I’m gonna make this it’s own post just so everyone’s aware just how badly
@TheGunsFinalWrath is trying to skew my words apart.
Yes it is. You’re not summarizing my position, your saying what you
believe to be my position despite multiple people including myself telling you otherwise.
No it is not. At all, this is what the strawman fallacy is. Wording matters here Wrath, and nobody said that the blog shouldn’t be read. You’re
interpreting my rhetoric to come off as such but your interpretations aren’t the truth of the matter and the fact that
serval other people has said otherwise in regards to my post is evidence that my rhetoric isn’t coming off that way since
nobody but you is interpreting it that way.
If you’re the only one coming to these interpretations while everyone else is saying that’s not what my posts are saying, then that’s a problem regarding your misinterpretation of my words, not my words themselves.
No that is NOT the same as saying we should fully ignore the context. This is where the fallacy comes in, this is where the misinterpretation of my words is happening.
Me saying “you can come to a conclusion based on the discussions and evidence presented in this thread”
is not the same as me saying “you should ignore everything that’s said in the blog and solely focus on this thread.”
You’re the only one who’s coming to this conclusion because you’re trying to paint what I say to mean something that I’m expressly telling you is not. That’s a problem with your understanding here, not my words.
I hope people who are following this discussion take notice of this post because I think this is an absolutely egregious example of trying to spin my words into something they’re not.
So right off the bat you commit poisoning the well fallacy..
I’m gonna make this it’s own post just so everyone’s aware just how badly @TheGunsFinalWrath is trying to skew my words apart.
Not surprising given that you did the same thing with Dr White earlier so shrug. First off, stop doing that. That's just disgusting.
"31. Poisoning the well
This is similar to ad hominem, except it is directed against other observers instead of your opponent.
You say that there is something objectionable about a person, therefore people shouldn't listen to their arguments.
Example: "Person A is known for being a biased One Piece fanboy, therefore you shouldn't listen to him when he says Luffy can beat Ichigo."
Whether or not this accusation is true, it has no merit on the actual arguments being presented."
I know that you will try to weasel your way out of this, so I'll use the Wikipedia example that actually properly makes it more clear as to what it is:
en.m.wikipedia.org
" Poisoning the well (or attempting to
poison the well) is a type of
informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an
audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say."
Now, what are you doing here that counts as poisoning the well fallacy? I'll explain:
I’m gonna make this it’s own post just so everyone’s aware just how badly @TheGunsFinalWrath is trying to skew my words apart.
You're trying to speak for the audience here, with the added info of trying to discredit my argument right off the bat. This is literally poisoning the well fallacy, a textbook example. And this isn't the first time you've done this.
To TLDR the positions by the way:
The point @Dr._whiteee is arguing for is because JJK has these statements of Tengen “being a Buddha and spreading Buddha throughout the world” and that JJK has symbolic elements of Buddhism in it, it then means that JJK fundamentally matches with Buddhism in its meanings, and therefore the standards that are found in Buddhism are extrapolated into JJK.
There is no explicit confirmation of things like “Nirvana is outside of all other existences” in JJK, it is only extrapolated from Buddhism and then applied to JJK without a direct confirmation that’s the meaning being used within the series.
Other extraordinary positions are being posited using the same argument such as casualty manipulation for Mahoraga and Higher dimensional existence for Tengen. Again, no explicit confirmation of what things like “Tengen being a higher being” means exists in JJK, the definition is being taken from Buddhist understandings of what being a higher being entails and then asserted onto characters in JJK as a 1:1 match. Claims like “Tengen being one with the universe” despite no clear showings or confirmations of that being the case in the series itself are made as well because of this reasoning.
I disagree with this notion as from my experiences with verses entailing similar pretexts of using Buddhist inspirations, there needs to be explicit and direct confirmations for these inspirations to be posited as truths for the verse and cannot simply be asserted off of its inspirations and like terms alone.
