ET zombie state - Page 2 - Fandom Forums
Fandom Forums



Go Back   Fandom Forums > Anime & Manga > Naruto Series > Naruto Manga

Naruto Manga Talk about the manga series Naruto here! Remember, this is manga only. No anime!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-05-2011, 08:08 AM   #16
kael03
Aspiring Physicist
 
Join Date: May 2010
Age: 28
Posts: 4,691
Thanks: 4,760
Thanked 8,718 Times in 3,842 Posts
kael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the rough
Re: ET zombie state

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Sasuke's: nothing as far as I recall
Sasuke's Susano'o's second right arm had the orb the Amaterasu blade came from. Which, btw, debunks the "all Susano'o have the Sword of Totsuka" argument.
kael03 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kael03 For This Useful Post:
ask me anything (12-05-2011), ckraizitee (12-13-2011), Numinous (12-05-2011)


Old 12-05-2011, 11:32 AM   #17
Numinous
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: ET zombie state

Quote:
Originally Posted by kael03 View Post
Sasuke's Susano'o's second right arm had the orb the Amaterasu blade came from. Which, btw, debunks the "all Susano'o have the Sword of Totsuka" argument.
Oh thanks for pointing out, I didn't remember of that. As you said, this further proves the Susanoo have different styles even if they have the same principle as base.
__________________
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:
kael03 (12-05-2011), Tmoore (12-06-2011)
Old 12-05-2011, 07:07 PM   #18
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: ET zombie state

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
I won't link because indeed there's no other theory to address this issue because this is a non-issue to begin with. Brought back by Edo Tensei in their pinnacle or demise, it does not matter in the bigger picture of things, since Kabuto already demonstrated he can tinker around with the Edo Tensei. That's what makes me so puzzled about this theory, the lack of conclusion that warrants it being made.
I have seen numerous discussions on the state that ET zombies can be brought back (though no other theories that address all the differences), and the jutsu has been called by some a plot no jutsu (a jutsu that has no real rules in how it operates, and is merely a mechanism to move the plot along). The fact that Kabuto played with ONE zombie doesn't all of a sudden make it a non-issue. Especially considering we have no idea what exactly he did, and the fact that he only did it to ONE zombie (which suggests that he wouldn't be doing it regularly) making the fact that he CAN tinker with it more of a non-issue than the state the zombies come back in.

The blog from this site in which I developed the theory is right here: http://www.fandom.com/fandom/naruto/...i-immortality/ . That was far from the first time I have had discussions about this on this site either. I'm pretty sure that I have all the holes covered with my theory at this point, but I am continuing to place it in new places to expose it to more people and realize more potential holes in my theory.

Though I could continue the discourse on the other topic of debate (I do have some sound arguments against what has been stated by both you and kael03), that's not what I formed this thread for, and I already stated that I didn't want to discuss it at length, so I will refrain.

As for the argument from ignorance statement I never used the lack of evidence as proof of anything, I was merely pointing out that certain evidence was lacking when someone else presented it, in other words, no I wasn't lol.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2011, 07:43 PM   #19
kael03
Aspiring Physicist
 
Join Date: May 2010
Age: 28
Posts: 4,691
Thanks: 4,760
Thanked 8,718 Times in 3,842 Posts
kael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the rough
Re: ET zombie state

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
Though I could continue the discourse on the other topic of debate (I do have some sound arguments against what has been stated by both you and kael03),
You may have "sound" arguments, but we have canonical evidence backing us up. Itachi's Susano'o was the only one to show having the Yata Mirror and Sword of Totsuka. Zetsu even pointed out that Orochimaru was searching for the Sword of Totsuka, but could never find it. The Yasaka Magatama appears to be a ranged ability used by Susano'o and not necessarily an "add-on" like the sword and mirror. Sasuke's Susano'o, before EMS, had the orb in the second right hand to form arrows used by the bow in the left hand. After EMS, the orb is still there and acts as a relay for Amaterasu to be used like the Sword of Totsuka. Only instead of sealing the victim in a world of drunken dreams, the sword sets the victim on fire with Amaterasu.

Quote:
that's not what I formed this thread for, and I already stated that I didn't want to discuss it at length, so I will refrain.
Too bad, that's what the thread has turned into. It happens so don't get your panties in a twist over it.

Quote:
As for the argument from ignorance statement I never used the lack of evidence as proof of anything, I was merely pointing out that certain evidence was lacking when someone else presented it, in other words, no I wasn't lol.
Your argument for Sasuke's and Madara's Susano'os having the Imperial Regalia was "Well, we haven't seen anything saying they don't have them, so it must be that all Susano'o have them". That's argument from ignorance. On top of using argument from ignorance, you were using a vastly different religion for Susano'o and a different country for the Imperial Regalia in an attempt to make your argument work.
kael03 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to kael03 For This Useful Post:
Numinous (12-05-2011)
Old 12-05-2011, 07:44 PM   #20
Numinous
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: ET zombie state

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
I have seen numerous discussions on the state that ET zombies can be brought back (though no other theories that address all the differences), and the jutsu has been called by some a plot no jutsu (a jutsu that has no real rules in how it operates, and is merely a mechanism to move the plot along). The fact that Kabuto played with ONE zombie doesn't all of a sudden make it a non-issue. Especially considering we have no idea what exactly he did, and the fact that he only did it to ONE zombie (which suggests that he wouldn't be doing it regularly) making the fact that he CAN tinker with it more of a non-issue than the state the zombies come back in.
The fact that the ET bodies can be tinkered, no matter the amount, makes the state the Edo Tensei come a non-issue period. And even if that wasn't canon, this theory simply lacks a conclusion that brings anything new. So Edo Iachi isn't ill, big whoop, anyone should know that it was made so for the fans who wandered how Itachi would fight without his unknown disease (and believe me, they were many). Really, Kishi at this point isn't going for straight consistency.

