Quote:
Any kind of petty squabble was purposely initiated by yourself, and therefore you are again demonstrating your ‘unbending hypocrisy’ by continuing the charade. Your opinions and character are actually completely irrelevant to me when it comes to the validity of the R=U theory, so relax.
"Nu-uh, you started it!"
This is what I was talking about. I deliberately stayed clear of anything not directly relating to R=U (ie. my unbending character etc.) because I didn't want this to turn into a "you started it" thing. I reacted because you completely ignored this and proceeded to claim that I must surely have conceded by choosing not to comment on your accusations of my character, and guess what, you just started a "you started it" debate. Tell you what, if it makes you concentrate more on the R=U theory than my unbending personality, then by all means, stick with your claim that I started it, and I won't disagree.
One thing though: if my character is so unimportant to you, I find it odd that references to me being unbending, hypocritical, narrowminded, a poor 'dialectical' debater, and incapable of enjoying FF8 have only increased with your latest posts.
Quote:
I have never stated that your inability to argue hindered any of my attempts; on the contrary, it made my conclusions and approach altogether easier.
Maybe I misread this quote of yours then: "it is really difficult to carry on an intelligent and logical argument if you ignore the points of the person you are arguing with". Perhaps you didn't mean what I assumed it to mean though. I am perfectly willing, unbending as I am, to admit to making mistakes in huge arguments like this, after all.
Quote:
By arguing false logic and assumptions, you have set up a myriad of fragile arguments which you purport to defend as ‘plausible absolutes.’ On top of all this, you simultaneously admit that definitude cannot be claimed by both sides, yet you fail to see the hypocrisy.
I honestly don't know how I am supposed to respond to this, considering that you said the same thing in my last post, which I proceeded to explain was taken out of context. Do I really have to repeat it once more? One last try:
What you call 'hypocrisy' is in fact a necessary assumption in any 'dialectical argument'. Please do not yet again mistake this as saying that hypocrisy is essential in logic. It is saying that what YOU call hypocrisy (ie. being able to rule out various possible scenarios as not valid despite no exact definitude existing) is necessary. If not, we would get into a logical quagmire. I could argue that pink elephants cause gravity, and without any such demands placed on valid theories, I could go ahead and maintain the truth of my theory. If you said it was ridiculous, I could merely respond "You don't know perfectly for sure, do you?" and that would be that. Similarly, in FF8, we do not know perfectly for sure what will happen after the game has ended, but that does not mean we can thus entertain any theory possible to conceive of. Theories must be judged.
Please do not misread me yet again and take this as saying that R=U is equivalent to pink elephants causing gravity. The pink elephants are only meant as an example of why we must be able to judge the validity of theories, including the R=U theory. If we did not do so, my Irvine theory (do you finally see why I used this example now?) would be just as possible as your R=U scenario, even though the Irvine theory is obviously complete bull[img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img].
For someone so keen on using the word "dialectical", you should surely know that such a "hypocritical" (in your words, that is) assumption is absolutely essential if any sort of meaningful discussion is to be held. Unless you are the kind of person who might spend hours defending the possibility of the pink elephants?
Quote:
Well, you may find it fun to put words into other people’s mouth’s, but I don’t.
I'm sorry if you feel I have put words into your mouth in this argument. As mentioned, I make mistakes, being human and all. But honestly, do you really think I am the only one here who has made any mistakes?
Quote:
I never stated anything to be specifically ‘vital’ to my arguments- this is something you have attempted to do.
I'm sorry, but it seems my exaggerated comment (a common tool in debates of any kind) of "vital arguments" came across as being completely literal. You must understand that I may during my posts use sarcasm, exaggerations and the likes to make a point. Maybe it was my fault for not making it clear enough, but you clearly read way too much into my statement there. It was by no means an attempt to words into your mouth. Please don't be so paranoid; I'm not that desperate at 'winning' the argument.
Quote:
You have claimed to not know for sure whether Rinoa is Ultimecia, yet through your arguments it is apparent that you are definitely convinced that the two are not the same.
Explained above, and several times in my previous posts.
Quote:
What’s more, I have shown that the exact opposite theory has greater validity than the negative suppositron: it is both plausible and possible that Rinoa is Ultimecia.
A bold claim indeed. Are you really saying that you think you have shown R=U to be more plausible than R =/= U? I think this will be touched upon more later on in the post though, so I won't go into it all here.
NOTE: This is not conceding to the argument, you know. It's just that there will probably be more fitting moments to get into it later on in this post.
Quote:
That’s funny also how you begin your response with “Wow. Just wow.” I laughed a little actually. For someone who attempts to lead a civilized and intelligent argument, it is not the best way to start a response, is it? At least, I don’t think so.
No, I suppose I should rather go by your own standards and fill every other line (note: here is an example of an exaggeration like I mentioned before) with condescending comments about your "unbending personality" or your lack of any 'dialectical skills'. The worst thing is though that you're actually succeeding in dragging me down to the "you started it lol" thing which I hate. Sorry, but you aren't exactly making it easy on me.
NOTE: Great. My response to the first part of your post alone is already longer than most posts -__- *sigh*
Quote:
You were attempting to end the argument because you did not wish to enter a serious debate, not because you thought the argument was ‘stupid.’
Nice of you to inform of me what I was thinking earlier, but I'm afraid this isn't exactly the first "serious debate" I've been in. It's not like you're coming with whole new angles on the R=U theory you know; I've been in the exact same discussion many times in the past. So let's please not go into my motives or what I was thinking at any time, ok?
Quote:
If you thought the majority of the argument to be stupid, then why do you even continue to argue?
Again, I was exaggerating ever so slightly. Is this technique really new to you? Yes, a lot of points in your previous posts I thought irrelevant and stupid (eg. all references to my personality and the likes), but I kept arguing because there were actually proper points to adress.
Quote:
All of my replies were in regards to different things and different areas of the R=U theory, and by failing to address those points, you have conceded those points. You can believe that by not addressing them you are simply ‘bypassing’ my arguments, but by not addressing the points, you are doing nothing else but refusing to acknowledge their validity.
