[VS] Kakuzu vs Sasori

[Kagustuchi]

That post was really way to long, could have gotten the point across in a few sentances.

 

[Funky Tiger]

wow billy i am so sad that you disliked my posts!

DOWN WITH THE THIRSTY ASS MYSTODEN!

 

[Varrah]

All of this can be summarised with: "If Doton: Domu is structurally similar to diamond then it can be shattered by Sasori's high density configurations of Satetsu. If it's not structurally similar to diamond, and the 'diamond morph' was merely a metaphor for something which is commonly construed to be tough when it's only hard, a high density configuration may or may not have an effect on Doton: Domu." No need for all these unnecessary words which only add to the illusion of intelligence you create.

...Why is that whenever I make post explaining some thought I had it's often perceived this way; and yet, posters who claim to be logical, who say to be logical, do not appear to be verse in the subject at all given their posts? I made a point to emphasize why I thought certain configurations of Satetsu may be able to 'fracture' Domu, and I detailed that post with regards to logic. Arguments can exist without logic, but logic cannot exist without arguments. And also if I wanted to play ball, the latter portion of your comment is an ad hominem, which is irrelevant to the topic at hand.​

I was discrediting/insulting your argument because claiming Kishi genuinely meant it was structurally similar to diamond, or actually diamond, is fallacious. Why?

1. Because he wouldn't be immune to physical attacks.
2. Because the DB states all attacks would reflect off of him due to his diamond body.

If it was diamond, that would clearly not be the case, as Diamond cannot be immune to physical attacks when a real life hammer would easily smash it. Matabi is a Bijuu with more then enough power to crush diamond. Yet when Kakuzu took the hit he wasn't even scratched (by the end of the fight). Regardless, Doton: Domu would've not added any protection to him against any attacks hes stopped, nor would it have helped him when he knocked down the large steel door. So the assertion that there is even a possibility for Doton: Domu being diamond wouldn't hold regardless of your hypothetical syllogisms.

This is what confuses me: I outlined in my initial post the direction of my thought, in it, I made several attempts to show how hypothetical propositions do not actually assert anything to be the case by their very nature.​

A hypothetical proposition cannot be fallacious unless it is accepted as true, and proceeds to infer an invalid form of hypothetical syllogism, which are either affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent. Neither of these were inferred and in fact I even use my own thoughts an as example demonstrating the process of how a person can infer valid or invalid argument using hypothetical propositions, these are caused hypothetical syllogisms. Thus, my "argument" is not fallacious in any matter because the hypothetical proposition, namely the antecedent, needs to accepted as true in order for the hypothetical proposition to be constructed into an invalid hypothetical syllogisms to be fallacious. To clarify this even more if you accepted my hypothetical proposition as being true you cannot claim that hypothetical syllogisms constructed for them are fallacious because they are valid forms of argument. This too I detailed in my initial post to prevent these comments from happening. You can claim that my argument is fallacious, but your claim would be unsubstantiated because if you agree to the hypothetical propositions being true, you have to accept the valid forms of their hypothetical syllogisms. If you believe the hypothetical proposition are false they stop there: they do not do anything else, the hypothetical proposition must be accepted as true and I must either deny the antecedent or affirm the consequent for them to be fallacious. ​

Again, the problem arises with you is that you've taken my hypothetical proposition to be the actually case of the matter: they do not assert to be the case, a hypothetical proposition merely says that if the truth of p is sufficient to guarantee the truth of q, then the only way for q could fail to be true is for p to be true as well. You don't believe p to true okay, that is the end of my thought, that is the end of the hypothetical proposition. I was working under the guise that "if p, then q" were true it follows what possibly valid arguments could be made which is all I sat out to do in my initial post. Again, you don't believe p to be true, that's fine; this just means, again that the hypothetical syllogisms don't mean anything because you don't accept the hypothetical propositions that necessitate them. This, however, doesn't make the hypothetical syllogisms fallacious, they are still valid, but only if you take the hypothetical proposition to be true. This is was the sole purpose my initial post. ​

[Edit]​

That post was really way to long, could have gotten the point across in a few sentances.

Maybe, but again, I wanted to get across why if you accepted certain things to be true, you'd have to logically accept the valid forms of those things.​

 

[Rιver]

Are we arguing about how one posts or ones content in his posts?

 

[Worm]

...Why is that whenever I make post explaining some thought I had it's often perceived this way;

It's because you use vocabulary that isn't usually considered normal to use in a conversation, and far less in a forum that argues a battle between two fictional characters. Especially since a lot of people here don't really have enough knowledge on English to know some of the words you use and that really is not a thing that relates to intelligence.

