Printable View
Or much simpler, you could merely assume that the future actually does exist on the same line as the past and present. Thus, all of time exist 'simultaneously' (ignoring the fact that the word has no meaning when relating to time itself) and the problem is solved.
dkkimera something do u understand the r=u thery yet cause ur question was what it was all about do u see what its about yet
I said that on Page 3 or something. But the discussion here is organized and clean, i think this should stay, as people like to talk about it. :choc2:
i said nothing about stoping the convo i just wanted to know if ur question was answered
Addressing his last post to me...
I'm the one actually addressing the argument, and not the man making it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharoh Amon Khan III
The snipped portions were deemed irrelevant. At least I mentioned they were snipped. If you feel like I didn't address something, tell me what it is, and I'll see about giving it a go.Quote:
All you're doin is slicing and dicing things that I say to make yourself look smart. You're not even including my full statements.
Never said it was. Why does this stop me from commenting on it?Quote:
I already said that I wasn't serious about this and that this was just thoughts that crossed my mind and it wasn't anything to be put as 'proof'.
Addressing the validity of your ramblings is acting holier than thou?Quote:
But you just took it that way and played the role of the 'holier than thou'.
Please stop touting this. One CAN rationally debate fantasy. People do it succesfully all the time. Now, if you continue, yes, we will reach nowhere, but I at the least, will not be banned.Quote:
Dude, it's just fantasy. There's no need to take it this far or any further because the only landmark we're gonna reach is nowhere and ultimately 'closed and banned'.
No. It's not. Belief without evidence is not acceptable, even if you somehow avoided a bias, which you actually haven't, since you refuse to allow your belief to be rationally analyzed.Quote:
I'm trying my best to state my beliefs without being 'biased' as most are but that's just not good enough for you, is it? (shakes head in sadness).
I don't think it's MY level- the rational analysis- that gets these threads closed.Quote:
For the love of Mike... You're really just gonna drag this down once again to this level to why these threads are closed aren't you?
So you say, but never do. PAK, I have encountered many like you before. Blustering will not cut it. Put your money where your mouth is, or shut it.Quote:
Well I won't be party to that. I'll just keep posting what I say and we'll see what happens, k? I could slice and dice your responses like you did mine but I don't see that worth my energy.
I see R=U as possible. I see I=U as almost equally as possible.Quote:
You're really just being petty and that's it. I won't stoop to your level. Granted, there are little points to what you said, but most of it is just B.S. only because you don't see R=U as a possibility.
Because you're trying to get special pleading for a postulate that you claim is 'only a possibility'. Would you do the same for Z=U, or Q=U? I doubt it.Quote:
I see it as a possibility but not an absolute, and that's what I've always stated. It's not definite but a possibility. But yet, you still attack me and mine like we're spouting 'hersey'.
Don't compare yourself to Ramza. His 'heresy' was based on accumulated evidence. You, on the other hand, are arguing against all the evidence.Quote:
Kinda like Ramza Beovolve.
No. If you cannot conduct a debate in a method verifiable to all, do not hold it. The only reason to hold a hidden debate is so you can spin it. This way, in a public and recorded forum, any spin can be checked against the debate itself.Quote:
MOMMY PUT THE KIDS TO BED AND BREAK OUT THE LEATHER MASKS! DADDY'S HOME!!!! SECRET WORD IS: WHAT?! (Blame that one on Family Guy!)
P.S. "Honey" let's not fight in front of the kids, cuz that seems to be all you're doin'... Let's go somewhere private, k? (PM).
Now, continue, and avoid the meaningly pop culture references. It makes taking you seriously very difficult.
nice one ryu.....heheheheheheh....whos the biyatch now....hehehehehehehe.......(mods dont take that seriously)
and the dominoes thing....isnt it meant to be more like someone comes along an smashes all the dominoes and someone else puts them back up and whatever.....im not really into this whole topic....but im sure somethin along the lines of this will be answered in the sequels to FF8 that are comin out...ya know....the ones wid all the crystals...or whatever...
What FF8 sequel? There arent any sequels being made.
Ryukazaike, I don't know what your problem with me is maine, but you need to cut that sh*t out. All you're doin' now is b**ching at me cutting up what I say for a retort. Even when I'm just being aloof and off-topic, you attack me as if I was stating a 'postulate'.
