- 15,637
- 5,392
The irony here is that you still haven't given much context beyond whining about people asking you to actually prove your points and arguing semantics ad nauseum.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Some World of Darkness justification issues
- Thread starter Ogbunabali
- Start date
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,925
- 2,128
Okay, so you haven't even bothered to read the thread before posting, very nice.Dargoo Faust said:
And replying to the same question with the same answer is ad nauseum on the active side not the passive.
In this case, as I hope you will now bother to read the thread before trying to make a judgement, I am taking the passive side, I am not asking, I am stating catagorically.
So, before you try and give it large, perhaps you might not want to pull a red herring and argument from ignorence next time.
- 15,637
- 5,392
It took half the entire thread of people asking you to give evidence for your explanations for your arguments, and so far you've only given it for one argument. People are still asking for scans on every other point.
So yes, you really haven't provided much context so far. I've read the thread.
You can't really assume people will take what you say about a verse at face value without showing what you're talking about.
So far I'm still with Ogbunbali on this thread.
So yes, you really haven't provided much context so far. I've read the thread.
You can't really assume people will take what you say about a verse at face value without showing what you're talking about.
So far I'm still with Ogbunbali on this thread.
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,925
- 2,128
>It took half the entire thread of people asking you to give evidence for your explanations for your arguments, and so far you've only given it for one argument. People are still asking for scans on every other point.
Well, not really, first of all, the 1st quarter of the thread was about Ogbunbali throwing around his headcannon and me debunking every single one of his points, then him attempting to lie to me.
The 2nd part is staff members coming in a giving their opinion on the thread and Ant telling Og to get more staff involved.
The 3rd part was still on about proving a negative and "prove it's not headcannon" and trying and failing to shift the burden of proof until finally...
I the 4th part you finally picked up the pattern that I wasn't going to allow you shift the burden of proof like the usual tactic and you changed it to "Gimmie context or you're wrong." which is a fallacy all on it's own.
Well, not really, first of all, the 1st quarter of the thread was about Ogbunbali throwing around his headcannon and me debunking every single one of his points, then him attempting to lie to me.
The 2nd part is staff members coming in a giving their opinion on the thread and Ant telling Og to get more staff involved.
The 3rd part was still on about proving a negative and "prove it's not headcannon" and trying and failing to shift the burden of proof until finally...
I the 4th part you finally picked up the pattern that I wasn't going to allow you shift the burden of proof like the usual tactic and you changed it to "Gimmie context or you're wrong." which is a fallacy all on it's own.
- 15,637
- 5,392
>argues about me making red herrings
>makes an entire comment in relation to a single word on my comment
Seriously, just give scans. It's not asking for much.
And again, not asking you to disprove a fact, I'm asking you to prove the stuff you're actually posting here with scans instead of trailing off about burden of proof when the proof you've given is empty to begin with.
>makes an entire comment in relation to a single word on my comment
Seriously, just give scans. It's not asking for much.
And again, not asking you to disprove a fact, I'm asking you to prove the stuff you're actually posting here with scans instead of trailing off about burden of proof when the proof you've given is empty to begin with.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Udlmaster said:
Dargoo Faust said:
Ogbunabali said:
- 15,637
- 5,392
Considering she uses what she plucks out of the cloak to plant trees in the very next line yes, there really isn't enough context in that scan to assume she can effect realistic stellar bodies. If anyhthing it just seems like a small scale reality warp as she's "draping" a night sky over an area several orders of magnitude less than what the night sky in real life equates to.Udlmaster said:
The other two quotes aren't even you providing context, it's just you repeating "you're wrong" at the evidence provided without making any actual arguments.
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,925
- 2,128
>If anyhthing it just seems like a small scale reality warp as she's "draping" a night sky over an area several orders of magnitude less than what the night sky in real life equates to.
That's headcannon at best, firstly, where does it state that it's over just a limited area? And why are you actually taking meaning out of the text where it says she uses her cloak for one, and where does it state she's using reality warping?
Secondly, the very fact it states that they are in fact stars negs your entire argument.
>The other two quotes aren't even you providing context, it's just you repeating "you're wrong" at the evidence provided without making any actual arguments.
Firstly, no, it's not, read what I put, it's literally me saying there isn't any other context, again, you're trying to get me to prove a negative, I cannot give context when you have it all.
Secondly, what "evidence"? You have no evidence, which is my entire argument is for you to get evidence because you have none, I could have dismissed your argument thousands of times before this using burden of rejoinder and Hitchens's razor since you have no evidence.
If you're talking about the scans, those aren't your evidence, it's actually mine that I've been using against you this entire time. Might want to learn how evidence works next time.
That's headcannon at best, firstly, where does it state that it's over just a limited area? And why are you actually taking meaning out of the text where it says she uses her cloak for one, and where does it state she's using reality warping?
Secondly, the very fact it states that they are in fact stars negs your entire argument.
