congealeddgtllvr wrote...
Emperor Iaius I wrote...
A pride demon is after her because it's the strongest kind there is and any other doesn't stand a chance of tempting her. There's a reason why pride demons are the strongest: even those who can resist all the rest can fall prey to them through false confidence. Nevertheless, if anybody could do it, Merrill can. Remember, making a deal (like she did in the Fade) is not the same thing as becoming an abomination (as Marethari did).
This is what I was referring to. No misquoting here.
And I don't see what the problem with having a debate is.
Debates are fine. I just don't like it when people twist my words and argue against something I haven't said, and then snarkily tell me that I'm not convincing. It's rude.
There was misquoting. Let me quote you.
It is a contradictory statement because you said she had "a better chance than anyone"... because she belongs go a group that all have a better chance. There is a contradiction inherent in the reasoning here.
Nowhere are we told that her "unique knowledge of Keeper lore" makes her better at resisting temptation. You are assuming this. You claim that all Dalish are better at it, but that would only mean that Merrill would be better than your average human, not better than anyone, which was your original claim. This is the contradiction.
So, first, you place words in quotations that were never uttered by me and you attribute them to me. Second, you paraphrased your own invented quotation and tell me that it was my original claim.
But--as you bolded above--that's not what I said. I said if anybody could do it, she could. That means, if it were possible to resist a Pride Demon, she would be able to do it. That in no way says that she is better at it than everybody. The independent claim about the Dalish and her proficiency vis-a-vis the other keepers and firsts explains her expertise, because you asked what support I had for such a thing.
Since I'm taking my time here, I'll say one other thing. If you were correct, what you would say is the one statement does not adequately support the other. You would not say that it contradicts the other. A lack of sufficient proof (using whatever metric you want) is not the same thing as a contradiction. A contradiction may serve as a disproof (but not always), but a lack of evidence may not because it's a matter of not meeting a threshold rather than having proof that undermines the assertion in question.
All this is why I'm not interested in continuing. It's too much effort on my part to be logically conscientious not to get that in return. I'm sure it's no fault of your own, as I'm sure you're not doing this intentionally. It's just that the cost-benefit scale is too heavily weighed in one direction.
People are free to hold whatever opinions they want. When they want to tell
other people that they're wrong, there's a higher standard. You need to be able to show why, and you need to do so in a way that respects the other person's arguments. I don't see that happening here, and I don't want the frustration of going further. It'll just end up getting heated on my part, and nobody needs that.
Therefore, I respectfully disengage.
Modifié par Emperor Iaius I, 26 mars 2011 - 03:19 .
Retour en haut
