BAN-KAI! Bleach General Discussion

[Deagonx]

Yall really gave him concept manip for that shit

 

[Guacamolefletcher]

Yall really gave him concept manip for that shit

Ok, awesome

 

[Nierre]

Copiumx

 

[Deceived3596]

Yall really gave him concept manip for that shit

 

[Malekith]

Yall really gave him concept manip for that shit

 

[zylieo]

Yall really gave him concept manip for that shit

 

[Valeska24]

Cm3 fr

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Deagonx really came in here just to get ratiod, tragic

 

[Arcker123]

User @Deagonx is such a meanie guys! He made a joke challenging your intellectual credibility, let's try to report him and get him banned.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

 

[Arcker123]

It's hyperbole because I said it was - Top tier Deagonx argument

 

[Guacamolefletcher]

Imma downgrade it using disbelief

 

[Deagonx]

It's hyperbole because I said it was - Top tier Deagonx argument

Can only be defeated by "it's literal because I said it was."

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

 

[Arcker123]

Can only be defeated by "it's literal because I said it was."

Who cares? You don't even reject that reasoning in principle, you would accept that conclusion using that argument if it fit your bias.

"It's true because I said it so" is a convincing argument to you.

 

[Deagonx]

The one advocating for the addition of an ability has the burden of proof in any discussion. I needn't prove it was flowery language (although it certainly seemed that way to me and others I spoke to, given Gerard's manner of speaking), the absence of evidence of it being literal is itself a sufficient reason to remove the ability. A lot of verses have concept manip when they shouldn't, not sure why it gets approved as easily as it does sometimes.

 

[Arcker123]

You can't mock me for using reasoning you yourself find to be valid. That was the point of the joke, glad we agree.

The one advocating for the addition of an ability has the burden of proof in any discussion. I needn't prove it was flowery language (although it certainly seemed that way to me and others I spoke to, given Gerard's manner of speaking), the absence of evidence of it being literal is itself a sufficient reason to remove the ability. A lot of verses have concept manip when they shouldn't, not sure why it gets approved as easily as it does sometimes.

This pathetic attempt to pivot the discussion is pretty funny ngl. I'm not even going to bother to show you why this is wrong.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

There isn’t absence of evidence. We literally see Zaraki start to despair because of the reasons Gerard states. And for anyone who’s read the series and understands it, knows that Zaraki despairing at a life or death battle is beyond out of character for someone who is willing to nearly kill himself for that adrenaline rush. You can disagree with something, but “I think it’s flowery language” is not proof of an absence of evidence. You do need to prove your claims. If you merely claim hyperbole without providing evidence, you’re making an interpretative claim, which can be defeated with other equal interpretative claims. The notion of “I don’t need to support my claims if the other side is advocating something” is intellectually dishonest or blatantly ignorant.

 

[Arcker123]

Arc don't engage with his pivots that have already been explained to be irrelevant.

We just need to pretentiously laugh at him for failing to understand our jokes.

 

[Deagonx]

You can't mock me for using reasoning you yourself find to be valid.

Right, but the point of my reply was that I don't find it valid. So that there's no further misunderstanding: I saw no reason to take Gerard's statements literally. In absence of evidence I advocated for removing the ability.

The other issue was -- lest we forget -- even if Gerard was being literal it would've just been empathetic manip, not concept manip.

There isn’t absence of evidence. We literally see Zaraki start to despair because of the reasons Gerard states. And for anyone who’s read the series and understands it, knows that Zaraki despairing at a life or death battle is beyond out of character for someone who is willing to nearly kill himself for that adrenaline rush. You can disagree with something, but “I think it’s flowery language” is not proof of an absence of evidence.

I recall that argument being made in the thread and found it very speculative, and others agreed. In the best case scenario this would be fear manip, not concept manip.

You do need to prove your claims. If you merely claim hyperbole without providing evidence, you’re making an interpretative claim, which can be defeated with other equal interpretative claims. The notion of “I don’t need to support my claims if the other side is advocating something” is intellectually dishonest or blatantly ignorant.

Agreed, that's precisely my point. An interpretive claim like "it's literal" is defeated with equal interpretive claims like "it's hyperbole." If neither can be sufficiently proven, the ability cannot be added.

 

[Robo432343]

Can u guys cum to my Aizen vs Mujin park thread

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I recall that argument being made in the thread and found it very speculative, and others agreed. In the best case scenario this would be fear manip, not concept manip.

Right idrc about the conclusion. I already said it’s fine to hold an opposite opinion. I myself do not hold a concrete opinion on the CM anyway.

Agreed, that's precisely my point. An interpretive claim like "it's literal" is defeated with equal interpretive claims like "it's hyperbole." If neither can be sufficiently proven, the ability cannot be added.