>The other two quotes aren't even you providing context, it's just you repeating "you're wrong" at the evidence provided without making any actual arguments.
Firstly, no, it's not, read what I put, it's literally me saying there isn't any other context, again, you're trying to get me to prove a negative, I cannot give context when you have it all.
Secondly, what "evidence"? You have no evidence, which is my entire argument is for you to get evidence because you have none, I could have dismissed your argument thousands of times before this using burden of rejoinder and Hitchens's razor since you have no evidence.
If you're talking about the scans, those aren't your evidence, it's actually mine that I've been using against you this entire time. Might want to learn how evidence works next time.
- 15,637
- 5,392
>That's headcannon at best, firstly, where does it state that it's over just a limited area? And why are you actually taking meaning out of the text where it says she uses her cloak for one, and where does it state she's using reality warping?
It says it's "draped over the land", as in it just covers the land in question. Nothing points to it being in the scope of interstellar distances and stellar objects. I'm pretty sure the reality warping comes from using a star to plant a seed, which can't be done without bending the laws of reality last time I checked.
>Secondly, the very fact it states that they are in fact stars negs your entire argument.
Not every object described as a star is automatically a giant burning ball of gas like we see in the sky. The figurative language you seem to be taking at face value without analyzing it further also has her take them out of a cloak that doesn't do more than cover a limited area and has them as small enough to plant in the ground, which you also conveniently ignore.
>Firstly, no, it's not, read what I put, it's literally me saying there isn't any other context, again, you're trying to get me to prove a negative, I cannot give context when you have it all.
I have read what you put. It's the same ad nauseum complaint you throw around to escape using evidence or presenting any actual arguments. If the point is that the language is used in a way that isn't literal and you can't find other angles to look at the feat from then perhaps the feat isn't reliable in the first place.
>Secondly, what "evidence"? You have no evidence, which is my entire argument is for you to get evidence because you have none, I could have dismissed your argument thousands of times before this using burden of rejoinder and Hitchens's razor since you have no evidence.
Speaking of ad nauseum. I'm pointing out flaws in your "evidence" by going over the wording and tone of the texts you quote. Since you refuse to provide more meat to your arguments beyond repeatedly insisting it's literal and how everyone refuses to read your arguments I don't see much more to discuss here.
>If you're talking about the scans, those aren't your evidence, it's actually mine that I've been using against you this entire time. Might want to learn how evidence works next time.
More redundancy. This is also a red herring, I'm going over a scan in the OP you claimed is literal and in analyzing its text am showing how it is not. Throwing a scan and proclaiming you're correct and proceeding to pat your own back really goes to show how little you desire to actually debate and discuss these feats. There's clearly issues with taking the scan a face value evident in the scan itself.
It says it's "draped over the land", as in it just covers the land in question. Nothing points to it being in the scope of interstellar distances and stellar objects. I'm pretty sure the reality warping comes from using a star to plant a seed, which can't be done without bending the laws of reality last time I checked.
>Secondly, the very fact it states that they are in fact stars negs your entire argument.
Not every object described as a star is automatically a giant burning ball of gas like we see in the sky. The figurative language you seem to be taking at face value without analyzing it further also has her take them out of a cloak that doesn't do more than cover a limited area and has them as small enough to plant in the ground, which you also conveniently ignore.
>Firstly, no, it's not, read what I put, it's literally me saying there isn't any other context, again, you're trying to get me to prove a negative, I cannot give context when you have it all.
I have read what you put. It's the same ad nauseum complaint you throw around to escape using evidence or presenting any actual arguments. If the point is that the language is used in a way that isn't literal and you can't find other angles to look at the feat from then perhaps the feat isn't reliable in the first place.
>Secondly, what "evidence"? You have no evidence, which is my entire argument is for you to get evidence because you have none, I could have dismissed your argument thousands of times before this using burden of rejoinder and Hitchens's razor since you have no evidence.
Speaking of ad nauseum. I'm pointing out flaws in your "evidence" by going over the wording and tone of the texts you quote. Since you refuse to provide more meat to your arguments beyond repeatedly insisting it's literal and how everyone refuses to read your arguments I don't see much more to discuss here.
>If you're talking about the scans, those aren't your evidence, it's actually mine that I've been using against you this entire time. Might want to learn how evidence works next time.
More redundancy. This is also a red herring, I'm going over a scan in the OP you claimed is literal and in analyzing its text am showing how it is not. Throwing a scan and proclaiming you're correct and proceeding to pat your own back really goes to show how little you desire to actually debate and discuss these feats. There's clearly issues with taking the scan a face value evident in the scan itself.
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,925
- 2,128
>It says it's "draped over the land", as in it just covers the land in question. Nothing points to it being in the scope of interstellar distances and stellar objects.
You do know land can mean planet, right?
>I'm pretty sure the reality warping comes from using a star to plant a seed, which can't be done without bending the laws of reality last time I checked.