I am perfectly aware that I have made some mistakes in terms of what I chose and did not choose to comment upon previously in this thread, and I have already apologised for that (funny how an unbending fellow like myself is the only one who has confessed to making mistakes so far). I do believe though that whatever relevants points I failed to address before, I will have answered in the span of this post and my last post. Again, I am sorry.
Quote:
I, on the other hand, am not tired of this argument and my convictions that the R=U theory is plausible and probable have only been strengthened throughout this entire conversation. Your entire introduction into this post is made with statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual R=U theory, so why are you even complaining about me doing the same in previous posts? You chose to continue this argument and have it degrade to the most basic of points, but even here you prove unbending and hypocritical. I hope this con be corrected so that we can get back on track and you can eventually see the plausibility and probability of Rinoa being Ultimecia. This is, after all, Final Fantasy, is it not?
I agree completely. I was stupid for responding to your personal criticism of me, and regret it now. I was tired yesterday and was simply unable to control my frustration of your repeated claims of me being unbending etc. and your claim that I must have conceded arguments to you. A poor excuse perhaps, but there you are.
Quote:
I do not insist on anything, thank you very much, lol . I have only stated that if you do not wish to concede this argument, then you must address all the valid points of the person you are arguing with. You have resorted to respond only to selective quotes, while you ignore the rest. If you do not respond to my previous posts in my previous quotes, as you should have done in your posts immediately following the quotes in question, then this is a concession of your position.
And again, I point out that I already have apologised for failing to address all the relevant points of your previous post. I kind of hoped you would be big enough to accept the apology and move on, but I have been dissapointed so far, I must admit. Probably because I am such a poor debater compared to yourself, I suppose.
Quote:
It really makes no difference to me, because you never really offered one logical or in-game citation which significantly shook or altered the R=U theory. The only thing that you have done is contradicted yourself by stating that neither side can claim definitude, and then turning around and stating with ‘plausible absoluteness’ that Rinoa is not Ultimecia.
Adressed earlier.
Quote:
Now, from the quotes that you have addressed, I hope that there is at least something which addresses the actual topic of R=U, and doesn’t continue this ‘petty squabble.’
I'll give you one thing; you are an expert at provoking. I had to take my dog for a long walk before being able to ignore this obvious bait.
Quote:
The persecution of sorceresses in Rinoa’s time, following Ultimecia’s time compression, becomes to great. All sorceresses are tracked down and are either mercilessly killed or they are locked away in stasis. Given Rinoa’s connections (Squall, and Laguna- President of Esthat), Rinoa is not killed but spared only to be once again taken to be locked away in the Sorceress Memorial, and Squall is met with an insurmountable force when he tries to free her. This time, there are too many people in the world who fear the possibility of Ultimecia coming into existence, so therefore Squall and company are unable to free Rinoa, try as they may.
Interesting. Yet considering that Ultimecia lives long after the game has ended, and thus can't be assumed to have even been born yet (the people in FF8 obviously not being familiar with the R=U theory), I can't see how people can see Ultimecias future birth as a reason to seal up a sorceress born long before Ultimecias era (ie. Rinoa). So that obviously doesn't work.
You can, of course, still argue that people feared sorceresses in general, and thus demanded to have Rinoa sealed. Although Rinoa was not nearly well known to the public as a sorceress by the end of the game, and had protection in very high places, you could of course conceive of a scenario in which the pressure from the people overcomes all this and seals away Rinoa. Does the fact that one might conceive of such a scenario make it plausible though? I think I'll get back to that later on, if you don't mind.
Quote:
So there you have it: a perfectly logical justification which utterly destroys your above argument. Actually, your argument above is not really any kind of argument. It is just a series of questions which I have all answered. If this is what you call a ‘breakdown’ of my defenses, then I hate to see what you call a ‘build-up.’
Ignoring your pointless and arrogant discussion about whether or not my "questions" can be labelled arguments or not, I will agree to this; it is possible to conceive of a scenario in which Rinoa can reach Ultimecias era despite not having extended lifespan. Still, I don't think it's quite time to discuss why this doesn't suddenly make the theory highly plausible.
Quote:
Secondly, even I did not address your fragile attempt to breakdown my supposition of Rinoa being locked away in the Sorceress Memorial, it still does not by any means disprove the possibility and plausibility of Rinoa becoming Ultimecia through this way.
It doesn't discard the possibility, sure, I said as much above. It does, however, weaken the argument, because the more questions that have to be answered (answers that are inherently based on the uncertainty of what happens after the game ends mind you), the less plausible the theory becomes. I'll get back to this, but you must surely agree that if there are two contesting theories, the one which requires the least assumptions and relies the least on uncertainties after the game has ended is the best one, no?
Quote:
And thirdly, since Ultimecia has forever altered the past by achieving time compression, Rinoa may never actually become her, even though she in fact was on a course to become Ultimecia before Ultimecia started interfering with Rinoa’s time.
Now this is something I admit I should have dealt more severely with earlier, and which I will deal full attention now.
You frequently use this in your latest post as an argument as to the lack of hints pointing towards Rinoa becoming Ultimecia. You say that it may not appear that Rinoa will become Ultimecia because Ultimecia (in fact Rinoa) has tampered with the past, and use this as a defense for the R=U theory. But do you not see how ridiculous this is? This is, to be honest, absurd. Pause to consider exactly what you are saying:
Assume Rinoa becomes Ultimecia. Since Ultimecia tampers with time, all traces of Rinoa becoming Ultimecia may be gone, so the lack of support/hints for R=U does not render the theory invalid.
You have no other defense for the lack of support for the theory other than that Ultimecia tampered with time, so the Rinoa we play may not actually become Ultimecia, even though she did become her before time was tampered with. This is nothing more than a clever way of avoiding the fact that the game does not in any way hint towards R=U. You simply give a scenario which could lead to Rinoa becoming Ultimecia, state that Ultimecia messed with time to remove all evidence of this happening, and still contest that it is highly plausible? Surely you must see the absurdity of the argument! By the same argument, I could seriously back up my absurd Irvine theory by stating that he got a sex-change, became Ultimecia, but then tampered with the past so that Irvine's female tendencies were wiped from the game. How would you be able to refute it?