So, are you able to tell me where exactly this theory has any practical point that outdoes previous ones (like ET bringing people like they were shortly before death)? Because, as I read it, it hasn't.

Quote:
Though I could continue the discourse on the other topic of debate (I do have some sound arguments against what has been stated by both you and kael03), that's not what I formed this thread for, and I already stated that I didn't want to discuss it at length, so I will refrain.
Please, do tell where I and kael are wrong. Facing all the canon, all Susanoo have different skills. It's only by the means of speculation that one can say otherwise.

Quote:
As for the argument from ignorance statement I never used the lack of evidence as proof of anything, I was merely pointing out that certain evidence was lacking when someone else presented it, in other words, no I wasn't lol.
Really, do you even read what I wrote? Your argument can be summarized as "we haven't seen all the Susanoo's techniques, so why can't they all have the Imperial Regalia?". Any person that understands logic will tell you that's argument from ignorance, because you are basing your argument in the lack of complete knowledge on the matter, it being Susanoo.

And since burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, please post evidence that all Susanoo have all the Imperial Regalia.
__________________
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 User Says Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
kael03 (12-05-2011)
Old 12-05-2011, 08:27 PM   #21
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: ET zombie state

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
The fact that the ET bodies can be tinkered, no matter the amount, makes the state the Edo Tensei come a non-issue period. And even if that wasn't canon, this theory simply lacks a conclusion that brings anything new. So Edo Iachi isn't ill, big whoop, anyone should know that it was made so for the fans who wandered how Itachi would fight without his unknown disease (and believe me, they were many). Really, Kishi at this point isn't going for straight consistency.
You have this backwards.
Unless EVERY et zombie has been tinkered with, the fact that he can is a non-issue, ESPECIALLY considering that we have NO IDEA what was done.
Since the specifics of it are unknown, and since there is only one example of it, it becomes an oddity to be treated as something entirely different, rather than the new shining example of the jutsu.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
So, are you able to tell me where exactly this theory has any practical point that outdoes previous ones (like ET bringing people like they were shortly before death)? Because, as I read it, it hasn't.
ET doesn't bring people back to shortly how they were before death, the differences between Nagato and Itachi prove this. There is a detailed discussion on the matter on this site that you can peruse through the part I linked earlier.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Really, do you even read what I wrote? Your argument can be summarized as "we haven't seen all the Susanoo's techniques, so why can't they all have the Imperial Regalia?". Any person that understands logic will tell you that's argument from ignorance, because you are basing your argument in the lack of complete knowledge on the matter, it being Susanoo.
My argument could be summarized as "this isn't my theory, I'm posting someone else's as a possibility"
Talk about not being able to read:

I said I remember reading somewhere that this could be this way.
Someone says no, because we already know what it is.
I said no, we don't know this because it isn't known.

In other words that was never my argument that something was so, it was my argument that something wasn't necessarily not so; which while grammatically seems like the same thing (though terribly wrong), if you have played with logic puzzles at all, you should realize that it is emphatically different.
So no, it was NEVER an argument from ignorance, as it was never used as a supporting claim that anything was so.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
And since burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, please post evidence that all Susanoo have all the Imperial Regalia.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, but since I was merely stating it was a possibility, and not the way it was, I only had to prove that it was possible (not that it was so), or choose not to continue talking about it, And I chose not to.
That's not the purpose of this thread, I don't want to talk about it anymore, so I'm not going to.

I will not allow myself to be manipulated into being a parriah because I don't remember all the facets of some theory I could really care less about.
I created this thread to have the ET discussion, not this one.
I will talk to you about that or nothing from this point on.

Last edited by almightywood; 12-05-2011 at 08:44 PM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 04:39 AM   #22
Numinous
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: ET zombie state

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
You have this backwards.
Unless EVERY et zombie has been tinkered with, the fact that he can is a non-issue, ESPECIALLY considering that we have NO IDEA what was done.
Since the specifics of it are unknown, and since there is only one example of it, it becomes an oddity to be treated as something entirely different, rather than the new shining example of the jutsu.
Sorry, you're the one getting things backwards. It does not matter how much the tinkering was done, the simple fact it exists makes the state the ET come in a non-issue, because more abnormal cases can be fixed. This isn't a case of overwhelming majority so you can ignore the minority, this is a case of a new layer to the jutsu that has to be acknowledged. And since this new layer makes the previous layer (ET coming back at random states) obsolete, this is a non-issue.

Quote:
ET doesn't bring people back to shortly how they were before death, the differences between Nagato and Itachi prove this. There is a detailed discussion on the matter on this site that you can peruse through the part I linked earlier.
I asked about any practical point, not theoretical points. Does this make any ET hard/impossible to summon even if DNA and soul are available? Does this make any ET invalid (before you bring Nagato, he was capable to use ninjutsu even if crippled)? Does this have any long-term implications for the ET that weren't previously seen?

Quote:
My argument could be summarized as "this isn't my theory, I'm posting someone else's as a possibility"
Talk about not being able to read:
Just because you're paraphrasing someone else, it doesn't mean you can blame the argument itself for not being yours when you slip on it.

Quote:
I said I remember reading somewhere that this could be this way.
Someone says no, because we already know what it is.
I said no, we don't know this because it isn't known.
@ bolded And that's an argument from ignorance. Be it basing an argument or refusing another, you can't use the unknown nature of the matter to back you up, since that's fallacious.

Quote:
In other words that was never my argument that something was so, it was my argument that something wasn't necessarily not so; which while grammatically seems like the same thing (though terribly wrong), if you have played with logic puzzles at all, you should realize that it is emphatically different.
/facepalm

Let's see the chain of argument:

Quote:
I remember reading somewhere that these were the names of some buddhist religious treasures, along with susanoo, and that because of this supposedly every susanoo uses these legendary weapons. Though I can't recall where at the moment.
^This is a positive claim.