I really doubt you use this type of vocabulary in real life or at home. And that is exactly why this type of vocabulary irks people. You use complex words, try to explain them with more complex words and over-all make it more messy than clear as to what you are trying to say.

Your whole post could have been written in a simplistic vocabulary that your every day person uses and no one would have reacted the way they did because the point you were trying to make would have gone across much easier than having to think about what you said due to the choices of wording you picked. Why exactly do you think the first reply you recieved was ''I'm gonna go out now and when I return, I'm gonna try to figure out what you said''.

I mean, look. I have no problem with you what so ever nor do I down-right hate the vocabulary you use. It's, however, pretty much a fact that this vocabulary irks people. Hence why NB jokes about people using Thesaurus to appear smart. You can continue using this vocab if you want, but I'll just say that if you're wondering why people can act so aggressive towards you like in this thread, it's because this type of vocabulary gives you a pretty unapproachable air and creates an assumption that you think you're a lot smarter than everyone else posting in the thread.

 

[Apêx1]

...Why is that whenever I make post explaining some thought I had it's often perceived this way; and yet, posters who claim to be logical, who say to be logical, do not appear to be verse in the subject at all given their posts? I made a point to emphasize why I thought certain configurations of Satetsu may be able to 'fracture' Domu, and I detailed that post with regards to logic. Arguments can exist without logic, but logic cannot exist without arguments. And also if I wanted to play ball, the latter portion of your comment is an ad hominem, which is irrelevant to the topic at hand.​

Because you made a long wallie for something which can be summarised in 2-3 sentences. It's rather redundant to put in all that work just to explain your hypothetical propositions.

This is what confuses me: I outlined in my initial post the direction of my thought, in it, I made several attempts to show how hypothetical propositions do not actually assert anything to be the case by their very nature.​

Again, a hypothetical proposition cannot be fallacious unless it is accepted as true, and proceeds to infer an invalid form of hypothetical syllogisms, which are either affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent. Neither of these were in inferred and in fact I even use my own thoughts an as example demonstrating the process of how a person can infer valid or invalid argument using hypothetical propositions, these are caused hypothetical syllogisms. Thus, my "argument" is not fallacious in any matter because the hypothetical proposition, namely the antecedent, needs to accepted as true in order for hypothetical propositions, which in turn were constructed into hypothetical syllogisms, to be considered fallacious. To clarify this even more if you accepted my hypothetical propositions as being true you cannot claim that hypothetical syllogisms constructed for them are fallacious because they are valid forms of argument. This too I detailed in my initial post to prevent these comments from happening. You can claim that my argument is fallacious, but your claim would unsubstantiated because if you agree to the hypothetical propositions being true, you have to accept the valid forms of their hypothetical syllogisms. If you believe the hypothetical proposition, they stop there: they do not do anything else, the hypothetical proposition must be accepted as true and I must either deny the antecedent or affirm the consequent for them to be fallacious. ​

They still were the method you used to come to your conclusions. So in one way, they were the reason you asserted Doton: Domu could be diamond, when there's in fact no to logical way infer such. Thus I am not disagreeing with your hypothetical propositions but with your initial claim, which came from one. I clearly did say "I discredited your argument" meaning I had already done so before, meaning I was referring to your proposition, not your hypothetical proposition (you called it a proposition, not a hypothetical proposition). So no, I never agreed or disagreed with your hypothetical propositions, if you spend a little more time reading my post and a little less time using a thesaurus you'd realise I was referring to your initial proposition. The only thing I mentioned regarding your longer post was this:
"So the assertion that there is even a possibility for Doton: Domu being diamond wouldn't hold regardless of your hypothetical syllogisms." This is taking into account the fact that you made a proposition after you had thought out all your hypothetical propositions. And your proposition was that Doton: Domu is diamond, according to River. And here's the post you made where you insinuate that Doton: Domu=Diamond. Hence it was not even hypothetical in this scenario.

