|
This is a thread that is dedicated to discussing One Piece. Do not read this thread if you are not currently caught up as there are spoilers in here.
If an episode or a chapter has already been officially released, then it is not necessary to post using spoilers.
If you have knowledge on a chapter that has not been officially released yet, do NOT post it in this thread. Ignoring this public note will result in a mod action. |
On September 14 2014 14:01 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 13:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 11:26 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 11:00 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 10:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No no no no no. You just don't get it. Go read the wiki article again. You know... the one that you linked? Or is that yet another exception to the rule for you?
Are you going to keep your truly asinine argument that any exceptions to your argument just makes you more right? Because seriously, I don't know how to respond to that, but to shove that into your face till you admit that isn't the right way to construct an argument. Yes I read it, especially this part "The exception [that] proves the rule" means that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists." Did you read that part? I think he means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule#Serious_nonsense I read that part and it no way applies to what I said. Men are stronger then women except when women are Olympic weightlifters. That is an exception to the rule. How could that possibly be misconstrued? Where is the rule that states that? Where is the rule that says all leaders must have haki? You thinking something doesn't constitute a rule, it constitutes an opinion. Having something conflict with your opinion doesn't make your opinion a rule. You making a claim doesn't constitute a rule. You saying something is a rule, doesn't actually make something a rule.
It's not an opinion that females are weaker than males.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism Read the second paragraph under Humans.
"The average basal metabolic rate is about 6 percent higher in adolescent males than females and increases to about 10 percent higher after puberty. Females tend to convert more food into fat, while males convert more into muscle and expendable circulating energy reserves. Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[62] The difference in strength relative to body mass is less pronounced in trained individuals. In Olympic weightlifting, male records vary from 5.5× body mass in the lowest weight category to 4.2× in the highest weight category, while female records vary from 4.4× to 3.8×, a weight adjusted difference of only 10-20%, and an absolute difference of about 30% (i.e. 472kg vs 333kg for unlimited weight classes)(see Olympic weightlifting records). A study, carried about by analyzing annual world rankings from 1980–1996, found that males' running times were, on average, 11% faster than females'."
I never said ALL leaders must have haki, in fact I said there are exceptions.
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On September 14 2014 13:54 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 11:14 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On September 14 2014 10:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 09:40 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On September 14 2014 09:19 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 09:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On September 14 2014 09:02 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 08:57 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 08:45 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 08:35 Sentenal wrote:
[quote]
They gave you three entirely different examples, and you think you can brush them off with "they are the exception"? What about the Tenryuubito? They have plenty of followers, yet mostly have been pretty week. What about King Nefertari Cobra? What about Iceburg? All are leaders, and none are worth anything in fighting. They gave me 3 examples in a sea of yonkos, shickibukai, pirate captains who are stronger than their crew. What you failed to mention is that they are political leaders more so than leaders of an army or pirates. Luffy, Captains of other crews, the 4 Yonkos, the 3 Admirals, the 7 Shichibukai are leaders of a fighting force(one of them is the exception because he is alone-mihawk, the other is the exception because he got posses an army from sheer luck and he is a comical character so it makes sense-buggy) they aren't political leaders. So now only certain types of leaders count as leaders? There are leaders of army's and there are political leaders. Where is the proof that Dragon doesn't have haki? How does it make sense in the context of the story? Dragon, son of Garp(who has haki), father of Luffy(who has haki), mentor of Sabo(who has haki) and leader of the Revolutionary Army is somehow a weak little bitch with no haki? Why would we have to prove that Dragon does not have haki. Because your claim is asinine and does not follow the context of the story. Yes to be a successful leader you do have to be powerful in combat and my claim is right. Once again what makes sense in the context of the story? That all the Yonko, admirals, shichibukai and other commanders of pirate crews are weak people who just happen to be very good leaders and nobody bothered to overthrow them by force? Or does it make sense that they are ridiculously strong and they are good leaders and nobody in their crew/army COULD overthrow them by force? Nice to see you've read the rest of my post. The fact that Dragon probably does have Haki does not negate the inanity of asking for proof of something which you assert groundlessly. Additionally proving that anyone at all, especially someone that appears so seldom as Dragon doesn't have haki is impossible, as you very well know, which means that such a comment is just to divert attention away from the flaws of your argument. Nice also to see you affirming that your claim is right, I would never have anticipated you having such a position. In what way is what I asserted groundless? You've stated that Dragon must have haki. People have said: we don't know that for sure. Prove it. You can't prove it. You gave a very long winded explanation about how every leader (except for these half a dozen or so exceptions, since other people have been disobliging enough to point them out) is strong, so Dragon must be strong, and every one who is strong has haki so Dragon must have haki. All these things do not constitute proof that Dragon has haki. They might suggest it. They might point towards Dragon having haki being probable. But none of these demonstrate conclusively that he must have haki. He might be one of the exceptions for all we know. Or he might be a leader that does not fit your model of leadership in One Piece. Thus I declare that your claim that Dragon must absolutely have haki is groundless, for you have in no way demonstrated that he does, only that he could have. The fact that you did so in a very antagonistic and vehement tone harms your case for that matter. I very clearly demonstrated that Dragon does have haki but you fail to see it. How would you explain Sabo having haki under Dragon's rule?
