User blog comment:MilitaryBrat/Hal Jordan vs Darth Vader/@comment-1683193-20131028175901/@comment-72.35.96.113-20131031201909

Oh Leo,

I know you probably have to back your buddies play and all, but you not helping.

"Source. What Pach is saying is more in line with the other abilities of the ring as presented, while you're just making a claim. Presenting a source will help your argument."

Hmmm, you admit to not knowing much about Green Lantern ( Note the use of even you use Green Lantern and not Hal ). Then looked at two unsourced claims about him and only asked for a source from one side. Yep no bias their.

"Missing Pach's point. You're disrespecting them by belligerently dismissing other peoples arguments about the characters."

I think you might be missing the point ( s ). I can't disrespect Hal or Vader, their not real and it is no disrespect to anyone to point out the power disparity.

Now I know you don't like the use of other battles to put this conflict in context. However if this was a match between a guy with a rock and a fully crewed and operational M1 Abrams tank. Would you still think I was missing the point or being dismissive, or belligerent, if I pointed out the guy with the rock didn't have much chance?

Now chances are trying to put it into context for you was a waste of time and you'll throw some pidgeon debate team Latin at me write my point off as missing the point and move on. Here's to hoping you don't though.

"We read TvTropes here too, you know."

No need to get defensive, just checking.

"Psychologically, yes. He won't have a problem with that because they're abstract - he just sees the Star Destroyer. I'm not familiar with Green Lantern, so that may be different for Hal, but it's still a well known psychological theory."

Oh look somebody took psychologically as well as debate, but fair point in a real world context, but given the general hero-ness of Hal, when not a villain, you'd hope it wouldn't apply.

"Irrelevant, missing the point of Pach's statement."

Nope its relevent. If Hal can soak even a single turbolaser shot then the Dark Lord, Vader in this case because their have been others, could wail on him all day with no ill effect.

I don't see how this is irrelevent.

"This is minor and nitpicky, but we call him Pach."

And I call him Paco, maybe Mr. Paco, or Pac meister, or Pach to the Eo. Does it matter?

"Wrong. You made a blanket statement about all GLs without any qualifiers to limit it."

"No, no it isn't. There are times when implications like that are sound, but not in this context. Especially not when using a plural."

Lets be honest here Labby, when most people say Green Lantern they mean Hal, Kyle, Guy, John etc. In other words the ones that are/were major players in the DCU. Add to it that we are having conversation about Hal and infering that we are speaking about Hal or near Hal level GLs is not that hard.

Not to mention that considering the other GLs are not exactly pertinent to the conversation. Why stop to talk about them?

"No, you didn't."

was you response to your quoting me as saying this.

Truth is I said Green Lanterns mostley

which I did as part of this paragraph.

Truth is I said Green Lanterns mostley to change up the wording and because it's more simplified and your nit pickery of said wording is no more usefull then say me derailing the conversation by pointing out that what time period you pull Vader from will effect his performance.

In other words out of context quote is out of context.

Even your attempt at splitting up my sentence this way suggests either extremely dishonest debate tactics you poor reading ability. Regardless of how feel about my spelling or grammar.

This would be like me quoting you as saying.

"you're".."making a claim"..."more in line with the".. "abilities of the ring as presented,"

"Pach is"...."Missing".."The point".

And then agreeing with you.

See the problem all of that is technically quoted from you, but out of context it bares little relation to what you said.

"Also, do you not see the irony in calling Pach self-righteous?"

Nope. I could see were you might think so, but no. Pached'e'Pach's opening response to me was basically, agree with or your stupid, Well that and an insistance that I show respect for fictional characters. Because he seems to think I can hope in an X-Wing fly to Curascant and apologise to Vader or some such. Made even funnier by the fact that I didn't disrespect said characters and Mr.P'101 hadn't been rude and bizarre in his response then I'd probably be affording him more leeway, but he was and so honestly are you.

"So, very useful? Pointing out valid flaws in an argument is far from being useless or derailing a conversation."

Well in some ways it'd be less of a derail. Because while the other Green Lanterns whose loss and struggle he intoned with such honer and respected aren't in this where as Vader is.

In other words nitpickery nitpicking of wording is adding anything besides tangents and distractions.

"Yes, personalities and morals matter; how they use their power is as important as the power itself."

Look the guy who obviously didn't read the response, responds. I admitted they matter, but only to a point which is the part you failed to read and or understand.

I am going to use an example again, so please try and follow along and think instead of Latin spamming or dismissing and running.

Remember we talked about a tank vs a dude with a rock earlier, well lets assume the folks in side ( the tank ) are pacifist and will not fight back. What do you think Rock Mans chances of winning are?

Or another example is Superman lands on real life Earth and decides not to fight, but the worlds Militaries decide to engage anyway. Who do you think is going to give, gas out, submitt etc first?

If this was evil Superman or a hostile tank crew then how they win might be different, but they are on such a different level from their opponents that there methods and morals don't effect the general out come of who wins and loses very much.

"Reducto ad absurdum. Invalid argument."

If you are unwilling or unable to respond to others points or engage them in open conversation. Perhaps you should refrain from these types of conversations.

In other words respond properly or as is often said by your latin slinging brethren

Concession accepted.

"Because, as stated, those are two completely different fights."

It might be best if you avoid answering questions, you don't have answers for.

Look I said its not a perfect method or example, but it might help to illustrate the power dispairity. Or help folks realize bias if they are say Vader fan boys.

To try and put it into perspective lets bounce back to guy with rock vs tank. Do you think a guy taking on a Challanger or even a Bradley with a rock and the out come/events in said encounter could give use a baseline for how a match between rock guy and an Abrams would go?

"Missing Pach's point, again. The point is that you're using a completely separate battle to try and justify why this one is unfair."

No I am using examples that people may less attached or possibley more aware of to illustrate the vast difference in power.

Geomax tried using actual examples of the difference in power, but nobody seemed to get it. So I thought perhaps instead of throwing out numbers, that folks some time have time putting into perspective I'd try a more simplified approach.

"Ad hominem, and missing the point once again."

Oh looked look LeLe used more latin and missed the point. That is kind of ironic.

"And last but not least, learn how to spell."

And last, but not least Lab-erdoodle induldges in another of the cliched arguments used by people that don't have a point or can't properly support their position.

Also isn't attacking my spelling a bit of an argumentum ad hominem.

Okay their might be irony in that sentence too.