Why is diamond > iron? Why can Iron Sand not break diamond?​

You must be registered for see links

[

You must be registered for see links

] ​

What prevents Sasori from constructing a configuration or configurations of Iron Sand which density breaks Domu? ​

Again, the problem arises with you is that you've taken my hypothetical proposition to be the actually case of the matter: they do not assert to be the case, a hypothetical proposition merely says that if the truth of p is sufficient to guarantee the truth of q, then the only way for q could fail to be true is for p to be true as well. You don't believe p to true okay, that is the end of my thought, that is the end of the hypothetical proposition. I was working under the guise that "if p, then q" were true it follows what possibly valid arguments could be made which is all I sat out to do in my initial post. Again, you don't believe p to be true, that's fine; this just means, again that the hypothetical syllogisms don't mean anything because you don't accept the hypothetical propositions that necessitate them. This, however, doesn't make the hypothetical syllogisms fallacious, they are still valid, but only if you take the hypothetical proposition to be true. This is was the sole purpose my initial post. ​

Clearly you did not make it out to be hypothetical in your initial post, as I just linked it. Not to mention I only denied your original proposition, I did not deny your hypothetical proposition. The rest is irrelevant as I only discredited your proposition, not your hypothetical proposition.

 

[Varrah]

Because you made a long wallie for something which can be summarised in 2-3 sentences. It's rather redundant to put in all that work just to explain your hypothetical propositions.

No, this is all up to the person. I prefer to write long posts because it gives me the opportunity to criticize all of what I think, and allows me to see the meaning and significance of what my thoughts have to another thing or things. Although, I suppose you're right, I could go back and shorten my responses. I'll hold that L. ​

They still were the method you used to come to your conclusions. So in one way, they were the reason you asserted Doton: Domu could be diamond, when there's in fact no to logical way infer such.

The hypothetical proposition and thus the hypothetical syllogisms were the methods I used to come to a, once believed, conclusion. I asked myself a hypothetical question: "if Doton Domu had attributes to that of a diamond, what is a tactic could Sasori use?" Again, if I am asking a hypothetical question my inferences needs to be based in that question, so it was, and so was my reasoning. ​

Thus I am not disagreeing with your hypothetical propositions but with your initial claim, which came from one.

There is not initial claim, my hypothetical proposition is the only thing I am using in my initial post in this thread.​

The exact proposition I made were thus: if Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond, then a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu.

I clearly did say "I discredited your argument" meaning I had already done so before, meaning I was referring to your proposition, not your hypothetical proposition (you called it a proposition, not a hypothetical proposition).

Again, the exact proposition in this thread was: if Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond, then a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu. They are for intents, and purposes, hypothetical, and I did indeed state the proposition to be hypothetical in my initial post in this thread.

These propositions are hypothetical propositions which has the form "if then q," where p and q are component propositions; that is, a combination of multiple propositions. The "if" component is the antecedent and the "then" component is the consequent. Thus, in the statement "if Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond, then a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu," the antecedent is "Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond ," and the consequent is "a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu." Hypothetical propositions identify relationships of dependence among things, and do not assert the truth of p or q; rather they mean that the truth of p would be sufficient to guarantee the truth of q. The only way q could fail to be true is for p to be false as well.

Thus, you did not discredit my initial post in the thread because you have to accept the hypothetical proposition as true, and go from there; that is, I have to infer an invalid hypothetical syllogism or syllogisms which I did not. ​

So no, I never agreed or disagreed with your hypothetical propositions, if you spend a little more time reading my post and a little less time using a thesaurus you'd realise I was referring to your initial proposition. The only thing I mentioned regarding your longer post was this:

You never agreed or disagreed with my hypothetical proposition, so you again have discredited nothing. Also, rather than use a thesaurus, I use several Mead notebooks containing words I like; and once again, this is an ad hominem. ​

"So the assertion that there is even a possibility for Doton: Domu being diamond wouldn't hold regardless of your hypothetical syllogisms."

Incorrect, the hypothetical proposition would hold if they are entertain, and go on to create hypothetical syllogisms which need to be falsify through an an invalid inference such as the denying the consequent, a hypothetical syllogism. Its life-force "poofs" if you don't accept it; its as simply as that. Furthermore, you have already stated that you have not agreed nor disagreed with the hypothetical proposition, this means that you cannot discredit anything as you don't have a position. ​

This is taking into account the fact that you made a proposition after you had thought out all your hypothetical propositions. And your proposition was that Doton: Domu is diamond, according to River. And here's the post you made where you insinuate that Doton: Domu=Diamond. Hence it was not even hypothetical in this scenario.

Then this is the problem: when I spoke to River in that thread, I had yet to think out my hypothetical proposition, and there is nothing in that post or thread signifying that I did think out my hypothetical proposition. This is something you are assuming that was done. Moreover, in that thread I claimed that Doton Domu was diamond, in this thread, I am giving an hypothetical proposition of a thing: the first is certain, the second is food for thought. They are two entirely different scenarios.
​

Clearly you did not make it out to be hypothetical in your initial post, as I just linked it. Not to mention I only denied your original proposition, I did not deny your hypothetical proposition. The rest is irrelevant as I only discredited your proposition, not your hypothetical proposition.