Umm... He could have had a skill for it and learnt to master it from someone in the revolutionaries who is not Dragon.
|
On September 14 2014 14:12 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 14:01 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 13:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 11:26 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 11:00 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 10:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No no no no no. You just don't get it. Go read the wiki article again. You know... the one that you linked? Or is that yet another exception to the rule for you?
Are you going to keep your truly asinine argument that any exceptions to your argument just makes you more right? Because seriously, I don't know how to respond to that, but to shove that into your face till you admit that isn't the right way to construct an argument. Yes I read it, especially this part "The exception [that] proves the rule" means that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists." Did you read that part? I think he means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule#Serious_nonsense I read that part and it no way applies to what I said. Men are stronger then women except when women are Olympic weightlifters. That is an exception to the rule. How could that possibly be misconstrued? Where is the rule that states that? Where is the rule that says all leaders must have haki? You thinking something doesn't constitute a rule, it constitutes an opinion. Having something conflict with your opinion doesn't make your opinion a rule. You making a claim doesn't constitute a rule. You saying something is a rule, doesn't actually make something a rule. It's not an opinion that females are weaker than males. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism Read the second paragraph under Humans. "The average basal metabolic rate is about 6 percent higher in adolescent males than females and increases to about 10 percent higher after puberty. Females tend to convert more food into fat, while males convert more into muscle and expendable circulating energy reserves. Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[62] The difference in strength relative to body mass is less pronounced in trained individuals. In Olympic weightlifting, male records vary from 5.5× body mass in the lowest weight category to 4.2× in the highest weight category, while female records vary from 4.4× to 3.8×, a weight adjusted difference of only 10-20%, and an absolute difference of about 30% (i.e. 472kg vs 333kg for unlimited weight classes)(see Olympic weightlifting records). A study, carried about by analyzing annual world rankings from 1980–1996, found that males' running times were, on average, 11% faster than females'." I never said ALL leaders must have haki, in fact I said there are exceptions.
Do you know what a rule is, or at least what it actually means? And I'm not talking about a "rule of thumb", I mean an actual rule. This is a serious question, and I don't mean any offense, since it doesn't seem like english is your first language based on your listed country.
Rules are something that are strict. Its something that tells you "what is and what is not allowed". For example, goverment Laws are rules, since you are not allowed to break the Law (rule). Parents can give their children a rule, saying they have to be back home by a certain time, and children are not allowed to break said rule. So, with the phrase "an exception proves the rule", if you were to tell your children "Just for tonight, you can stay out late", that would be giving an exception, that also proves that normally there is a rule in place. The Wikipedia article you yourself linked explicitly says this, about strict rules vs rules of thumb.
Conversely, if you were saying "It is a rule that men are stronger than women", it would be false, because that would mean that women are not allowed to be stronger than men. If you are to say "It is a rule that leaders in One Piece have haki", that would mean that leaders would not be allowed to not have haki, in One Piece.
With One Piece, for example, if you were to believeOn September 14 2014 14:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
I never said ALL leaders must have haki Then this would mean that you also believe there is no rule stating all leaders must have Haki, since clearly there are leaders who do not. I hope this explains how you are misusing that phrase.
|
On September 14 2014 14:26 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 14:12 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:01 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 13:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 11:26 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 11:00 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 10:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No no no no no. You just don't get it. Go read the wiki article again. You know... the one that you linked? Or is that yet another exception to the rule for you?
