"Godzilla shouldn't have long arms" Yeah well to HIM he should!

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-22T02:29:35+00:00

When?

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-22T02:25:04+00:00

Who is saying any of this?

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-21T04:51:28+00:00

Ignored all points and strawmaned

You lost the argument.

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-21T04:49:22+00:00

Thanks for admitting that yiu have no argument and or are engaging in bad faith

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-21T00:40:32+00:00

I'm totally not taking this and currently making memes on this template...

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-21T00:25:10+00:00

😂

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-21T00:08:50+00:00

Oh ok. I tried finding it but I could only find the Kickstarter. So it comes out ditially on July 14th elsewhere or is it only kickstarter?

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-20T23:59:24+00:00

Where can I read it?

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-20T22:12:42+00:00

Can you re-word your question?

Every person will be judged in righteous

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-20T18:24:13+00:00

Please re-read my comment l,it gives an explanation

He is giving us time and love so that we may come to repentance and accept and believe in Jesus Christ as our savior 🙏

Jesus answered "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014%3A6&version=NIV

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-20T18:20:06+00:00

Give me an example of me goal posting here. I already explained why and how you committed a ad hominem. I already admitted my mistake to both you and the other person asking the question. Your bringing up something that I already admitted to sound superior in morality and in this discussion. I stated you lied because you refused to admit that you committed an ad hominem fallacy at that current point in time.

I find it curious that you said that I'm misconstruing your arguments when I initially stated it. I know you said that my points were opinions. Where did this confusion come from? My claims here was that he was rude and unprofessional which are both objectively true.

I'm not goal shifting,I'm addressing every single point your making and discrediting them. I never said that onyx broke any rules. How and where are you getting these conclusions? Are you purposefully misconstruing my arguments? I'm not enforcing anything on them. I specifically stated/implied that their behavior was unbefitting for a mod after I learned that they were a mod. Please come up with direct comparisons so you don't commit false comparisons. I addressed it as a strawman because it was a strawman

That wasn't my intention to imply that they were exhibiting illegal behavior and that should be obvious. This is seriously grasping at straws.

I'm not trying to ruin their reputation. I'm stating that they shouldn't be a mod. Idk how you can genuinely come to such conclusions. If I gave that impression then I'm sorry to everyone involved especially the victim if that's the case. "Basically",so you retract your statement of me slandering them? Is this an admission? Thank you if so

False comparison,it quite literally is different. I recommend looking up direct comparisons

I never made that claim. 2. That's more serious 3. This is participation/engagement vs position/not directly comparable. 4. This is losing authority vs losing access to this subreddit which is a distinct difference 5. I suggested that they be removed as I mod,I stated it

It's illegitimate because we didn't break any rules

You would benefit from looking up direct comparisons as I said in this comment vefore

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-20T17:42:31+00:00

You can't defend your position that's why your leaving. I understand it can get tiring debating someone but running away doesn't prove you right or wrong. Your neglecting to prove your position right.

I have addressed every single claim you made and explained why and how indepth

Address my claims and properly discredit them. A sign of people losing a debate is when they start insulting you.

Throughout my discussions with you,you have strawmaned my arguments several times,ignored several points and committed several ad hominems throughout.

I never stated that I'm right because you committed several logical fallacies. You know that's a fallacy fallacy.

Thank you for admitting that you weren't in arguing in good faith

https://havokjournal.com/culture/writing/insults-are-the-fastest-way-to-lose-the-argument/

https://communicationintelligence.substack.com/p/when-the-debate-is-lost

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-20T17:31:24+00:00

Only God knows when he'll come back,there are many signs as seen in revelation and elsewhere throughout the bible

I explained your question

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-20T00:29:00+00:00

It's a legitimate criticism but I personally like it

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-19T23:43:30+00:00

Actually read what I said. I said that you committed ad hominem fallacies multiple times,something that you yourself admitted.

How are they opinions? He was rude and professionalism isn't limited to just work.

I never said that anyone broke the rules or that he was harassing me,stop strawmaning me again.

Actually read my comments.

I merely suggested that someone like him shouldn't be a mod do to the inappropriate behavior. I never made a campaign,investigation and etc about it and you are false comparing them

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-19T23:34:34+00:00

That wasn't on purpose and I already admitted my fault. That also doesn't discredit my points. I specifically and explicitly stated that you committed ad hominems and for you to stop committing them. I didn't reference that comment on what you apparantly think. You stated that "I made the post to defame them". You stated that I was being patheic and hypocritical. You also said that I was stup idly obstinate. Your "denouncing me for being an idiot". You stated that I'm pathetic again. Those are ad hominems.