Dude, it's been so fuggin' peaceful here for the past week. We didn't agree anything but we got along. Now here you go! Nickel, WTF is your problem with me?
You even opened up your post saying that this was regards to me. Being a b**ch right now by trying to publicly embarass me, and I told you take it to the PM. I ain't gonna turn this into a 'flame-war' with you.
BTW, Ramza's heresy was based on accumulated FALSE 'evidence'.
"Deemed irrelevant?!? Who's 'god' now?
What are talking about dealing/encountering with my kind? You sound like a skinhead out to kill anyone that believes in R=U... While you've been gone it's been peaceful and you're the perfect example of the why people don't talk about it or are afraid to talk about or why it hardely ever get DISCUSSED in a civilized manner. That's right DISCUSSED, not debated, discussed. You're just looking for a fight dude, why? Petty, that's why! Otherwise, you'd have gone to th PMs like I said. You just want an audience why you cut people down.
I've never attacked you. All I've ever done is retaliate! Look back over the thread. Aight?! All you're doin' is bi-ching, trying to start a fight, and get this thread closed because you don't like the idea of people concieving the idea. We're having a good time Jack, at we least we were.
And don't ever tell me you're debating... All you're doing is insulting people. You're calling it 'postulate' or whatever out of pure biase and that's why you only remark what you can counter post to not the other person's whole statement. So you get a STFU!.
Next time you wanna go at me instead of discussing the subject matter. Now, you take your @$$ on to the PMs like I told you to!
Now to the mods... If you've read this, once again... I don't know why this bordrakian-terran has a personal issue with me, but I had it. I snapped and I did suggest going to the PM. I only ask that you don't close this thread.
Ohhh it´s starting to happen just like the other two R=U threads...i´m pretty sure i know how this one is going to end...
I don't think Sorceresses are 'immortal' or anything like that. However, there have been people to have lived several generations...
IF Rinoa were to become Ultimecia, and let's not focus on the sanity bit, it could be alshiemers; could she have aged normally, but cosmetically not aged, like Sorceress Edea? Edea was about in her 30's when she Succeeded Ultimecia, right? After 18 + years, you kinda wonder. I know we've discussed this some time ago earlier in the thread but we got off topic. What do you think?
Now I have to add, incase I get banned because of my previous outburst, that there is nothing solidly against the possibility of Rinoa becoming Ultimecia and I like to discuss it.
A lot of people will always say things like 'it's not in the game' but the thing is there are a lot things that are not in the game. Most like to stick with the "Happy Ending" but the way I see it, it left me with a lot of questions the second time I played a saved game... Ultimecia still exists in the future, because of the The Fated Children and Ellone, she possesses all Sorceresses through time, but what's "not in the game" is who is the next Sorceress after Rinoa? In the game there are no other Sorceresses other than Rinoa. So who is her successor? This left to speculation of those that want to support the happy ending and causes tension for those that believe that Rinoa could become Ultimecia. The final FMV is suggestive to that suspicion.
Was the visions Squall was seeing a hallucination? Was it Rinoa trying to 'find him'? Was it Squall trying to find a memory to hang onto to bring him back to Rinoa? Or was the exploding helmet a symbolism for Rinoa telling Squall he should have let her die in space as she attempted to? Or was it Squall realizing that it was Rinoa that he need not be afraid of dying, but himself.
More questions than answers. And the battlelines are drawn. I think that Rinoa=Ultimecia should be a discussion and not a debate. No one has any official ruling or 'facts' to support or refute it. It's fantasy and it should be fun to talk about it.
Like in the olden days of FFVI... Did Shadow die at the end? Or did he just continue to wander the world? Was he really Relm's father? The suggests it to the point of "You crazy? OF COURSE HE WAS!", to... Hmm... He could have been a comrade in arms to "Barom" or whoever his partner that fell in combat was, who possibly was Relm's real father. Either way you see it, it's fantasy and fun to discuss.
All the Final Fantasies I have played have always left the players to draw their own conclusion. And whether we see the same conclusion or not the fact is that we all find something we enjoyed. This is not something to be taken seriously like Trekkies or Jedi-Enthusiasts.
I've said my peace.