Furthermore, the game actually implies that the past cannot be changed at all. Recall that Ellone says "You can't change the past", that Squall also learned this the hard way trying to save Rinoa, and that the game is literally littered with references to fate ruling supreme in the game. Everything indicates that time is set in stone in FF8 (you said you read the FAQ I linked to you, so you should be familiar with the full arguments supporting this). But that is really secondary in comparison to the absurdity of the way you use changing the past to back up R=U.
Finally, Ultimecia never actually achieves time compression. She begins it, yes, but had she finished it, it would have been game over, as only Ultimecia can exist in TC.
Quote:
But given the in-game evidence, and the logical conclusions based on time manipulation, we can see that it is both very possible and very possible that Rinoa can become Ultimecia in Final Fantasy VIII.
Possible in theory? Yes. Can it be conceived of? Yes. But that doesn't matter, because nothing in the game directly indicates it (your so-called support I will deal with when it pops up later in this post). You even have to go so far as to embrace changing the past to explain away this. If that isn't grasping at straws, I don't know what is.
Quote:
Well, we are still talking about Final Fantasy, are we not? This is not your reality where you dictate what is imaginative and what is not.
I agree. All ideas must be judged against what the game tells us, not by what I say.
Quote:
If Squall is killed in an attempt to rescue an imprisoned Rinoa (as I explained above), then he may have imprinted his psychological identity to the concept of Griever, a concept which he conceived in his mind. This psychological imprint is then brought into existence by Ultimecia (aka Rinoa) when she is met with opponents, and thus we have Griever. And this concept he may have conceived with his dying breath, to uphold his promise that he will protect Rinoa and be her knight, no matter what.
May he really? I suppose it doesn't matter that such a process of psychologically imprinting Griever is never alluded to in the game, or anywhere but your own imagination then? The concept 'works' sure, but I can think of a million other concepts that work and yet are not based on what the game tells us. So please, explain how you extracted this idea from the game.
Quote:
Now, perhaps if you had actually paid closer attention to my previous posts, you would have noticed this logical justification and how it is linked to the accepted definition of Griever.
Oh really? The accepted definition of Griever is that he is created in the final battle from an image in Squall's head. You are stating that Squall made some sort of pseudo-scientific psychological imprint of Griever at death, which somehow stuck about all until Rinoa was released from her seal, when she used it to make Griever. There are similarities, but calling it logically justified based on the accepted definition is a far cry.
Quote:
Before you start condescendingly questioning my logic, perhaps you should get your own validations in order so that they are not broken down even further into a state of utter chaos. I am starting to doubt that you have actually even finished the game since you seem to be quoting so many clichéd and known sources.
Again, very nice, provocative bait. I'll refrain this time too though, I'm afraid.
Quote:
By achieving time compression, she has altered Squall and Rinoa’s time, therefore Griever has not yet had a change to become just a psychological remnant of Squall, but Griever is still inside Squall. If Ultimecia had not interfered with Rinoa and Squall’s time, then the natural events cycle would have naturally produced Rinoa as Ultimecia, and possibly Squall into Griever as her knight. But Ultimecia interferes through time compression, and since she obviously already has knowledge of Griever, she extracts Griever from Squall as a means to help her battle against SeeDs who have come to destroy her.
Again you use this absurd logic to explain why your ideas are not actually supported by the game at all. I already (hopefully) explained why such logic is ridiculous, and in no way makes for a plausible explanation (ie. because it literally means any case could be argued, seeing as any discrepancies with what we see in the game can be explained by altering of time, which is ludicrous).
Quote:
Also, quoting the Japanese version of the game is probably not the best way to go if you want to have greater support of your argument.
Why on earth not? Are you saying that the original script by the authors of FF8 is less valid then a translated version?
Quote:
I do not remember the exact words of Ultimecia when it came to that last scene, but I do recall that they were somehow not exactly as you quote them.
Excuse me? Since it was actually I and the co-authors of the FAQ referred to who first obtained this translation and brought it to this forum, I'm afraid I have difficulties believing that I somehow screwed up. So I'm afraid you'll have to do better than say something like that in order to convince me here.
Quote:
Therefore, as you can see, when the element of time manipulation is brought into the mix, it can be seen that Griever may be used as a link between Rinoa and Ultimecia, and hence makes a logical justification of the entire scenario.
But as explained, your logic is ridiculous. Nothing in the game shows Griever to be a link between Rinoa and Ultimecia. All you have done is conceive of a way in which Griever COULD be a link, and then used the extremely weak argument that tampering with time is what prevents anything in the game from actually making this clear. Yet you are still bold enough to say it is not your imagination at work here, but the game itself?
Quote:
And remember, I have never stated that Rinoa is definitely Ultimecia; I only wanted to establish the plausibility and possibility of such an event, and so far I have not only been winning due to logical and in-game proof, but I have also been winning because you consistently fail to address my quotes from my posts accurately and sufficiently. Let’s see what’s next.
In-game proof? Would that be the same proof you have to explain the lack of due to time-tampering? All you have done is create a scenario which could lead to Rinoa becoming Ultimecia. That scenario is not backed up by anything in the game. The fact that the people might overwhelm Squall and Laguna and demand Rinoa being sealed away is not actually hinted at in the game. It is merely a possibility you have conceived of. The link with Griever you have more or less admitted doesn't exist (and blame it on time-tampering at that). What else is there then supporting the scenario you have devised? Not a damn thing. Yes, the fact that the scenario exists makes it possible in theory, but for all purposes and intents, you have in no way demonstrated how it is highly plausible. Really, simply the fact that you have to resort to time-tampering as an explanation should be more than enough to demonstrate how lacking your scenario is.