Which is not the same as “I don’t need to support my claim when arguing against a positive claim”. Because in this instance with 2 equal interpretative claims neither is more likely than the other. Which we have ratings for those scenarios, “possibly”. It’s not an all or nothing situation, having a claim that holds equal but opposite weight as the counter claim doesn’t make the counter claim 100% incorrect or debunked.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Can u guys cum to my Aizen vs Mujin park thread

No

 

[Deagonx]

Which we have ratings for those scenarios, “possibly”.

I believe we discussed this in the thread. Our standards for a "possibly" rating are a fair bit higher than "this interpretation is possible." Per one of our Bureaucrats:

You need to understand that just having arguments for an interpretation doesn't make it valid grounds to give possibly rating, otherwise again, every rating on our wiki would be like that because every CRT is filled with reasons and arguments for why people disagree with this and that.

 

[Arcker123]

I needn't prove it was flowery language

Right, but the point of my reply was that I don't find it valid. So that there's no further misunderstanding: I saw no reason to take Gerard's statements literally. In absence of evidence I advocated for removing the ability.

This is the level of cognitive dissonance I've come to expect of Deagonx.

Deagon, you made a claim it was flowery (or at least possibly flowery) and admitted you had no evidence for those claims. That's what I was mocking. Don't pivot onto these weaker absence of evidence claims that have no bearing on what I said.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I believe we discussed this in the thread. Our standards for a "possibly" rating are a fair bit higher than "this interpretation is possible." Per one of our Bureaucrats:

I never claimed that vague possibilities of low probability warrant possibly ratings. So cool I agree.

 

[Deagonx]

Deagon, you made a claim it was flowery (or at least possibly flowery) and admitted you had no evidence for those claims.

Right. I'd only need evidence for an interpretation like that if I was using it to add an ability.

I never claimed that vague possibilities of low probability warrant possibly ratings. So cool I agree.

Solid. Two equal possibilities is also not enough for a "possibly" rating.

 

[Arcker123]

I do not have to justify my claims. - Deagonx circa 2023

I'm not going to take the time out of my day to give you an in depth explanation on how you completely misunderstand the burden of proof, as I think the comment above proves that just fine.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Right. I'd only need evidence for an interpretation like that if I was using it to add an ability.

Naw if you wanna argue anything substantive, evidence is nigh necessity. The only exception I see is arguing purely interpretative claims, in which neither side has evidence outside of their own reasoning to back a claim. You’d need evidence to remove an ability or add an ability in like 99/100 scenarios. That’s how CRTs work, you make your claim, you provide your evidence, deliberation occurs, staff vote, the end conclusion is applied.

Also to clarify, disagreeing with evidence or using the same evidence to support a counter claim via opposing interpretations is fine. But that’s different than saying “I don’t need evidence unless I’m advocating for an addition”.

 

[Deagonx]

I'm not going to take the time out of my day to give you an in depth explanation on how you completely misunderstand the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. The claim in question, as it pertains to the basic concept of the site, is that "X character has Y ability." If the argument for them having Y ability is "this statement is literal" but no evidence is provided other than that individuals belief that it is literal, an adequate response is "it could also be metaphorical."

It wouldn't be sufficient to say "you lack evidence that it is metaphorical" to have the ability added, as that suggests we should assume the claimant is correct by default i.e. "true until proven false" which isn't how we operate here, for good reason.

You’d need evidence to remove an ability or add an ability in like 99/100 scenarios. That’s how CRTs work, you make your claim, you provide your evidence, deliberation occurs, staff vote, the end conclusion is applied.

For removing an ability, pointing out an absence of appropriate evidence is sufficient. If I wanted to remove a character's "flight" ability I don't need to find a scan where he says, like, "I can't fly!" I could just point out there's no scan proving he has flight, and we'd remove it unless someone produced one.

In this case, pointing out that Gerard's statements could be metaphorical and we had nothing concrete to say it was literal was enough to remove the ability.

 

[Arcker123]

"This thing you believe to be literal is actually figurative"

"Why?"

"Nuh uh!!! I don't need to justify that claim because even though I'm making a positive claim that needs it's own reasons to believe, as stipulated by the burden of proof, i'm actually immune from proving claims because you also have a burden of proof."

@Deagonx can you do us a favor and explain how this conversation string makes sense to you?

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

For removing an ability, pointing out an absence of appropriate evidence is sufficient. If I wanted to remove a character's "flight" ability I don't need to find a scan where he says, like, "I can't fly!" I could just point out there's no scan proving he has flight, and we'd remove it unless someone produced one.

