'm not. Sidious is, at the very least, a comparable duelist and a superior Force user. Drawing on their respective abilities and capabilities, he enjoys a clear advantage as Intrepid37 and Mizukage_Yoda have both respectably demonstrated.
You mean other than his advantages in terms of Vapaad and Shatterpoint? They were enough of an advantage for him to already defeat Sidious once. Whereas Sidious' own advantage in terms of Force power failed to defeat Windu or give him a tangible advantage, despite the fact that he's described as assaulting him with the Force at least 3 times across a variety of media in that fight. Imo Windu has enough to negate Sidious' Force attacks and force him into a duel which he will win thanks to Shatterpoint, as he did already in their fight.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Solo means alone, KT. Sure, it's common usage here refers to situations with multiple opponents. But your sentence vey clearly only mentions ONE opponent. You said it's laughable that Sidious "would SOLO SOMEBODY."Guess how many people SOMEBODY refers to, KT. Hint: it's less than 2.
And you have yet to explain how determining that arguing X would occur is laughable, beyond logic, and in the middle of stupid means you think X is possible.
Good... I'm glad to see some concessions here. I didn't see the need to mention multiple people since the person I was talking to was very clear on our subject i.e. Sids soloing Mace and Starkiller. The reason i focused and mentioned Mace.. is because that is the laughable part of his premise and conclusion. How could he solo a team when he's already lost to one of the team members one v one. Sure I could've said it that way.. but again.. he was well aware of our discussion. So you're correct in saying I didn't say Starkiller in my post and thus it could be up to reader what I meant in a sense.
Lastly, it's very simple... I could say it's laughable and beyond stupid to think the Rams will win the superbowl next year. Doesn't mean it's not possible though. Come on tempest you understand this distinction as well. Something could be a laughable and stupid premise.. doesn't mean it's not possible.. even if the that possibility is .000001%. While still possible.. the extreme nature of the odds makes calling it a stupid scenerio valid.. hence the low odds. Generally I tend to go with what is probable not possible and I think you do the same.
Nephthys
From a guy who can't even quote my post correctly, this is a knee slapper.
Where was your post quoted incorrectly?
Nephthys
Isn't this what you were driving at with your 'We can't logically conclude that the outcome of a singular contest between peers represents a general rule unless otherwise notified.' It seems to be exactly in line with what I said you said.
One would assume that if I believed it was illogical to argue Windu could beat Sidious again, I would have very clearly said as much.
The fact that I did not say as much suggests that I don’t believe what you think I do.
My advisement not to conflate an instance with a trend is simply good sense: That Windu defeated Sidious before does not require that he beat him again; the fact that the two dueled with such a unique level of parity further means that even if the contextual factors were similar that the outcome is not certain.
Nephthys
Its hardly a strawman when I'm merely questioning what your argument is. You did and do seem to be arguing that the fact that Windu has beaten him is irrelevant. When I tried to say that Windu winning is still an important piece of evidence you flatly mocked me and ignored it. I can hardly be blamed for taking away that impression, now can I?
It’s certainly a strawman when you caricaturize my argument by asking an [apparently] rhetorical question unassociated with my actual argument. You even deride an answer that wasn’t given!
Nephthys
Your own definition refers to an 'instance' as being part of 'process or series of events'.
You’re parroting the definition as though it somehow supports your argument and undermines mine (which it doesn’t) rather than the reverse. What part of this non sequitur indicates Windu’s victory over Sidious is the certain or probable outcome here?
Nephthys
No, you merely implied it oh so subtly by pointing out that Sidious is his equal is dueling and his superior in the Force. You are clearly arguing for him, even if you are not outright stating it.
I have mentioned ad nauseam that the two are duelists of comparable skill; wouldn’t that suggest that Windu—again, whose skill with a blade (enhanced by Vaapad) rivals Sidious’s own—is capable of replicating it? I never claimed or implied that it was dumb luck that handed Windu victory; Sidious didn’t slip on a banana peel or anything.
I simply pointed out that the only consistent and observable advantage is with respect to Force mastery—an advantage which belongs to Sidious.
Nephthys
You mean other than his advantages in terms of Vapaad and Shatterpoint?
Vaapad only enabled Mace to fight Sidious on even terms; his natural abilities in the Force are insufficient to get the job done. Deferring to the novel’s interpretation of events means that the advantage of the shatterpoint charism is even more circumstantial: it’s Sidious Force-powered grip on slippery permacrete that causes him to hesitate and slow, enabling Mace to destroy his lightsaber. So we can credit that to an important contextual factor: terrain. 👆
Nephthys
They were enough of an advantage for him to already defeat Sidious once. Whereas Sidious' own advantage in terms of Force power failed to defeat Windu or give him a tangible advantage, despite the fact that he's described as assaulting him with the Force at least 3 times across a variety of media in that fight.
The script and graphic novel show Windu being ragdolled by a lone Force push, but recovering before Sidious can strike him down. The novel’s depiction of events shows that Windu was actually nearly killed by it—only “a desperate” Force push of his own altered his trajectory enough to avoid being thrown to his death.
So if we assume Sidious is confined to a lone Force push and that Mace can only be thrown against a wall, maybe?
Nephthys
Imo Windu has enough to negate Sidious' Force attacks and force him into a duel which he will win thanks to Shatterpoint, as he did already in their fight.
And you’re welcome to that interpretation and it certainly isn’t illogical to think Mace would win. But others seem to think Sidious’s superior Force powers are enough to get the job done and that’s a reasonable determination as well. 👆