My initial, which I have referred thus far, post in this thread. Not the other. My first post in this thread refers to the proposition used thus far as hypothetical; ​

These propositions are hypothetical propositions which has the form "if then q," where p and q are component propositions; that is, a combination of multiple propositions. The "if" component is the antecedent and the "then" component is the consequent. Thus, in the statement "if Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond, then a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu," the antecedent is "Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond ," and the consequent is "a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu." Hypothetical propositions identify relationships of dependence among things, and do not assert the truth of p or q; rather they mean that the truth of p would be sufficient to guarantee the truth of q. The only way q could fail to be true is for p to be false as well.

Not to mention I only denied your original proposition, I did not deny your hypothetical proposition. The rest is irrelevant as I only discredited your proposition, not your hypothetical proposition.

My original proposition in this thread is hypothetical, so how could you have discredited this proposition if you have no position towards it? ​

[ Edit ] — This is my initial post in this thread and is the post I have been referring to. [

You must be registered for see links

]​

 

[Apêx1]

No, this is all up to the person. I prefer to write long posts because it gives me the opportunity to criticize all of what I think, and allows me to see the meaning and significance of what my thoughts have to another thing or things. Although, I suppose you're right, I could go back and shorten my responses. I'll hold that L. ​

Fair enough.

The hypothetical proposition and thus the hypothetical syllogisms were the methods I used to come to a, once believed, conclusion. I asked myself a hypothetical question: "if Doton Domu had attributes to that of a diamond, what is a tactic could Sasori use?" Again, if I am asking a hypothetical question my inferences needs to be based in that question, so it was, and so was my reasoning. ​

I realise that you asked yourself a hypothetical question, or rather, claim to have done so. However, there's no implication of any of your propositions being hypothetical in the thread I linked before. Therefore I am tempted to think the entirety of the initial post was created to justify your previously incorrect belief by claiming it cannot be falsifiable since it was always hypothetical. However, such would not matter because it was an assertion as a part of a debate, meaning it was an actual proposition which can be denied or accepted. Otherwise it would contribute nothing to the thread. I only ever insulted your assertion in that particular thread, I do not care for your hypothetical propositions.

There is not initial claim, my hypothetical proposition is the only thing I am using in my initial post in this thread.​

But I am clearly referring to the thread which River mentioned.

Again, the exact proposition in this thread was: if Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond, then a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu. They are for intents, and purposes, hypothetical, and I did indeed state the proposition to be hypothetical in my initial post in this thread.​

I could not care less for your propositions in this thread. They are non-debatable propositions made specifically to prevent a counter argument in the first place. Hence I am refrring to the post River mentioned, and everything you mention relating to hypothetical propositions is irrelevant to that as it was a blatant assertion.

Thus, you did not discredit my initial post in the thread because you have to accept the hypothetical proposition as true, and go from there; that is, I have to infer an invalid hypothetical syllogism or syllogisms which I did not.

​

Nobody is arguing your initial post in this thread. Don't see why you keep bringing it up. It's nothing you can argue in the first place.

You never agreed or disagreed with my hypothetical proposition, so you again have discredited nothing. Also, rather than use a thesaurus, I use several Mead notebooks containing words I like; and once again, this is an ad hominem. ​

But I have disagreed with your post from the previous Kakuzu vs Sasori thread, in which you made a blatant assertion rather then a hypothetical proposition. You showed me how you came to hypothetical propositions but there was no inference to any hypothetical propositions in that particular thread, nor is it a viable form of argumentation to counter someone else's points with hypothetical propositions as it cannot counter anything when it cannot be accepted or denied. A hypothetical proposition adds absolutely nothing to a debate and only gives you a free-pass to say it cannot be accepted or denied. Hence that particular counter was an assertion and not a hypothetical proposition.

Incorrect, the hypothetical proposition would hold if they are entertain, and go on to create hypothetical syllogisms which need to be falsify through an an invalid inference such as the denying the consequent, a hypothetical syllogism. Its life-force "poofs" if you don't accept it; its as simply as that. Furthermore, you have already stated that you have not agreed nor disagreed with the hypothetical proposition, this means that you cannot discredit anything as you don't have a position. ​

There's some bad grammar in this sentence. I suggest you use less complex words and care more for your grammar. And once again, I have only ever referred to the quote which River spoke of.

