Talk:Urek Mazino/@comment-25346948-20160919175745/@comment-26484417-20160920110455

Show/Hide Offtopic It's genuinely charming that you still keep this up. My point in that discussion was that since GoG's job description is to Revolutionise "those who have opened the doors of the Tower", we can only assume that Enryu also Revolved there; it doesn't have to be true, but that's the only thing we can assume from that information. Why do we assume that Enryu Revolved in the first place? Well, that was the underlying assumption of the discussion that, once again, was based on the only information we have had that may or may not be related (i.e., "Hell Train's terminal station" and "sight of Guardian killing" are the same place).

You argued--among other things--that since GoG hasn't mentioned Enryu, that means he hasn't gone there, and I--seemingly to no avail--tried to explain that lack of information isn't an information (i.e., it only means that GoG hasn't mentioned Enryu, nothing more). The rest of the discussion was me desperately trying to navigate your logical fallacies and misinterpretations of what I'd written (may also count as a logical fallacy), until it finally devolved into something in which I was unwilling to participate.

Anyway, there is no point in revisiting said discussion; I had already wasted a lot of my time trying to accommodate you back then, and this comment is about as far as I'm willing to go this time. Your arguments were commonly relying on logical fallacies, but back then I didn't know that--while you throw around accusations in the spirit of "you cannot follow simple logic", when you run out of alternatives to address a counter-argument--you're actually not at all versed in this regard. I'm not saying that my arguments are infallible, but it's quite something else to think that logical fallacies are unrelated to "basic logic" (as you call it), or to think that an argument is valid even if it's based on a logical fallacy for as long as you pose demands that the other party doesn't accommodate. Oh and then there was that one fun occasion when you decided to point out logical fallacy in my argument, but then you used logical fallacy to morph my statement, and the result still wasn't an example of the logical fallacy you wanted to demonstrate.

PS: This is fairly confrontational comment, but there appears to be no other way. You 'complained' about my telling you (and others) to read on something, but I really suggest that you do read on the things I suggest. Then you'll know how to argue against my arguments with something other than logical fallacies (ranging from non-sequitur, to ad hominem), and even destroy my arguments when I actually do deploy a logical fallacy of my own.

EDIT: My only reaction to the comment below is that I cannot decide whether I ought to be somewhat sad to see that you seemingly truly believe in the validity of the things you wrote (especially some of them are just "wow"), or whether I merely ought to be upset that I have wasted so much time indulging an internet warrior.