Quote:
Quote by quote responses is something crucial, especially in this argument. It’s not a very intelligent tactic to avoid responding to a quote by claiming that such a response will result in ‘complications.’ We are arguing something which is already quite complicated here, and if you want to make any headway in your position instead of quarreling pointlessly, then I recommend you reconsider my previous quotes which you conceded on.
Crucial eh? So you do, actually, find it crucial that I should respond to all your quotes about me being unbending and not getting enjoyment from FF8? Funny, I thought you said in the beginning that this was not the case. In any case, I'll avoid the obvious flamebait yet again.
Quote:
I don’t have to call anything ‘evidence’ and neither do you.
"Therefore, as you can see, there is evidence in the game to draw a conclusion of possibility and plausibility"
I suppose I must have misread your statement here then...
Quote:
The point is that I have already explained the idea of why Laguna or Squall could have been powerless to allow Rinoa to be locked away in the Sorceress Memorial.
The point is that this is not enough. Simply conceiving of a possible scenario does in no way make it plausible or valid in any way. That is what the Irvine theory was meant to demonstrate. You also have to show how it is firmly supported by the game, yet so far, all links you have made between Rinoa and Ultimecia rely on suspect ideas and time-tampering, hardly grounds for a good argument.
Quote:
. Surely you have heard of the witch hunts and communist panics and Jewish persecutions which have occurred in our own world, right? The same paranoia would be exponentially greater if a sorceress from the future achieved time compression in the Final Fantasy VIII universe. You are too inept in the principles of sociology to understand this right now, but such an intense persecution may have resulted in a quasi-mob mentality to take control over the planet of Final Fantasy VIII. In such an event, even Laguna, President of Esthar, and Squall, sworn protector of Rinoa, may not have been able to save Rinoa from being locked away in the Sorceress Memorial. But, through Laguna’s acquaintance, Rinoa avoids being martyred due to the panic which follows time compression by Ultimecia. I hope you understand this point, since I have repeated here after already stating it above.
Actually, I'm afraid I'm far too inept at sociology right now to understand a word you have said here. Could you please write it out in words I can understand, preferably avoiding such difficult words as "acquaintance". Thanks.
Quote:
I am not necessarily referring to the first time when people attempted to imprison Rinoa in the Sorceress Memorial, so nothing ‘slipped passed me,’ but nice try.
Um, you literally said "Also, remember that Esthar already attempted to place Rinoa in a sorceress prison".
Quote:
By achieving influence in Rinoa and Squall’s time period, Ultimecia has forever altered the course of events in their time period, and therefore Rinoa is saved by Squall before she gets imprisoned into the sorceress memorial. This, however, may not be the only time that people attempt to imprison Rinoa into the sorceress memorial. And since Ultimecia may have forever altered the time line of Squall and Rinoa’s time, it may turn out that Rinoa now will never actually become Ultimecia. This does not mean, however, that Rinoa wasn’t the same Ultimecia as the one who compressed time.
Again, your entire argument boils down to "Ultimecia might be Rinoa, she just tampered with time to remove all signs of this happening". If that is your idea of a good argument, I must question who taught you the concept of 'dialectical arguments'.
Quote:
Also, where do you get your fact that Ultimecia is created by sorceress persecution?
From the obvious fact that history would be recorded along with my inept understanding of sociology. Since you claimed to have read my FAQ, I'm surprised you aren't familiar with my own view here. Maybe it's been a while since you last read it?
Quote:
Since much of Ultimecia’s history cannot be substantiated as fact by the game, it is unwise to imply anything as ‘fact’ when speaking of her.
And where exactly in that statement did I mention 'facts' in any way?
Quote:
I have never stated that the R=U theory works because Ultimecia comes into being because she is embittered over sorceress persecution. But the entire R=U theory is greatly supported by such a supposition, not greatly contradicted. If Rinoa ever was put into the stasis of the Sorceress Memorial, and eventually broke free, she may eventually become embittered over the constant persecution of sorceresses, and become Ultimecia.
True, but the idea that Ultimecia is simply Ultimecia, a sorceress born in the future and persecuted for being a sorceress is far more plausible than R=U, simply because it requires less assumptions and far out arguments (like time-tampering etc.). You cannot honestly think that R=U, a theory which requires such huge debates as this, to be more plausible than the simple idea that Ultimecia is simply Ultimecia? The size of this post alone should make that sound a little silly...
Quote:
The bolded section of my previous post actually makes a strongly convincing case. If you refuse to see the logical defense for, then that is because of your inflexible close-mindedness. If you want to keep a certain image of Final Fantasy VIII in your mind by not considering logical probability or possibility, then by all means, continue to do so. I have already disproved all of your attempted ‘break downs’ of my arguments, and have strengthened these arguments to new heights.
Really convincing case, eh? Let's recap exactly what you are saying:
- After the game ended, knowledge that a sorceress nearly compressed all of time leaked to the public, who were infuriated, and demanded all sorceresses to be rounded up and killed.
- Rinoa, knowing people in high places, was spared, and only sealed up.
Squall was probably killed trying to save her. Laguna had to bow down due to politics.
- Rinoa is somehow released from her seal, grows bitter at her fate, and becomes Ultimecia.
In-game support for any of this happening: nothing. Why? Because Ultimecia tampered with time.
In-game events/quotes hinting at Ultimecia being Rinoa: nothing. Why? Because Ultimecia tampered with time and/or because Square wanted to be really, really, really subtle about it.
I'm sorry, but that hardly warrants a description as a "strongly convincing case". If I need to explain why(and I have attempted to in this post), you shouldn't even be having this argument to begin with.
Quote:
I offered plenty of in-game examples in support of logical probability and possibility: The persecution of sorceresses;
Your idea of the persecution of sorceresses straight after the game ends is only one possible scenario backed up by nothing in the game. It could have taken much longer for anger to build up; the public might not find out that Rinoa is a sorceress; Laguna and Squall may be able to keep the lid on the anger.
Your idea does make for a conceivable R=U scenario, but on it's own, it is not nearly enough to make a case for something as controversial as R=U.
