Visas Marr and Rey

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089521" wrote:

You seem to be dumbing down my arguments to make them easier to pick apart.

Maybe you need to watch Empire Strikes back again just to see what Jedi training actually is. Empire Strikes Back is the fan favorite Star Wars movie for a reason.

Or I could watch something new and ignore the demands of someone deciding what is correct based on personal biases. On a separate note though, dumbing down an argument shouldn't make a difference, it's right because it's logical, not because you used lots of paragraphs.

"thecarterologist958;c-2089525" wrote:

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089521" wrote:

You seem to be dumbing down my arguments to make them easier to pick apart.

Maybe you need to watch Empire Strikes back again just to see what Jedi training actually is. Empire Strikes Back is the fan favorite Star Wars movie for a reason.

Or I could watch something new and ignore the demands of someone deciding what is correct based on personal biases. On a separate note though, dumbing down an argument shouldn't make a difference, it's right because it's logical, not because you used lots of paragraphs.

"thecarterologist958;c-2089525" wrote:

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089521" wrote:

You seem to be dumbing down my arguments to make them easier to pick apart.

Maybe you need to watch Empire Strikes back again just to see what Jedi training actually is. Empire Strikes Back is the fan favorite Star Wars movie for a reason.

Or I could watch something new and ignore the demands of someone deciding what is correct based on personal biases. On a separate note though, dumbing down an argument shouldn't make a difference, it's right because it's logical, not because you used lots of paragraphs.

Everyone, including both you and me, have their biases. I accept that. Personally, I identify as some sort of Star Wars “purist”, only wanting and accepting that which meets the high standard that George Lucas set when he made the original films. All I want is to see Star Wars at its best.

For instance, the Marvel-like action and humor seen in the newer Star Wars films is something that angers me, because it belittles the dialogue and character development. Marvel does it because they know that adults running around in spandex costumes shouldn’t be taken seriously, so they add in the humor in order to make it more entertaining. But Star Wars SHOULD be taken seriously. Notice how Lucas didn’t resort to Marvel humor to entice audiences when he made the original films.

Dumbing down an argument in order to make it easier to pick apart, if anything, hurts your logic because you aren't actually basing your arguements around mine. You are basing them on a weaker version of my arguement that isn’t an accurate representation of what I am actually trying to say. Straw Man fallacies are logical fallacies for a reason.

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089527" wrote:

"thecarterologist958;c-2089525" wrote:

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089521" wrote:

You seem to be dumbing down my arguments to make them easier to pick apart.

Maybe you need to watch Empire Strikes back again just to see what Jedi training actually is. Empire Strikes Back is the fan favorite Star Wars movie for a reason.

Or I could watch something new and ignore the demands of someone deciding what is correct based on personal biases. On a separate note though, dumbing down an argument shouldn't make a difference, it's right because it's logical, not because you used lots of paragraphs.

"thecarterologist958;c-2089525" wrote:

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089521" wrote:

You seem to be dumbing down my arguments to make them easier to pick apart.

Maybe you need to watch Empire Strikes back again just to see what Jedi training actually is. Empire Strikes Back is the fan favorite Star Wars movie for a reason.

Or I could watch something new and ignore the demands of someone deciding what is correct based on personal biases. On a separate note though, dumbing down an argument shouldn't make a difference, it's right because it's logical, not because you used lots of paragraphs.

Everyone, including both you and me, have their biases. I accept that. Personally, I identify as some sort of Star Wars “purist”, only wanting and accepting that which meets the high standard that George Lucas set when he made the original films. All I want is to see Star Wars at its best.

For instance, the Marvel-like action and humor seen in the newer Star Wars films is something that angers me, because it belittles the dialogue and character development. Marvel does it because they know that adults running around in spandex costumes shouldn’t be taken seriously, so they add in the humor in order to make it more entertaining. But Star Wars SHOULD be taken seriously. Notice how Lucas didn’t resort to Marvel humor to entice audiences when he made the original films.

Dumbing down an argument in order to make it easier to pick apart, if anything, hurts your logic because you aren't actually basing your arguements around mine. You are basing them on a weaker version of my arguement that isn’t an accurate representation of what I am actually trying to say. Straw Man fallacies are logical fallacies for a reason.

Look, I'm among the biggest haters of the Disney trilogy, but it's stupid to argue that Rey didn't count as a Jedi in their ending. Also that wasn't the point of this convo

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089527" wrote:


But Star Wars SHOULD be taken seriously.

Dumbing down an argument in order to make it easier to pick apart, if anything, hurts your logic because you aren't actually basing your arguements around mine. You are basing them on a weaker version of my arguement that isn’t an accurate representation of what I am actually trying to say. Straw Man fallacies are logical fallacies for a reason.