Are you going to keep your truly asinine argument that any exceptions to your argument just makes you more right? Because seriously, I don't know how to respond to that, but to shove that into your face till you admit that isn't the right way to construct an argument. Yes I read it, especially this part "The exception [that] proves the rule" means that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists." Did you read that part? I think he means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule#Serious_nonsense I read that part and it no way applies to what I said. Men are stronger then women except when women are Olympic weightlifters. That is an exception to the rule. How could that possibly be misconstrued? Where is the rule that states that? Where is the rule that says all leaders must have haki? You thinking something doesn't constitute a rule, it constitutes an opinion. Having something conflict with your opinion doesn't make your opinion a rule. You making a claim doesn't constitute a rule. You saying something is a rule, doesn't actually make something a rule. It's not an opinion that females are weaker than males. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism Read the second paragraph under Humans. "The average basal metabolic rate is about 6 percent higher in adolescent males than females and increases to about 10 percent higher after puberty. Females tend to convert more food into fat, while males convert more into muscle and expendable circulating energy reserves. Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[62] The difference in strength relative to body mass is less pronounced in trained individuals. In Olympic weightlifting, male records vary from 5.5× body mass in the lowest weight category to 4.2× in the highest weight category, while female records vary from 4.4× to 3.8×, a weight adjusted difference of only 10-20%, and an absolute difference of about 30% (i.e. 472kg vs 333kg for unlimited weight classes)(see Olympic weightlifting records). A study, carried about by analyzing annual world rankings from 1980–1996, found that males' running times were, on average, 11% faster than females'." I never said ALL leaders must have haki, in fact I said there are exceptions. Do you know what a rule is, or at least what it actually means? And I'm not talking about a "rule of thumb", I mean an actual rule. This is a serious question, and I don't mean any offense, since it doesn't seem like english is your first language based on your listed country. Rules are something that are strict. Its something that tells you "what is and what is not allowed". For example, goverment Laws are rules, since you are not allowed to break the Law (rule). Parents can give their children a rule, saying they have to be back home by a certain time, and children are not allowed to break said rule. So, with the phrase "an exception proves the rule", if you were to tell your children "Just for tonight, you can stay out late", that would be giving an exception, that also proves that normally there is a rule in place. The Wikipedia article you yourself linked explicitly says this, about strict rules vs rules of thumb. Conversely, if you were saying "It is a rule that men are stronger than women", it would be false, because that would mean that women are not allowed to be stronger than men. If you are to say "It is a rule that leaders in One Piece have haki", that would mean that leaders would not be allowed to not have haki, in One Piece. With One Piece, for example, if you were to believe Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 14:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
I never said ALL leaders must have haki Then this would mean that you also believe there is no rule stating all leaders must have Haki, since clearly there are leaders who do not.
Check out the second definition of rule in Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rule
"a usually valid generalization"
|
On September 14 2014 14:37 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 14:26 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 14:12 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:01 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 13:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 11:26 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 11:00 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 10:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No no no no no. You just don't get it. Go read the wiki article again. You know... the one that you linked? Or is that yet another exception to the rule for you?
Are you going to keep your truly asinine argument that any exceptions to your argument just makes you more right? Because seriously, I don't know how to respond to that, but to shove that into your face till you admit that isn't the right way to construct an argument. Yes I read it, especially this part "The exception [that] proves the rule" means that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists." Did you read that part? I think he means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule#Serious_nonsense I read that part and it no way applies to what I said. Men are stronger then women except when women are Olympic weightlifters. That is an exception to the rule. How could that possibly be misconstrued? Where is the rule that states that? Where is the rule that says all leaders must have haki? You thinking something doesn't constitute a rule, it constitutes an opinion. Having something conflict with your opinion doesn't make your opinion a rule. You making a claim doesn't constitute a rule. You saying something is a rule, doesn't actually make something a rule. It's not an opinion that females are weaker than males. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism Read the second paragraph under Humans. "The average basal metabolic rate is about 6 percent higher in adolescent males than females and increases to about 10 percent higher after puberty. Females tend to convert more food into fat, while males convert more into muscle and expendable circulating energy reserves. Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[62] The difference in strength relative to body mass is less pronounced in trained individuals. In Olympic weightlifting, male records vary from 5.5× body mass in the lowest weight category to 4.2× in the highest weight category, while female records vary from 4.4× to 3.8×, a weight adjusted difference of only 10-20%, and an absolute difference of about 30% (i.e. 472kg vs 333kg for unlimited weight classes)(see Olympic weightlifting records). A study, carried about by analyzing annual world rankings from 1980–1996, found that males' running times were, on average, 11% faster than females'." I never said ALL leaders must have haki, in fact I said there are exceptions. Do you know what a rule is, or at least what it actually means? And I'm not talking about a "rule of thumb", I mean an actual rule. This is a serious question, and I don't mean any offense, since it doesn't seem like english is your first language based on your listed country. Rules are something that are strict. Its something that tells you "what is and what is not allowed". For example, goverment Laws are rules, since you are not allowed to break the Law (rule). Parents can give their children a rule, saying they have to be back home by a certain time, and children are not allowed to break said rule. So, with the phrase "an exception proves the rule", if you were to tell your children "Just for tonight, you can stay out late", that would be giving an exception, that also proves that normally there is a rule in place. The Wikipedia article you yourself linked explicitly says this, about strict rules vs rules of thumb. Conversely, if you were saying "It is a rule that men are stronger than women", it would be false, because that would mean that women are not allowed to be stronger than men. If you are to say "It is a rule that leaders in One Piece have haki", that would mean that leaders would not be allowed to not have haki, in One Piece. With One Piece, for example, if you were to believe On September 14 2014 14:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
I never said ALL leaders must have haki Then this would mean that you also believe there is no rule stating all leaders must have Haki, since clearly there are leaders who do not. Check out the second definition of rule in Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rule"a usually valid generalization"
You just don't get it. The article you linked about the phrase you are using explicitly says "The general misuse of the phrase is attributable to the ambivalence of the word 'rule'. In the original sense, 'rule' is taken as a strict rule, while in the loose rhetorical sense 'rule' is taken to mean 'rule of thumb'."
A "usually valid generalization" is a rule of thumb. It is not a strict rule, because fuck, it says generalization right there. Showing an exception to a generalization doesn't prove shit, one way or another. It is not the rule that the phrase is referring to. Please, cut your losses here, its clear your english isn't strong enough to have a conversation on linguistics.
I swear, this whole thing with you is reminding me of the time when Forikorder insisted that gas wasn't a state of matter.
|
On September 14 2014 14:43 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 14:37 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:26 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 14:12 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:01 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 13:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 11:26 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 11:00 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 10:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No no no no no. You just don't get it. Go read the wiki article again. You know... the one that you linked? Or is that yet another exception to the rule for you?
Are you going to keep your truly asinine argument that any exceptions to your argument just makes you more right? Because seriously, I don't know how to respond to that, but to shove that into your face till you admit that isn't the right way to construct an argument. Yes I read it, especially this part "The exception [that] proves the rule" means that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists." Did you read that part? I think he means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule#Serious_nonsense I read that part and it no way applies to what I said. Men are stronger then women except when women are Olympic weightlifters. That is an exception to the rule. How could that possibly be misconstrued? Where is the rule that states that? Where is the rule that says all leaders must have haki? You thinking something doesn't constitute a rule, it constitutes an opinion. Having something conflict with your opinion doesn't make your opinion a rule. You making a claim doesn't constitute a rule. You saying something is a rule, doesn't actually make something a rule. It's not an opinion that females are weaker than males. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism Read the second paragraph under Humans. "The average basal metabolic rate is about 6 percent higher in adolescent males than females and increases to about 10 percent higher after puberty. Females tend to convert more food into fat, while males convert more into muscle and expendable circulating energy reserves. Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[62] The difference in strength relative to body mass is less pronounced in trained individuals. In Olympic weightlifting, male records vary from 5.5× body mass in the lowest weight category to 4.2× in the highest weight category, while female records vary from 4.4× to 3.8×, a weight adjusted difference of only 10-20%, and an absolute difference of about 30% (i.e. 472kg vs 333kg for unlimited weight classes)(see Olympic weightlifting records). A study, carried about by analyzing annual world rankings from 1980–1996, found that males' running times were, on average, 11% faster than females'." I never said ALL leaders must have haki, in fact I said there are exceptions. Do you know what a rule is, or at least what it actually means? And I'm not talking about a "rule of thumb", I mean an actual rule. This is a serious question, and I don't mean any offense, since it doesn't seem like english is your first language based on your listed country. Rules are something that are strict. Its something that tells you "what is and what is not allowed". For example, goverment Laws are rules, since you are not allowed to break the Law (rule). Parents can give their children a rule, saying they have to be back home by a certain time, and children are not allowed to break said rule. So, with the phrase "an exception proves the rule", if you were to tell your children "Just for tonight, you can stay out late", that would be giving an exception, that also proves that normally there is a rule in place. The Wikipedia article you yourself linked explicitly says this, about strict rules vs rules of thumb. Conversely, if you were saying "It is a rule that men are stronger than women", it would be false, because that would mean that women are not allowed to be stronger than men. If you are to say "It is a rule that leaders in One Piece have haki", that would mean that leaders would not be allowed to not have haki, in One Piece. With One Piece, for example, if you were to believe On September 14 2014 14:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