A person that gives a supposed tldr of a position doesn't add their own VIEW or OPINION into things here. You're trying to insert your own view which is to make the opponent's argument weak. You should simply objectively explain the positions and not discredit it, nor try to shot it off right off the bat like you do here:
"There is no explicit confirmation of things like “Nirvana is outside of all other existences” in JJK, it is only extrapolated from Buddhism and then applied to JJK without a direct confirmation that’s the meaning being used within the series."
This is another case of poisoning the well fallacy. I ask you to stop doing this, as this is a rather disingenuous way of debating with people, to sway the audience to your side. Because that is not how you do a tldr of a position.
Yes it is. You’re not summarizing my position, your saying what you believe to be my position despite multiple people including myself telling you otherwise.
Another fallacy you commit.
en.m.wikipedia.org
"In
argumentation theory, an
argumentum ad populum (
Latin for "appeal to the people")
[1] is a
fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth or affirming something is good because the
majority thinks so.
[2]"
You are trying to use multiple other people affirming your view as an objective fact. Stop doing that.
Also, about this "You're not summarizing my position", I already touched upon this above: You may say that this is not your position and that it is not what you said, and perhaps that may not be your intention, which you could be right on about the latter, but like I have explained, your own words that contradict yourself ->
The position you come with is the same as trying to convince people to not bother with the blog and to rather focus on the OP solely. You're obviously not saying explicitly that people shouldn't read the blog, but your rhetoric does come off as such, wording matters here Maitreya. If you weren't saying that you were preventing people from reading the blog, then I hope you do look again and see that there is contradiction on your part. Thus, this is not a strawman fallacy but merely you not being consistent with your position. Perhaps your intention was not the case, of course, as I can't really read your mind. But your position comes off as contradictory and honestly the latter is quite consistent with your actions itself. So I'd say you're doing a pretty bad job at convincing people.
And ->
I’m not limiting anything, you’re reading too deep here. People can look at the evidence in this thread and come to a conclusion with that evidence presented. If anything you’re the one trying to limit the discussion by saying you have to read the blog “in order to understand the evidence in the OP.” The OP has presented evidence to their claims and that evidence can be discussed in regards to the points being contested.
You shouldn’t have to read a whole blog in order to “understand the evidence” since the evidence should speak on its own and be presented for the point being argued against. If you have to say “you gotta understand the context bro” in order to try and prove your points…then that’s probably a good indication the points aren’t well founded within the series itself.
And my response to this above being:
Basically a gist of this is that you're saying we aren't obligated to read the blog. That's the same as saying we should fully ignore the context. Which is what you're doing rn. "You're trying to limit the discussion by saying you have to read the blog" Pretty much sums it up. Again, you're not being consistent with this position you supposedly have contrary to the one shown here.
Pretty much says a lot about your actions and position. The blog is obligatory to read and address as stated multiple times, as it is the full context. Yet you're trying to run forth with this narrative where one shouldn't. This is as clear as it gets. Or just say that you misworded things, because you're being quite contradictory to your own actions and actual position that you say you have.
No it is not. At all, this is what the strawman fallacy is. Wording matters here Wrath, and nobody said that the blog shouldn’t be read. You’re interpreting my rhetoric to come off as such but your interpretations aren’t the truth of the matter and the fact that serval other people has said otherwise in regards to my post is evidence that my rhetoric isn’t coming off that way since nobody but you is interpreting it that way.
If you’re the only one coming to these interpretations while everyone else is saying that’s not what my posts are saying, then that’s a problem regarding your misinterpretation of my words, not my words themselves.
rhetoric
Definitions from
Oxford Languages
noun: the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques."he is using a common figure of rhetoric, hyperbole"
-language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
In this case, your wording and the way you come off as I have analyzed and shown, are not sincere to the actual supposed position you speak of having. It would be a strawman fallacy if your position was indeed shown to be clear, but it isn't, because your supposed position you speak of having is not only contradictory, but also different based on the actions you have shown, which I have presented and analyzed.
You claim that my interpretations are not true, and the evidence you use is of other people saying so, meaning that I am objectively wrong?