Debatable.

Separately, straw man fallacies are not the same as logical fallacies, and neither of them apply to anything I've been saying, especially since "dumbing something down" is not the same as changing it. As I said before, try smaller paragraphs.

Also OP, I think the devs said they wanted to revisit OR content at some point in the future, I'm afraid I think that's probably when you'd have the best chance for any change to Visas.

"thecarterologist958;c-2089783" wrote:

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089527" wrote:


But Star Wars SHOULD be taken seriously.

Dumbing down an argument in order to make it easier to pick apart, if anything, hurts your logic because you aren't actually basing your arguements around mine. You are basing them on a weaker version of my arguement that isn’t an accurate representation of what I am actually trying to say. Straw Man fallacies are logical fallacies for a reason.

Debatable.

"Debatable"? Implying that you yourself do not take it seriously?

"thecarterologist958;c-2089783" wrote:

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089527" wrote:


But Star Wars SHOULD be taken seriously.

Dumbing down an argument in order to make it easier to pick apart, if anything, hurts your logic because you aren't actually basing your arguements around mine. You are basing them on a weaker version of my arguement that isn’t an accurate representation of what I am actually trying to say. Straw Man fallacies are logical fallacies for a reason.

Separately, straw man fallacies are not the same as logical fallacies, and neither of them apply to anything I've been saying, especially since "dumbing something down" is not the same as changing it.

Just a heads up a Straw man fallacy IS a type of logical fallacy. Not something we should really be debating. Just do a bit of research.

And here is the definition (I will post the source in a comment bellow this one if you want to see for yourself) of a Straw Man fallacy just for reference:

"Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument."

Notice the "distorted" part, and the "misrepresented" part. If you wouldn't consider my argument,

"It was more about the lessons behind them. The meaningful dialogue was what made it so significant. Yoda’s lessons about the temptations of the dark side, about how size does not matter in the force, about how the dark side is the lesser but more tempting aspect of the force... you wont see any of that in TLJ or TROS. Training isnt just about training the body, it is about learning wisdom and understanding of the force."

to be misrepresented and/or distorted in your summary of it,

"Ahh, so it's Jedi training so long as you chat a bit afterwards, of course."

then I do not know why we are even debating this. You "dumbing down" my argument meets the exact criteria of the definition of a Straw Man fallacy.

"thecarterologist958;c-2089783" wrote:

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089527" wrote:


But Star Wars SHOULD be taken seriously.

Dumbing down an argument in order to make it easier to pick apart, if anything, hurts your logic because you aren't actually basing your arguements around mine. You are basing them on a weaker version of my arguement that isn’t an accurate representation of what I am actually trying to say. Straw Man fallacies are logical fallacies for a reason.

As I said before, try smaller paragraphs.

I just write as much as I have to in order to bring my point across.

Hold on the comment has to be approved.

I got the definition on a site called LogicallyFallacious

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089879" wrote:


"Debatable"? Implying that you yourself do not take it seriously?

Just a heads up a Straw man fallacy IS a type of logical fallacy. Not something we should really be debating. Just do a bit of research.

And here is the definition (I will post the source in a comment bellow this one if you want to see for yourself) of a Straw Man fallacy just for reference:

"Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument."

Notice the "distorted" part, and the "misrepresented" part. If you wouldn't consider my argument,

"It was more about the lessons behind them. The meaningful dialogue was what made it so significant. Yoda’s lessons about the temptations of the dark side, about how size does not matter in the force, about how the dark side is the lesser but more tempting aspect of the force... you wont see any of that in TLJ or TROS. Training isnt just about training the body, it is about learning wisdom and understanding of the force."

to be misrepresented and/or distorted in your summary of it,

"Ahh, so it's Jedi training so long as you chat a bit afterwards, of course."

then I do not know why we are even debating this. You "dumbing down" my argument meets the exact criteria of the definition of a Straw Man fallacy.

Correct. It's a fictional saga about magic men with laser swords fighting space Germany.

I was wrong, thank you. My research showed me a logical fallacy is simultaneously pointless as it's equivalent to just fallacy, and inappropriate to use so formal fallacy is the correct term. Either way, a straw man fallacy is a type. Regardless, none of this applies to me, and if you wrote less maybe you'd have noticed.

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089879" wrote:

I just write as much as I have to in order to bring my point across.

And more.

"thecarterologist958;c-2089949" wrote:

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089879" wrote:


"Debatable"? Implying that you yourself do not take it seriously?