Then this is the problem: when I spoke to River in that thread, I had yet to think out my hypothetical proposition, and there is nothing in that post or thread signifying that I did think out my hypothetical proposition. This is something you are assuming that was done. Moreover, in that thread I claimed that Doton Domu was diamond, in this thread, I am giving an hypothetical proposition of a thing: the first is certain, the second is food for thought. They are two entirely different scenarios.
​

My initial, which I have referred thus far, post in this thread. Not the other. My first post in this thread refers to the proposition used thus far as hypothetical; ​

Well this is awfully contradicting isn't it?..

I think it is important for me to explicitly state my exact propositions as to why I once thought this starting from the beginning. A proposition may be defined as anything that can asserted or denied, and an argument may be defined as set of propositions in which one or more propositions, the premises, purport to provide evidence for the truth of another proposition, the conclusion. ​

The exact propositions I made were thus: if Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond, then a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu.​

These propositions are hypothetical propositions....​

Did you not claim in your initial post to this thread that these were the propositions you used to conclude that IS>Diamond to River? You clearly stated these were your initial propositions form the VERY beginning, and then proceeded to suggest your propositions are hypothetical propositions. So you are clearly caught up in your own lies here, as I don't need anything in that thread signifying you had thought them out when you are blatantly telling me you had already thought them out and only came to those particular thoughts after you formed your hypothetical propositions.

My original proposition in this thread is hypothetical, so how could you have discredited this proposition if you have no position towards it? ​

Pleas quote me saying I discredited your proposition in this thread. I said I discredited your original proposition to River. So once again, I discredited nothing from your hypothetical propositions, accepted nothing, and denied nothing.

[ Edit ] — This is my initial post in this thread and is the post I have been referring to. [

You must be registered for see links

]​

I think you need to learn that yourself, as I have referred on numerous occasions to your original post to River, yet you somehow misconstrue it continuously and believe I am speaking of your initial post to this thread.

 

[solorflare99]

I think it is important for me to explicitly state my exact propositions as to why I once thought this starting from the beginning. A proposition may be defined as anything that can asserted or denied, and an argument may be defined as set of propositions in which one or more propositions, the premises, purport to provide evidence for the truth of another proposition, the conclusion. ​

The exact propositions I made were thus: if Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond, then a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu.​

These propositions are hypothetical propositions which has the form "if then q," where p and q are component propositions; that is, a combination of multiple propositions. The "if" component is the antecedent and the "then" component is the consequent. Thus, in the statement "if Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond, then a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu," the antecedent is "Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond ," and the consequent is "a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu." Hypothetical propositions identify relationships of dependence among things, and do not assert the truth of p or q; rather they mean that the truth of p would be sufficient to guarantee the truth of q. The only way q could fail to be true is for p to be false as well. ​

Now that we understand the logical form of hypothetical propositions "if p, then q," let me show you the inferences that can be made with hypothetical propositions. There are three valid forms of inference that you can consider and two forms to avoid. The first valid form of inference is the pure hypothetical syllogism, and it has the following form:​

If p, then q

If q, then r

If p, then r.​

The q in the first premise in the consequent and the antecedent of the second premise. The q serves to link together p and r, which appear together in the conclusion. Any argument of this form is valid. Pure hypothetical syllogisms are used to to describe chain of events in which each event causes the next. Suppose I continue with my initial hypothetical propositions "if Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond, then a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu," it could take the form of the following pure hypothetical syllogisms: ​

If Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond, then a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu.


If a high density configuration or configuration of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu, Kakuzu can be killed.


Therefore, if Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond, then Kakuzu can be killed.​

Again:​

​

If p, then q

If q, then r

If p, then r.​

In my above syllogism both premises are hypothetical, and so is the conclusion. At no point do I assert that p, q, or r is actually the case. My reasoning is purely hypothetical; but there is another sort of inference that allows me to derive a nonhypothetical conclusion. ​

If p, then q ~ If Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond, then a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu.​

p ~ Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond​

​

.

q ~ A high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu.​

In an argument of this form, the second premise is categorical; it affirms the antecedent of the hypothetical premise. This permits me to infer the consequent, which is also categorical. This type of inference is called a mixed hypothetical syllogism. Any argument of this form is valid because it merely unfolds what is implicit in the meaning of the hypothetical premise. That premise says that the truth of p would be sufficient for the truth of q is true also. If I assume p is true, I may conclude q is true as well. I can also work this in the opposite direction. If I assume that q is false, I can infer p is false for if p were not false, but true, then q could not have been false either. Thus the following mixed hypothetical syllogism is valid:​