Quote:
You would recall wrong. Itachi is the sole possessor of all three treasures. They aren't attached to all Susano'o variants. Sasuke and Madara's versions of Susano'o have not shown the Yata Mirror or the Sword of Totsuka (the sword that Sasuke used to kill Zetsu was Amaterasu manipulated into a sword form).
^This is a negative claim, since it is meant to refute the positive claim and uses negative terms like "wrong" and "not".

Quote:
We haven't seen what each of the arms of either of those susano'o do either, so since each arm has a different weapon, you can't say for sure that they aren't.
And since you're refuting a negative claim, the rule of double negative=positive applies, therefore this is a positive claim, therefore you are obliged to present the proof.

Quote:
So no, it was NEVER an argument from ignorance, as it was never used as a supporting claim that anything was so.
Yes it was, and yes it was.

Quote:
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, but since I was merely stating it was a possibility,
Therefore you're claiming something, even if not strongly.

Quote:
I only had to prove that it was possible (not that it was so)
Argument from ignorance does not prove anything, you (should) know that.

Quote:
or choose not to continue talking about it, And I chose not to.
That's not the purpose of this thread, I don't want to talk about it anymore, so I'm not going to.

I will not allow myself to be manipulated into being a parriah because I don't remember all the facets of some theory I could really care less about.
I created this thread to have the ET discussion, not this one.
I will talk to you about that or nothing from this point on.
Fine, suit yourself, but you were the one that gave KYF the comment about the Imperial Regalia and flunked at it by stating they were Buddhist and that all Susanoo had them. Had you not said anything, we wouldn't be talking about this.
__________________
My writings and ramblings:

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








Last edited by Numinous; 12-06-2011 at 05:37 AM.
Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
ckraizitee (12-13-2011), kael03 (12-06-2011)
Old 12-06-2011, 06:10 AM   #23
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: ET zombie state

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Sorry, you're the one getting things backwards. It does not matter how much the tinkering was done, the simple fact it exists makes the state the ET come in a non-issue, because more abnormal cases can be fixed. This isn't a case of overwhelming majority so you can ignore the minority, this is a case of a new layer to the jutsu that has to be acknowledged. And since this new layer makes the previous layer (ET coming back at random states) obsolete, this is a non-issue.
This is merely an assumption on your part. We know that Kabuto claimed that Madara's body
was brought back in his ultimate state, and that Madara claimed he reached that on his own. Without proof of what has been done, the fact that some tinkering can be done matters not at all. What if the only tinkering that can be done is to help various dnas to merge together better? This is something that could only be useful to a very limited number of corpses. The point is that you are now going out on a limb and making assertions that you can't back up and not even to address my theory, but to try and say it doesn't matter at all. If you want to play this this way I will ask you to provide some proof that Madara was enhanced in a way that could be beneficial to absolutely everyone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
I asked about any practical point, not theoretical points. Does this make any ET hard/impossible to summon even if DNA and soul are available? Does this make any ET invalid (before you bring Nagato, he was capable to use ninjutsu even if crippled)? Does this have any long-term implications for the ET that weren't previously seen?
The contention of the example that you listed as a practical point that had been previously discovered is what I originally based my theory around, so my negation of it is absolutely relevant to the statement you proposed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Just because you're paraphrasing someone else, it doesn't mean you can blame the argument itself for not being yours when you slip on it.
The hell I can't, you all dragged me into the argument. I never once made an assertion that it was so, I merely brought it up as an interesting aside. If I get attacked for bringing up something somewhat related to a post that I found interesting, I simply consider the attackers kin to rabid dogs.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
@ bolded And that's an argument from ignorance. Be it basing an argument or refusing another, you can use the unknown nature of the matter to back you up, since that's fallacious.
This is where you flunk with your argument.
There's a large difference between claiming something is some way because no one knows what it is, and refuting that something is NECESSARILY a certain way because no one knows what it is.

I was using proof of universal ignorance to prove universal ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
/facepalm

Let's see the chain of argument:

^This is a positive claim.

^This is a negative claim, since it is meant to refute the positive claim and uses negative terms like "wrong" and "not".

And since you're refuting a negative claim, the rule of double negative=positive applies, therefore this is a positive claim, therefore you are obliged to present the proof.
No matter how you try and dress it up, it was only a negation of the certainty of the previous post and not an assertion of any sort in it's own right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Fine, suit yourself, but you were the one that gave KYF the comment about the Imperial Regalia and flunked at it by stating they were Buddhist and that all Susanoo had them. Had you not said anything, we wouldn't be talking about this.
That is the way they were identified in the theory itself, the misidentification of them by other parties doesn't in any way lessen their significance. If there wasn't some truth to the theory in spite of it's misinformation it wouldn't have been identified which renders this statement unimportant.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2011, 08:17 AM   #24
Numinous
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: ET zombie state

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
We know that Kabuto claimed that Madara's body was brought back in his ultimate state, and that Madara claimed he reached that on his own.
Wrong. Kabuto said he modified his body to be at prime and still have the techniques Madara acquired after said prime. Madara did not contradict Kabuto, he just pointed out that he achieved the Rinnegan by himself. The only thing they disagreed upon was on who "created" the power, in the sense of making it true. Kabuto did tinker with the body so the power could be use,d but it was Madara who had the power to begin with.

Quote:
Without proof of what has been done, the fact that some tinkering can be done matters not at all. What if the only tinkering that can be done is to help various dnas to merge together better? This is something that could only be useful to a very limited number of corpses.
I agree, it perhaps has limitations of use since Edo Tensei plays a lot with DNA samples and Kabuto might not have all of them to tinker all the Edo Tensei, but you can't simply ignore it just because it isn't applied to all Edo Tensei, the simple fact tinkering with ET exists leads to my next point.