That is not the case. And since you like using other people as the basis of fundamental truth then I'll have to again apply Appeal To People Fallacy on you. And why is this fallacy effective? Simple. By your logic, let's just say you're in a Flat Earth community, or a community who thinks that 2 + 2 is not equal to 4 but 3. You argue and show that it indeed equals to 4 and not 3, but that community insists it is 3, and insists that if other people agree to their view, then they are right and you are wrong. Does this make that community right just because they have many people, or majority or whatever agreeing with them? No. That is a big logical fallacy. You're trying to apply the same logic here. Though you seem to be avoiding tackling my interpretation and rather using other people as your argument.
No that is NOT the same as saying we should fully ignore the context. This is where the fallacy comes in, this is where the misinterpretation of my words is happening.
As I have shown and explained, that is not a logical fallacy. And yes, like I presented above, you are trying to coerce/convince people to not give the blog importance when it is verbatim stated multiple times that the full context is the blog, NOT the thread. You keep saying that it is enough to focus on the thread itself multiple times and try to undermine the importance of the blog, and even act incredulous when one tells you to USE the blog as the full context. I've shown and demonstrated that this is indeed what you're doing. It is the same as telling people to not read the blog: To ignore full context. If this is still a misinterpretation then I'm afraid you just don't know how to word your argument any better and made it come off as different of what you claim to not to do, which I have shown and proven. If that is the case, please do say so. Your intent looks different but your actions aren't.
Me saying “you can come to a conclusion based on the discussions and evidence presented in this thread” is not the same as me saying “you should ignore everything that’s said in the blog and solely focus on this thread.”
Include context which you excluded out please. Here
I’m not limiting anything, you’re reading too deep here. People can look at the evidence in this thread and come to a conclusion with that evidence presented. If anything you’re the one trying to limit the discussion by saying you have to read the blog “in order to understand the evidence in the OP.” The OP has presented evidence to their claims and that evidence can be discussed in regards to the points being contested.
You shouldn’t have to read a whole blog in order to “understand the evidence” since the evidence should speak on its own and be presented for the point being argued against. If you have to say “you gotta understand the context bro” in order to try and prove your points…then that’s probably a good indication the points aren’t well founded within the series itself.
. An attempt to discredit the full context which is to convince people further to not read the full context as shown in the second paragraph by undermining it. The first paragraph also tries to further convince people subtly that the blog isn't that necessary even though it is obligatory to read it in order to fully understand the context and etc.
You’re the only one who’s coming to this conclusion because you’re trying to paint what I say to mean something that I’m expressly telling you is not. That’s a problem with your understanding here, not my words.
Again, "You're the only one who's coming to this conclusion" A subtle attempt of poisoning the well fallacy, or the attempt to undermine an argument by saying "You're the only one saying it and nobody else. which is bad". Stop that. Literally fallacious.
"Because you're trying to paint what I say to mean something that I'm expressly telling you is not" Like I said. You say that you don't mean that, but your own actions say otherwise. Which is why I am asking you to restate your own words properly here and now. Because the way you present yourself in this thread from what I have seen, come off as different than what you claim to not do in this thread upon being questioned. Honestly it seems to me that you just did not do a good job on expressing yourself correctly your views earlier. And yes I do understand that you're saying that, I do understand it, but your actions literally disagree with it multiple times. And you defending and saying I interpreted your words differently is not helping it, when the actual issue from what I see, seems to be you not having done a proper job in expressing your views correctly. Though still very odd that you're trying to ignore the blog and undermining it anyways.
I hope people who are following this discussion take notice of this post because I think this is an absolutely egregious example of trying to spin my words into something they’re not.
This is like, your fourth attempt of committing the poisoning the well fallacy..
You do not because you have demonstrated to try and paint my words into a meaning that’s not been said. Every time you say I’m “purposefully ignoring context”, that’s literally just you not understanding the posts from me you’re responding to by trying to spin a different meaning than what was said.