Quote:
the manifestation of Griever from Squall’s mind
Except as explained earlier, you practically admitted that this was not backed up by the game when you relied on time-tampering to explain how it can work. Nothing in the game backs it up, it is only your imagination. Your claim that it "might have happened but Ultimecia tampered with time" is irrelevant. Anything could have happened if we go by that, including as mention, the Irvine being Ultimecia 'theory'.
Quote:
the event of time compression which opens up the entire game to time manipulation
As explained though, your dependance on time-tampering for R=U to work only serves to weaken your argument, not strengthen it. Furthermore, the game itself indicates that time is set in stone, and since TC was never fully completed, your assumption that Ultimecia's intitiating of it caused the past to alter is thus completely unfounded.
Quote:
the attempted imprisonment of Rinoa in the Soreceress Memorial
...in which she is rescued by Squall. The fact that Rinoa was initially sealed away due to the threat of Ultimecia possessing her, and then rescued, does in no way imply that after the game has ended, they'll suddenly rush to seal her up again. The two are unrelated.
Indulge.
Quote:
I have so far come up with plenty of logical and in-game evidence that Rinoa is actually Ultimecia, and it is perhaps an idea which the authors of the game wanted to make much more subtle than the idea of Squall being Laguna’s father.
Perhaps. But do you honestly think that Square decided to add some extremely, subtle, not alluded to at all, secret plot-twist only noticeable by a very elite few? Not only is that counter to Square's record when it comes to storylines, it would be bad for business, quite frankly. In FF games, Square try and tell a story. They leave some stuff for discussion, sure, but hardly such unfounded things as R=U.
Quote:
Besides, you do not even know for sure that Laguna is Squall’s father, so you are once again demonstrating that peculiar ‘tunnel vision’ when you discuss a game such as Final Fantasy VIII.
If you are honestly going to seriously uphold the notion that Laguna may not be Squall's father, I'm leaving the debate, because in that case there is clearly no point trying to convince you.
Quote:
Like I stated above, the game leaves so many questions unanswered, that it may have been deliberately made in such a way so that the idea of Rinoa = Ultimecia remains a very subtle, barely hinted idea.
Unfounded though. Sounds to me like you are saying Square made subtle hints so as to enable the R=U theory more than that the R=U is enabled by subtle hints.
Quote:
By continually citing the poor argument of Irvine getting a sex-change, and comparing it to the R=U theory, you are portraying ignorance, not logic.
Considering that you STILL have not understood the meaning of the Irvine theory, I find it amusing that you can accuse me of ignorance.
Quote:
Since you keep mentioning it, you should have something to back it up. It is by no means a proper comparison which the R=U theory, since the R=U theory simply has so much more in-game and logical support.
Oh really? But using the same logic you do, I can claim that Irvine got a sex-change, became a sorceress, became persecuted and became Ultimecia, and then through tampering with time removed all evidence of his female tendencies in the game. The R=U theory has no real backing (see above responses to the support you mentioned), and you have even admitted that the hints are incredibly tiny and subtle at best. I really don't see where the leap "logical and in-game support" comes from.
Quote:
If you fail to see the evidence and support of the R=U theory, then I am not about to reeducate you in the arts of dialectics and open-mindedness.
Particularly nice flamebait. I like the touch about you re-educating me. It really makes you appear as superior in' the art of dialectics'. Your claim of my lack of open-mindedness is particularly nice. I like the way you completely ignored the fact that I stated more than once that I used to be exactly like you, but changed my mind after years of arguing. Still, I guess you're only open-minded if you refuse to back down from an idea, eh?
Quote:
I’m not about to replay the game so I can compile every piece of evidence of action and speech by the characters which support the R=U theory. How about this? Go online and check out what has already been written! Quite a concept, huh? Lol, of course you’re familiar with the commonly known statements of Rinoa when she says that “she doesn’t want the future.” But this is just the surface of the plethora of in-game quotes and evidence which can logically be defended as supporting the concept of Rinoa being Ultimecia.
Notice that while you claim here there is a "plethora" of ingame quotes and evidence supporting the idea, you later admit that all 9 such hints I listed were not very good. I'll comment more on this later when it pops up then, if you don't mind.
Quote:
Furthermore, for a person who seems to have difficulties comprehending logic, I would merely be wasting my time if I actually went to ‘compile’ all the in-game references to the R=U theory.
I liked your last flamebait better =/
Quote:
I think over the years, you’ve somehow acquired a rather big ‘ego,’ especially in regards to your close-minded and stubborn position in the game of Final Fantasy VIII.
This coming from the person who ended an argument with "Damn I'm good! lol".
Quote:
Here’s an idea for you good sir: how about you take the time and compile all of the in-game evidence that supports Rinoa not being Ultimecia? You seem to be so very sure of this ‘fact,’ despite claiming to support that neither side of the argument can claim definitude. So go off and replay the game or scour the internet; let me know everything you find which you believe satisfactorily answer the questions left by the game and that go against the Rinoa=Ultimecia theory.
I already did; hence the FAQ I referred you to. Granted, you won't find a list of "these hints/events in the game directly go against R=U". Two reasons for that:
1) Since the game doesn't actually support R=U in any way, it is impossible to find arguments either way. No arguments in the game directly point to Rinoa becoming Ultimecia, and similarly, nothing can be found which directly goes against Ultimecia. This simply is due to the fact that Square obviously never planned the R=U theory to be part of the game.
2) I am not the one defending a controversial theory. It is your job to show why the R=U theory makes perfect sense and is backed up by the game, not my job to show you why it doesn't fit in. I am supporting the common-sense view (ie. Ultimecia is Ultimecia). If you want to come here with a theory not immediately obvious in the game, it is your job to make it valid, not my job to refute it. If all your arguments are refuted, the theory is invalid.
For someone so obviously an expert in the 'dialectical art', I find it surprising that you are not even aware of this basic fact.
Quote:
I do not need to know anything specific about your past. I can already conclude through your false method of argument that you are lacking in the imperative areas of dialectical thinking.
Don't forget my ineptness at sociology!
