Do us all a favor, if you don't understand logical fallacies and such that is okay. Quit running to wiki ,when you get your ass handed to you, it makes you look dumber.Quote:
Yes, Der if someone tends to use one line of thinking, and at another point says something that goes against that line of thinking, somebody can call them out on it.
I tend to use critical thinking, and seeing how this is a forum where people express their opinions frequently, I express my thoughts openly. If I'm wrong I'm wrong if I'm right I'm right. I never said I have all the answers?
Really Der? Appeal to Authority fallacy?? First of all Appeal to Authority is a strategy, because now if someone were to disagree with me, they would also have to prove that Paul Vunak was wrong. The fallacy in appeal to authority is ONLY if the authority is wrong.
Here is Wikipedia's definition, I'll highlight the important parts
Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). 
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
I in no way ever claimed that Vunak was infallible.
This thread was started by an OP who watched too much anime thinking that people might hold a sword in reverse grip from start to finish in a fight. I drew a parallel to how people believe that reverse grip knife fighting was also cool and advantageous, yet falls under the same umbrella as reverse grip sword.
Typically in bullshido if someone has a video to back up what they say, it tends to give them alot of weight. Because Paul has an excellent clip regarding knife fighting which is readily available on you tube. It makes him an easy authority to use during a debate.
You have a degree, and the best you come up with is STFU?
Since the start I've been advocating GNP or eyegouge from mount, I still feel that ezekiel choke would still have too much set up time