I have demonstrated and shown and analyzed exactly as to what your words are trying to say. This is not my issue at all, it is your own issue based on the fact that you have done a bad job in wording your views and arguments.
Here is more evidence you are not understanding the posts you’re responding to because I quite clearly laid out some time ago that I have read the blog and still disagree with the positions being made and expressly clarified which positions I’m taking issue with.
I never said that you didn't read the blog... I believe you are not understanding what I am saying here. I am saying that you have been running along with this narrative that reading the thread only is enough, with various attempts of undermining the importance of the blog, aka the full context to try and get people to solely focus on the thread. Indeed, you have not explicitly told people to not read the blog, but your own actions and implications are the same as saying it. Which is as I said above, and have also shown.
nobody has been going on with the narrative of only reading the thread and not the blog”, that’s simply the narrative YOU’RE trying to spin in regards to my posts and my opinions. Which is a strawman fallacy,
”You could say all you want about not doing so, but your actions are quite clear.”
This is just going in circles, so I will simply tell you to refer to my arguments above proving that, yes, you are indeed going with this subtle narrative. You have read the blog, yes, nobody is denying that, neither am I. "Strawman fallacy" Incorrect use of it. It would be a strawman fallacy if your words were clear in the direction you claim it to be, but it isn't. It is literally different. I am correctly interpreting your words.
and this is just more lying and twisting of words I’ve said, because I’ve read the blog and I’ve said I’ve read the blog, so I’m not “ignoring the OP telling me to read the blog” if I’ve literally read the blog.
I should have been more clear there then, my bad. So I'll reword it: You are ignoring the OP telling you to read the blog and address it. in other words: The OP is telling you to read the full context to address the full context. You however, are not doing that.
Context isn’t being ignored because context is literally being presented to me in multiple posts and still my position of disagreement still remains because the scans being used as context do not lead to the claims being made by the OP that they are saying to me, something I expressly outline in multiple paragraphs in several posts:
Context is being ignored because you refuse to address the blog. You know this well.
The so called “context” for these points if discussion is literally being presented before me, Dr.Whitee even said a whole bulleted outline of Samsara and Nirvana in JJK, and regardless that context didn’t substantiate the claim that was being made which again I expressly explained and outlined:
You misunderstand. I'll say it again: You are ignoring the whole context. The whole context in question is the blog. How are you ignoring it you may ask? From what is said and shown, you are not addressing the blog, and only the thread despite the blog being stated to be the full context itself multiple times. You refuse to address it because of... "too long, several essays" and "it is enough to only read the evidence presented here instead".
Do you know how long your blog is?
That’s not a position, that’s a book.
I didn’t strawman you by the way, I broke down your point into its basic meaning and position you’re arguing for. You don’t need whole essays to summarize your point.
People can look at the evidence in this thread and come to a conclusion with that evidence presented. If anything you’re the one trying to limit the discussion by saying you have to read the blog “in order to understand the evidence in the OP.” The OP has presented evidence to their claims and that evidence can be discussed in regards to the points being contested.
You shouldn’t have to read a whole blog in order to “understand the evidence” since the evidence should speak on its own and be presented for the point being argued against. If you have to say “you gotta understand the context bro” in order to try and prove your points…then that’s probably a good indication the points aren’t well founded within the series itself.
So...
You’re just ignoring the conversation being had in order to limit the discussion because it’s not going in your favor. Context is being provided and points are being made that show that the context provided still doesn’t lead to the claim that’s being made.
People can and are able to come to conclusions off of that discussion. That’s not me saying “context should be ignored” like you like to strawman me and say is my position, no, only that people are allowed to come to a conclusion off that discussion.
Never ignored the conversation. Neither am I limiting the discussion here. You're the one doing it here by trying to address only the thread and not the blog that contains the full context.
You are still saying full context should be ignored, by various ways of either undermining the importance of the blog or trying to present as reading the thread is enough to do so.
but anyways, this is the whole issue here. We don't just address only the thread here, we also have to address the blog because that is the full context for what you read on the OP.
Either you address it, or concede. No other option here.