I recommend you check again, because she doesn't transform the Stars into anything, she planets them and gives them her life essence and blood, which allows them to grow as plants, they're just Supernatural plants.
Also, reality warping is stupidly vague, me sitting here and me typing is me warping reality.
>Not every object described as a star is automatically a giant burning ball of gas like we see in the sky. The figurative language you seem to be taking at face value without analyzing it further also has her take them out of a cloak that doesn't do more than cover a limited area and has them as small enough to plant in the ground, which you also conveniently ignore.
First of all, prove it's a limited area, secondly, prove that Lilith, the Embodiment of Yang, could only plant something small enough to where we assume it would be able to be planted.
Also, what other thing do you pull out of the Night Sky itself and is called a Star?
>I have read what you put. It's the same ad nauseum complaint you throw around to escape using evidence or presenting any actual arguments.
It's actually me answering an ad nauseum question, try and read what I put next time.
>If the point is that the language is used in a way that isn't literal and you can't find other angles to look at the feat from then perhaps the feat isn't reliable in the first place.
This logic is abyssmal, by this logic, we shouldn't use anything because I can see it in a different way.
Frieza destroying Planet Vegeta? Well, I see it from another angle so perhaps the feat isn't reliable in the first place.
Superman lifting sextillions of tons? Well, I see it from another angle so perhaps the feat isn't reliable in the first place.
>Speaking of ad nauseum. I'm pointing out flaws in your "evidence" by going over the wording and tone of the texts you quote.
I like how you just labelling everything I'm saying as ad nausuem is both in itself a ad nausuem and a red herring as well as a terrible attempt at discrediting your detrators.
Ironically, you've not spoken of tone throughout this entire thread, there are 4 instances of the word "tone" even being used in this thread, 3 of them are in my comments, and the last one is of yours.
And I don't believe you know what tone means because tone has nothing to do with this anyway. It doesn't matter if the scans are grimdark or nobellight, tone has no baring on the scans.
>Since you refuse to provide more meat to your arguments beyond repeatedly insisting it's liberality and how everyone refuses to read your arguments I don't see much more to discuss here.
The irony that you're currently performing ad nausuem yourself now. And once again, because you lack simple pattern recognition, I do not have to prove a negative, no matter how many times you try and shift the burden of proof, I wouldn't need to repeat myself if you understood this basic concept of debating and had some pattern recognition that you're not going to get that bullshit past me.
>More redundancy. This is also a red herring, I'm going over a scan in the OP you claimed is literal and in analyzing its text am showing how it is not.
Is that me or do I hear a parrot repeating what it's already said? Oh no, it's just an ad nausuem argument.
>Throwing a scan and proclaiming you're correct and proceeding to pat your own back really goes to show how little you desire to actually debate and discuss these feats.
No, not really, it's just that I'm tired of WoD downplay and have little interest to humour the blind leading the blind telling deaf people to follow the leader.
>There's clearly issues with taking the scan a face value evident in the scan itself.
See my above comment on why self-interpretation is dumb.
You do know land can mean planet, right?
>I'm pretty sure the reality warping comes from using a star to plant a seed, which can't be done without bending the laws of reality last time I checked.
I recommend you check again, because she doesn't transform the Stars into anything, she planets them and gives them her life essence and blood, which allows them to grow as plants, they're just Supernatural plants.
Also, reality warping is stupidly vague, me sitting here and me typing is me warping reality.
>Not every object described as a star is automatically a giant burning ball of gas like we see in the sky. The figurative language you seem to be taking at face value without analyzing it further also has her take them out of a cloak that doesn't do more than cover a limited area and has them as small enough to plant in the ground, which you also conveniently ignore.
First of all, prove it's a limited area, secondly, prove that Lilith, the Embodiment of Yang, could only plant something small enough to where we assume it would be able to be planted.
Also, what other thing do you pull out of the Night Sky itself and is called a Star?
>I have read what you put. It's the same ad nauseum complaint you throw around to escape using evidence or presenting any actual arguments.
It's actually me answering an ad nauseum question, try and read what I put next time.
>If the point is that the language is used in a way that isn't literal and you can't find other angles to look at the feat from then perhaps the feat isn't reliable in the first place.
This logic is abyssmal, by this logic, we shouldn't use anything because I can see it in a different way.
Frieza destroying Planet Vegeta? Well, I see it from another angle so perhaps the feat isn't reliable in the first place.
Superman lifting sextillions of tons? Well, I see it from another angle so perhaps the feat isn't reliable in the first place.
>Speaking of ad nauseum. I'm pointing out flaws in your "evidence" by going over the wording and tone of the texts you quote.
I like how you just labelling everything I'm saying as ad nausuem is both in itself a ad nausuem and a red herring as well as a terrible attempt at discrediting your detrators.
Ironically, you've not spoken of tone throughout this entire thread, there are 4 instances of the word "tone" even being used in this thread, 3 of them are in my comments, and the last one is of yours.
