Fandom Forums - View Single Post - naruto_659
Thread: naruto_659
View Single Post
Old 12-25-2013, 06:53 AM   #45
Writing speed: snail
Numinous's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 8,386
Thanked 11,563 Times in 3,932 Posts
Numinous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of light
Re: naruto_659

Originally Posted by Konnaha_yellow_flash View Post
(...) that was my only argument which you have just blown out of proportion as usual...

So tell me, oh wise one, how many lifeless narcissists perfectionist does it take to blow a simple difference of opinion out of proportion...
None, because the aggressive narcissist in the forum was the one who blew a single line into a narcissistic rage, accusing left an right of fallacies that don't even match the line in question.

I'll demonstrate how your original reply was idiotic further ahead.

He argued with an assumption, assuming I claimed this number of people more then himself which he portrayed as "WE", did not read my Posts, showing no proof of the claim...
You accused him of such in the past, you accused me of such in the past, you accused others of such in the past. Kael does not proof for a widely known claim of yours, or do you just have a really short memory?

thus argued with an assumption for one of his propositions so how can you not understand exactly where the "begging the question fallacy" was committed?

For your enlightenment: "The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof"
And you either didn't bother to read the rest of the Wikipedia article you pulled that from or you didn't even bother to comprehend it.

The formula of begging the question is:

A implies B and A is only valid because B is assumed.
In this case, A is the "we" you raged about and B is you saying people don't read your posts correctly. Considering I, someone who didn't make the argument, acknowledge the veracity of B, B is no longer assumed, it is factual. So the question can't be begged... unless you're on the defense trying to save your silly hide.

WHat question made? How is this a question exactly: "I always love how KYF argues we don't read his bullshit, when he does the same when trying to counter my post."

Question is why he answered my reply with nothing more then fallacies... And since I did read his post an replied, he is not making any logical sense to make such a red herring argument...
Wow, you're so stupid you commit three, THREE moronic statements in this quote alone.

1) That wasn't the post you replied with a non-sequitur, you moron, it was the original one. If you had any reading comprehension you'd catch this quick instead of playing the fool.

2)Once again, the non-native English speaker has to fetch the dictionary because the native speaker is too dumb to know his own language.

ques·tion n.1.
a. An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply.
b. An interrogative sentence, phrase, or gesture.
2. A subject or point open to controversy; an issue.
3. A difficult matter; a problem: a question of ethics.
4. A point or subject under discussion or consideration.
a. A proposition brought up for consideration by an assembly.
b. The act of bringing a proposal to vote.
6. Uncertainty; doubt: There is no question about the validity of the enterprise.
And I might as well put up the definition of answer:

an·swer n.1.
a. A spoken or written reply, as to a question.
b. A correct reply.
a. A solution, as to a problem.
b. A correct solution.
3. An act in retaliation or response: Our only possible answer was to sue.
4. Something markedly similar to another of the same class: cable TV's answer to the commercial networks' sportscasts.
5. Law A defendant's defense against charges.
So he did raise a question (not by inquiry but by bringing up an issue) and you answered it. So next time learn your own damn language before throwing shit at me.

3) What red herring fallacy? What new, unrelated issue did he bring for his post in reply to yours for it to be red herring? Or are you considering him pointing out your lack of reading comprehension a diversion from the topic?

1). I read his argument and clearly refuted his claims as well as opinions and nothing more!!!
All he did was use an assumption that I claimed all these people, which he referred to as "WE", did not read my posts, then I went and did the same which is not what happened at all...
It was nothing more then an excuse to not reply to my counter post due to the destruction of his previous argument, irrefutably...
Oh.... wow. You're delusional to think you destroyed any of his arguments when you didn't even read them properly to begin with, you dimwit. What you destroyed were arguments made from the straws of your imagination.

SO you did not notice that he assumed that I did not read his post, thus he did not read mine and merely answer my counter post with a fallacy ridden reply...
Except he was right when he countered your reply by saying you didn't read his post correctly. He was talking about whether Nagato had or not the knowledge to use the Rinnegan, not how much knowledge he had to use the Rinnegan. See the difference? So who's committing what fallacy here, KYF?

For your Enlightenment: "This is an informal fallacy that occurs when assuming that, if one wrong is committed, then another wrong will cancel it out."
And I ask you once again, where is the second wrong in kael's post to even purpose such thing? He only alludes to a single wrong (you doing the wrong you accuse others of doing), so he cancel out a wrong with another wrong if he lacks one of them. Or are you, by any chance, assuming that he does know he misreads your posts and is excusing himself by accusing you of the same? If so, you're plain mad by assuming such.

1). How is what you said even fall into the category a "naturalistic fallacy"???
A NATURALISTIC FALLACY=According to G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica, when philosophers try to define "good" reductively in terms of natural properties like "pleasant" or "desirable", they are committing the naturalistic fallacy.

2). I never claimed the lack of knowledge of where it came from and it's properties caused the user to NOT be able to use the RG "properly", ONLY that Obito's LACK of Power/stamina made it so HE not nagato, could use the RG Properly like how NAGATO used the RG ...
Wow, you're stupid and, again, in three ways.

1) The specific conversion I alluded to did NOT involve Obito in any way, only Nagato, so now you're mixing two different arguments you made. Zombie Jesus, you can't even keep track of the shit you say.

2) Nice reading of the opening phrase of the Wikipedia article and not the rest of it, smarty pants. Too bad you completely ignored that the naturalistic fallacy is about putting things as they ought to be, not as they are.

3) You DID commit the naturalistic fallacy considering you said this:

not true! If nagato had full knowledge of the RG then he would know it came from the EMS, thus be able to realize he could likely use EMS jutsu to activate and use susanoo like madara can...
But, KYF, Nagato never had the EMS, so even if he had full knowledge of the Rinnegan, that does not mean he would have knowledge of any Sharingan techniques.

In other words, you said that one that has full knowledge of Rinnegan is ought to know how to use the EMS, when that isn't the case for Nagato considering he never had EMS to begin with.

2). Your Committing a Begging the Question Fallacy by using an assumption of refuting ANYTHING about the Sage's Izanagi/SG Izanagi (which you did not) as a proposition without any proof of your assumption.
Just because your blind pride does not allow you to acknowledge that your argument has been logically refuted does not mean it wasn't. Like I said before, you're better off being silent about that shenanigan until any of it is actually alluded in the manga than to spout it again and again like it has any validity in the manga.

3)). I am not committing ANY fallacy by bringing up the FACT there is 2 known Izanagi's (lots of ironic blah blah blah)
I accuse you of argument from repetition and what you do? YOU REPEAT YOURSELF. By Cthulhu, your lack of reading comprehension is so gargantuan it starts to look like an endless abyss of irony. And more irony is accusing others of doing the stuff you do.

Merry Christmas KYF, and I hope Santa left in your sock a good book. You sorely need one.
My writings and ramblings:

Water of Ocean Darkest Chapters: 1 - 2
Weaver Chapters: 0 - 1 - 2 - 3

Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
ask me anything (12-25-2013), kael03 (12-25-2013)