I never said ALL leaders must have haki Then this would mean that you also believe there is no rule stating all leaders must have Haki, since clearly there are leaders who do not. Check out the second definition of rule in Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rule"a usually valid generalization" You just don't get it. The article you linked about the phrase you are using explicitly says " The general misuse of the phrase is attributable to the ambivalence of the word 'rule'. In the original sense, 'rule' is taken as a strict rule, while in the loose rhetorical sense 'rule' is taken to mean 'rule of thumb'." A "usually valid generalization" is a rule of thumb. It is not a strict rule, because fuck, it says generalization right there. It is not the rule that the phrase is referring to. Please, cut your losses here, its clear your english isn't strong enough to have a conversation on linguistics. I swear, this whole thing with you is reminding me of the time when Forikorder insisted that gas wasn't a state of matter.
Merriam Webster I linked to tells you exactly what I meant and I pointed out the definition.
|
On September 14 2014 14:48 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 14:43 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 14:37 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:26 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 14:12 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:01 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 13:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 11:26 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 11:00 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 10:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No no no no no. You just don't get it. Go read the wiki article again. You know... the one that you linked? Or is that yet another exception to the rule for you?
Are you going to keep your truly asinine argument that any exceptions to your argument just makes you more right? Because seriously, I don't know how to respond to that, but to shove that into your face till you admit that isn't the right way to construct an argument. Yes I read it, especially this part "The exception [that] proves the rule" means that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists." Did you read that part? I think he means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule#Serious_nonsense I read that part and it no way applies to what I said. Men are stronger then women except when women are Olympic weightlifters. That is an exception to the rule. How could that possibly be misconstrued? Where is the rule that states that? Where is the rule that says all leaders must have haki? You thinking something doesn't constitute a rule, it constitutes an opinion. Having something conflict with your opinion doesn't make your opinion a rule. You making a claim doesn't constitute a rule. You saying something is a rule, doesn't actually make something a rule. It's not an opinion that females are weaker than males. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism Read the second paragraph under Humans. "The average basal metabolic rate is about 6 percent higher in adolescent males than females and increases to about 10 percent higher after puberty. Females tend to convert more food into fat, while males convert more into muscle and expendable circulating energy reserves. Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[62] The difference in strength relative to body mass is less pronounced in trained individuals. In Olympic weightlifting, male records vary from 5.5× body mass in the lowest weight category to 4.2× in the highest weight category, while female records vary from 4.4× to 3.8×, a weight adjusted difference of only 10-20%, and an absolute difference of about 30% (i.e. 472kg vs 333kg for unlimited weight classes)(see Olympic weightlifting records). A study, carried about by analyzing annual world rankings from 1980–1996, found that males' running times were, on average, 11% faster than females'." I never said ALL leaders must have haki, in fact I said there are exceptions. Do you know what a rule is, or at least what it actually means? And I'm not talking about a "rule of thumb", I mean an actual rule. This is a serious question, and I don't mean any offense, since it doesn't seem like english is your first language based on your listed country. Rules are something that are strict. Its something that tells you "what is and what is not allowed". For example, goverment Laws are rules, since you are not allowed to break the Law (rule). Parents can give their children a rule, saying they have to be back home by a certain time, and children are not allowed to break said rule. So, with the phrase "an exception proves the rule", if you were to tell your children "Just for tonight, you can stay out late", that would be giving an exception, that also proves that normally there is a rule in place. The Wikipedia article you yourself linked explicitly says this, about strict rules vs rules of thumb. Conversely, if you were saying "It is a rule that men are stronger than women", it would be false, because that would mean that women are not allowed to be stronger than men. If you are to say "It is a rule that leaders in One Piece have haki", that would mean that leaders would not be allowed to not have haki, in One Piece. With One Piece, for example, if you were to believe On September 14 2014 14:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
I never said ALL leaders must have haki Then this would mean that you also believe there is no rule stating all leaders must have Haki, since clearly there are leaders who do not. Check out the second definition of rule in Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rule"a usually valid generalization" You just don't get it. The article you linked about the phrase you are using explicitly says " The general misuse of the phrase is attributable to the ambivalence of the word 'rule'. In the original sense, 'rule' is taken as a strict rule, while in the loose rhetorical sense 'rule' is taken to mean 'rule of thumb'." A "usually valid generalization" is a rule of thumb. It is not a strict rule, because fuck, it says generalization right there. It is not the rule that the phrase is referring to. Please, cut your losses here, its clear your english isn't strong enough to have a conversation on linguistics. I swear, this whole thing with you is reminding me of the time when Forikorder insisted that gas wasn't a state of matter. Merriam Webster I linked to tells you exactly what I meant and I pointed out the definition.
