Talk:Great Warriors/@comment-5.13.69.251-20160822121349/@comment-26484417-20160828154622

If you’re unsure about the reason why I identified a logical fallacy in one of your arguments, then you might want to read up on logical fallacies as well as on logic and reasoning in general. The fact that the entire portion of that paragraph was a logical fallacy makes it inapplicable or outright irrelevant to the discussion; that’s it, there is nothing more to say. I didn’t particularly have to do this, but I even told you the name of the fallacy so that you can look it up if you are unsure about what makes it a logical fallacy, and I also pointed out the exact part of your comment where you use it.

" Also the "it" referred to something completely else, I think at least, since I still have no idea what "it" is. 

'' "As for the last paragraph, it actually isn't an assumption on my part; you're welcome to check the relevant blog posts and forum entries to verify it yourself." ''

'' That has the "it" I was wondering about. You mentioned blog posts and other stuff. ''

'' Later on I asked for it: "Maybe assessment is a better word here. You asses that it's reasonable to assume that Great Family Head and Great Warrior mean different things, from the fact that the information about the Lo Po Bo Bia Family and their Head hasn't been released alongside the others. If there are any blog posts supporting this, I'd be very happy to read them, but since it was just revealed this very chapter, I don't think you'll be able to comply." ''"

I know this was the "it" you meant in that question and subsequent comments, there were just more than one "it"s to address so I did that. That said, if you read my comments you can hardly mistaken one for the other, so I wonder what was this attempt about. Anyway, I did already say that asking for clarification only after you saw my reaction to your original reaction isn't something I need to acknowledge. If you were unsure about what I meant in the first place, you should have asked to begin with instead of what you did write. Claiming uncertainty ex-post like this is extremely suspicious in an environment where you have all the time you need before you reply.

Finally, I’m not surprised you don’t think I understand logic when you have repeatedly demonstrated illogical behaviour or reasoning (e.g., your last comment in the recent Enryu discussion is still my 'favourite') and your comments--with an exception here and there--aren’t shy of logical fallacies. Granted, knowledge of logical fallacies doesn’t necessarily make me someone who understands logic, but hearing you claim something like that is rather entertaining; many analogies and anecdotes come to mind.

Moving on, I've assumed that you know what context I meant here and exactly how the association between Family Heads and 10 Great Warriors originally came up; was I mistaken and you only disagreed without knowing what the “it” (a new one) is about again? Never mind, I see that you’re already at the stage where you attempt to put a lot of assumptions in my mouth without even bothering to make sure whether they relate to what I said--not to mention the inclusion additional logical fallacies (I assume there is no need for details considering your reaction in the previous case)--, so I’m going to leave the discussion before it gets any further.