Contradictions in "rational" thought

[tavarish]

Which is why context is important. My arguments are also standalone arguments, but when put together, they can SEEM contradictory when you take them in the same context.

No. Context isn't necessary for your statements either. Your statements can both be true because one refers to the character of a nonexistent (we all know) movie character who (we all know) doesn't exist.

How is context not necessary? If taken within the same context, the assertions are contradictory. You cannot be a malevolent leader and not exist at the same time - it's logically impossible.

However, if Vader exists within the context of a fictitious movie plot, and does not exist in demonstrable reality, then no contradiction is made.

Keep in mind you're making an appeal to popularity. "We all know" does not necessarily have any merit in trying to make sense of an argument, nor does it have any explanatory value. Darth Vader isn't fictitious because "we all know" he doesn't exist. He's fictitious because there hasn't been any evidence to suggest that he's real, but there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that he's a conjured character.

If you want to continue this conversation, please tell me where specifically anyone made the arguments you first presented within the same context.

---

Should I take your red herring as an admission of defeat?

LOL.

You should consider your own arguments before criticizing others.