JUSTICE AND LAW

[Andres]

My color is dark red. There's a difference.

I beg to differ.

Are you saying dark red is not red?

You have light red, dark red, flashy red etc. but all of those have in common that they are red.

Yes, you're dark red, but that doesn't mean you're not also red.

My favourite colour is blue.

[stratigos vasilios]

That's what I call my legs. Go hand in hand with my biceps, law and order

[TinCow]

I beg to differ.

Are you saying dark red is not red?

You have light red, dark red, flashy red etc. but all of those have in common that they are red.

Yes, you're dark red, but that doesn't mean you're not also red.

My favourite colour is blue.

You are inventing an argument. I did not say dark red is not red. I simply said my color was not RED. Reenk used a specific color code as my identity, but that color code was wrong. He posted the FA color code, and mine is the TA color code. Given that the colors signify position, and the FA position is significantly different from the TA position, I stand by my statement that there is a difference between the color Reenk used and the color I used.

[Andres]

Then you should have been much more specific in your initial statement.

You said red and dark red are different, which obviously implies that red and dark red are not the same. This, indeed, is the same as saying that dark red is not red. Which is incorrect.

[thefluffyone93]

nuff said.

[drone]

nuff said.

Straight out of Locash!

I vote that this thread become the "The talk your own language thread" for lawyers.

[Moros]

Quite a convincing victory for TinCow!

[TinCow]

You said red and dark red are different, which obviously implies that red and dark red are not the same. This, indeed, is the same as saying that dark red is not red. Which is incorrect.

You are making a logical fallacy. Your first sentence is indeed correct, I said red and dark red are different. I also agree that implied that red and dark red are not the same. This should be self-evident from both the visual hue inherent in the colors, as well as the addition of the word "dark" before "red" which gives a nominal identifier to that hue.

However, your second sentence does not, then, follow after the first once. Saying that dark red is different from red is not "the same as saying that dark red is not red." Red is the word used to describe the 'default' shade of 'red', so it has a specific shade definition in addition to its categorizational definition. This shade definition was clearly used by Reenk, as he specifically colorized his words with the default shade of red. As noted, that default shade of red is not the shade of red that represents me. I am represented by the shade of red which I generally identified as dark red, but which is, in fact more accurately identified by its hex code: #c11b17.

[Andres]

I'm not making a logical fallacy. If I say X = Y, then X and Y are the same. If you say X is not = Y, then X and Y are not the same. If they are not the same, then they are different. So, if you say red and dark red are different, then you say they are not the same which is the same as saying red is not dark red.

[TinCow]

I'm not making a logical fallacy. If I say X = Y, then X and Y are the same. If you say X is not = Y, then X and Y are not the same. If they are not the same, then they are different. So, if you say red and dark red are different, then you say they are not the same which is the same as saying red is not dark red.

As I tried to explain, you getting confused over the definition of "red." You are using the word "red" to describe the overall color category used to describe multiple similar shades and hues. That is not the correct definition to use in this discussion, as it was not the definition I was using in my reply to Reenk. Context is very important. As noted, Reenk very clearly was using the primary color definition of red, as represented by hex code #ff0000, as evidenced by his specific use of that hex code in his text. If Reenk had intended to refer to Tech Admin dark red with his use of the word "red" he would have colorized his text of the word "red" with the proper color code, #c11b17. However, he did not do that and instead chose a completely different color code, namely the one used by Forum Admins, which is 'pure' primary color red. Alternatively, Reenk could have intended to use color code #c11b17, but instead made an error and erroneously selected #ff0000. Or, perhaps Reenk was just lazy and decided it would be proper to refer to a Tech Admin's color with the color designated for Forum Admins. Either way, my response was designed to correct his statement, which was wrong.

Regardless, it is interesting that you believe that #ff0000 and #c11b17 are identical. Perhaps you need a new monitor.

[Reenk Roink]

If I may, before this court, object, and represent myself...

Reading the OP, I was struck by his use of RED text. Combined with the request for individuals who possess knowledges in LAW, the first individual who came to mind was TINCOW, who fulfilled both requirements of having a RED color and knowledges in LAW. I am not aware of any other individual on this forum who possesses the same dual set of qualifications. For example, ANDRES may possess knowledges in LAW, but his color is BLUE, and therefore he is incompatible.

It should be noted that I sacrificed precision for convenience to refer to the superset of the particular shade that TINCOW (and also ANDRES) used. Vague predicates were sufficient in this case, because I was not making a point about the exact role of the individual in the forum, which would require precise color codes, but merely a compatibility with the general COLOR of the group that seeks members with knowledges in LAW, namely RED.

[Andres]

As I tried to explain, you getting confused over the definition of "red." You are using the word "red" to describe the overall color category used to describe multiple similar shades and hues. That is not the correct definition to use in this discussion, as it was not the definition I was using in my reply to Reenk. Context is very important. As noted, Reenk very clearly was using the primary color definition of red, as represented by hex code #ff0000, as evidenced by his specific use of that hex code in his text. If Reenk had intended to refer to Tech Admin dark red with his use of the word "red" he would have colorized his text of the word "red" with the proper color code, #c11b17. However, he did not do that and instead chose a completely different color code, namely the one used by Forum Admins, which is 'pure' primary color red. Alternatively, Reenk could have intended to use color code #c11b17, but instead made an error and erroneously selected #ff0000. Or, perhaps Reenk was just lazy and decided it would be proper to refer to a Tech Admin's color with the color designated for Forum Admins. Either way, my response was designed to correct his statement, which was wrong.

Regardless, it is interesting that you believe that #ff0000 and #c11b17 are identical. Perhaps you need a new monitor.

Oh, I see, you're now inventing your own definitions

Red is red is red.

What you are now using as defence is as silly as me saying "I am not a Content manager on forums.totalwar.org"... "Content manager" in this context meaning "Elephant with orange ears" and "on forums.totalwar.org" meaning "in the local Zoo".

[Drunk Clown]

Then you should have been much more specific in your initial statement.

You said red and dark red are different, which obviously implies that red and dark red are not the same. This, indeed, is the same as saying that dark red is not red. Which is incorrect.

So according to your logic you and TinCow are the same as you are both human. TinCow=Human Andres=Human so Tincow=Andres. If that was the case you wouldn't be arguing. Characteristics make differences, but according to your logic characteristics are of no importance in difference.

But then again, your name does say:
Andres
Liar and Trickster

You admit you are a liar and we can't take you serious.