And I don't believe you know what tone means because tone has nothing to do with this anyway. It doesn't matter if the scans are grimdark or nobellight, tone has no baring on the scans.
>Since you refuse to provide more meat to your arguments beyond repeatedly insisting it's liberality and how everyone refuses to read your arguments I don't see much more to discuss here.
The irony that you're currently performing ad nausuem yourself now. And once again, because you lack simple pattern recognition, I do not have to prove a negative, no matter how many times you try and shift the burden of proof, I wouldn't need to repeat myself if you understood this basic concept of debating and had some pattern recognition that you're not going to get that bullshit past me.
>More redundancy. This is also a red herring, I'm going over a scan in the OP you claimed is literal and in analyzing its text am showing how it is not.
Is that me or do I hear a parrot repeating what it's already said? Oh no, it's just an ad nausuem argument.
>Throwing a scan and proclaiming you're correct and proceeding to pat your own back really goes to show how little you desire to actually debate and discuss these feats.
No, not really, it's just that I'm tired of WoD downplay and have little interest to humour the blind leading the blind telling deaf people to follow the leader.
>There's clearly issues with taking the scan a face value evident in the scan itself.
See my above comment on why self-interpretation is dumb.
- 15,637
- 5,392
>You do know land can mean planet, right?
what even
>I recommend you check again, because she doesn't transform the Stars into anything, she planets them and gives them her life essence and blood, which allows them to grow as plants, they're just Supernatural plants.
"And those star-seeds did bear wonderous plants and fruit trees"
Last time I checked stars don't grow into trees, I'll say once again. I'm not sure why you're ignoring this line in the text. There is also nothing in the scan that has her giving them her essence or blood, I'd like evidence on that claim.
>Also, reality warping is stupidly vague, me sitting here and me typing is me warping reality.
She's making plants out of stars. How in high heaven does that equate to anything other than bending reality.
>First of all, prove it's a limited area, secondly, prove that Lilith, the Embodiment of Yang, could only plant something small enough to where we assume it would be able to be planted.
No Limits Fallacy. You show me how it isn't limited and I'll take what you say more seriously.
>Also, what other thing do you pull out of the Night Sky itself and is called a Star?
She describes them as "tiny" and proceeds to use them in a way that doesn't make sense for anything that would logically be called a star in any context. The language isn't literal.
>This logic is abyssmal, by this logic, we shouldn't use anything because I can see it in a different way.
Another red herring here, unsurprisingly. You're making hasty generalizations of my logic. The unrelated feats from different verses are things we actually see and aren'y described in a language with consistency that would give Shakesphere the runs.
>I like how you just labelling everything I'm saying as ad nausuem is both in itself a ad nausuem and a red herring as well as a terrible attempt at discrediting your detrators.
It's true though. You're constantly repeating the same arguments without bringing anything new to the table. I ask you to give more meat to your statements and you provide me double the fluff.
>And I don't believe you know what tone means because tone has nothing to do with this anyway. It doesn't matter if the scans are grimdark or nobellight, tone has no baring on the scans.
I don't think you understand what figerative language is, going over this quote.
>The irony that you're currently performing ad nausuem yourself now. And once again, because you lack simple pattern recognition
The only ad nauseum I'm performing is repeatedly showcasing how your evidence has no solid foothold. Throwing back with no greater depth doesn't help you. There is irony, though, as right after this you proceed to repeat yourself once again and make baseless assumptions of me asking you to prove negatives.
No, not really, it's just that I'm tired of WoD downplay and have little interest to humour the blind leading the blind telling deaf people to follow the leader.
Wanted to single out this quote in particular. You're clearly not in a state to where you can argue reasonably and professionally, and I think it would be best to take a break from this debate as you're continuing to get more and more heated. Insulting the people arguing against you like that and taking on that high and haughty tone won't help you make any points.
what even
- Earth isn't even mostly covered in land.
- You automatically assume an entire planet for little to no reason.
- "The land" can also mean something as small as a yard or as large as a country.
- Also, even assuming that ridiculously large size, that's still several orders of magnitude than the size and scope you claim the feat has.
>I recommend you check again, because she doesn't transform the Stars into anything, she planets them and gives them her life essence and blood, which allows them to grow as plants, they're just Supernatural plants.
"And those star-seeds did bear wonderous plants and fruit trees"
Last time I checked stars don't grow into trees, I'll say once again. I'm not sure why you're ignoring this line in the text. There is also nothing in the scan that has her giving them her essence or blood, I'd like evidence on that claim.
>Also, reality warping is stupidly vague, me sitting here and me typing is me warping reality.
She's making plants out of stars. How in high heaven does that equate to anything other than bending reality.
>First of all, prove it's a limited area, secondly, prove that Lilith, the Embodiment of Yang, could only plant something small enough to where we assume it would be able to be planted.
No Limits Fallacy. You show me how it isn't limited and I'll take what you say more seriously.