Quote:
The point is that you are now going out on a limb and making assertions that you can't back up and not even to address my theory , but to try and say it doesn't matter at all.
I'm not addressing your theory because I don't see any problem with the premises and the explanation provided, my beef is with the lack of any pertinent conclusion. As one of the readers of your theory, I simply can't notice why it matters if the souls and/or bodies are injured (like you theorize) or not (like it was previously theorized) if they can be tinkered anyway.

If in practical terms the previous theory and your theory have the exact same end (which it does, it only changes in theoretical terms), readers are in their right to say "so what?". That's you're lacking, a conclusion that changes the outcome of ET in practical terms.

Quote:
The contention of the example that you listed as a practical point that had been previously discovered is what I originally based my theory around, so my negation of it is absolutely relevant to the statement you proposed.
... and you didn't answer anything I asked which, you know, would give you a proper conclusion.

Quote:
The hell I can't, you all dragged me into the argument.
Wait, now you're blaming us for the faulty argumentation? No sir, you can't shift the blame like that. You made a faulty argument and you were called upon it, simple as that. Don't blame either the argument or us for that.

Quote:
I never once made an assertion that it was so, I merely brought it up as an interesting aside.
You do realize an assertion is a positive statement of something , right? KYF simply talked about the Imperial Regalia and you said this:

Quote:
I remember reading somewhere that these were the names of some buddhist religious treasures, along with susanoo, and that because of this supposedly every susanoo uses these legendary weapons. Though I can't recall where at the moment.
This, my friend, is an assertion. You positively stated that Itachi Susanoo's weapons were based on Buddhist treasures and all Susanoo had them. It doesn't matter how relevant it was to the theory itself, you made a claim and you were rightfully called upon it.

Quote:
If I get attacked for bringing up something somewhat related to a post that I found interesting, I simply consider the attackers kin to rabid dogs.
Then I have the right to consider you a pansy, right? As you have the right to claim things, people have the right to refute such claims if they're faulty, no matter how important they are. That's what freedom of speech is all about, if you don't like it grow a thicker skin.

Quote:
This is where you flunk with your argument.
There's a large difference between claiming something is some way because no one knows what it is, and refuting that something is NECESSARILY a certain way because no one knows what it is.
Kael simply pointed out that not all the Susanoo have the Imperial Regalia, which, canonically speaking, is true and you resorted to the fact the reader doesn't possess all the knowledge to back up your argument that indeed all Susanoo have the Imperial Regalia, which, canonically speaking, is speculation. And that's argument from ignorance, don't blame me if you don't recognize it.

Quote:
I was using proof of universal ignorance to prove universal ignorance, nothing more, nothing less.
Oh, the redundancy, it's quite delectable.

This is why argument from ignorance is fallacious, because such universal ignorance helps you as much as it helps kael due to its nature. So pointing it out doesn't answer why you said all Susanoo have the Imperial Regalia. So please answer that concretely instead of dancing around it.

Quote:
No matter how you try and dress it up, it was only a negation of the certainty of the previous post and not an assertion of any sort in it's own right.
Yes, it is. Negating a negative claim is a positive claim.

For example, when one says "No, you can't know that" in response to an atheist saying he doesn't believe in any deity is stating there is the possibility of the existence of a deity or various deities, even if such wasn't explicitly said.

This is the exact same thing, only in other words. I'm not dressing things up, I'm using logic.

Quote:
That is the way they were identified in the theory itself, the misidentification of them by other parties doesn't in any way lessen their significance. If there wasn't some truth to the theory in spite of it's misinformation it wouldn't have been identified which renders this statement unimportant.
This is intellectually dishonest. You're saying that the fact you made demonstrably false claims does not lessen the significance of the assertion. Sorry, but argumentation does not work like that.

Quote:
2) Argumentation

Like in everything, some of it is good, some of it is bad, so what makes a good argument?

a. Acceptability

The premises the conclusion is made of must be acceptable to whom the argument is made for. It doesn’t matter how true the conclusion is if the line of thought is heavily invalid.

b. Relevance

All premises must be relevant to the conclusion. Showing how you know how to use Wikipedia doesn’t have anything to do with how Buddhist concepts fit in the manga.

c. Support

The conclusion must be strongly supported by its premises, therefore the premises must be enough and strong to hold the theory. If this doesn’t happen, it all falls down like a house of cards.

d. Resilience against Refutability

The more complicated it is to refute your theory while the refuter remains valid, the best. That means everything above was applied correctly and the conclusion is very valid. Now if something as shallow as point out that the flowers you thought were the same aren’t the same, that means you’re doing a crappy job at it.
And worse, you say that your assertion has to have some truth behind or else it wouldn't be discussed, which is completely bonkers. If that was so, asserting the world is flat would be fine and dandy and we all know that isn't the case at all.
__________________
My writings and ramblings:

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








Last edited by Numinous; 12-06-2011 at 08:20 AM.
Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
ckraizitee (12-13-2011), kael03 (12-06-2011), xxMESTxx (12-06-2011)
Old 12-07-2011, 12:11 AM   #25
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: ET zombie state

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Wrong. Kabuto said he modified his body to be at prime and still have the techniques Madara acquired after said prime. Madara did not contradict Kabuto, he just pointed out that he achieved the Rinnegan by himself. The only thing they disagreed upon was on who "created" the power, in the sense of making it true. Kabuto did tinker with the body so the power could be use,d but it was Madara who had the power to begin with.
No, he says "You've been completed beyond what you were in your prime." on page 3 http://www.fandom.com/manga/naruto/v...uchiha-madara/. Nowhere does it say that he restored his body, just that he completed it more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
I agree, it perhaps has limitations of use since Edo Tensei plays a lot with DNA samples and Kabuto might not have all of them to tinker all the Edo Tensei, but you can't simply ignore it just because it isn't applied to all Edo Tensei, the simple fact tinkering with ET exists leads to my next point.
To pretend it doesn't exist would be foolish, but to say it makes all the other examples of ET unimportant is more so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
I'm not addressing your theory because I don't see any problem with the premises and the explanation provided, my beef is with the lack of any pertinent conclusion. As one of the readers of your theory, I simply can't notice why it matters if the souls and/or bodies are injured (like you theorize) or not (like it was previously theorized) if they can be tinkered anyway.

