Originally posted by The_Tempest
Quotes aren't rendered invalid when they are contradicted. They're also rendered invalid when material contradicts those quotes, not specifically quotes. If you can't answer the status of OOU, you don't really have a leg to stand on, especially if OOU does not cover any material written after the fact. Your "open shut case" goes to "eh maybe".
Unless if you screwed up your posting and are going to edit it, it looks like you conveniently cropped responses to four of the five quotes. I'll take your concession for what it is. 👆
As for your claim that one quote wouldn't be enough because statements aren't "infallible", you're attacking a bizarre strawman. My point was that the burden of proof shifts on you when there are sources against you - not that those sources are infallible. I never even said that you were wrong, lmao. There's a subtle distinction there, and I'm embarrassed for you that you didn't figure it out.
That doesn't matter though, since you never bothered to continue refuting all of my sources, and I only gave you like half of them.
Unless if you screwed up your posting and are going to edit it, it looks like you conveniently cropped responses to four of the five quotes. I'll take your concession for what it is. thumb up
I never even said that you were wrong, lmao. There's a subtle distinction there, and I'm embarrassed for you that you didn't figure it out.
Not only are you clearly wrong about literally every point you made
That doesn't matter though, since you never bothered to continue refuting all of my sources, and I only gave you like half of them.
Do you have anything that explicitly contradicts the quote in question?
Dude, you literally deleted responses to everything else from your reply. The only thing you addressed was the Ulic quote, where it still seems pretty clear that "succeeding where all others had failed in taming the dark side" means "he was better at using the dark side", unless if you can provide a superior interpretation.
My my, you really can't remember what you said less than 5 minutes ago.
And you are, but now I can clearly see that you can't actually argue my primary contention and so think that you can win brownie points by taking out one sentence I made and trying to disprove it. You can win on individual points and still lose the debate, and even if you had won anything, you still can't beat the central thesis, that there are sources for Sidious and this puts the burden of proof on you.
Now can you go back and actually respond to everything else?
Dude, you literally deleted responses to everything else from your reply. The only thing you addressed was the Ulic quote, where it still seems pretty clear that "succeeding where all others had failed in taming the dark side" means "he was better at using the dark side", unless if you can provide a superior interpretation.
And you are, but now I can clearly see that you can't actually argue my primary contention and so think that you can win brownie points by taking out one sentence I made and trying to disprove it. You can win on individual points and still lose the debate, and even if you had won anything, you still can't beat the central thesis, that there are sources for Sidious and this puts the burden of proof on you.Now can you go back and actually respond to everything else?
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
I'm not saying the quote doesn't exist. So I'm not sure what you're asking me. Even if I did have material to contradict it (like a lot Valkorion's accomplishments), that doesn't mean the quote doesn't exist.
............................................I think you were right to ask me on FB, because this isn't aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanywhere near where we need to be lol.
I am going to assume you're continuing to make things up when you're backed into a corner. Insecure AND delusional. Your college years are going to be great.
Is this supposed to be a logical argument?
I've taken all of your quotes and I've argued them successfully.
No, you responded to them once (like claiming an Ultimate Guide was a PoV narration) and then deleted my replies.
Out of the 5 you posted only 1 seemed purely OOU and inarguable.
ROFLAMO!
You just conceded that there's an inarguable quote against you. Nice. 👆
"I don't think it means what you think it means".
Which isn't an actual argument - given that you deleted my replies to your point, lmao.
Literally the argument you just made was already preempted in the quote you were responding to. Something doesn't have to be infallible to constitute evidence, lmao. I was pointing out that the burden of proof rests on you now that there are a multitude of sources arrayed against you - that they aren't 100% infallible doesn't mean they can't be used, kek.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Yeah, Valk is better and seems a bit more original. They changed him a bit for a reason, thinking no one would notice.So you prefer Valk over Bane? Obviously you put him well over Bane, right? How about Vitiate (before Ziost)?
I think they just don't care that we notice. He really is a completely reinvented character now. It's blatant how different he is.
Yeah, Valks cooler than Bane. And yes, Valkiate is stronger than Bane. IMO Vitiate is almost as strong as he is post Ziost. Maybe even just AS strong. There isn't actually a difference since they've always been the same guy.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Is this supposed to be a logical argument?No, you responded to them once (like claiming an Ultimate Guide was a PoV narration) and then deleted my replies.
ROFLAMO!
You just conceded that there's an inarguable quote against you. Nice. 👆
Which isn't an actual argument - given that you deleted my replies to your point, lmao.
Literally the argument you just made was already preempted in the quote you were responding to. Something doesn't have to be infallible to constitute evidence, lmao. I was pointing out that the burden of proof rests on you now that there are a multitude of sources arrayed against you - that they aren't 100% infallible doesn't mean they can't be used, kek.
Ok so from this entire rage post we've established a few things
1. Your argument was torn to shreds
2. Because your argument was torn to shreds and you're unwilling to admit it, you went from "well there aren't 12 sources" to "well here are 5", to "well I only need 1".
3. Your point about inarguable OOU isn't really a point since I never argued the validity, so you're creating arguments in your head and arguing against those. I believe that's a strawman and you need to come back to reality 👆
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
1. Your argument was torn to shreds
Which is why you deleted my replies, and then deleted my pointing out that you deleted my replies? Of course. 👆
2. Because your argument was torn to shreds and you're unwilling to admit it, you went from "well there aren't 12 sources" to "well here are 5", to "well I only need 1".
These are not mutually exclusive contentions, lmao. I can say "I have 12 sources, but even if I only had one, that would be enough". This is an even-if; the two statements don't contradict one another.
But as I already explained to you in what you just f*cking quoted, the most you can get out of this is to nitpick me on individual points you think I lost on, but that does not win you the overarching debate.
3. Your point about inarguable OOU isn't really a point since I never argued the validity, so you're creating arguments in your head and arguing against those. I believe that's a strawman and you need to come back to reality 👆
Actually, you have in just the other thread by calling them "theoretical", lawl.
Which is why you deleted my replies, and then deleted my pointing out that you deleted my replies? Of course. thumb up
These are not mutually exclusive contentions, lmao. I can say "I have 12 sources, but even if I only had one, that would be enough". This is an even-if; the two statements don't contradict one another.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
I didn't delete replies.
Show me where you replied to my responses, then. Show me where you replied to my arguments about how the Ultimate Guide isn't Vader' PoV, about why the OOU nature of narrators doesn't depend on whether Vitiate was written yet, etc.
It's not an even if.
Um...yes, yes it is, lol.
"I have 12 sources"
"I only need one"
These two statements don't contradict one another, and function as an "even-if". This is really, really basic propositional logic that you're being destroyed on. 👆