Busiao No Laughs wrote:
I am never the victim. There is no limited list of my belligerence. Just your attempts to make me look dishonest. I have never been completely invested in arguing which side is better. Due to how little is truly known, I choose to talk about vague stuff like...
How I think Aldmeri Dominion has better chances vs anyone in this conflict based on the fact that Thalmor have been actively working against the Empire and succeeding in making Valenwood, Elsweyr, Hammerfell and parts of Skyrim break away from Empire. Though you will flip out again and try to justify the Empire will surely prevail or that I can't know for sure, yes I am well-awared [sic] that AD having better chances based on what has transpire is not confirmation. Note: I said better chances, not Thalmor will absolutely win so stop flipping out.
You say you are not a victim, yet you make statements such as “I don’t get why people have to get so triggered, badger me with questions like I am some kind of heinous criminal” which implies you believe you are being victimised. I provided you a sixteen line list of nine quotes indicating your belligerence, which, as I said, is okay to be. I would say my attempt to make you look dishonest is effective given that you are, in fact, being dishonest in both a personal and intellectual manner. No one on this side of the house is “flipping out”. I am afraid you are misinterpreting my text as such due to a natural hostile reaction from conflicting opinion and interpretation. I never made any claim indicating that the Empire would “surely prevail” but rather indicated the opposite, that I agree with the sentiment that there is no absolute possibility of victory by any force. Further to this, I did not indicate what I believe the likely result of a war between the Empire and the Dominion would be, rather you have made an incorrect inference based on what you believe is the common line-of-thought for others who believe the Imperials have a greater chance of success in the Civil War.
Busiao No Laughs wrote:
Also the first time I talked about Imperials vs Stormcloaks, I was just ranting irrelevant things.
To be honest, and I do not mean to imply any personal disrespect, I thought you have always been ranting irrelevant things.
Busiao No Laughs wrote:
I am not attempting to fix anything. I have never reiterate anything. You are merely too blind to see my points and now you try to claim I am dishonest. I am merely stating what I have been saying. It can be written this way. But you said it is impossible to happen because of political climate. That claim of political climate is so stupid I don't even feel like answering simply because political climate can change simply because of a single incident.
I never said you were trying to fix anything. I have no idea from what deep, dark place you are summoning these unrelated points. You have, however, reiterated various points multiple times. For example, you have mentioned advantage not being equivalent to absolute victory at least on six separate occasions since post #265 despite there being no contrary notions made by myself or anyone else. Additionally, I am not aware of what you are referencing when you claim that I am saying something is impossible because of the political climate, as I have never stated for anything to be impossible nor referred directly to the political climate of anything save for making the point that the Imperials have strong political influence in the Rift. I am also mildly concerned that you are saying various things are “so stupid” as an excuse not to justify your own points or rebut any of mine. It seems to be a cop-out, one that either displays your impudence or your ineptitude, perhaps both.
Busiao No Laughs wrote:
Then I get badgered because you saw something you don't like. Since you don't understand what I stated was just one of the lesser possibilities. I proceed to explain to you how "Chances is not 100%" but you continue to badger me with a shit tons of essays with a fundamentally wrong misconception. So I told you "Higher Chances or having advantage does not equals to 100% probability of occurring"
The more you present my arguments has having the underlying principal that higher chances or having advantage equals a 100% probability of something occurring, the more I am going to tell you that I have never disagreed with this and absolutely, with all conviction and certainty, agree, and that you are either putting up a weak strawman or have a fundamental misunderstanding of my arguments. And if you don’t want essays, don’t respond – it’s kind of my thing.
Busiao No Laughs wrote:
I kept telling you in my own words the same thing but even now you still fail to understand and make the same mistake... oh in case you jump on the fact that I also talked about how Bethesda have the track record of trying to make result of every available options or as many options available as possible canon, shut the fuck up. I did talk about that as an example that there is a pretty high chance that Bethesda will make as all Guild quests canon since it is easy to write them into canon even if Last Dragonborn is not involved in the quests.
For the sake of argumentation (which I so love) and partly for fun, I shall indeed jump on the fact that I you also “talked about how Bethesda have the track record of trying to make result [sic] of every available options or as many options as available as possible canon”. Jumping back to metatextual analysis, Bethesda rarely make any attempt to canonise player decisions, but rather obfuscate history through unreliable narratives and missing historical information. There is no established canon for many divergent player decisions as evidenced by the fact that no one can say whether various guilds on Vvardenfell existed following 3E 427, as it is dependent on player decision.
Busiao No Laughs wrote:
I believe I said 5.5/10 is an estimate that I will give or I should keep using 55/100 in case you jump the gun and use that to call me dishonest again. 5.5/10... no 55/100 is an estimate I give after putting everything that are factual.
Take this for example: For me, Advantage =/= Surely will happen. No matter how much I get that across throughout all these time, you continue to fail to learn Advantage =/= Surely will happen. Eventually will happen still falls into surely will happen category. As you attempts to push narrative that the Imperials will surely win.