If in practical terms the previous theory and your theory have the exact same end (which it does, it only changes in theoretical terms), readers are in their right to say "so what?". That's you're lacking, a conclusion that changes the outcome of ET in practical terms.

... and you didn't answer anything I asked which, you know, would give you a proper conclusion.
In actuality I did answer it. The name of this thread is ET zombie state. The point of the theory is the state of the zombie. It is meant to disprove the "came back in the state they were before death" assertion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Wait, now you're blaming us for the faulty argumentation? No sir, you can't shift the blame like that. You made a faulty argument and you were called upon it, simple as that. Don't blame either the argument or us for that.
In order to make a faulty argumentation I would have had to make an argument, which I never did. I merely brought up something to discuss, you all jumped on me like I claimed it was so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
You do realize an assertion is a positive statement of something , right? KYF simply talked about the Imperial Regalia and you said this:

This, my friend, is an assertion. You positively stated that Itachi Susanoo's weapons were based on Buddhist treasures and all Susanoo had them. It doesn't matter how relevant it was to the theory itself, you made a claim and you were rightfully called upon it.
I positively claimed that I had read that, not that it was so. I never did produce proof that I had read that so I suppose in this regard I didn't back up my statement. But it was a 100% truthful claim, I did read that, and that is what it said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Then I have the right to consider you a pansy, right? As you have the right to claim things, people have the right to refute such claims if they're faulty, no matter how important they are. That's what freedom of speech is all about, if you don't like it grow a thicker skin.
If you were refuting any claim that I had made this would be true, however I didn't make any such claim no matter how many times you say I did. I used the example of a rabid dog because you attacked as though I was adopting an attacking stance when I never was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Kael simply pointed out that not all the Susanoo have the Imperial Regalia, which, canonically speaking, is true and you resorted to the fact the reader doesn't possess all the knowledge to back up your argument that indeed all Susanoo have the Imperial Regalia, which, canonically speaking, is speculation. And that's argument from ignorance, don't blame me if you don't recognize it.

Oh, the redundancy, it's quite delectable.

This is why argument from ignorance is fallacious, because such universal ignorance helps you as much as it helps kael due to its nature. So pointing it out doesn't answer why you said all Susanoo have the Imperial Regalia. So please answer that concretely instead of dancing around it.

Yes, it is. Negating a negative claim is a positive claim.

For example, when one says "No, you can't know that" in response to an atheist saying he doesn't believe in any deity is stating there is the possibility of the existence of a deity or various deities, even if such wasn't explicitly said.

This is the exact same thing, only in other words. I'm not dressing things up, I'm using logic.
See here's the pinch, I didn't negate the negative claim.
I didn't say he was wrong. I stated that he was making a claim with no evidence. It was never an assertion for the theory. I never produced a single assertion for the theory, and I never will, as I never once made a claim that there was any truth to the theory. If I had intended to produce it as a true and factual theory that I intended to back up I would have created a detailed standalone post, I would not have brung it up as an aside to another comment.

As an example, if there were a logic puzzle that included among other categories items and people.
and someone was to write in that this item was with this person, that would be an assertion. It would lead to a circle(assertion) and a whole bunch of exes(negations) in the logic puzzle display box. If I erase that statement (since it was written in, and not actually part of the puzzle) it would lead to no circles(assertions) or exes(negations) put in, and would be the lack of an assertion. It wouldn't be proof of anything, and it is in this exact way that I used that statement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
This is intellectually dishonest. You're saying that the fact you made demonstrably false claims does not lessen the significance of the assertion. Sorry, but argumentation does not work like that.

And worse, you say that your assertion has to have some truth behind or else it wouldn't be discussed, which is completely bonkers. If that was so, asserting the world is flat would be fine and dandy and we all know that isn't the case at all.
There you go putting words in my mouth again. Are you claiming that they aren't the imperial regalia? Because if not, then my statement is correct. It was identifiable (notice I said Identifiable, not discussable) despite the misinformation, so there is some truth to the theory. I didn't say it meant the whole theory was true, which again is something that I NEVER ONCE CLAIMED.

Logic is important when debating theories, but different people mean different things when they say the same thing. If I say something and you say "so you mean this", and I say "no, I mean this", and then you say,"nuh-uh you mean this," guess which one of us is wrong?

Last edited by almightywood; 12-07-2011 at 05:27 AM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 12:22 AM   #26
kael03
Aspiring Physicist
 
Join Date: May 2010
Age: 28
Posts: 4,691
Thanks: 4,760
Thanked 8,718 Times in 3,842 Posts
kael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the rough
Re: ET zombie state

I was going to make a long winded post about how you still are arguing from ignorance about Kabuto's ability to tinker with ET rendering how they appear moot, and how you're still not getting it that you started an argument about Susano'o, but are now backpedaling now that you've been called out on it...but I decided fuck it.
kael03 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to kael03 For This Useful Post:
Numinous (12-07-2011)
Old 12-07-2011, 01:08 AM   #27
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: ET zombie state

Quote:
Originally Posted by kael03 View Post
I was going to make a long winded post about how you still are arguing from ignorance about Kabuto's ability to tinker with ET rendering how they appear moot, and how you're still not getting it that you started an argument about Susano'o, but are now backpedaling now that you've been called out on it...but I decided fuck it.
It's not that I'm not getting it, it's you all that aren't. If I had started an argument. I would be continuing it. I tried to start a DISCUSSION which is entirely different than an ARGUMENT. I brought it up to see if one particular person had taken this POSSIBILITY into account when creating their theory, which is not anything anywhere near what you all have decided it means. I wanted to pick ONE PERSON's brain on how that particular topic related to the statement they had made. I neither had, nor implied any desire to actually debate the possibility that I brought up.