Do you believe the phrase "An exception proves the rule" if a rule=generalization?
|
On September 14 2014 14:49 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 14:48 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:43 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 14:37 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:26 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 14:12 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:01 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 13:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 11:26 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 11:00 ElizarTringov wrote:
[quote]
Yes I read it, especially this part "The exception [that] proves the rule" means that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists." Did you read that part? I think he means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule#Serious_nonsense I read that part and it no way applies to what I said. Men are stronger then women except when women are Olympic weightlifters. That is an exception to the rule. How could that possibly be misconstrued? Where is the rule that states that? Where is the rule that says all leaders must have haki? You thinking something doesn't constitute a rule, it constitutes an opinion. Having something conflict with your opinion doesn't make your opinion a rule. You making a claim doesn't constitute a rule. You saying something is a rule, doesn't actually make something a rule. It's not an opinion that females are weaker than males. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism Read the second paragraph under Humans. "The average basal metabolic rate is about 6 percent higher in adolescent males than females and increases to about 10 percent higher after puberty. Females tend to convert more food into fat, while males convert more into muscle and expendable circulating energy reserves. Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[62] The difference in strength relative to body mass is less pronounced in trained individuals. In Olympic weightlifting, male records vary from 5.5× body mass in the lowest weight category to 4.2× in the highest weight category, while female records vary from 4.4× to 3.8×, a weight adjusted difference of only 10-20%, and an absolute difference of about 30% (i.e. 472kg vs 333kg for unlimited weight classes)(see Olympic weightlifting records). A study, carried about by analyzing annual world rankings from 1980–1996, found that males' running times were, on average, 11% faster than females'." I never said ALL leaders must have haki, in fact I said there are exceptions. Do you know what a rule is, or at least what it actually means? And I'm not talking about a "rule of thumb", I mean an actual rule. This is a serious question, and I don't mean any offense, since it doesn't seem like english is your first language based on your listed country. Rules are something that are strict. Its something that tells you "what is and what is not allowed". For example, goverment Laws are rules, since you are not allowed to break the Law (rule). Parents can give their children a rule, saying they have to be back home by a certain time, and children are not allowed to break said rule. So, with the phrase "an exception proves the rule", if you were to tell your children "Just for tonight, you can stay out late", that would be giving an exception, that also proves that normally there is a rule in place. The Wikipedia article you yourself linked explicitly says this, about strict rules vs rules of thumb. Conversely, if you were saying "It is a rule that men are stronger than women", it would be false, because that would mean that women are not allowed to be stronger than men. If you are to say "It is a rule that leaders in One Piece have haki", that would mean that leaders would not be allowed to not have haki, in One Piece. With One Piece, for example, if you were to believe On September 14 2014 14:12 ElizarTringov wrote:
I never said ALL leaders must have haki Then this would mean that you also believe there is no rule stating all leaders must have Haki, since clearly there are leaders who do not. Check out the second definition of rule in Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rule"a usually valid generalization" You just don't get it. The article you linked about the phrase you are using explicitly says " The general misuse of the phrase is attributable to the ambivalence of the word 'rule'. In the original sense, 'rule' is taken as a strict rule, while in the loose rhetorical sense 'rule' is taken to mean 'rule of thumb'." A "usually valid generalization" is a rule of thumb. It is not a strict rule, because fuck, it says generalization right there. It is not the rule that the phrase is referring to. Please, cut your losses here, its clear your english isn't strong enough to have a conversation on linguistics. I swear, this whole thing with you is reminding me of the time when Forikorder insisted that gas wasn't a state of matter. Merriam Webster I linked to tells you exactly what I meant and I pointed out the definition. Do you believe the phrase "An exception proves the rule" if a rule=generalization?
