It clearly isn't easy as all you can do is accuse me of things and appeal to motive instead of actually arguing. Saying your opponent is arguing in bad faith without any explanation is not gonna help you win any debate, though if your aim is to commit fallacies it's certainly a good method.
This is a clear denial of my arguments. I explained why I had to say another word in a post, and later quoted it as well in case you missed it, and still you couldn't address my points and resorted to attacking me instead. Not only that but the fact instead of "less manifest" I used a word of the same meaning and didn't quote that word proves I didn't lie. So it's a lose-lose situation for you.
Irrelevant due to the fact I didn't quote the word. When I don't quote I don't have to state the exact word he mentioned, just a word with the same meaning.
Can't argue against that logic.
Except you didn't, because "less manifest" and "lesser" mean completely different things.
You know, at this point you have claimed this a million times. Can you provide a reasoning to your claim or are you just gonna continue claiming?
I don't really see how it would be my job to teach you English. The two words aren't even somewhat related in meaning, and you most likely already know that. You can keep claiming it, but every time you claim Scott said "lesser" I'll correct you. He said "less manifest."
You want me to bring out a literal image then? Here is an image often used to display the consubstantiality in Christian theology. As depicted the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are still separate from one another. It is the godhead which they’re all aspects of that they’re the same as.
No it’s not. If I give someone a map of North America, and Africa is not a part of North America, we can conclude that Africa would not be a part of the map.
Lol you just ignored my argument. How does Overvoids name being written on itself mean the Source is the Overvoid?
It doesn't. It's amazing that you can fail to understand a line of reasoning that has been explained to you so many times.
Your line of reasoning doesn’t even make sense. It’s just a weak attempt at trying to correlate things that don’t correlate with one another. As the Source can be written on the Overvoid and still not be the Ovevoid.
Given how poor your description of it was, you're clearly in no position to make such a claim. I never said the Overvoid's name being written on the white space meant the Source was the Overvoid. That's incoherent babble that doesn't remotely represent what I've said here.
The current discussion is about whether Mandrakk has transduality, and derivative of that, the question of whether or not the Source and Overvoid are the same thing.
Well it branched off into two discussions. The first being whether Mandrakk and CAS are transdual and the second being about Source and the Overvoid.
No, I disagreed with the default assumption that existing in the Overvoid makes you transdual in the first place, and the author statement which says otherwise. It does not contradict the material, it contradicts your argument, which is the point of counterevidence.
I disagree with the claim that any of those details change the fact that it's a clear counter-example to your claim that it "logically follows" that you must be transdual to reach the Overvoid. The fact remains that they reached the Fifth Dimension without being 5-D. There's no reason to assume Mandrakk and CAS must have been transdual to reach the Overvoid, as I have shown in multiple instances the fact that this is not a logical necessity. This assumption was the entire basis for your claim, but it remains just an assumption, because other possibilities are equally valid.
The fact that I stopped replying is not because I agreed with you, I countered it to my satisfaction. There's nothing connecting the phrase "edge of nothing" to the Overvoid. The scan predates the Overvoid by 10 years, and there is other evidence which shows them as being the same being.
I did not "concede" my interpretation. You repeatedly misunderstood the point of me presenting that interpretation. I was rebutting your default assumption that the wording and grammar suggested separation, by pointing out that it could also be interpreted as consubstantial. You said I didn't have evidence showing it was consubstantial, and I said yes, that's the point, because you also don't have evidence that it's separative. Which means your assertion is opinion only, not fact. The idea that Grant's statements "contradict the material" was based on this opinion, but as shown, it isn't factual, it's subjective.
The argument went in circles a lot because Xearsay did not understand the point of my counterarguments. A big part of his argument is claiming that his conclusions logically followed from the evidence, such as with Mandrakk's transduality from being in the transdual Overvoid, and the wording in the Multiversity Map about the Overvoid and Source.
I was more of referring to them properly existing on that level, not just being present. However, can you clarify this some more? What type of specific clear statements would be needed?
What is the difference and how does one determine that something "properly exists" in a certain space, as compared to simply being present? This is a turn of phrase I had never even heard before until you used it as a basis for rejecting the comparison to Shazam and GL.
A question, would you say being an aspect (like being a part) of a non-existent void gives you NEP?
For reference, Ant, he's referring to whether Mandrakk should have "Non-Existent Physiology" due to his connection with the Overvoid. I personally don't think so. The Overvoid could have given him "existent physiology" in order to allow him to interact with the flaw. I don't generally agree with giving abilities due to who someone's creator is rather than based on their specific portrayal and feats.
Issue is, Mandrakk isn't some random creation of the Overvoid. If he was I would agree with you, but he was directly stated to be a part of the Overvoid. This is similar to my hand and me.
I get it, I was just giving Ant more context.
That's a good point, the comics themselves paint Mandrakk and CAS as a duality, with Mandrakk being the "ultimate evil" and CAS being the weapon designed to defend against him.
Grants statements run contradictory to the comics. As in those exact statements he describes the Overvoid as a transdual place where CAS and Mandrakk cannot exist. However this is contradicted by the comics which supports Mandrakk and CAS existing in the Overvoid. So the statement is literally unusable.
Grant doesn't ever state that they cannot exist in the Overvoid. He says they don't exist beyond the ledge of Nil. Given that they are currently on the ledge of Nil, this makes sense. It's not a contradiction at all.
If Mandrakk is the opposite of life, then he is part of a duality.
This is a non-sequitur. Are you saying the Ultima Thule is transdual, or can grant others transduality?
I do not see it going anywhere. At this point the argument revolves solely around this claim of Transduality, which myself and Lucifer do not accept, and I do not anticipate it being accepted by other staff members as it's based on poor reasoning (the assumption that going to the Overvoid automatically means you're transdual) and was directly contradicted by the author's statement that Mandrakk and CAS are a duality.