Once again you all keep saying that an argument from ignorance is using the lack of any knowledge as proof that something is so, and that is something that I have never once done throughout this thread.

If an argument from ignorance was just claiming that something wasn't known, without it being used as proof of something else, then yes I would be doing that. But every time either one of you has described "my use of the argument from ignorance" you have claimed that I was using it as proof of something, which I never once did.

So there are only two possibilities here:
1. You are using the wrong definition of the phrase argument from ignorance
or
2. I am not making an argument from ignorance.

Take your pick, either way I'm not wrong for refuting your claims that I did such.

If you all mistakenly interpret something I have said to mean that, that is your right.

However, if I tell you that isn't what I was saying, and you insist that it is, then you are just being trolls at that point. All you are arguing about at that point is semantics, which is the refuge of those who have nothing better to do than to instigate arguments where there were none to begin with.

If you all are feeling very frustrated with me at this point, it's because all along you have mistakenly believed you were having an argument with me about the specifics of this theory I once read about, and I never was.


Bottom line is you can either take me at my word as to what I was saying, or you can continue to be wrong about it.

Last edited by almightywood; 12-07-2011 at 04:38 AM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 05:21 AM   #28
Numinous
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: ET zombie state

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
No, he says "You've been completed beyond what you were in your prime." on page 3 http://www.fandom.com/manga/naruto/v...uchiha-madara/. Nowhere does it say that he restored his body, just that he completed it more.
/facepalm

Really? Can't you even read what's being said? Madara achieved the Rinnegan near his death, which was way after this prime. All Kabuto did and claimed to do was to put Madara in his prime body with all the techniques.

Also, didn't you want to prove that tinkering was unimportant since Kabuto and Madara were supposedly contradicting each other? What happened to that.

Quote:
To pretend it doesn't exist would be foolish, but to say it makes all the other examples of ET unimportant is more so.
Yes, it does. The tinkering is not a jutsu different from ET, it's an extension of it. If such extension exists, it makes the state the ET come in a non-issue.

Quote:
In actuality I did answer it.
No, you didn't.

Quote:
The name of this thread is ET zombie state. The point of the theory is the state of the zombie. It is meant to disprove the "came back in the state they were before death" assertion.
And it lacks a conclusion that disproves such instance with practical terms. You're basically saying to take a left instead of a right when both ways lead to the same place with the same consequences. Please point me where the consequences differ. And don't come with Itachi's disease, because you're forgetting two things: Edo Tensei are immortal, therefore having a symptom of mortality is nonsensical and that many fans wanted to see Itachi fight without the disease, so it was removed. Can you do that or you'll still be stuck in the same place?

Quote:
In order to make a faulty argumentation I would have had to make an argument, which I never did. I merely brought up something to discuss, you all jumped on me like I claimed it was so.
Quote:
If you were refuting any claim that I had made this would be true, however I didn't make any such claim no matter how many times you say I did. I used the example of a rabid dog because you attacked as though I was adopting an attacking stance when I never was.
Seriously, man up and own up to your mistakes. If you brought it up to be discussed, it is an argument and it was faulty. Don't come with petty excuses about it, you wanted to discuss, it was discussed, now don't act like you never meant it.

Quote:
I positively claimed that I had read that, not that it was so. I never did produce proof that I had read that so I suppose in this regard I didn't back up my statement. But it was a 100% truthful claim, I did read that, and that is what it said.
And it's false, therefore not truthful. I think the word you were looking for was "honest". But if I were you I'd admit the mistake and get better sources, because they're clearly wrong about stuff.

Quote:
See here's the pinch, I didn't negate the negative claim.
I didn't say he was wrong.
Yes you did.

Quote:
I stated that he was making a claim with no evidence.
His evidence is the manga canon. Not every Susanoo having the Imperial Regalia is canon, anybody can demonstrate by linking all the pages with Susanoo. What you did was making an argument from ignorance to refute him, therefore you negated a negative claim.

Quote:
It was never an assertion for the theory. I never produced a single assertion for the theory, and I never will, as I never once made a claim that there was any truth to the theory.
Stop backpedaling, for fuck's sake! You did make an assetion, how badly do you want to remain right that you even deny what you did?!

Quote:
If I had intended to produce it as a true and factual theory that I intended to back up I would have created a detailed standalone post, I would not have brung it up as an aside to another comment.
So you wanted to discuss it but you didn't want to discuss it as it is... contradiction much? The reality is, you made an assertion, you were corrected, get over yourself.

Quote:
There you go putting words in my mouth again. Are you claiming that they aren't the imperial regalia? Because if not, then my statement is correct. It was identifiable (notice I said Identifiable, not discussable) despite the misinformation, so there is some truth to the theory.
No, they were identifiable because you quoted KYF who correctly identified the Imperial Regalia in the right Susanoo. You did not, you just added a layer of misinformation upon it, there's no truth to be found is such layer.

Quote:
I didn't say it meant the whole theory was true, which again is something that I NEVER ONCE CLAIMED.
If you hit that strawman harder, it might break. When did I say you said that the whole theory was true? I didn't, all I said that it is inane to assert that a theory has some truth behind it if it's being discussed.

