Quote:
Originally Posted by SagaraSouske
A "Straw man" is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, which is what you are doing with your vampire and holy water examples.
|
Not at all. I'm not implying that you said what you didn't say, therefore this doesn't qualify as "straw man".
The kind of argument I used is the same as the "Russel teapot", and it isn't fallacious at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SagaraSouske
What am saying here is not about killing them, it's about the logic of both blades and arrow can 'damage' the titans and there fore the assumption can be made with certain basis, where as holy water does not 'damage' titans and thus have no basis. Killing is irrelevant here.
|
Let me resume the exchange we had about this issue:
You: Holy water is not known to
kill unless you are a vampire. Arrows however is known to
kill.
Me: Arrows are not known to
kill a Titan anymore than blessed water is.
You: How do you know arrows are not known to
kill titan? No where is that information been revealed to us.
Me: How do you know that blessed water is not known to
kill titans? No where is that information been revealed to us.
Now you say that it never was about "killing" but about "damaging"?
I never used the example of the "blessed water" for anything that wasn't "killing them".
And I never denied that arrows can damage titans, I deny that they can kill them.
So no, sorry, killing is relevant here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SagaraSouske
When you read stuff, do you only focus on limited context without taking account for what is said before and after? The prevent here does not mean it stops regeneration. If you would read further: "If you can strike that vital spot, you will kill them before they have time to regenerate." The prevent here, base on the context of what is said, means you will deal more damage then the speed of regeneration, thus resulting in preventing regeneration, not that it actually stops the titan from regenerating. This is pretty clear from the original Japanese.
|
This is so wrong that I don't even know where to start from.
1) You are the one who is ignoring the "rend the flesh" part as if it was the only thing irrelevant
2) The last sentence does not deny in any way the first. Severe damage prevents regeneration (because it kills them).
3) It logically follows that if they die they cannot regenerate. If severe damage kills them, then severe damage also prevents them from regenerating.
4) What you infer from the last sentence is illogical. What you should actually infer is that you need to
kill them before they have the time to regenerate. That means the only thing that can beat their regeneration rate is instant death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SagaraSouske
How is arrow not instant damage? It's not like 100 arrows hit after a long period of time. It is hit at once. It's basically puncturing 100 holes in the nape instantly vs slicing a piece of flesh away. It's far more severe damage. If they can regenerate in the fraction of seconds between each arrow hit, which multiple will land at exact same time anyways, then it stands to reason they will regenerate the missing flesh instantly as well.
|
You think you can effectively make that many arrows hit the same spot all at the same time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SagaraSouske
Because you are arguing only blade works.
|
Then you assume I'm saying what I never said, and
that is a straw man.