In this case, pointing out that Gerard's statements could be metaphorical and we had nothing concrete to say it was literal was enough to remove the ability.

Removing an ability because “it could be this” is admitting that the metaphorical claim is built upon a vague possibility. Not at all equivocal to the example you brought up.

 

[Arcker123]

The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. The claim in question, as it pertains to the basic concept of the site, is that "X character has Y ability." If the argument for them having Y ability is "this statement is literal" but no evidence is provided other than that individuals belief that it is literal, an adequate response is "it could also be metaphorical."

It wouldn't be sufficient to say "you lack evidence that it is metaphorical" to have the ability added, as that suggests we should assume the claimant is correct by default i.e. "true until proven false" which isn't how we operate here, for good reason.

You are being dishonest by claiming you're arguing it's purely a possibly. You made the claim it was literal. People opposing something also have a burden of proof, one you never met, this was my criticism.

I'm not saying something is true in virtue of the opposing side being unproven. What a pitiful and dishonest strawman.

You are again dishonestly retreating to weaker claims when the one I was actually attacking remains undefended.

 

[Deagonx]

"This thing you believe to be literal is actually figurative"

"Why?"

"Nuh uh!!! I don't need to justify that claim because even though I'm making a positive claim that needs it's own reasons to believe, as stipulated by the burden of proof, i'm actually immune from proving claims because you also have a burden of proof."

@Deagonx can you do us a favor and explain how this conversation string makes sense to you?

I won't, because that isn't what I am proposing. It's more like this.

"This thing is literal."
"Couldn't it also be figurative? How do we know it's literal?"
"If you're saying it's figurative, prove it. Otherwise I'm right."

Your stance requires considering your own conclusion the default that must be disproven, rather than you proving your own claim. That's not how it works, if you are advocating for an ability addition you need to prove it.

Removing an ability because “it could be this” is admitting that the metaphorical claim is built upon a vague possibility. Not at all equivocal to the example you brought up.

The ability was added because "it could be this" which is a vague possibility. My pointing out "it could also be this, intsead" is a demonstration of the former, which is why the ability was removed.

 

[Robo432343]

Yeah why can’t you guys debate hereand argue if it should be added or not

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

The ability was added because "it could be this" which is a vague possibility. My pointing out "it could also be this, intsead" is a demonstration of the former, which is why the ability was removed.

That’s a refutation of it being concrete. Regardless, the ability wasn’t added because it “could be this” it was added because based on how we see the ability affect character’s it’s likely this. Now whether that warranted a full rating or not is whatever. But merely stating it could be not this isn’t refutation of the initial claim.

Yeah why can’t you guys debate hereand argue if it should be added or not

This is just a general thread not a CRT

 

[Deagonx]

People opposing something also have a burden of proof, one you never met, this was my criticism.

Right, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of a burden of proof. I was not convinced by the argument for it being literal, this does not incur a burden of proof.

It needs to be proven to be literal to be added as an ability. It does not need to be proven to be metaphorical to not be added. It's essentially "innocent until proven guilty." A defense attorney needn't prove innocence, their job is to point out that the evidence for guilt is insufficient. Your stance is akin to saying "unless they have sufficient proof their client didn't do it, they're guilty" which for obvious reasons isn't an acceptable approach.

 

[Lynieryz]

Possibly​

Should be used to list a statistic for a character with some basis, but inconclusive due to the justification being vague or non-definitive. The probability of the justification in question for being reliable should be notable, but mild. This term should be used sparingly.

 

[Arcker123]

Deagonx is incapable of actually arguing.

He's just so laughably dishonest that his only response is to give some strawman that I never even once implied.

Deagonx, if you could be so kind, could you actually point out where I said something is true in virtue of the Negation is unproven. Can you actually point to where I made this fallacious argument? Stop strawmanning me.

Your stance requires considering your own conclusion the default that must be disproven, rather than you proving your own claim. That's not how it works, if you are advocating for an ability addition you need to prove it

Complete strawman with no relevance to anything I said.

Right, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of a burden of proof. I was not convinced by the argument for it being literal, this does not incur a burden of proof.

It needs to be proven to be literal to be added as an ability. It does not need to be proven to be metaphorical to not be added. It's essentially "innocent until proven guilty." A defense attorney needn't prove innocence, their job is to demonstrate that the evidence for guilt is insufficient. Your stance is akin to saying "unless they have sufficient prove their client didn't do it, they're guilty" which for obvious reasons isn't an acceptable approach.

This is again you dishonestly rephrasing the claim to avoid the criticism.

I linked where you made the claim.

 

[Excellence616]

Yeah why can’t you guys debate hereand argue if it should be added or not

We have to wait for Cour 3 to adapt Gerard scenes