Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arch-Fiend" data-source="post: 7843910" data-attributes="member: 7016641">so ive decided that this is really the only thing im going to argue about here for now. i kinda dont care as much about the rest anymore because frankly ive kinda defeated myself on the arguement of what hitpoints can be as i created an arguement to explain the best arguement i could think of to argue that hitpoints have to mean something more specific in a specific context.what i saidyour responsemy retortyour rebuttalgood ol definition of abstraction as you later tell me to look up what an abstraction is, despite using its definition for days <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction" target="_blank">Abstraction - Wikipedia</a> im not going to quote it this time.you've created an abstraction &quot;ball&quot; and in the abstraction &quot;ball&quot; you listed the definition of what it &quot;can be&quot; which you stated as &quot;any roughly spherical object&quot; (2 related concepts; 1 abstract &quot;object&quot; and 1 specific &quot;spherical&quot; based on the definitions of those words) &quot;used in&quot; (a related concept and abstract) &quot;a game&quot; (a related concept and abstract) &quot;whether made from&quot; (a related concept and abstract), &quot;synthetic or natural rubber, leather, or even horsehair&quot; (a list of subordinate concepts of the &quot;made from&quot; abstraction).the reason why the subordinate concept of &quot;pingpong ball&quot; can not be added to the abstraction of &quot;ball&quot; is because you state that what the ball can be &quot;made of&quot; is any of those subordinate concepts listed by &quot;made of&quot; though im not sure if plastic counts as a specific concept under the abstract &quot;synthetics&quot; or not.what your last question is isnt completely clear but ill just answer it in a way that might apply to both questions it could possibly be. the invalidity of the abstract &quot;ball&quot; depends on it its related concept &quot;made of&quot; being consistent, if you decided that the &quot;ball&quot; abstraction could have the subordinate concept of &quot;pingpong ball&quot; without &quot;made of&quot; having subordinate concepts that apply to the &quot;pingpong ball&quot; subordinate concept of the abstract &quot;ball&quot; then it wouldnt invalidate the abstraction &quot;ball&quot; it would invalidate its relation with &quot;made of&quot; within the statement you made about its definition, your definition would be wrong.odd and unnecessary? that's logic, its all about associations, if you create associations that conflict with each other than your statement about those associations must change or your wrong.what this means for hitpoints is that anything stated about damage is a statement about hitpoints, because hitpoints dont do anything without damage. if a statement about hitpoints conflicts with a statement about damage, then that statement is wrong. hitpoints and damage might be correct in isolation, but if they depend on eachother, they must also not conflict with each other.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arch-Fiend, post: 7843910, member: 7016641"] so ive decided that this is really the only thing im going to argue about here for now. i kinda dont care as much about the rest anymore because frankly ive kinda defeated myself on the arguement of what hitpoints can be as i created an arguement to explain the best arguement i could think of to argue that hitpoints have to mean something more specific in a specific context. what i said your response my retort your rebuttal good ol definition of abstraction as you later tell me to look up what an abstraction is, despite using its definition for days [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction']Abstraction - Wikipedia[/URL] im not going to quote it this time. you've created an abstraction "ball" and in the abstraction "ball" you listed the definition of what it "can be" which you stated as "any roughly spherical object" (2 related concepts; 1 abstract "object" and 1 specific "spherical" based on the definitions of those words) "used in" (a related concept and abstract) "a game" (a related concept and abstract) "whether made from" (a related concept and abstract), "synthetic or natural rubber, leather, or even horsehair" (a list of subordinate concepts of the "made from" abstraction). the reason why the subordinate concept of "pingpong ball" can not be added to the abstraction of "ball" is because you state that what the ball can be "made of" is any of those subordinate concepts listed by "made of" though im not sure if plastic counts as a specific concept under the abstract "synthetics" or not. what your last question is isnt completely clear but ill just answer it in a way that might apply to both questions it could possibly be. the invalidity of the abstract "ball" depends on it its related concept "made of" being consistent, if you decided that the "ball" abstraction could have the subordinate concept of "pingpong ball" without "made of" having subordinate concepts that apply to the "pingpong ball" subordinate concept of the abstract "ball" then it wouldnt invalidate the abstraction "ball" it would invalidate its relation with "made of" within the statement you made about its definition, your definition would be wrong. odd and unnecessary? that's logic, its all about associations, if you create associations that conflict with each other than your statement about those associations must change or your wrong. what this means for hitpoints is that anything stated about damage is a statement about hitpoints, because hitpoints dont do anything without damage. if a statement about hitpoints conflicts with a statement about damage, then that statement is wrong. hitpoints and damage might be correct in isolation, but if they depend on eachother, they must also not conflict with each other. [/QUOTE]

Verification