Quote:
Logic is important when debating theories, but different people mean different things when they say the same thing. If I say something and you say "so you mean this", and I say "no, I mean this", and then you say,"nuh-uh you mean this," guess which one of us is wrong?
You. If you say something and then say that you said something else in response of someone pointing out a mistake, you simply lost your coherency, which is vital to any discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
It's not that I'm not getting it, it's you all that aren't.
Occam's Razor, my friend: which is more probable, one person not getting it or two people not getting it?

Quote:
If I had started an argument. I would be continuing it. I tried to start a DISCUSSION which is entirely different than an ARGUMENT.
What.

Did the definition of argument change and I didn't notice? Aren't arguments used to discuss things? Or are you using the colloquial term? Because at least I'm using the academic term and I'm sure kael is too. In colloquial terms, of course you didn't start an argument, but in academic terms sure as hell you did.

Quote:
Once again you all keep saying that an argument from ignorance is using the lack of any knowledge as proof that something is so, and that is something that I have never once done throughout this thread.

If an argument from ignorance was just claiming that something wasn't known, without it being used as proof of something else, then yes I would be doing that. But every time either one of you has described "my use of the argument of ignorance" you have claimed that I was using it as proof of something, which I never once did.
Yes, you did. Kael said why you were wrong on asserting that all Susanoo have the Imperial Regalia and you made an argument from ignorance to disprove kael while backing up your claim. C'mon, son, we're not blind.

Quote:
So there are only two possibilities here:
1. You are using the wrong definition of the phrase argument from ignorance
or
2. I am not making an argument from ignorance.

Take your pick, either way I'm not wrong for refuting your claims that I did such.
3. We know damn well the definition of it and you made an argument from ignorance, you're just not bold enough to admit it.

Quote:
However, if I tell you that isn't what I was saying, and you insist that it is, then you are just being trolls at that point. All you are arguing about at that point is semantics, which is the refuge of those who have nothing better to do than to instigate arguments where there were none to begin with. If you all are feeling very frustrated with me at this point, it's because all along you have mistakenly believed you were having an argument with me about the specifics of this theory I once read about, and I never was.
Well poisoning at its best. Classy. Sorry, we're not picking on semantics, we're using the logic you should also be using. You commited a fallacy, pure and simple.

Quote:
Bottom line is you can either take me at my word as to what I was saying, or you can continue to be wrong about it.
And this is the point where I realize this sounds eerily familiar, just with better grammar. How can we be wrong if we're applying logic correctly and logic is universal? Maybe it's you who should open your mind and take us at our words.
__________________
My writings and ramblings:

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







Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 06:19 AM   #29
almightywood
Missing-Nin
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 275
Thanks: 37
Thanked 97 Times in 90 Posts
almightywood is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: ET zombie state

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
/facepalm

Really? Can't you even read what's being said? Madara achieved the Rinnegan near his death, which was way after this prime. All Kabuto did and claimed to do was to put Madara in his prime body with all the techniques. [/b]
Once again this is an assertion without basis.
If he says I COMPLETED your body, then that means that the body was incomplete and had never been complete, not that he restored it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Also, didn't you want to prove that tinkering was unimportant since Kabuto and Madara were supposedly contradicting each other? What happened to that.
Words in my mouth again, do you want to just argue against yourself instead?
If not, then please stick to what I actually said instead of your interpretations of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Yes, it does. The tinkering is not a jutsu different from ET, it's an extension of it. If such extension exists, it makes the state the ET come in a non-issue.
So the fuuton:rasenshuriken isn't worthy of being considered different than the rasengan then, because it's just the same jutsu with another layer to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
No, you didn't.
If you ask what the point of a theory is and I tell it to you, how exactly am I not answering the question? I may not have paid attention to your exact wording, or your clarifications of your intent, but we've already established these points are irrelevant in this discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
And it lacks a conclusion that disproves such instance with practical terms. You're basically saying to take a left instead of a right when both ways lead to the same place with the same consequences. Please point me where the consequences differ. And don't come with Itachi's disease, because you're forgetting two things: Edo Tensei are immortal, therefore having a symptom of mortality is nonsensical and that many fans wanted to see Itachi fight without the disease, so it was removed. Can you do that or you'll still be stuck in the same place?
This particular kind of argument is the worst kind - it's outside the realm of discussion as far as I'm concerned. This theory covers these holes without turning ET into a plot no jutsu. If you want to argue it as one and say there is no practical difference between the two ways, then bully for you, but I prefer to make my theories based on things in the manga.

As for the rest of it the differences between Nagato and any other zombie that we saw the condition of their death disprove the "at death" and "shortly before death" theories. Either Nagato should have been resurrected with red hair, or Asuma should have been burnt and bloodied, Zabuza shouldn't have had the use of his arms, Sasori should have been a puppet heart, etc. Itachi's is the only long-term malady that I can think of that didn't appear, so is worth mentioning since I don't see how you figure coughing up blood would be too out of character for a zombie. Either way the differences here are enough to make the chain of logic fall apart on any of the other past thoughts on how it worked. This theory is here to explain the inconsistencies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Seriously, man up and own up to your mistakes. If you brought it up to be discussed, it is an argument and it was faulty. Don't come with petty excuses about it, you wanted to discuss, it was discussed, now don't act like you never meant it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Did the definition of argument change and I didn't notice? Aren't arguments used to discuss things? Or are you using the colloquial term? Because at least I'm using the academic term and I'm sure kael is too. In colloquial terms, of course you didn't start an argument, but in academic terms sure as hell you did.
A discussion doesn't require an agenda, whereas an argument does, so no it wasn't an argument, as I was never attempting to make a claim with it. If I had been intending to do so I would long since have owned up to being wrong, but I can't be wrong if I never said it was this way. I didn't, and that's the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
And it's false, therefore not truthful. I think the word you were looking for was "honest". But if I were you I'd admit the mistake and get better sources, because they're clearly wrong about stuff.
The theory is false, but the statement that I read it is truthful, which is the only statement I made, so truthful fits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Yes you did.
No, I didn't say he was wrong:
As an example, if there were a logic puzzle that included among other categories items and people.
and someone was to write in that this item was with this person, that would be an assertion. It would lead to a circle(assertion) and a whole bunch of exes(negations) in the logic puzzle display box. If I erase that statement (since it was written in, and not actually part of the puzzle) it would lead to no circles(assertions) or exes(negations) put in, and would be the lack of an assertion. By the way you're phrasing it I would have been erasing the circle and replacing it with an x - which didn't occur. It wouldn't be proof of anything, and it is in this exact way that I used that statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
His evidence is the manga canon. Not every Susanoo having the Imperial Regalia is canon, anybody can demonstrate by linking all the pages with Susanoo. What you did was making an argument from ignorance to refute him, therefore you negated a negative claim.
His claim was that all their powers were already known. I suppose I will agree that I negated a negative claim, but that doesn't mean I made a positive one, as illustrated in my example above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Stop backpedaling, for fuck's sake! You did make an assetion, how badly do you want to remain right that you even deny what you did?!

