User blog comment:MilitaryBrat/Hal Jordan vs Darth Vader/@comment-1683193-20131028175901/@comment-422690-20131031211059

First off, Anon, your belligerence and condescension are not helping your case at all. really not helping your case. By the way, those Latin phrases I'm using are the names of logical fallacies as recognized by debate and logic communities. If an argument falls under a fallacy, it can immediately be dismissed.

"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."


 * there

And I don't know much about it, but I know enough about how the ring works to know that Pach's argument is alongside those lines and yours isn't. Since you did not provide a source, I'm inclined to believe you don't have one.

"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."


 * they're

You're missing Pach's entire point about respecting a warrior here - he's saying you're taking them out of character.

"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?"

Reducto ad absurdum. Next.

"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."

I don't write paragraphs when three words can declare it invalid. It's a fallacy, and fallacies are not points of debate.

"No need to get defensive, just checking."

No need to ask the question like you're trying to point out a flaw.

"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."

I did state that it may not apply to Hal in particular - however, you're acting like a fucking idiot right now by trying to make yourself seem intelligent.

"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."

Because Pach's point is that facing a ship and facing a person require completely different skill sets.

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

No, not really. It just helps us know who you're referring to.

"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?"

He's talking about them because you did. Simple as that. Using the plural - Green Lanterns - implies you're talking about the entire corps. But you're trying the Chewbacca Defense now, so let's move on.

""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."

You know I was referring to the earlier blanket statement; you never said mostly. Though, again, Chewbacca Defense.

"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."

No, this is just me responding piece by piece.



"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,"

No. Pach's response was along the lines of "If you want to debate this, do it intelligently." I can see where you would get that impression, though.

"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."

Again, that's not what Pach means when he says "disrespecting a character." I explained that above already.

"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."

Pach does tend to be abrasive when disagreeing. However, you took it far beyond that. Personally, I respond to rudeness with rudeness, and you were very much so.

"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."

First off, the last part of that sentence really needs to be worded better. Second off, he responded to using the other Green Lanterns because you did.

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

Funnily enough, you're doing the very same.

"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."

Except that it does matter past that point. To use your own ridiculous examples, if a warrior can make a planet explode with a thought, but they ignore that and just slash people with a sword instead, then their ability to explode a planet is not used at all. How they use their powers - in this case ignoring them - is far more important than them having it. That makes a huge difference in their fighting capability.

The above, mind, is a proper use of an absurdity to prove a point, because the point to be proven is abstract. Whether or not a battle is unfair is a very concrete yes or no.

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

Only if the example is a good one.

"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?"

Far higher. If they won't fight back, he can climb into the tank and bash their heads in.

"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?"

In this case, Supes is more likely to just leave. This is a horrible example, by the way, but eh.

"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."

Except they do, as I mentioned.

"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."

I respond to valid arguments.

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

Concession accepted."

Again, if the arguments are valid, I respond to them. Otherwise, ignore and move on.

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

I did give an answer, if you hadn't noticed, and it's a very valid one - you're trying to compare apples and rocks.

"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."

It's not a good example at all. Use something that's actually valid if you want to do that.

And this is the internet. It's very, very rare that people will admit fanboyism. Though I'd also like to point out that you seem to be exhibiting a good deal of GL fanboyism as well.

"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?"

a) Back to the Reducto ad absurdum

b) Unlike your previous statements, this is actually a good example because it involves one combatant and an extremely similar opponent. Using two completely different combatants to try and prove why a separate set is unfair, however, is not a good point.

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

Except, as I have said again and again, you're reducing it to absurdities. If you want to argue a point, use something that's actually related. Not something that is wildly different.

"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."

If you'd bothered to read Drayco's reply, he addressed Geo's points.

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

Ad hominem.

"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."

That's not an argument, but a suggestion.

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

Okay their might be irony in that sentence too."

It's not an ad hominem, since I'm not using that as a reason why you're wrong. It's a suggestion to improve your debating skills.

You may have noticed that nowhere in here or in my previous comment am I arguing whether it's fair or not. I'm trying to show you that your arguments are not effective and that you need to improve them, not that they're wrong.