>Also, what other thing do you pull out of the Night Sky itself and is called a Star?
She describes them as "tiny" and proceeds to use them in a way that doesn't make sense for anything that would logically be called a star in any context. The language isn't literal.
>This logic is abyssmal, by this logic, we shouldn't use anything because I can see it in a different way.
Another red herring here, unsurprisingly. You're making hasty generalizations of my logic. The unrelated feats from different verses are things we actually see and aren'y described in a language with consistency that would give Shakesphere the runs.
>I like how you just labelling everything I'm saying as ad nausuem is both in itself a ad nausuem and a red herring as well as a terrible attempt at discrediting your detrators.
It's true though. You're constantly repeating the same arguments without bringing anything new to the table. I ask you to give more meat to your statements and you provide me double the fluff.
>And I don't believe you know what tone means because tone has nothing to do with this anyway. It doesn't matter if the scans are grimdark or nobellight, tone has no baring on the scans.
I don't think you understand what figerative language is, going over this quote.
>The irony that you're currently performing ad nausuem yourself now. And once again, because you lack simple pattern recognition
The only ad nauseum I'm performing is repeatedly showcasing how your evidence has no solid foothold. Throwing back with no greater depth doesn't help you. There is irony, though, as right after this you proceed to repeat yourself once again and make baseless assumptions of me asking you to prove negatives.
No, not really, it's just that I'm tired of WoD downplay and have little interest to humour the blind leading the blind telling deaf people to follow the leader.
Wanted to single out this quote in particular. You're clearly not in a state to where you can argue reasonably and professionally, and I think it would be best to take a break from this debate as you're continuing to get more and more heated. Insulting the people arguing against you like that and taking on that high and haughty tone won't help you make any points.
- 10,758
- 6,491
@Darg That isn't really a no limits fallacy. Just saying.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Andytrenom said:
They're asking me to prove something has no limits. I'm asking for the limits to be stated. I don't see how this doesn't qualify.Udlmaster said:
- 10,758
- 6,491
Limited i feel just meant "small" in this context. He is talking about the scope of the feat being of a stellar range not it being literally limitless.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Ah, I was just going off of what they said specifically.
My point was that if it was "draped over" "a land", then it probably isn't decribing something that actually has the bredth and size of something steller or intersteller, considering that going by the wildest assumptions "land" qualifies as something the size of a planet.
Since the stars are being used as seeds in said land, there is also more doubt added onto this, as something as large as a star clearly can't be used for that. This is supported by how the stars are described as "tiny" in the quote, implying they aren't near the size of literal stars.
This is why I'd like more context on this feat, as there is much in it left ambiguos that a single extra scan post would really help clarify.
My point was that if it was "draped over" "a land", then it probably isn't decribing something that actually has the bredth and size of something steller or intersteller, considering that going by the wildest assumptions "land" qualifies as something the size of a planet.
Since the stars are being used as seeds in said land, there is also more doubt added onto this, as something as large as a star clearly can't be used for that. This is supported by how the stars are described as "tiny" in the quote, implying they aren't near the size of literal stars.
This is why I'd like more context on this feat, as there is much in it left ambiguos that a single extra scan post would really help clarify.
- 10,758
- 6,491
I believe another argument had popped up justifying the rating?
Btw, I don't disagree with your interpretation of this particular feat, I just wanted to address that no limits fallacy point.
Btw, I don't disagree with your interpretation of this particular feat, I just wanted to address that no limits fallacy point.
- 15,637
- 5,392
No worries, I seem to have misinterpreted the claim.
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,925
- 2,128
>what even
"People all across this land, far and wide come to save this land."
Boom, I've talked about planet twice using the word "Land"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/land
>Last time I checked stars don't grow into trees, I'll say once again. I'm not sure why you're ignoring this line in the text. There is also nothing in the scan that has her giving them her essence or blood, I'd like evidence on that claim.
Omg, do I have to spell out what Supernatural is now?
>She's making plants out of stars. How in high heaven does that equate to anything other than bending reality.
Because you don't seem to understand what Supernatural is.
>No Limits Fallacy. You show me how it isn't limited and I'll take what you say more seriously.
W-what? Do you know what a No limits fallacy is...? Firstly, asking for someone to prove that a location in which firstly, they're literally holding the Night sky as a cape and to which they drape over the land, to which they then proceed to Plant literal stars.
Secondly, a No Limits fallacy means I am claiming something is without limits, which wasn't what I said, I said prove that the land it is talking about, most of all within context, is limited in the way you are talking about, which btw, I can answer for you, it's not limited in size.
>She describes them as "tiny" and proceeds to use them in a way that doesn't make sense for anything that would logically be called a star in any context. The language isn't literal.
Firstly, wrong, she's not the narrator, might want to get your facts straight there. Secondly...argument from reality. The language is very literal.
>Another red herring here, unsurprisingly. You're making hasty generalizations of my logic.