Quote:
No part of your post was taken out of context. (Here you once again become a hypocrite since you already admitted that you bypassed some of my arguments in a previous post, thereby taking part of my post ‘entirely out of context’).
Nice of you to completely ignore my repeated apologies. And yes, you did take parts of my post out of context, which I already demonstrated. Your inability to point out exactly why it was not taken out of context only confirms this.
Quote:
Theories, especially theories in a game with so many questions such as Final Fantasy VIII, will not be judged by one standard. And if they are judged by only one statement, it most definitely should not be yours since you show a lacking for open-mindedness and an affinity for hypocrisy, at least in my opinion. The R=U theory definitely has enough in-game support and logical support to be substantiated, therefore you probably shouldn’t classify it with the concept of pink elephants or of Irvine getting a sex change.
Never implied that I was the supreme judge, now did I? I have repeatedly stated that the basis of any theory must be that it is rooted firmly in what the game tells us. Your dependance on time-tampering to explain away the lack of support confirms the weakness of your arguments.
As for Irvine and Pink Elephants, I have already explained why you are taking that out of context, and what I mean with those examples, but if you haven't already grasped it, I won't even bother repeating myself again.
Quote:
Secondary, you have an equally difficult burden to prove to me that Rinoa is not Ultimecia.
As explained though, that is not the case at all. Rinoa NOT being Ultimecia is the simplest, straightforward, common-sense idea. R=U is a controversial theory which claims that the game is quite different from what it appears, and thus it is YOUR responsibility to convince me why it is valid, not my responsibility to explain why it cannot be. Again, this is a basic fact when it comes to new theories. When someone proposes a new, radical theory, that person must come with all arguments. It is not everyone elses job to jump up and try and contradict the theory.
Quote:
I still await for you to even bring up one argument which contradicts the R=U theory, lol .
Commented on this earlier.
Quote:
In fact, if Rinoa=Ultimecia is indeed true, it would tie up virtually every loose end in the game, and make perfect and flawless logical sense.
If Rinoa =/= Ultimecia, but Ultimecia = Ultimecia, all loose ends are tied up as well, and don't need the additional assumptions required to make R=U work. You seem to think that only R=U can explain all the "unanswered questions" in the game. You are quite mistaken. In the FAQ referred to, you will find a far more plausible theory of Ultimecias birth, one which does not require such weak arguments such as "time-tampering having altered everything!".
Quote:
We are discussing the plausibility of Rinoa being Ultimecia, and I have logically shown that this scenario is most the likely the best scenario for answering the game’s unanswered questions.
Err, no you have not. Firstly, you have no even specified what exactly the unanswered questions in the game are, let alone explained why R=U is the best way to answer them. Please don't come with statements that are not actually true.
Quote:
Your entire perception of the game seems to be warped: you start spouting off about clichés and unknown backgrounds. Seems to me your imagination is by no means deficient, but one main difference between your argument and mine is that you close your mind to possibility and plausibility, while mine remains open.
Criticising my personality does not help your argument, you know. My mind is far from closed (again, must I remind you that I used to be like you, and then changed my mind?), and you are only weakening your stance by continually bringing up my "unbending" personality.
Quote:
such as when Rinoa commented on the impending future, a future which she may have gotten a glimpse of and realized that she in fact is Ultimecia.
She may have gotten a glimpse eh? That really is rock solid, isn't it? You don't think it's possible that Rinoa was simply talking about her powers eventually reaching Ultimecia (something she literally states in the Ragnarok at one point) and her immediate fear of being rejected as a sorceress? Saying that she glimpsed into the future and saw herself becoming Ultimecia is quite farfetched.
Quote:
Therefore, you have once again yielded false logic when you cite the Ultimania guide as a reference, and the relation between Laguna and Squall does not necessarily have to serve as an example for proving the R=U theory. (Perhaps if you took a step back and looked at the situation with an open-mind, you might see what I am talking about. But then again, that’s just too much to hope for, isn’t it? )
False logic, eh? Yeah, sorry, I forgot that if anyone had first hand knowledge about what Square would and would not put into the Ultimania Guide, it's you. :rolleyes2 Sorry, but the logic you used to explain away the lack of R=U in the Ultimania was simply that Square obviously didn't want to reveal it all there and rather let us discuss it. What exactly is that based on? First hand knowledge on Square?
Sorry, but if it's a choice between looking at what Square directly tell us and what you think they purposefully avoided telling us, I'll go with Square any day.
Nice try in the end, there, by the way. I'll refrain, yet again though.
Quote:
You now greatly err by asking me whether or not I thought Rinoa was Ultimecia when I finished the game. The answer is Yes- I did not read off the internet or from a magazine or hear it from anyone else- the idea was just obvious after I finished the game for a second time, and just to let you know, 2 out 6 people that I know who have played the game also came to the conclusion by themselves that is was possible and plausible that Rinoa was indeed Ultimecia.
Oh really? Well, sorry to say this, but you're a statistical freak, because of all the hundreds of people I've spoken to over the years, none have claimed that they thought it was obvious from the game. I guess Square really wanted to make it that subtle, huh?
Quote:
But I think you forget, once again, that I never intended to prove that Ultimecia is indeed Rinoa- I merely wanted to show it plausible and possible. We obviously had an entirely different view of the game, and I will never see it your way, and you will never see it my way.
Probably true.
Quote:
I have proven plenty, I have given plenty of hints, and my reasoning is justified with great reasoning and logic. I have provided my logical and in-game conclusions in previous posts which you have already admitted to have ignored, as well as in my quotes above. How about you start showing me evidence that Rinoa is not Ultimecia? I have disproved and shot down any kind of attempt you have made to fracture my arguments, so perhaps it is time you begin a different strategy. Like I stated above, I anxiously await your compilation of ‘hints’ and ‘logic’ that Rinoa is not Ultimecia. I’ve already shown you plenty of logic and evidence to which you have responded poorly, thus rendering my arguments even more valid and true. However, you yourself have failed to provide my with any of your own ‘hints’ or logic which prove that Ultimecia is not Rinoa. So far, you have merely responded to my own logic and in-game references, and yet here you claim that I have not listed any logic or in-game references. When you can learn to conduct a dialectical discussion without serious weaknesses, then perhaps you’ll be able to understand the conclusions and support behind R=U.