So you wanted to discuss it but you didn't want to discuss it as it is... contradiction much? The reality is, you made an assertion, you were corrected, get over yourself.

No, they were identifiable because you quoted KYF who correctly identified the Imperial Regalia in the right Susanoo. You did not, you just added a layer of misinformation upon it, there's no truth to be found is such layer.

If you hit that strawman harder, it might break. When did I say you said that the whole theory was true? I didn't, all I said that it is inane to assert that a theory has some truth behind it if it's being discussed.

You. If you say something and then say that you said something else in response of someone pointing out a mistake, you simply lost your coherency, which is vital to any discussion.
To not acknowledge the fact that every word in the english language has multiple definitions and meanings and assume that you instantly know what someone's meaning was when they stated something is both impolite and asinine. I said something, people took it to mean something other than what I had intended. I had no intentions of really discussing this with said people so didn't initially attempt to correct them. After some time goes by I get tired of beating around the bush so attempt to enlighten them as to what I was actually saying. This isn't me losing my coherency, it's me never establishing it until people have already decided it doesn't exist.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Occam's Razor, my friend: which is more probable, one person not getting it or two people not getting it?
Well Albert Einstein was thrown in a loony bin for his theory of relativity. And a whole bunch of germans thought all jews were evil. So is (minute) strength in numbers really that sound an argument?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Yes, you did. Kael said why you were wrong on asserting that all Susanoo have the Imperial Regalia and you made an argument from ignorance to disprove kael while backing up your claim. C'mon, son, we're not blind.

3. We know damn well the definition of it and you made an argument from ignorance, you're just not bold enough to admit it.
I never asserted anything of the sort. I defy you to find a post I did make about it that wasn't entirely neutral on the subject (and I don't mean one that you can reword with your interpretation into being that). No matter how hard you want me to admit to saying something I never did, I won't.

If anything I would state what I called as an argument for ignorance, as all I was ever claiming it meant was that it was unknown. Since there was no manifestation as it were in what I stated, your definition of argument from ignorance assuredly doesn't fit with my previous statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
Well poisoning at its best. Classy. Sorry, we're not picking on semantics, we're using the logic you should also be using. You commited a fallacy, pure and simple.

And this is the point where I realize this sounds eerily familiar, just with better grammar. How can we be wrong if we're applying logic correctly and logic is universal? Maybe it's you who should open your mind and take us at our words.
This is what you don't get. Your arguments against me are entirely based around semantics, as I was never arguing for the regalia being in every susano'o. I was merely pointing out that the theory existed, and then pointing out holes in the counter-arguments. It has nothing to do with backpedaling, covering my tracks, avoiding being wrong, or anything of the sort. It has to do with lack of recognition of a person's stance, and that is assuredly not occurring on my part. So I will say it another way and hope the message comes through this time: I am neutral on this issue, and always have been.

So will you take me at my word yet, or are you going to insist upon something I never actually said once again?

Last edited by almightywood; 12-14-2011 at 02:49 AM.
almightywood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 01:50 PM   #30
kael03
Aspiring Physicist
 
Join Date: May 2010
Age: 28
Posts: 4,691
Thanks: 4,760
Thanked 8,718 Times in 3,842 Posts
kael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the roughkael03 is a jewel in the rough
Re: ET zombie state

Quote:
Originally Posted by almightywood View Post
Once again this is an assertion without basis.
If he says I COMPLETED your body, then that means that the body was incomplete and had never been complete, not that he restored it.
Now you're pulling a KYF and only acknowledging 1 part of the page in question instead of the entire thing. Here's the page so you don't get confused.

Kabuto: "Your Impure World Resurrection is a special version" (meaning he tinkered with it "You've been completed beyond what you were in your prime."

Notice how he said "completed beyond your prime", meaning he altered Madara's ET body to be stronger (which means his physical prime with his at death skills). Madara's body was never incomplete, Kabuto just made him younger.

Madara: "You...you know about my prime?"
Kabuto: "No. So please, show it to me...the legendary power of the Uchiha."

Kabuto flat out stated he has no clue what Madara's prime was. Which begs the question as to how Kabuto could alter him to be beyond the prime which is unknown.

See where your argument falls? Kabuto never stated he completed Madara, but he completed him beyond his prime. Which we know means that he adjusted Madara's body to be at his physical prime while maintaining his at death abilities (EMS, Mokuton, Rinnegan, etc).
kael03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Longest Thread Ever v28 Shino Spam Zone 16554 03-29-2014 10:53 PM
Zombie Apocalypse kluang World News 4 06-30-2011 01:48 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.