I really am not, I haven't given any biased information, unless this is you telling us you're biased, and my argument is very much logically justified, because I am using your aweful logic against you.
>The unrelated feats from different verses are things we actually see and aren'y described in a language with consistency that would give Shakesphere the runs.
What are you even on about?
>I don't think you understand what figerative language is, going over this quote.
Nothing you said in that quote was figurative language, stop backtracking and performing a sad attempt at damage control.
>It's true though. You're constantly repeating the same arguments without bringing anything new to the table. I ask you to give more meat to your statements and you provide me double the fluff.
Then do not asking me the same thing with different wording, you're acting insane.
>The only ad nauseum I'm performing is repeatedly showcasing how your evidence has no solid foothold. Throwing back with no greater depth doesn't help you. There is irony, though, as right after this you proceed to repeat yourself once again and make baseless assumptions of me asking you to prove negatives.
Still haven't ask you to prove negatives, I'll telling you to prove your positive claim that the scans we are talking about are using flowery language, prove the positive or concede this point, this is the last time I am going to tell you.
>Wanted to single out this quote in particular. You're clearly not in a state to where you can argue reasonably and professionally
Literally an ad hominium attack.
>and I think it would be best to take a break from this debate as you're continuing to get more and more heated.
I'm actually not, this has been one of the few debates where I'm not even mad, I'm just bored because I've heard all these argument before, and thing is I can keep this up all day.
>Insulting the people arguing against you like that and taking on that high and haughty tone won't help you make any points.
If you want to start making this a popularity contest, then trust me, that's something you don't want to try.
"People all across this land, far and wide come to save this land."
Boom, I've talked about planet twice using the word "Land"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english-thesaurus/land
>Last time I checked stars don't grow into trees, I'll say once again. I'm not sure why you're ignoring this line in the text. There is also nothing in the scan that has her giving them her essence or blood, I'd like evidence on that claim.
Omg, do I have to spell out what Supernatural is now?
>She's making plants out of stars. How in high heaven does that equate to anything other than bending reality.
Because you don't seem to understand what Supernatural is.
>No Limits Fallacy. You show me how it isn't limited and I'll take what you say more seriously.
W-what? Do you know what a No limits fallacy is...? Firstly, asking for someone to prove that a location in which firstly, they're literally holding the Night sky as a cape and to which they drape over the land, to which they then proceed to Plant literal stars.
Secondly, a No Limits fallacy means I am claiming something is without limits, which wasn't what I said, I said prove that the land it is talking about, most of all within context, is limited in the way you are talking about, which btw, I can answer for you, it's not limited in size.
>She describes them as "tiny" and proceeds to use them in a way that doesn't make sense for anything that would logically be called a star in any context. The language isn't literal.
Firstly, wrong, she's not the narrator, might want to get your facts straight there. Secondly...argument from reality. The language is very literal.
>Another red herring here, unsurprisingly. You're making hasty generalizations of my logic.
I really am not, I haven't given any biased information, unless this is you telling us you're biased, and my argument is very much logically justified, because I am using your aweful logic against you.
>The unrelated feats from different verses are things we actually see and aren'y described in a language with consistency that would give Shakesphere the runs.
What are you even on about?
>I don't think you understand what figerative language is, going over this quote.
Nothing you said in that quote was figurative language, stop backtracking and performing a sad attempt at damage control.
>It's true though. You're constantly repeating the same arguments without bringing anything new to the table. I ask you to give more meat to your statements and you provide me double the fluff.
Then do not asking me the same thing with different wording, you're acting insane.
>The only ad nauseum I'm performing is repeatedly showcasing how your evidence has no solid foothold. Throwing back with no greater depth doesn't help you. There is irony, though, as right after this you proceed to repeat yourself once again and make baseless assumptions of me asking you to prove negatives.
Still haven't ask you to prove negatives, I'll telling you to prove your positive claim that the scans we are talking about are using flowery language, prove the positive or concede this point, this is the last time I am going to tell you.
>Wanted to single out this quote in particular. You're clearly not in a state to where you can argue reasonably and professionally
Literally an ad hominium attack.
>and I think it would be best to take a break from this debate as you're continuing to get more and more heated.
I'm actually not, this has been one of the few debates where I'm not even mad, I'm just bored because I've heard all these argument before, and thing is I can keep this up all day.
>Insulting the people arguing against you like that and taking on that high and haughty tone won't help you make any points.
If you want to start making this a popularity contest, then trust me, that's something you don't want to try.
- 10,758
- 6,491
Udl... That isn't an ad homien. He is simply doing his job by pointing out your troublesome attitude.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Calling me insane isn't really helping your case either, just saying.
- 15,637
- 5,392
I'm going to make an attempt to put aside the snide remarks and just get an idea of the arguments here.
Here is the full text and context of the feat since you were reluctant to post it.
It's pretty obvious in this text from the getgo that what is literal and figurative is being blurred. I feel like that's the intention of the text for one, given that it is used in a tone that is somewhat biblical.