Do you believe Merriam Webster? Do you believe the wiki article showing that men are stronger than women? Do you believe because the country listed after my name is Bulgaria that I am just automatically wrong?
|
I do. That is indeed a secondary definition of the word. Now, do you believe "An exception proves the generalization"?
|
On September 14 2014 14:52 Sentenal wrote:
I do. That is indeed a secondary definition of the word. Now, do you believe "An exception proves the generalization"?
Yes that is what an exception to the rule means in the context I am saying it in.
|
I swear, this whole thing with you is reminding me of the time when Forikorder insisted that gas wasn't a state of matter.
obligatory "i only said gas isnt jsut a state of matter but also the most common way to refer to things in that state"
|
On September 14 2014 14:56 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 14:52 Sentenal wrote:
I do. That is indeed a secondary definition of the word. Now, do you believe "An exception proves the generalization"? Yes that is what an exception to the rule means in the context I am saying it in.
So this means that if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (an exception), this proves that men are generally stronger than women? Please, explain how that works, and the logic of it. I'm very interested.
|
On September 14 2014 14:58 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 14:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:52 Sentenal wrote:
I do. That is indeed a secondary definition of the word. Now, do you believe "An exception proves the generalization"? Yes that is what an exception to the rule means in the context I am saying it in. So this means that if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (an exception), this proves that men are generally stronger than women? Please, explain how that works, and the logic of it. I'm very interested.
Men are stronger than women that is called the "rule" under the Merriam Webster definition I pointed to. The exception to the rule would be women who are Olympic weightlifters. Do you understand now?
|
On September 14 2014 15:02 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 14:58 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 14:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:52 Sentenal wrote:
I do. That is indeed a secondary definition of the word. Now, do you believe "An exception proves the generalization"? Yes that is what an exception to the rule means in the context I am saying it in. So this means that if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (an exception), this proves that men are generally stronger than women? Please, explain how that works, and the logic of it. I'm very interested. Men are stronger than women that is called the "rule" under the Merriam Webster definition I pointed to. The exception to the rule would be women who are Olympic weightlifters. Do you understand now?
Yeah, thats the generalization/rule. Now, if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (for example, an Olympic weightlifter), how does that prove the rule to be true?
|
On September 14 2014 15:03 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 15:02 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:58 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 14:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:52 Sentenal wrote:
I do. That is indeed a secondary definition of the word. Now, do you believe "An exception proves the generalization"? Yes that is what an exception to the rule means in the context I am saying it in. So this means that if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (an exception), this proves that men are generally stronger than women? Please, explain how that works, and the logic of it. I'm very interested. Men are stronger than women that is called the "rule" under the Merriam Webster definition I pointed to. The exception to the rule would be women who are Olympic weightlifters. Do you understand now? Yeah, thats the generalization/rule. Now, if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (for example, an Olympic weightlifter), how does that prove the rule to be true?
No that would prove to be the exception, since the powerlifter is the exception. I explained it quite a few times and you still don't understand. I am not going to explain it any further.
|
On September 14 2014 15:04 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 15:03 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:02 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:58 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 14:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:52 Sentenal wrote:
I do. That is indeed a secondary definition of the word. Now, do you believe "An exception proves the generalization"? Yes that is what an exception to the rule means in the context I am saying it in. So this means that if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (an exception), this proves that men are generally stronger than women? Please, explain how that works, and the logic of it. I'm very interested. Men are stronger than women that is called the "rule" under the Merriam Webster definition I pointed to. The exception to the rule would be women who are Olympic weightlifters. Do you understand now? Yeah, thats the generalization/rule. Now, if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (for example, an Olympic weightlifter), how does that prove the rule to be true? No that would prove to be the exception, since the powerlifter is the exception.