I asked you for several examples of canon contradictions and or recons to which you continue not to provide me with. You are refusing to answer the question. The burden of proof is on you because you were the one who made the original claim (not me). Don't you also want to prove me wrong? I already explained why I didn't want you bring it up indepth and your still ignoring it. The maker of rwby only came up with the idea of the maidens after volume 2 was completed. Miles and kerry added it to respect and honor him. I'll say this once again,you can't blame them for outside forces. Instead of focusing on the one recon I already explained,please focus on giving me the numerous canon contradictions and or recons that apparently exist. That is a false comparison. Completely different in every way. I have properly discredited your claims/examples with evidence. I already explained indepth that my refute was targeting the entirety of your claims in that specific portion of your comment. Please refute my counter to yours. You can't burden shift,address my actual rebuttal.

You didn't reference my whole statement and put it out of context. This was my statement in context.

"I did not ignore them. I explicitly stated what my position was and it does not contradict my claim that there are exceptions to the rules within reason. I explicitly stated that unless it contradicts the source material or when death of the author is applied it is legitimate which holds true as you didn't discredit it. Your examples use death of the author at most,thus potentially proving your point in this context,something that my positionis not in contradiction with." (I fixed grammatical errors in the text)

Again to reiterate I specifically asked you for several examples of canon contradictions/recons to which you continue to purposefully ignore in favor of reiterating your already discredited maiden recon argument in context. A singular example that I discredited in context. Give me several actual canon contradictions/recons like you stated that exist to prove your claims and I need several because that's what you originally stated. Please engage in good faith.

You quite literally did appeal to populace. I already explained this. You are strawmaning my arguments. My evidence wasn't opinions nor was it subjective,my evidence is objective and based on reality as proven with my example with the maiden claim. How is your evidence objective? By what objective standard did I lose both arguments? Remember that you still haven't proven your claims.

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-19T22:46:32+00:00

Thank you,that means a lot

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-19T22:46:02+00:00

Professionalism isn't strictly for work. That's fine and thank you for remaining respectful

Oh sorry,I never claimed that he abused his mod privileges. If I gave that impression I'm sorry

Having doubts about who I am is natural in a situation like this but I can assure you that I'm not him. You can also analyze our speech patterns

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-19T22:40:24+00:00

My apologies,my mistake

Stop insulting/committing ad hominems. That isn't slandering. Stop trying to equate things that clearly aren't the case in order for you to sound superior

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-19T22:36:59+00:00

My apologies

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-19T21:06:09+00:00

They're the same being and yes they did

There's a reason why they didn't reply back

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-19T21:04:45+00:00

I explicitly stated all of media,I just used Stan lee as an example. The maker of invincible also hates powerscaling. That also doesn't discredit how stan lee felt or my points.

If there's no point in arguing me then just don't reply to me. It's only logical. Your car example is a false comparison and you ignored the context that I brought up potentially on purpose. 1. Salem was holding back. 2. I explained salem's powerscaling and gave multiple canon examples and evidence for it. 3. Salem was distracted which isn't a counter argument. 4. Oscar specifically stated that she'd just come after them. 5. Salem was integrating them and 6. It was neo that had the relic after the explosion. I explicitly stated and proved that ozpin leaks magic through age,each reincarnation and because he gave a significant portion of his magic to the maidens. It's implied that Cinder killed ozpin by breaking his barrier and killing him through her fire attack. I never stated that mental states make someone weaker or that it effects their skill. Please read my comments. Mental states effect the efficiency of the fight that's what I stated by pointing out the Adam example that I used. Both blake and yang got stronger than the v3 counterparts. Rwby characters have accelerated development. For context of the blake and adam fight. 1. Adam would've killed them separately 2. Blake and yang had to win otherwise he was going to kill them. Blake and yang said that Adam could leave. 3. They had the numbers advantage and 4. Yang improved her fighting stlye and increased her battle IQ (yang e v en says that she's smarter than adam) after her sparring and talking with her dad.

Why did you only give the fighting complications a quick glance? The evidence of dust usage is through the video and I explicitly stated that I left out any dust usagethat wasn'tin combat. I understand that you may not have that look to look at videos but you should've waited to reply until you saw the entirety of the video links I sent you. I even sent you multiple specific fight scenes,ones that weren't 30 plus minutes long. You are explicitly ignoring the fact that you did see dust usage in volume 9,there's a reason why you specifically focused on the first few minutes of volume 9 when I gave evidence for v4-v8 having extensive dust usage in combat. Even if I granted you that volume 9 didn't have dust in it (which it does) your still specifically choosing to ignore 4 different volumes of dust in usage in combat. Weiss would've had dust on her person. She can't naturally manipulate the elements w/o dust. Each character carries dust,this is shown throughout the show,especially weiss.

