almightywood

It's a perfect analogy because I wasn't disputing that the fact disproved the theory I had read, nor was I disputing it as a possibility, I was disputing only the credibility of the fact.

If I had presented a fallacious argument you would be true. I've already explained how I never did this, your failure to accept it, doesn't change the truth of my statement. You have the right to interpret my statements any which way you want. But if I say, no I meant this with it, and you insist I meant something different, you are just plain wrong. As soon as you refuse to accept the meaning of the words from their source, you abandon all attempt at rational discussion.

The hell you didn't. If you had just stuck with that sentence I never would have disagreed with the sentiment. However nowhere in that sentence does it say anything about using ignorance as proof of a manifested fact. <-- this I never did, and is why you are putting words in my mouth, lying, full of shit, or any other way I can possibly put it that might make you realize your mistake.

I stated that because it is the truth. How can I shift blame when there is none?

So you are claiming that I didn't read this article? If not, then no it wasn't blatant misinformation. It would be willing to call it misinformation if you hadn't fallaciously added the blatant to the front of it. The same thing can also be said for the other argument. Blatant misinformation would be my hitler and jesus analogy, as it proudly exclaims it as absolute truth with there being clear cut evidence to the contrary. This applies to neither of the things you are claiming as such.

Which leads me to the quote, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
If you were to do so, this would still be an argument from ignorance by your sticky definition, and your one for me.

I ain't betting on shit, I'm refusing to take a stance on the unknown, which once again is not the same thing.

Numinous

Analogies are meant to be analogous to what's being discussed. The moment the analogy isn't analogous, guess what, they don't work anymore. Sorry, you fucked up here, there's no salvaging.

If I was abandoning all attempts at rational discussion I'd have put you in my ignore list a long time ago.

At this point you're either blinder than a mole when it comes to logic or you're an intellectual charlatan and if it's the latter, how can I accept the pitiful excuses you give me without being a complete moron? You gave a fallacious argument, period. No ifs, not buts, logic is exact and universal like mathematics and you can't honestly deny you clearly broke from the exactitude of logic.

And "appealing", in logical terms, is using a concept, in this case ignorance, as proof of a statement. For example, when people say someone is appealing to force they're saying that someone is using force as proof of a statement. Same thing here, do not blame me for not being able to read properly.

Yes you did.

So if I'm putting words in your mouth, they are the same words you professed. The only mistake I'm committing is believing you can grow some sense of integrity, it seems.

Blame is the state of being responsible for a fault or an error. Since you committed a error, the blame is yours. But what you did was pointing out the source as being the one in fault ("Well I've been told it happened by more than a few people and if it is a rumor it probably started with the movie "young einstein" starring Yahoo Serious because he is in one in that movie") therefore the source is to blame and doing so is shifting the blame off of you and towards the source.

Simple logic, really.

I admit I'm one at fault here, I've been using "blatant" instead of the proper word, "flagrant". So, admitting my mistake here, you have shown flagrant misinformation. Anyone who has some knowledge of the manga will tell you that the Imperial Regalia are Shintoist and that they're not present in all Susanoo, and anyone who knows about Albert Einstein enough will say he's never been in a loony bin for the theory of relativity, so it applies to both instances.

What a pitiful attempt to accuse me of argument from ignorance using a strawman of the definition given.

Absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence the moment the possibility of the evidence not being found and being nonexistent is 1 and the possibility of the evidence not being found and being existent is 0. This is the case in our hands: I can say for certainty that Albert Einstein wasn't in a loony bin due to the theory of relativity because there's no evidence of such and he was even appointed President of the German Physics Society in the same year he came up with the theory (even considering the theory was highly controversial at first). I am not appealing to ignorance here, I'm appealing to knowledge.

There's refusing to take a stance on the unknown (like saying "I don't know" when asked about what caused the Big Bang) and there's appealing to the unknown to make a stance (picking the same example, defending "God created the Big Bang", since you can't refute something in the unknown).

You did the latter, you appealed to the unknown to defend the possibility that all the Susanoo had the Imperial Regalia.

__________________

almightywood

Logic is universal, language isn't. Denotative, connotative, and slang definitions make it VERY EASY to misinterpret someone's statement. If you are arguing against a mistaken interpretation of my words, HOW THE HELL DO YOU FIGURE LOGIC EVEN ENTERS INTO IT? It's impossible to have a logical discussion without some common ground. The common ground is language. In other words the starting point for a logical discussion would be your acceptance of my definition of my statement. As long as you insist on your interpretation for my words over my own, your entire argument not only has no logical basis, but also CANNOT have any logical basis.



And this is where you turn into an idiot on every one of your posts as far as I am concerned.
Claiming the sentence "You can't say that for sure" is proclaiming the opposite is true is where you are throwing your own interpretation on my words, and logic out the window. This is what is called a neutral statement. It is claiming only that there is ignorance, it is not saying that ignorance proves anything. There is nothing wrong with having your own interpretation for someone's words when there is no definition available. Once I tell you what I mean by a statement, your interpretation becomes your own words, and not mine at all. So if you want to continue to say that this means this, then please take credit for it yourself and stop laying the credit for such an asinine statement at my feet.






I was doing something akin to citing sources. So what you are saying is that citing a source is now a bad thing to do. Excellent.


This is not true. The possibility of evidence being found can not be 0, I started at something like a 12 for evidence with word of mouth, and movie references. Now if you want to say those are unreliable, that's a whole other matter, but even if you were to do so, you still can't claim the evidence of absence.