If p, then q ~ If Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond, then a high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu bypasses Doton Domu.

not -q ~ A high density configuration or configurations of Satetsu cannot bypasses Doton Domu.

not -p ~ Doton Domu's attributes are not that of diamond.​

In the above case, I denied the the consequent, and that allowed me to deny the antecedent. Again, the conclusion is a categorical proposition. Thus there exists two valid mixed hypothetical syllogisms; the first is called modus pollens: the method of affirming the antecedent, and the second is called modus tollens: the method of denying the consequent. Both methods are valid for their ability to spell out the implications of the hypothetical premise. By using contraposition, I can transform any modus tollen argument into modus ponens:​

If p, then q ← contrapositive → If not -q, then not -p

not -q not -q


not -p not -p ​

By taking the contrapositive of the hypothetical position, but leaving everything else unchanged, I have changed the modus tollen argument on the left into modus pollens on the right. There are two other forms of mixed hypothetical syllogisms, both are invalid:​

Denying the antecedent:​

If p, then q

not -p


not -q​

Affirming the consequent:​

If p, then q

p

q​

Ironically, Apêx calls my "argument" "horrendous" when his reasoning takes the same form as mine.​

I was so close the other day to doing what you did in this post, but then I was like nah it's too much so all I did I was use > and < and people were still like"math? what are you talking about."

 

[Varrah]

Fair enough.

Alright.​

I realise that you asked yourself a hypothetical question, or rather, claim to have done so. However, there's no implication of any of your propositions being hypothetical in the thread I linked before. Therefore I am tempted to think the entirety of the initial post was created to justify your previously incorrect belief by claiming it cannot be falsifiable since it was always hypothetical. However, such would not matter because it was an assertion as a part of a debate, meaning it was an actual proposition which can be denied or accepted. Otherwise it would contribute nothing to the thread. I only ever insulted your assertion in that particular thread, I do not care for your hypothetical propositions.

It is a hypothetical proposition, they are not anything more or less; the hypothetical proposition I used in my initial was not use to justify my position, rather, much like I said in my opening post in this thread, was to serve as an example of how I could create a valid argument of this belief if the hypothetical proposition is believed to be true. It is in this matter its similar to many of the hypothetical propositions in the coliseum; the only difference is proposed hypothetical aspect in this hypothetical scenario. In no way, shape, or form I have asserted that is what I actually believe to be the case now, all of my posts thus far, especially my opening post in this thread, regurgitate this point. The very nature of a hypothetical proposition needs to be accepted or denied for it to do anything, however, it is not an actual proposition: that is not their attribute. If you've ever only assaulted the statement I made in the other thread, then that's find; my only comment to that was that the form of your argument in this response was the same as

You must be registered for see links

you posted. ​

But I am clearly referring to the thread which River mentioned.

Okay, I see what happened.​

I could not care less for your propositions in this thread. They are non-debatable propositions made specifically to prevent a counter argument in the first place. Hence I am refrring to the post River mentioned, and everything you mention relating to hypothetical propositions is irrelevant to that as it was a blatant assertion.

Okay, except the hypothetical propositions are debatable if you believe p to be true, and again, the hypothetical propositions were not made specifically prevent a counter argument as this can be done if anyone accepts p to be true; the hypothetical proposition were made to, again, specifically use a refined belief I once held to serve as an example of my reasoning about how if a certain thing is, then this thing is true and how proceed to make those things valid—you think the hypothetical proposition is irrelevant, cool, I thought River's post warranted a response from me explaining why if x is believed to be true, then y would have to be too. Again, hypothetical propositions do not assert anything, they as their name suggests, only offers hypothetical things. ​

Nobody is arguing your initial post in this thread. Don't see why you keep bringing it up. It's nothing you can argue in the first place.

I bring up my initial post to emphasize the differences between it and my posts in other thread, particularly how a hypothetical proposition does not assert anything. ​

But I have disagreed with your post from the previous Kakuzu vs Sasori thread, in which you made a blatant assertion rather then a hypothetical proposition. You showed me how you came to hypothetical propositions but there was no inference to any hypothetical propositions in that particular thread, nor is it a viable form of argumentation to counter someone else's points with hypothetical propositions as it cannot counter anything when it cannot be accepted or denied. A hypothetical proposition adds absolutely nothing to a debate and only gives you a free-pass to say it cannot be accepted or denied. Hence that particular counter was an assertion and not a hypothetical proposition.