Answered all of this earlier.
Quote:
I have already addressed all the above questions and proved them plausible and possible. I have cited the persecution of the sorceresses; I have cited that Griever comes out of Squall’s mind and I have related this to the combination of time manipulation and the fact that Squall swore to protect Rinoa; I have repeatedly told you that the possibility of Rinoa being in stasis can surely make it possible for her to become Ultimecia in future generations.
By asking me for specific examples, you only serve to embarrass yourself most excellently. “Pray tell”? Spare me, lol, and realize once again that if the authors of the game intended Rinoa to be Ultimecia, then it is purposely made very subtle, and therefore there is nothing that can be claimed with certain definitude, especially with all the questions let unanswered at the games end. You yourself have already agreed that neither side can claim any kind of absolute proof when arguing R=U, and then you went and perjured yourself by claiming an ‘absolute plausibility’ that Rinoa was not Ultimecia. I have addressed the questions in your above quote so many times, and proven their plausibility and possibility so many times, that I wonder if you simply do not understand my words. I try to use words of medium-level difficulty, so I doubt that this is really the problem.
You once again go around one of my main arguments: The events in the game are probably not the same events that would have led Rinoa to become Ultimecia in the future. Since Ultimecia achieved time compression, she has forever altered Squall’s and Rinoa’s time, and therefore Rinoa may never even become Ultimecia anymore. Therefore, there may no evidence even available in the game beyond what I have listed. (For individuals who look upon FFVIII with a closed mind find it difficult to comprehend what I have stated).
The only product of imagination I see here is your wonderfully barren imagination closing any and all possibility and plausibility off to you when it comes to answering the questions posed by Final Fantasy VIII. You again become a hypocrite here because previously you stated that the argument of Rinoa being Ultimecia could not be definitely argued on either side, but by patronizing me here, you imply that such a theory is definitely wrong. Lol, how will we ever get to a common ground? (By the way, didn’t you accuse my previously that of acting condescendingly towards you?)
Answered all earlier on. Oh, and thank you for being so gracious as to use words of "medium-level difficulty" when explaining me things. You know with my terrible skills at dialectical arguments and inept sociological skills at that, it can get quite hard for me to follow you sometimes.
Quote:
Lol, if you do not understand the complexities of time manipulation, then perhaps you should not argue it.
Ouch. Nice one! I guess we can add an inability to grasp time manipulation to the list of my countless flaws (how on earth I managed to write that FAQ on time, timeloops and timecompression I honestly don't know...).
Quote:
It has not been pulled out of thin air at all and it is perfectly logical. The game already shows two time periods which may in fact be alternate timelines or even alternate universes.
What do you mean, they "may in fact be alternate timelines etc."? They may not be too. They may simply be the same timeline, just different locations on it. Nothing in the game indicates that multiple timelines are in play. It is an unncessary complication on your part based on nothing but your imagination. The fact that instead of actually supporting your claim with in-game events here, you go ahead and post an explanation of it (ignoring the fact that you admitted that my brief summary captured the essence). Is this really because you find me incapable of grasping your idea, which isn't nearly as complex as you think it is, or is it because the idea in fact ISN'T rooted in the game.
You cannot in any way offer any in-game examples which support your claim that multiple timelines are in action.
Quote:
I hope you can understand this, because I have studied this idea in my college classes and have discussed it many times, and honestly, I am surprised at your shamelessness that you actually choose to argue time manipulation with me when you presented your lack of knowledge on the subject in your past post, lol .
Nah, I can't understand a word you're saying. And you're right, my FAQ on time, timeloops and timecompression are obvious evidence of my inability to understand simple theories on time manipulation such as this. Thanks for taking the time to explain it for me though, I appreciate the effort.
Quote:
I never relied on the evidence of others to prove my points. I only brought in one 3rd party reference just so I can add a reflection of my ideas. I did not need the plot analysis done by Sophie Ceshire, and I most certainly do not need your FAQ, which I have seen and have concluded that I have already disproved all the points in that flawed writing.
Nice of you to state that you think the FAQ is full of flaws without actually specifying any. I'll take it all the other's who read the FAQ and found no flaws were merely not as clever as you.
Quote:
Actually, huge amounts of logical and in-game evidence, only deniable by a person whose defense foundations are being crumbled, and in a desperate attempt to salvage their remnants, they resort to stubbornness instead of admitting defeat.
Again, there is in no way "huge amounts". You mentioned no more than around 5 examples as support, and I have clearly demonstrated the flaws in them all.
Quote:
Lastly, if you think this argument is going to be over with 2-3 hour posts, then you have vastly underestimated the complexity of the issue. You previously stated that the time issue in Final Fantasy VIII was much ‘less complex’ than I was making it out to be, but with the proof of R=U’s possibility and plausibility, I hope that you see that this is not the case.
R=U doesn't make the timeline more complex, it makes it less complex, by removing any intermediate links between Rinoa and Ultimecia. The compexity you speak of is only a result of the fact that you use overly complex, unfounded ideas such as alternate timelines to explain things, when everything can be explained in a much simpler way which doesn't assume such things as alternate timelines. Read my FAQ for more.
Quote:
“Once again, we do not know the circumstances of Rinoa’s future. Another one of my theories, this one however a bit less supported in the game as the one I have placed in bold above: Rinoa may become Ultimecia and then somehow project her essence to successive generations in the future, waiting until she is powerful enough or until the circumstances are right for her to achieve time compression.
Just "a bit"? You are saying that "somehow", through some inexplicable mechanism not shown to exist in the game at all, Rinoa projects her "essence" into new sorceresses until she reaches Ultimecia. That's not at all in the game. It's merely a figment of your imagination.
Quote:
You continue to skip over my posts, only to ask for information I have already supplied (as you just did above). That’s fine by me, just know that until you answer the posts that you have not answered as of yet, I consider this argument completely mine, and what I am doing here is merely trying to guide you into the light, so to speak, lol .
