Talk:Yasuo/@comment-26869721-20170125163931/@comment-4091261-20170215031538

A credible source is about the best common ground we can expect. What Fleeding Hyneken needs to do is open up his foundations for us to access so we can move past this cyclical meandering.

I think we can agree the root of this guy's problem is pride- no, rather hubris. This excessive self-confidence and faith in his knowledge that we can clearly see is flawed/misdirected in some way.

Spouting application after application of one's thoughts without clearly establishing a solid common ground, trying to correct the root of the issue, but then gone completely ignored--through complete disbelief and lack of faith in other thoughts (antithesis).

An equivalent statement to for all thoughts, I do not believe in the antithesis is: There does not exist a thought in which I do believe in the antithesis. I'm going to assume there is a thought in which he believes in the antithesis. The domain is this comment thread.

(scans for a couple minutes)

Hmm. I can't find anything. I assumed there was an instance, there was none: a contradiction. Thus by proof by contradiction, for all thoughts in the domain of this comment thread, there does not exist a thought in which Fleedling Hyneken believes in the antithesis. I will dub this, Theorem: Swiggity Swooty, because I doubt it will last long. It better not. Come at me bro ~(*~* )~. Prove me wrong. It should be easy.

Credibility goes both ways. Both for the argument and against the argument. It is fine to use a plethora of sources in favor of the argument, but the fault is in the disregard of sources not in favor, this is referred to as bias. When confronted with contradictions, one must regain credibility through credibility. If one is dubbed contradictory, that certainly means one is not credible. Simply crafting variables with assumptions under your own name will not be enough to fix this issue. In the court of law, one requires proof for one's statements to hold any kind of merit.

If you truly believe the antithesis contradictory to your beliefs, then you must prove it wrong. Do not sidestep by agreeing and then offering compromise. That is only plausible if you completely accepted the inevitability of the antithesis. If you are seeking compromise, it must go as far as a complete revision of one's ideas. This tactic of saying, "mkay, that's true... but I'm still right," is not flying with anyone. That's not compromise, that's ignorance--as aptly described.

Those of us who are offering differing opinions would not be this pissed if you could logically express why said opinion is completely wrong. At least it shows you tackled the issue in front of you to preserve your beliefs. However, before you can do any of this, reestablishing credibility is of paramount significance.

To hold a strong argument, one must always maintain a strong grasp of each piece of rhetoric: pathos, logos, and ethos. The feeling, the logic, and the credibility. Let loose on any one of these three things, and you get pointless meandering like this on all sides.

Acknowledge the antithesis. Absolutely destroy it or reach a true compromise. Else, we continue to digress in on a tangent of name-calling that could stretch across the cosmos. Perhaps will write a song about it. The Ballad of "Swiggity Swooty ~(*~* )~." To start, prove this stupid ass theorem I made wrong.

Word of advice, don't just cite an example from your previous comments. We have already fell into the abyss of your previous comments being dubbed completely uncredible, despite any lingering truth that is within there. Fortunately, bandwagon fallacy, in this specific case, will allow you to redeem your points given that it is now an opinion of popularity you are up against.

Create a new belief, in the antithesis, to attack Theorem: Swiggity Swooty ~(*~* )~. "I'm coming  for that  booty!" Found this belief on credible sources with clear application to League of Legends, because a credible source is about the best common ground we can expect.