Yup, I did; if my assertion is wrong its wrong, not contending that—just merely pointing out how I refined that assertion to show how if it is taken to be true how one could poise an argument guaranteeing the truth of its conclusion. Logically speaking the coliseum is filled with hypothetical proposition and hypothetical syllogisms, the debate tourney going on is one such example. ​

There's some bad grammar in this sentence. I suggest you use less complex words and care more for your grammar. And once again, I have only ever referred to the quote which River spoke of.

You're right, I should tend more time to my grammar. I'll hold this L, but I don't think any of the words I use are complex; for example, "hypothetical proposition," this specific word isn't complex if a person is at least familiar with the building blocks of modern logic. ​

Well this is awfully contradicting isn't it?..



Did you not claim in your initial post to this thread that these were the propositions you used to conclude that IS>Diamond to River? You clearly stated these were your initial propositions form the VERY beginning, and then proceeded to suggest your propositions are hypothetical propositions. So you are clearly caught up in your own lies here, as I don't need anything in that thread signifying you had thought them out when you are blatantly telling me you had already thought them out and only came to those particular thoughts after you formed your hypothetical propositions.

I said in my initial posts that those propositions are intended to be hypothetical proposition, as such they are not asserting anything given the nature of hypothetical propositions. All of former posts in this thread have said this and served to emphasized this point, but I think now there should be doubt, so I say: Apêx, the propositions in my initial post in this thread is an hypothetical proposition, it asserts nothing and it is a refined version of the assertion I previously made in the other thread, but again, unlike the assertion in the other thread, the hypothetical proposition asserts nothing and is only intended to serve the purpose of explaining why I once believed the assertion in the other thread and how I could create an argument from it if it is accepted to be true. ​

Pleas quote me saying I discredited your proposition in this thread. I said I discredited your original proposition to River. So once again, I discredited nothing from your hypothetical propositions, accepted nothing, and denied nothing.

Then this is a mistake on my half: I genuinely believed you were referring to the hypothetical proposition as the thing you discredited. My mistake.​

I think you need to learn that yourself, as I have referred on numerous occasions to your original post to River, yet you somehow misconstrue it continuously and believe I am speaking of your initial post to this thread.

Yep, I did. I just needed to step back, I was under the assumption that you were combining my assertion in the other thread with my opening post in this thread, so I responded accordingly. I do have one question if you are willingly to answer: what is the composition of Doton Domu? I am aware of the inconsistencies of the databook, and the manga generally supersedes it, but the databook basically says Doton Domu is the result of chakra taking the composition Earth and hardening to that of diamond. This is where my confusion is. The "of" part for me means either means Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond or Doton Domu's attributes are similar to diamond. This is what I think the databook means, but I think am ruling out other possibilities, and if I am, I may be committing the fallacy of false dilemma.​

 

[Apêx1]

It is a hypothetical proposition, they are not anything more or less; the hypothetical proposition I used in my initial was not use to justify my position, rather, much like I said in my opening post in this thread, was to serve as an example of how I could create a valid argument of this belief if the hypothetical proposition is believed to be true. It is in this matter its similar to many of the hypothetical propositions in the coliseum; the only difference is proposed hypothetical aspect in this hypothetical scenario. In no way, shape, or form I have asserted that is what I actually believe to be the case now, all of my posts thus far, especially my opening post in this thread, regurgitate this point. The very nature of a hypothetical proposition needs to be accepted or denied for it to do anything, however, it is not an actual proposition: that is not their attribute. If you've ever only assaulted the statement I made in the other thread, then that's find; my only comment to that was that the form of your argument in this response was the same as

You must be registered for see links

you posted. ​

Ok, but you claimed it was 'ironic' for me to call your original argument that River referred to "horrendous" but then only explained how you came about with the plausibility for Domu being Diamond. I was attacking the fact that someone can believe Domu is like Diamond, because there's no viable reason to do so at all. Your hypothetical propositions are your hypothetical propositions, I am not arguing those, but your original post which River referred to. That is the only thing I called a 'horrendous' argument since there is no premise for their to be a conclusion. You can only make a conclusion without a premise in your hypothetical propositions, you cannot make a conclusion without a premise if it's not hypothetical. Hence your original post River referred to was in fact fallacious.