But, you said you believe "The exception proves the rule". In fact, you said that two posts ago. So, how come the exception here is not proving the rule to be true? Do you need to go ask Merriam Webster what "to prove" means now?
|
On September 14 2014 15:06 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 15:04 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:03 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:02 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:58 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 14:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:52 Sentenal wrote:
I do. That is indeed a secondary definition of the word. Now, do you believe "An exception proves the generalization"? Yes that is what an exception to the rule means in the context I am saying it in. So this means that if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (an exception), this proves that men are generally stronger than women? Please, explain how that works, and the logic of it. I'm very interested. Men are stronger than women that is called the "rule" under the Merriam Webster definition I pointed to. The exception to the rule would be women who are Olympic weightlifters. Do you understand now? Yeah, thats the generalization/rule. Now, if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (for example, an Olympic weightlifter), how does that prove the rule to be true? No that would prove to be the exception, since the powerlifter is the exception. But, you said you believe "The exception proves the rule". In fact, you said that two posts ago. So, how come the exception here is not proving the rule to be true? Do you need to go ask Merriam Webster what "to prove" means now?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove
"to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule>" second definition
|
On September 14 2014 15:08 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 15:06 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:04 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:03 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:02 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:58 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 14:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:52 Sentenal wrote:
I do. That is indeed a secondary definition of the word. Now, do you believe "An exception proves the generalization"? Yes that is what an exception to the rule means in the context I am saying it in. So this means that if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (an exception), this proves that men are generally stronger than women? Please, explain how that works, and the logic of it. I'm very interested. Men are stronger than women that is called the "rule" under the Merriam Webster definition I pointed to. The exception to the rule would be women who are Olympic weightlifters. Do you understand now? Yeah, thats the generalization/rule. Now, if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (for example, an Olympic weightlifter), how does that prove the rule to be true? No that would prove to be the exception, since the powerlifter is the exception. But, you said you believe "The exception proves the rule". In fact, you said that two posts ago. So, how come the exception here is not proving the rule to be true? Do you need to go ask Merriam Webster what "to prove" means now? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove"to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule>" second definition
How does showing a female Olympic weightlifter test the truth, validity, or genuineness of men generally being stronger than women?
|
On September 14 2014 15:10 Sentenal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 15:08 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:06 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:04 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:03 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:02 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:58 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 14:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:52 Sentenal wrote:
I do. That is indeed a secondary definition of the word. Now, do you believe "An exception proves the generalization"? Yes that is what an exception to the rule means in the context I am saying it in. So this means that if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (an exception), this proves that men are generally stronger than women? Please, explain how that works, and the logic of it. I'm very interested. Men are stronger than women that is called the "rule" under the Merriam Webster definition I pointed to. The exception to the rule would be women who are Olympic weightlifters. Do you understand now? Yeah, thats the generalization/rule. Now, if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (for example, an Olympic weightlifter), how does that prove the rule to be true? No that would prove to be the exception, since the powerlifter is the exception. But, you said you believe "The exception proves the rule". In fact, you said that two posts ago. So, how come the exception here is not proving the rule to be true? Do you need to go ask Merriam Webster what "to prove" means now? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove"to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule>" second definition How does showing a female Olympic weightlifter test the truth, validity, or genuineness of men generally being stronger than women?
Because it's the exception.
|
On September 14 2014 15:11 ElizarTringov wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2014 15:10 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:08 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:06 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:04 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 15:03 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 15:02 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:58 Sentenal wrote:On September 14 2014 14:56 ElizarTringov wrote:On September 14 2014 14:52 Sentenal wrote:
I do. That is indeed a secondary definition of the word. Now, do you believe "An exception proves the generalization"? Yes that is what an exception to the rule means in the context I am saying it in. So this means that if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (an exception), this proves that men are generally stronger than women? Please, explain how that works, and the logic of it. I'm very interested. Men are stronger than women that is called the "rule" under the Merriam Webster definition I pointed to. The exception to the rule would be women who are Olympic weightlifters. Do you understand now? Yeah, thats the generalization/rule. Now, if I produce a woman who is stronger than a man (for example, an Olympic weightlifter), how does that prove the rule to be true? No that would prove to be the exception, since the powerlifter is the exception. But, you said you believe "The exception proves the rule". In fact, you said that two posts ago. So, how come the exception here is not proving the rule to be true? Do you need to go ask Merriam Webster what "to prove" means now? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prove"to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule>" second definition How does showing a female Olympic weightlifter test the truth, validity, or genuineness of men generally being stronger than women? Because it's the exception.
How does being the exception test the truth, validity, or genuineness of the rule/generalization?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