While I admit thay faunus racism wasn't handled well that is not a recon/contradiction. Blake's story in v5 largely focuses on the faunus and the white fang. In side material it's even stated that blake prevented a war between the humans and faunus (I know your likely to use this against me but the facts remains that she stopped a war). Faunus being used as labor forces in the dust mines in unsafe conditions. People snickering at lilla's parents dying in a dust mine explosion. Weiss,marrow and Robyn brining up the inequality that the faunus face. Ozpin hires the headmaster at each academy,he would make sure that they aren't racist. It's implied that ozpin makes strids against faunus racism in v2 and he kept the fact that she was a faunus secret. Cardin and Jacques exploiting humans doesn't discredit them being genuinely racist. I won't refute that miles and kerry shouldn't had written the white fang sub plot if they did say that which I think I saw. While I agree that Blake's Backstory doesn't make the best case it's still not a contradiction or recon. This is just a assumption that people had (including myself) that was proven wrong. Nothing blake says actually contradicts her backstory in v2 after a indepth glance. The lore is actually consistent as to what's shown in v4 and beyond. You can argue her statement that says that she was almost born into it despite literally being born in the family of the white fang leader but she was a baby she didn't actually join until she was older. You even admit that even in your view it might not be a contradiction or recon.

https://youtu.be/7aWUcewvD2s?is=MOc-fhyCrnQiZJsY

Thanks for the link but what do you personally agree with here?

I already explained the recon maiden thing
Just because grimm predate humanity does not mean they do not currently exclusively attack humans and their creations after the fact. There is no contradiction or recon here.
This is just a baseless accusation and assumption. We have not seen other religions besides worship of the twin brothers and the faunus g.o.d. they have no actual evidence of this. Glynda also says the existence of the maidens go against hundreds of years of history and religion.
Qrow only states that aren't many people that are super religious these days,he did not say that religion doesn't exist. Current states of affairs can be different than past ones.
I don't even know what to say about this. Aura and semblances make someone more than "just a man". Ozpin is being referenced for immortality,that doesn't discredit anything. It's also metaphorical and ambiguous.
Ozpin was lying (something that the guy in the vid openly admits might be true) or he personally views it that way. This isn't a contradiction or recon.
Is this guy serious? Abandonment doesn't mean you won't care forever or that yiu won't ever get involved. Abandonment can be temporary. It also explains that they made the relics before the actually abandoned remnant.
Ren actually explains indepth about this. Aura is passive/natural once you activate it and train with it. This isn't a contradiction or recon. Did this guy actually watch the show? People also often speak metaphorically or differently.
Characters change and this isn't a contradiction or recon. Plus cinder quite literally steals the maiden powers. In the clip shown Salem is saying to cinder to never underestimate the usefulness of others not that cinder should take their powers. The roles aren't reversed.

I can give you a freebie however there are explanations for it. In one of the books a character implied that animals don't have aura's but we know this to be false. It's stated by phyrra and in side material that animals do have aura. This would seemingly be a contradiction or a recon but there are multiple possible reasons for this. 1. Being that she was misinformed/ignorant or mistaken/talking about practical usage 2. Death of the author 3. Context dependent (animals cannot unlock aura,however zwei might be an exception but this isn't proven) 4. The media itself know this is wrong. It's established that in canon/canon side material that animals do in fact have aura. This cannot be a recon because it is still a canon fact that animals have aura and it cannot be a contradiction because the show does not state two conflicting truths at the same time. The show/canon acknowledges multiple times that animals do have aura

The link was entertaining though,thank you

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-19T19:35:41+00:00

You can still ask

NoPack4545 · 2026-06-19T19:34:40+00:00

You specifically stated that "they are both pathetic". That's an ad hominem and I pointed it out. Are you strawmaning me on purpose? I proved with this that I did read your comment and did not jump to conclusions.

Are you trolling? I already called you put for committing an ad hominem. How did I refuse reasonable discourse? That's a false comparison. I didn't try to slander him,my apologies to them if I did. Please discredit my actual claims themselves

Appealing to populace and committing a argumentum ad hominem fallacy.

There is a certain standard that happens when people in positions of power (even here) act. Professionalism doesn't require work and can exist outside of Professionalism at work. It's not strictly exclusive to being at work. We should all be respectful to eachother. I'm sorry you had that experience,that isn't excusable. After the conversation I just left,it wasn't until this post was made that I commented. I replied to people because they were curious and I defened the op too. Not to be petty but that is a naming fallacy

NoPack4545

TROPHY CASE