Just a heads up a Straw man fallacy IS a type of logical fallacy. Not something we should really be debating. Just do a bit of research.

And here is the definition (I will post the source in a comment bellow this one if you want to see for yourself) of a Straw Man fallacy just for reference:

"Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument."

Notice the "distorted" part, and the "misrepresented" part. If you wouldn't consider my argument,

"It was more about the lessons behind them. The meaningful dialogue was what made it so significant. Yoda’s lessons about the temptations of the dark side, about how size does not matter in the force, about how the dark side is the lesser but more tempting aspect of the force... you wont see any of that in TLJ or TROS. Training isnt just about training the body, it is about learning wisdom and understanding of the force."

to be misrepresented and/or distorted in your summary of it,

"Ahh, so it's Jedi training so long as you chat a bit afterwards, of course."

then I do not know why we are even debating this. You "dumbing down" my argument meets the exact criteria of the definition of a Straw Man fallacy.

I was wrong, thank you. My research showed me a logical fallacy is simultaneously pointless as it's equivalent to just fallacy, and inappropriate to use so formal fallacy is the correct term. .

"my research"? What is this research of your's that you speak of? Could you cite your sources? Given that you are now claiming that...

- "a logical fallacy is simultaneously pointless as it's equivalent to just fallacy"

- "and inappropriate to use so formal fallacy is the correct term"

... I am not sure that you understand what logical fallacies are and what straw man fallacies are.

"thecarterologist958;c-2089949" wrote:

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089879" wrote:


"Debatable"? Implying that you yourself do not take it seriously?

Just a heads up a Straw man fallacy IS a type of logical fallacy. Not something we should really be debating. Just do a bit of research.

And here is the definition (I will post the source in a comment bellow this one if you want to see for yourself) of a Straw Man fallacy just for reference:

"Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument."

Notice the "distorted" part, and the "misrepresented" part. If you wouldn't consider my argument,

"It was more about the lessons behind them. The meaningful dialogue was what made it so significant. Yoda’s lessons about the temptations of the dark side, about how size does not matter in the force, about how the dark side is the lesser but more tempting aspect of the force... you wont see any of that in TLJ or TROS. Training isnt just about training the body, it is about learning wisdom and understanding of the force."

to be misrepresented and/or distorted in your summary of it,

"Ahh, so it's Jedi training so long as you chat a bit afterwards, of course."

then I do not know why we are even debating this. You "dumbing down" my argument meets the exact criteria of the definition of a Straw Man fallacy.

Either way, a straw man fallacy is a type.

So at least you understand that a straw man fallacy is a type of logical fallacy. That's a good start.

"thecarterologist958;c-2089949" wrote:

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2089879" wrote:


"Debatable"? Implying that you yourself do not take it seriously?

Just a heads up a Straw man fallacy IS a type of logical fallacy. Not something we should really be debating. Just do a bit of research.

And here is the definition (I will post the source in a comment bellow this one if you want to see for yourself) of a Straw Man fallacy just for reference:

"Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument."

Notice the "distorted" part, and the "misrepresented" part. If you wouldn't consider my argument,

"It was more about the lessons behind them. The meaningful dialogue was what made it so significant. Yoda’s lessons about the temptations of the dark side, about how size does not matter in the force, about how the dark side is the lesser but more tempting aspect of the force... you wont see any of that in TLJ or TROS. Training isnt just about training the body, it is about learning wisdom and understanding of the force."

to be misrepresented and/or distorted in your summary of it,

"Ahh, so it's Jedi training so long as you chat a bit afterwards, of course."

then I do not know why we are even debating this. You "dumbing down" my argument meets the exact criteria of the definition of a Straw Man fallacy.

Regardless, none of this applies to me, and if you wrote less maybe you'd have noticed.

I have already explained why your arguments are just straw man fallacies. If you disagree, then you are going to have to provide actual reasoning instead of a simple denial.

And again, I can write as much as I want. The amount of detail that I put into my arguments just reflects how I am representing my arguments as accurately and clearly as possible.

At this point our argument is getting petty. I am not going to start arguing things that have nothing to do with the topic, especially when you fail to understand what a straw man fallacy actually is despite you using it in each of your arguments.

"mInEcRaFtEr0617;c-2090645" wrote:
At this point our argument is getting petty. I am not going to start arguing things that have nothing to do with the topic, especially when you fail to understand what a straw man fallacy actually is despite you using it in each of your arguments.

I'll explain it all
In haiku form as it's short
To prove my point here.


No arguments made,
I just laughed at you at first
For saying dumb things.



Do your own research
This is what I drew from mine
You need not write lots.