Let's lay out the contradictions.
"Lilith chose a rich and fertile land, with three rivers making up its borders.". It's clear that the 'land', Eden, is limited in scope and isn't anything in the interstellar size and range. Lilith planting stars in the ground is a pretty clear contradiction of the size you're claiming they are.
The scope of the feats you're bringing up is contradicted directly by the scope of their use. Her cloak is also not the literal night sky in her context, nor is there any statement that her cloak is the night sky. Nor is there any indication that the "night sky" in this context has the same properties as the one seen in Real Life.
So naturally the stars she's pulling out of a cloak that's only the size of herself aren't literal stars. She's not actually reaching into the night sky and pulling out stars as you implied, she's reaching into a cloak the size of a regular person, and pulling out star-like seeds that she used to grow regular-sized plants.
The contradictions in scope and scale so prevalent in this texts leads me to believe that it ought to just not be used in the first place.
Here is the full text and context of the feat since you were reluctant to post it.
It's pretty obvious in this text from the getgo that what is literal and figurative is being blurred. I feel like that's the intention of the text for one, given that it is used in a tone that is somewhat biblical.
Let's lay out the contradictions.
"Lilith chose a rich and fertile land, with three rivers making up its borders.". It's clear that the 'land', Eden, is limited in scope and isn't anything in the interstellar size and range. Lilith planting stars in the ground is a pretty clear contradiction of the size you're claiming they are.
The scope of the feats you're bringing up is contradicted directly by the scope of their use. Her cloak is also not the literal night sky in her context, nor is there any statement that her cloak is the night sky. Nor is there any indication that the "night sky" in this context has the same properties as the one seen in Real Life.
So naturally the stars she's pulling out of a cloak that's only the size of herself aren't literal stars. She's not actually reaching into the night sky and pulling out stars as you implied, she's reaching into a cloak the size of a regular person, and pulling out star-like seeds that she used to grow regular-sized plants.
The contradictions in scope and scale so prevalent in this texts leads me to believe that it ought to just not be used in the first place.
- 15,637
- 5,392
Yes, that was directed at you specifically. It also wasn't associated with my argument, I seperated it because of that for clear reasons. I was pointing out poor behavior and disrespect.Udlmaster said:
If I wasn't direct about it before, I'll be more direct about it now. Drop the attutide. It's clear from other threads I've looked at that you have a history of derailing threads with personal remarks and I'd like to ask you to stop here.
- 8,805
- 2,864
Hey Udl, I would normally agree with you here but being on the defensive all the time instead of just bringing up the scans they are asking for isn't really helping your case.
Maybe stop focusing on all that "They hate WoD/Ad homien/other BS" and just posting the scans with all the context possible and correct them once they have seen everything.
Maybe stop focusing on all that "They hate WoD/Ad homien/other BS" and just posting the scans with all the context possible and correct them once they have seen everything.
- 32,359
- 20,298
Hey Udl, maybe you ought to stop calling people who disagree with your ratings on World of Darkness as "insane", "blind", and "deaf". It's highly uncalled for.
- 32,359
- 20,298
As for the thread itself, I am 100% on the side of the original poster and approve these changes.
- 10,758
- 6,491
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,925
- 2,128
Eyyy, finally, you've bothered to go and try, now I'm going to tear it all down.
>It's pretty obvious in this text from the getgo that what is literal and figurative is being blurred. I feel like that's the intention of the text for one, given that it is used in a tone that is somewhat biblical.
I wonder where one would get that from? Lucifer? Jehovah? Lilith?
>"Lilith chose a rich and fertile land, with three rivers making up its borders.". It's clear that the 'land', Eden
Wrong, she is not in Eden anymore, Lucifer was guarding the gates from Eden, Lilith left Eden and created her own Garden:
"But these growing things were not those of Jehovah's Eden; for they grow only beneath the shelter of Night, and beneath the light of Lilith's moon. And Lilith walked often in her Garden; and she did feed the growing things with her own life's blood; and they flourished and grew heavy with fruit."
>The scope of the feats you're bringing up is contradicted directly by the scope of their use. Her cloak is also not the literal night sky in her context, nor is there any statement that her cloak is the night sky. Nor is there any indication that the "night sky" in this context has the same properties as the one seen in Real Life.
Oh here we go, you want to play the "not muh real life". Okay, first of all, we assume unless shown otherwise that things such as Earth, the laws of physics and space are all the same size unless shown otherwise, and thing is, the Cosmos in WoD is infinite, and I have the scans to prove it, and since you've finally chosen to try, I'll start trying also:
https://imgur.com/GCjOVca
https://imgur.com/49MPvGR
https://imgur.com/7Zuqwkf
https://imgur.com/Hm7nGu2
https://imgur.com/r7R8vej
https://imgur.com/3BIZWVh
https://imgur.com/IDKaRe
https://imgur.com/NSmKSZO
I think I've proven my point.