As long as you continue to claim this, I will say that you don't know the meaning of logic, since to you it means you can put words in people's mouths. Defending a POSSIBILITY can not be taking a stance for anything except ignorance. Refusing to accept something as concrete is not the same as claiming something else is. This is also a case of mistaking my meaning on top of it, I was referring to the albert einstein statment with the quote you were responding to here. While it could apply here as well, I will still say that it is evidence that you aren't even really paying attention to the discussion anymore, and should probably just admit defeat if you can't properly address my statements. (not that you ever have yet)

Numinous

I was reading and facepalming at the same time to almightywood's post when I reached to this delightful bit:

Wow, you're stupid. How can you start with a possibility of 12 when the upper limit of any given possibility is 1? No wonder you are having so much difficulty with logic, you can't even get something from middle school right!

I might consider refuting your ludicrous points later, because right now I can't focus with such an hilarious mistake staring at me. Also Skyrim.

__________________

uzumakinagato

I think your line is close to be crossed, Numinous lol

almightywood

If you understood language half as well as you claim to you would know I was putting the number as the number of sources. It doesn't really matter though, because you know what? I give up. Your refusal to admit that this whole debate started with a mistake on your part is just not worth it.
If you ever lose your ego enough to go back and look through this thread objectively you will see that what I was saying was true.
I will never again respond to another post from you unless it is one admitting your mistake.
I tried to be reasonable, I tried to be polite. But you wouldn't even apologize for putting words in my mouth from the getgo. I stopped being polite, and started being blunt, and you became more obtuse. Kael made a false assumption in his first post as well by saying I recall wrong when I fact I recalled nothing wrong. But this is all "unimportant" because it was YOUR guys' mistakes. They were your fallacies before I ever even claimed one. The only reason I have bothered to wait this long is for the same reason you were supposedly waiting - for you to own up. Now go back under your bridges and leave this discussion to those who can read.


How could I cross his line when he was the troll here?
Mine has been crossed however.

Numinous

There's only 2 possibilities: either Albert Einstein was sent to the loony bin for the theory of relativity or not. Now the probability of said possibilities (just to differentiate the clauses, since possibility and probability can be synonymous and might lead to confusion) varies between 0 and 1. In this case, the positive claim has probability of 0 while the negative claim has probability of 1. Why? Along with not being any evidence for the positive claim, there are many evidences that support the negative claim and even make the positive claim impossible. Therefore evidence of absence can and should be applied.

Also, I understand what's being said in the language they appear to be, English. If there's another language that uses the exact same words and grammar as English but isn't English so the posts mean something else of what I'm reading, please let me know.



Really? So manga canon is false and speculation is true all of the sudden?

So that means you're leaving the discussion? Because you clearly demonstrated you can't read, like checking facts about Susanoo or even Albert Einstein's wiki page before saying shenanigans. But, who am I kidding, I wouldn't be surprised if you think you somehow won this discussion. Everybody in this forum already knows how this works.

Well, if I'm a troll, I don't even want to imagine what a real troll looks like to you. Or the communities based on logic (like the scientific and the atheist), for that matter.

__________________

almightywood

Alright this truly is my last post to you:This statement is clear cut evidence that you can't read and comprehend at the same time.



And this is evidence of lack of comprehension. That would be called researching, my research on Einstein didn't involve reading. My claim of having read something was accurate too. The inaccuracy of what I read doesn't change my ability to read. You obviously can't read well or you would have recanted on your putting words in my mouth. There was nothing to win, we were never even having the same discussion. You never addressed the meaning of my words, you only ever addressed your interpretation of them, so how can anyone possibly win a directionless discussion? The fact that you obviously think you have a flawless understanding of the English language makes you egotistical, the fact that you think such a thing exists at all makes you a moron. The english language is a constantly evolving organism, more so than any other language on the planet. Because it is constantly changing, it is impossible to master. The closest you can come to being perfect with your words is to be prepared to clarify repeatedly. This simple fact (and it is a fact regardless of whether or not you can accept it) voids all the arguments you have brought up that claim "I was wrong" - because I clarified my meanings. Failure to accept the truth has never lead to a resolution.



You're a troll because you listened to nothing I ACTUALLY had to say, yet still had plenty to say about the matter.

k-lai

This .

I thought you made that quite clear earlier on, so what changed ur mind? Felt like typing more or what?

__________________
<<Tell me $ome Lie$>>
Maybe, just maybe I may be able to do it and you would not be there when I'm doing it but just so you know, I did it without your help and that'll be my legacy.

almightywood

I let myself get dragged down by the troll one more time. Couldn't help it, but I am sticking with it after that one.

Numinous

Oh boy, you indeed love your misinformation:

Last reform of the English Language: SR1, in 1969.

Reforms of the Portuguese Language since then: 1971 (in Brazil), 1990 and 2010 (CPLP).

Unless you think only the English language has slang and 1337 speak, which again, would be wrong.

__________________

almightywood

This is merely a clarification:
A reform would be changing the laws of grammar. The definition of a word changing is what I was referring to (lack of comprehension again: why would I possibly be talking about grammar when I use the word interpretation?) which happens all the time. Go ahead and find an example of English 300 years ago and compare it to English now. Then do the same with Portugese and try and tell me it has changed more again.

Vengeance

What are you two even arguing about again?

__________________

Screenshot from Shingeki no Kyojin.

Check out this awesome manga called Magi.

almightywood

The crux of it is basically him telling me that my saying, "you can't say that for sure", is more than me claiming that a fact is unproven. He in fact says that I was using this statement to state that the opposite fact of the one I contested is true.

I told him several times that I was neutral on the subject, but somehow my words seem to mean what he wants them to, instead of what I intended.

Vengeance

In reference to what exactly? If something isn't proven then it isn't a fact.

__________________

Screenshot from Shingeki no Kyojin.

Check out this awesome manga called Magi.