Five Questions for Jedi Knights

No, that statement was made multiple times earlier and can not be changed even if I did want to. My recent statement was changed in an attempt to continue further conversation instead of focusing on debating what has already been said. As ren has requested, please focus on the discussion and not on the people having the discussion.

Resticon wrote: No, that statement was made multiple times earlier and can not be changed even if I did want to. My recent statement was changed in an attempt to continue further conversation instead of focusing on debating what has already been said. As ren has requested, please focus on the discussion and not on the people having the discussion.

In that case, my point still stands. You have accused me of committing a logical fallacy. Well then. Where is it? If you want to continue, then what has been said should be clarified so that both parties reach a suitable conclusion. I've already said I'm willing to retract statements shown to be inavlid.

Secondly, I have not made a single personal attack anywhere, in any post, to the best of my knowledge, though I can certainly quote several cases where posters here have focused on me, if you'd like, and didn't receive any warnings. So my request to ren still stands, as well, if he'd care to answer it.

master ren, i can cut and paste at least a dozen seperate severely condescending, insulting lines from this person to another member of the church, most frequently fraterdavid, tho of course at least 2 0r 3 directed at me as well.

the only reason i do not is that my girlfriend and i are going to lunch before i go to work.

per his own definition, it does not have to be a personal attack (that is too obvious in any case) but also inflammatory talk and rhetoric designed to provoke an emotional response. FROM HIS OWN definition.

I could be wrong here SoulSeeker (and Ren, please correct me if I am), but it looked to me like Ren was warning everyone involved in this thread...and by including his reference to other threads, perhaps the entire community. I didn't read anything that stated or implied that he was warning you specifically. Unless, of course, you were PMed a private and personal warning, and that's between you and the "warner" and probably shouldn't be dealt with in public.

Desolous, I will grant that he (SoulSeeker) has been inflammatory, and even can be seen to have personally attacked other posters...but I seem to remember some attacks and poorly veiled threats being thrown back at him...

SoulSeeker wrote:

Resticon wrote: No, that statement was made multiple times earlier and can not be changed even if I did want to. My recent statement was changed in an attempt to continue further conversation instead of focusing on debating what has already been said. As ren has requested, please focus on the discussion and not on the people having the discussion.

In that case, my point still stands. You have accused me of committing a logical fallacy. Well then. Where is it? If you want to continue, then what has been said should be clarified so that both parties reach a suitable conclusion. I've already said I'm willing to retract statements shown to be inavlid.

See posts 77573, 77625, 77626. That is the last I will say on the matter until the discussion returns to the actual topic that was under debate.

Probably. People generally respond when provoked. If you were to go back through this whole thread, tho, you would see clearly who has been doing the provocation.

I had some provocation one time... but the Doctor gave me these pills and it cleared right up!

hahahahhahahahahha

Wescli Wardest wrote: I had some provocation one time... but the Doctor gave me these pills and it cleared right up!

hahahahhahahahahha

Were those +5 Pills of Greater Ignoring? I've started taking those myself! And they cost almost nothing.

It is amazing how effective disengagement is at keeping grindy gears from grinding.

Desolous wrote: master ren, i can cut and paste at least a dozen seperate severely condescending, insulting lines from this person to another member of the church, most frequently fraterdavid, tho of course at least 2 0r 3 directed at me as well.

Yeah? I could do the same, and I don't just mean your silly accusations of "trolling"... and I'm not the only one who remembers the things you've said either.

Alluvius wrote: but I seem to remember some attacks and poorly veiled threats being thrown back at him...

So I think you should re-read your own posts before throwing yet more accusations at other posters, and what makes this worse is that I even referenced you as someone who brought up a valid point in several posts, and this is the thanks I get... all because you didn't like the questions brought up.

And as if that wasn't bad enough, you even accuse me of attacked Frater? I *complimented* Frater- in my last post to him I said that he'd finally brought up an argument that was actually decent, and encouraged him to re-enforce it, after many posts of slowly, carefully and calmly having to explain to him how what he was saying *doesn't logically work*.

Desolous wrote: the only reason i do not is that my girlfriend and i are going to lunch before i go to work.

How convenient. Personally I think it's obvious to all here that you don't like the fact that you got into a debate and were, quite frankly, bested. In fact, one of our moderators even had to tell you that you cannot ask someone to go away on basis of disagreement, so instead of continuing the discussion you diverted the topic into one of accusations.

Alluvius wrote: I could be wrong here SoulSeeker (and Ren, please correct me if I am), but it looked to me like Ren was warning everyone involved in this thread...and by including his reference to other threads, perhaps the entire community. I didn't read anything that stated or implied that he was warning you specifically. Unless, of course, you were PMed a private and personal warning, and that's between you and the "warner" and probably shouldn't be dealt with in public.

Well I should certainly hope I wasn't targeted, because then I would actually quote the specific places where I've been attacked and ask why they haven't been warned too, and, once again, I point out I have not broken a single forum rule, and to my knowledge haven't personally attacked anyone. Though if someone quotes an instance where I apparently have, (which I most certainly haven't), then, again, I can very easily bring up far worse messages that have been directed against me.

... Though, that being said, I didn't receive any PMs so I suppose ren just had some specific people in mind, didn't want to name names, and just posted something to the community in general.

Oh, and Resticon?

Resticon wrote: is that of a bifurcation, or "black and white" fallacy, which, in this example, says that the condition of calling oneself a "knight" only has two alternatives (either you are right or wrong based on an outdated definition), when in fact other alternatives do exist or can exist. Knighthood has been granted for many other reasons and is only dependent of military prowess under one definition.

With that being said there is no point in discussing further who is or is not using more agumentums and fallacies when every point you make is based off your assumption of the truth of a fallacious argument.

Wrong. I never said a knight had to be either a European Knight or a Jedi Knight, so there's actually no fallacy. However, I *have* frequently compared to the two as a way of re-enforcing my points. Thus, it is, in fact, you who are guilty of a committing a fallacy. Nameley, the strawman argument. Thank you.