Guide me into the light? Mmm, very good one. I almost fell for that one, I have to admit.
Quote:
No, your explanation of ‘hypocrisy’ being part of logic was pure malarkey, lol .
Using a word like "malarkey" doesn't excuse you from actually demonstrating in what way my explanation was gibberish.
Quote:
You say that hypocrisy is not fundamental to logic, but then you say that hypocrisy is essential to logic. This is an oxymoron, so you have either unknowingly contradicted yourself here, or you are once again being hypocritical.
It was neither. I have repeatedly explained myself in this regard, and your inability to understand it is frankly, not my problem. Your repeated statements that I am being an idiot here, without actually looking at my argument at all only makes you appear the foolish one here.
Quote:
You have no idea how ‘die-hard’ of a supporter I really am of the R=U theory, so you are once again assuming something without probably justification.
I agree, actually. You are far more 'die-hard' than I was. At least I was able to change my mind. Somehow I can't see you doing the same.
[quote]I’ll be frank with you and spare you searching through the old posts: I knew of all of those points but I only made reference to about 3, so if I led you to believe that I addressed all 8, then that is not the case.[/quote
You did say your post was "full of the same hints", so you must excuse me.
Quote:
Regardless, I did not think that these points were really much of anything too special- they all seem to be superficial and would not really sway anyone to believing that Rinoa is or isn’t Ultimecia. That is why I relied primarily on my own logical and in-game support, regarding the scenario of how Rinoa can become Ultimecia in the future.
Yet without those 9 points on your side, your claim that there is a "plethora" of support for R=U seems rather ludicrous, considering you have cited at best 5 in-game examples or so, all of which are either flawed, based on something flawed, or have much more probable alternate explanations.
Quote:
I think you’re getting a little bit too agitated over here. I already explained to you that I had not referred to all of them, and if you believed this, then you are mistaken.
Actually, you said your post was "full of them", and in fact only one out of nine was mentioned.
Quote:
Frankly, all those ‘hints’ combined would not have nearly enough power to significantly effect someone’s opinions that Rinoa is or is not Ultimecia. That is why I resorted to my own logical and in-game references, which proved to be much more effective against you.
Blah blah, this has been said a million times before, and my response is the same (I'm really sick of typing right now, you see).
Quote:
I never stated that you should trust me over them. I also never stated that I was a physicist. I said that I was majoring in physics, and both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking purport certain possibilities for time travel. As soon as I can reference the book, I’ll be happy to show it to you so you can see exactly what I am talking about.
See my edited last post for why exactly time-dilation is thought to not allow human beings to timetravel.
Quote:
I am very well aware that Einstein’s theory of relativity only allows permits time travel in the future, but you explicitly stated that scientists do not consider time travel to be possible.
This is funny. I actually made a mistake when I said that theory of relativity discusses only travel to the future, and if you read over my edited post, you'll see I've apologised for that, and altered my point as such. Yet here, you say you are "well aware" of something I said which was a mistake? Time-dilation DOES talk about travel to the past, actually. Needless to say, your knowledge on time-travelling in modern physics sounds a bit suspect now, don't you think?
Quote:
I never implied that Rinoa would acquire a faster-than-light-speed vehicle. I was merely remarking on time travel as a concept since you falsely stated that time travel in our universe is considered impossible.
Impossible for any object with mass that is (see my edited post).
Quote:
Apparent admiration of falsehead’s FAQ? Lol, where did you get that from? I was citing a third party that I thought you would be familiar with, but I never stated that had an ‘admiration’ for her FAQ. Firstly, quantum theory is not the same as quantum dynamics, and secondly, I have already conceded to the fact that falsehead has errors in her plot analysis. Therefore, since you viciously attacked her premise about R=U, why then would you also use her paper to validate a point you wanted to make? Quantum theory has little to do, as far as I know, with actual theory of time travel. If you admonish someone’s work as full of errors, why would you use it as a defense or source for your own statements, especially when you pick false statements?
Quantum theory and quantum dynamics being two different things? Right.....
Anyway though, this is irrelevant to the R=U debate, and I was foolish to bring it up at all.
Quote:
Actually, I never assumed that the FFVIII universe was identical to ours. This is something that you assumed and I responded by asking you why you would compare our universe with FFVIII’s universe so carelessly. I never introduced quantum dynamics- this was a notion that you yourself introduced when you were writing about time travel. Why would state that I introduced it? The rest of your argument in the above quote is quite preposterous, since you ascribe to me two things that I did not do: I did not assume the FFVIII universe was identical to ours and I did not introduce quantum dynamics into the argument. Both of these were introduced and supported by yourself, and if you look at the previous posts, you’ll see where exactly you wrote such a thing.
I didn't introduce that (I'm really starting to doubt if you have ever read my FAQ...), it was falsehead who did so. I brought that up then, because you stated that you thought it was "good in theory". It stands to reason then that you also approved of her use of quantum dynamics/theory (the difference is, I doubt, no more than semantical).
But again, this is irrelevant to R=U, and I'm sorry for bringing it up.
-------
There. I'm done. This is my last post here. I know I posed several questions for you, but unless you make a 180 turn all of a sudden, it is obvious that nothing will change. I have wasted far too much time on this anyway, and I'm sick of having to debate with someone who spares no opportunity to belittle me. I guess you won't mind though, considering my inept understanding of sociology, my inability to comprehend logic, my hypocrisy, my inability to grasp modern physics and all the other flaws in my character.
You can go ahead and take the last word if you want. If you want to gloat about the victory you will undoubtedly claim, be my guest, as I probably won't even bother reading your response. I stand firm in my place though, and maintain that R=U is in no way a plausible theory, and I know from experience that the only ones who were not convinced by the FAQ I co-wrote are people who won't change their mind ever. Your comparison of this argument to the existence of God and the fact that your signature calls FF8 a "religion" only serve to confirm these notions.
But as I said, please do take the time to gloat. I have school-work to do, and have no desire to waste any more hours in this thread.
Sir B.