"This does not mean that the Imperial Legion is not at a significant advantage to eventually be able to win the war"
What does that proves? [sic]You continuing to try and push your narrative that Imperials will SURELY WIN EVENTUALLY.
Not that it makes any difference, as they result in the same per centage value, but you have never indicated “5.5/10”, only ever “55/100”. ‘Ctrl+F’ is a simple tool to use. You have completely misinterpreted the quotation you cited. It is, in actuality, simple to deconstruct: I say a subject (“Imperial Legion”) has a quality (“significant advantage”) and infer a conclusion (“eventually be able to win the war”); where the conclusion is not described in absolute measures but rather likelihood which you should be able to understand if you applied context. My “narrative”, if that is what you truly wish the call it, is that the Imperials are likely to win eventually, not will surely win eventually. I am also waiting for a rebuttal to the Dominion invasion of Skyrim points I made or and explanation as to why my interpretation of Tullius’ quote was incorrect.
Busiao No Laughs wrote:
I have given you the answer to why I said I will only give Imperials 55/100 chances in the civil war during events of Skyrim. So I will tell you again, I will probably need to keep telling you over and over... so listen up.
SINCE THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION TO MAKE ANY DEFINITIVE GUESS [as] TO WHICH SIDE WILL WIN OR GAIN AN UPPER HAND DURING THE EVENTS OF SKYRIM WITHOUT LDB HELPING EITHER SIDE, SO BASED ON THE INDISPUTABLE FACT THAT IF THE LDB WERE TO PROCEED IN THE MAINQUESTS WITHOUT JOINING EITHER SIDE, NEITHER THE STORMLCOAKS NOR THE IMPERIALS WILL GAIN ANY UPPER HAND[,] AND AFTER FACTORING THE FACT THAT PALE PASS WAS BLOCKED BY AN AVALANCHE CAUSING A KNOWN IMPERIAL REINFORCEMENT IS UNABLE TO COME INTO SKYRIM AND THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO KNOWN PROGRESS IN CLEARING OF PALE PASS DURING THE EVENTS OF SKYRIM - AKA WHEN YOU PROGRESS THE STORY... I SAID I WOULD ONLY GIVE TULLIUS A 55/100 TOPS.
I was actually asking how you arrived at the specific integer you gave (55) and what informs such an accurate approximation rather than a wider estimate. I have continuously told you that there is more than enough information, accounting for both textual a priori and a posteriori information, to conclude that the Imperials have a significant advantage and have provided such reasons why in great detail (refer to paragraph two of post #273).
Busiao No Laughs wrote:
Oh[,] in case you try to fault me and call me dishonest or liar, what I just said is exactly what I meant all along.
1. I choose to stay neutral while often talking about mean things I'd do to the characters in game for my pleasure[.]
2. I think the Imperials have better chances in the civil war during events of Skyrim. (This is what I'm going to add, why I don't talk about after the events of skyrim is because there is not enough information)[.]
3. The outcome of civil war can be written in favor of either sides depending on the writer engaged [sic] by Bethesda for the next game. [The] Example I gave was just one of them. You are the one who went apeshit crazy on me and started ranting about it being impossible and the Imperials have better chances and eventually will (Absolutely) win the war.
4. I told you having better chances =/= result you desire surely happens. You keep claiming you know then keep making same mistake of "Better chances = absolutely will win" except now you add an "eventually" will win instead.
5. For the last time, having better chances doesn't mean they will absolutely win at the end. Eventual or not.
6. I have to keep repeating myself while being call a liar, idiot or someone who doesn't know about military stratagems and logistics... for record, my side kicked your side's asses in military exercises[,] and I mean both British and American in exercise. I am also involved in the war against terror until I return at 2014 and leave army in 2015. I may not be a genius tactician you try to pretend you are. I am very sure I know how military works considering I served in a military that is more advanced than the one your fictional Imperial legion was based off (over thousand years ago).
I have already explained why your support of neutrality is illogical and ultimately detrimental (refer to paragraph six of post #279). We, in this discussion, are debating the likelihood of victory by the two belligerents given the information we know. I refuted your claim that there is not enough information, but even so, there can still be a debate given the available information. Again, you are relying on a metatextual perspective. The developers can write whatever they wish, but that does not change our ability to analyse, notwithstanding metatextual developmental proclivities, the possible and probable results of the Civil War. Again, I have never claimed, implicitly or explicitly, that there are any absolute results, only those that are likely and unlikely. You say I am going “apeshit”, but you are the one who, in a strange and cringeworthy manner, feels he has to prove himself by saying he’s in the military and that he has seen war, when I really don’t care. I also don’t understand what you mean by “my side kicked your side’s asses in military exercises” when it is off-topic and rather impertinent – especially if you are referring Talisman Sabre, in which case your statement is contradictory to the whole point of the exercises: cooperation and development, not ‘let’s see whose better’ and this sentiment is exactly why other militaries have such a negative attitude towards the US Armed Forces.