Please. point out how I've 'attacked' you, aside from insisting that you stop special pleading for a horrendously aparsimonious postulate, the same as I would do to any other equally out there one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharoh Amon Khan III
You are attempting to support an extraordinary claim while attempting to beg out of having to provide evidence by calling this a 'discussion'.Quote:
Dude, it's been so fuggin' peaceful here for the past week. We didn't agree anything but we got along. Now here you go! Nickel, WTF is your problem with me?
Yes. Because I was responding directly to you.Quote:
You even opened up your post saying that this was regards to me.
Then don't. I will not start the flame war. You, on the other hand, seem to have begun already.Quote:
Being a b**ch right now by trying to publicly embarass me, and I told you take it to the PM. I ain't gonna turn this into a 'flame-war' with you.
Your kind of debater. Seriously man, stop the persecution complex.Quote:
"Dealt with your kind?" What are talking about dealing with my kind? You sound like a skinhead out to kill anyone that believes in R=U...
Even when discussed, it should still follow the proper rules of such- IE: burden of proof, avoiding all the logical fallacies, etc.Quote:
While you've been gone it's been peaceful and you're the perfect example of the why people don't talk about it or are afraid to talk about or why it hardely ever get DISCUSSED in a civilized manner. That's right DISCUSSED, not debated, discussed.
No, I want it public so no one can hedge out, not to insult people. Please stop making appeals to my motive.Quote:
You're just looking for a fight dude, why? Petty, that's why! Otherwise, you'd have gone to th PMs like I said. You just want an audience why you cut people down.
You've called me a bitch on several occasions. You've appealed to my motives several times, and have actually refused to address my points as far as I recall.Quote:
I've never attacked you.
What I'm TRYING to do is to get YOU to start seeing that you need to provide evidence for your claims, and the more outrageous, the better evidence you need.Quote:
All I've ever done is retaliate! Look back over the thread. Aight?! All you're doin' is bi-ching, trying to start a fight, and get this thread closed because you don't like the idea of people concieving the idea. We're having a good time Jack, at we least we were.
I'm calling it a postulate to be kind. It certainly does not have the heaps of empirical evidence which would be required to actually class it as a theory, like germ theory or evolutionary theory.Quote:
And don't ever tell me you're debating... All you're doing is insulting people. You're calling it 'postulate' or whatever out of pure biase
You are making such a big deal out of me snipping the irrelevant portions of your post to save space when I've actually been in the habit of addressing ever in your posts.Quote:
and that's why you only remark what you can counter post to not the other person's whole statement. So you get a STFU!.
No. And I actually have been discussing the subject matter. Or trying to. You keep turning this personally.Quote:
Next time you wanna go at me instead of discussing the subject matter. Now, you take your @$$ on to the PMs like I told you to!
There's a difference between a typo and a complete bollocks mangling of my SN. Especially since my SN is readily copiable from anywhere on this thread.Quote:
P.S.:Don't be upset if I mis-spelled your name. Accidents happen.
Now then, as for 'not aging', I don't see how Edea 'did not cosmetically age'. She looks exactly what a thirty year old woman would look like.
Yes, there IS pretty solid evidence against R=U. Sorceresses are not immortal.
And it seems like you completely misunderstand- You are the positive claimant. In a debate or any other exchange, it is the burden of the positive claimant- in this case, the R=U folks- to support their position with emperical evidence. It is not the burden of the negative case to provide evidence until such a time as the positive claim has provided theirs.
Let's hope not. Because it'll start up again and closed, and again, and again, and again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Dark Aeons Slayer
"And it seems like you completely misunderstand- You are the positive claimant. In a debate or any other exchange, it is the burden of the positive claimant- in this case, the R=U folks- to support their position with emperical evidence. It is not the burden of the negative case to provide evidence until such a time as the positive claim has provided theirs."
In layman's terms... ? And you didn't answer my questions.
shouldnt it be considered a r=u thread because dkimera wanted to have an explanation about it id say this is the r=u thread under a differnt thread title. and it said something in the warning that all r=u threads would be closed cause i think this is the r=u and and it looks like it
Please stop trying to get this thread closed. Another one will just pop up like the Q=U, a joke, but if this thread should be closed, so should that one.:eep:Quote:
Originally Posted by finalfantasyguy4ever