Okay, I see what happened.​

Okay, except the hypothetical propositions are debatable if you believe p to be true, and again, the hypothetical propositions were not made specifically prevent a counter argument as this can be done if anyone accepts p to be true; the hypothetical proposition were made to, again, specifically use a refined belief I once held to serve as an example of my reasoning about how if a certain thing is, then this thing is true and how proceed to make those things valid—you think the hypothetical proposition is irrelevant, cool, I thought River's post warranted a response from me explaining why if x is believed to be true, then y would have to be too. Again, hypothetical propositions do not assert anything, they as their name suggests, only offers hypothetical things. ​

I know that. I have not denied that once. I do not know why you repeat this statement over and over again. I told you I did not accept or deny any of the hypothetical propositions as they are besides the point.

I bring up my initial post to emphasize the differences between it and my posts in other thread, particularly how a hypothetical proposition does not assert anything. ​

Ok, but this debate is centred around the propositions which River referred to and not the initial post you made in this thread regarding hypothetical propositions.

Yup, I did; if my assertion is wrong its wrong, not contending that—just merely pointing out how I refined that assertion to show how if it is taken to be true how one could poise an argument guaranteeing the truth of its conclusion. Logically speaking the coliseum is filled with hypothetical proposition and hypothetical syllogisms, the debate tourney going on is one such example. ​

Yes, I know what you mean. The debate tourney is filled with hypothetical propositions, but hypothetical propositions are irrelevant to some topics, this one included. This is because there's only one real answer to such propositions, and any other hypothetical propositions cannot be taken as true. You cannot assume it to be true that he would be structurally similar to diamond, even hypothetically, given the occurrences that have taken place in the manga that outright debunk it.

You're right, I should tend more time to my grammar. I'll hold this L, but I don't think any of the words I use are complex; for example, "hypothetical proposition," this specific word isn't complex if a person is at least familiar with the building blocks of modern logic. ​

While I don't think this particular post of yours was complex vocabulary wise, I do believe you overdid its complexity as it was unnecessary. However, it is in fact true that you often overdo it with your vocabulary, and can bring you many examples ie:

I am presently certain that my sentiment suggests that the character that bear the utmost malice toward will be awarded to Danzō Shimura. I prefer all the commonality that appear in the series, approximately xerox and am able to acquiesce with Danzō quite exorbitantly. Despite this predicament, I cannot prefer Danzō traversely to supplementary members of the Naruto Universe Community, as the auxiliary have not (unjustly) committed the atrocious acts that Danzō rapt. I do not regard many of the "Darkness of Shinobi's actions justifiable.'

Inb4 you didn't use a thesaurus at all and simply envision words in your head while writing sentences. Inb4 your lexis is comparable to an English professor's.

I said in my initial posts that those propositions are intended to be hypothetical proposition, as such they are not asserting anything given the nature of hypothetical propositions. All of former posts in this thread have said this and served to emphasized this point, but I think now there should be doubt, so I say: Apêx, the propositions in my initial post in this thread is an hypothetical proposition, it asserts nothing and it is refined version of an assertion I previously made in the other thread, but again, unlike the assertion in the other thread, the hypothetical proposition asserts nothing and is only intended to serve the purpose of explaining why I once believed the assertion in the other thread. ​

You are beating around the bush. I said you contradicted yourself because at one point you say the hypothetical propositions were your initial method of suggesting Domu=Diamond and on another point you say you hadn't thought of these hypothetical propositions yet. I gave you the quotes, so you can refer back to those as they are in fact contradicting.

Then this is a mistake on my half: I genuinely believed you were referring to the hypothetical proposition as the thing you discredited. My mistake.​

Np

Yep, I did. I just needed to step back, I was under the assumption that you were combining my assertion in the other thread with my opening post in this thread, so I responded accordingly. I do have one question if you are willingly to answer: what is the composition of Doton Domu? I am aware of the inconsistencies of the databook, and the manga generally supersedes it, but the databook basically says Doton Domu is the result of chakra taking the composition Earth and hardening to that of diamond. This is where my confusion is. The "of" part for me means either means Doton Domu's attributes are that of diamond or Doton Domu's attributes are similar to diamond. This is what I think the databook means, but I think am ruling out other possibilities, and if I am, I may be committing the fallacy of false dilemma.​

Well Shikamaru made the claim that his body is comparable to steel [

You must be registered for see links

]. The only other person who's been metaphorically compared to steel was the Sandaime Raikage I believe. And he says no physical attack can hurt him despite his age, so he must be confident of his defence. However, even given these implications it would be a no limits fallacy if I suggest he can tank something more powerful then he's shown. In my opinion Kishi probably thought diamond was the toughest and hardest substance there is and lacked the scientific knowledge to know that diamond is not tough. People should work under the assumption that diamond is the toughest substance known to man when discussing it but we can't quantify such a thing in the first place.