>So naturally the stars she's pulling out of a cloak that's only the size of herself aren't literal stars. She's not actually reaching into the night sky and pulling out stars as you implied, she's reaching into a cloak the size of a regular person, and pulling out star-like seeds that she used to grow regular-sized plants.
See above.
>The contradictions in scope and scale so prevalent in this texts leads me to believe that it ought to just not be used in the first place.
No, not really, you just have no knowledge on the verse.
>It's pretty obvious in this text from the getgo that what is literal and figurative is being blurred. I feel like that's the intention of the text for one, given that it is used in a tone that is somewhat biblical.
I wonder where one would get that from? Lucifer? Jehovah? Lilith?
>"Lilith chose a rich and fertile land, with three rivers making up its borders.". It's clear that the 'land', Eden
Wrong, she is not in Eden anymore, Lucifer was guarding the gates from Eden, Lilith left Eden and created her own Garden:
"But these growing things were not those of Jehovah's Eden; for they grow only beneath the shelter of Night, and beneath the light of Lilith's moon. And Lilith walked often in her Garden; and she did feed the growing things with her own life's blood; and they flourished and grew heavy with fruit."
>The scope of the feats you're bringing up is contradicted directly by the scope of their use. Her cloak is also not the literal night sky in her context, nor is there any statement that her cloak is the night sky. Nor is there any indication that the "night sky" in this context has the same properties as the one seen in Real Life.
Oh here we go, you want to play the "not muh real life". Okay, first of all, we assume unless shown otherwise that things such as Earth, the laws of physics and space are all the same size unless shown otherwise, and thing is, the Cosmos in WoD is infinite, and I have the scans to prove it, and since you've finally chosen to try, I'll start trying also:
https://imgur.com/GCjOVca
https://imgur.com/49MPvGR
https://imgur.com/7Zuqwkf
https://imgur.com/Hm7nGu2
https://imgur.com/r7R8vej
https://imgur.com/3BIZWVh
https://imgur.com/IDKaRe
https://imgur.com/NSmKSZO
I think I've proven my point.
>So naturally the stars she's pulling out of a cloak that's only the size of herself aren't literal stars. She's not actually reaching into the night sky and pulling out stars as you implied, she's reaching into a cloak the size of a regular person, and pulling out star-like seeds that she used to grow regular-sized plants.
See above.
>The contradictions in scope and scale so prevalent in this texts leads me to believe that it ought to just not be used in the first place.
No, not really, you just have no knowledge on the verse.
- 12,524
- 3,492
In regards to the stars thing, I have to agree with Dargoo.
- 32,359
- 20,298
I think that Dargoo makes sense. It should be also noted that the Garden of Eden is both historically and Biblically identified as being located on Earth between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
- 32,359
- 20,298
Can you stop with all the passive aggression, you seem so desperate to maintain the ratings as they are that you are resorting to all tactics conceivable, no matter how low. It's all personal attacks and dismissing those against you as "haters" or ignorant. Or both.Udlmaster said:
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,925
- 2,128
Perhaps, however, that's not quite true in World of Darkness, notably because the fact that Dionysus, Baal, Astarte, Bel, Ra, Ptah and many other Gods all have their own Gardens. And this describes a part of the cosmology called the Umbral Courts: https://i.imgur.com/zVyER0E.pngMatthew Schroeder said:
- 813
- 137
Can we all literally stop with the ad hominem condescendtion? Please?
Because that's literally 95% of this thread.
Because that's literally 95% of this thread.
- 1,673
- 289
I don't particularly care about the verse. But IMO cropped images like those should be avoided if possible, it is much better if people just post the full page/scan and simply highlight what's relevant in it.
- 15,637
- 5,392
I can see your attitude has yet to improve.Udlmaster said:
Good catch. That doesn't really do much to show that her garden is as or more large in scope compared to the original Eden, though. If anything I'd assume it's much smaller. So my point still stands, the land is limited in scope and not anywhere near the stellar range.Udlmaster said:
The whole bit on the cosmos as a while isn't even relevant to the discussion here considering we're talking about Eden and Lillith.Udlmaster said:
I'm not talking about the laws of physics though. Eden's limited by four rivers so it's clearly not the earth she's effecting, the stars she pulls out are from a cloak that has nothing to do with the night sky beyond letting her "control it", but we never actually see her do that. What we do see is her removing stars from the cloak, not the sky.
She plants said stars into a ground to grow plants. I felt like that in itself was enough to show how they don't act like real stars, from my limited understanding of physics.
The links you posted above legit had nothing to do with that. I'd call the scans red herrings although I'm sure I'd get another mouthful of "ad naseum burden of proof yada yada".Udlmaster said:
You're right, I don't know of or care much about this verse. The fact that the issues with its justifications are so glaring even I can notice them speaks for itself.Udlmaster said:
- 32,359
- 20,298
This is strongly true, and usually only happens with wanked / biased verses.AguilaR101 said:
