Is Cid cheating on Edea?

[Ryushikaze]

And so he is a 'Tegginak.'

And so you've lost the flow of the joke.

Adel had a knight? It seems that he/she failed at protecting Adel, then. Or perhaps, she didn't have a knight the whole time.

No, Seifer doesn't count.

Adel not having a Knight is considered why she went insane and corrupted so badly, yes.

And your point being? I've never once said that they are different persons.

No, just that 'Matron' is her real name and 'Edea' isn't.

Regardless of how bad the situation is.

Yes, Squall will be there by her side even if the whole world is against her. No Squall by Ultimecia's side.
R!=U.

Please justify that that wasn't a personal attack. You're the one who called me undefined names- such names that are replaced with actual swearing words to escape the forum's rules.

'Who cares, it doesn't matter, it's just a FF' is the very reason your theories generally fail. Because they fail to account for variables they should because you don't think they are important, 'because it's just a FF'

We are arguing about VIII, not about ourselves. You have just proved how illogical your statement really is.

No, because my statement has perfect relevance. It is a quote meaning that 'Your mindset has kept you from succeeding'. Yoda, anyone?

Because Squall is the main character. If he keeps the same due to destiny, that would be boring.

But he's the one changing, not Rinoa. So how is HE less affected?

Of course, destiny can't just make them marry each other and have Cid act like 'What's happening!?'

So, in short, your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is a non starter, since their being married due to 'destiny' is no different than their being married due to love, since destiny will make them love each other.

No, I'm talking about her own spells. So, how are her spells not powerful? For example, her manifiesting ability.

Sure, these aren't powerful in terms of destiny, but ...

Manifesting ability? Possessing people with JME, you mean?

Some, but not all. Also, :rolleyes2:rolleyes2.

Interpersonal relationships are ESPECIALLY the sort of thing we can only properly understand by comparing them to real world examples.

No. They call her Matron simply because of thier memories in the past. It doesn't make Matron any different than Edea. I'm calling her Matron because I'm sided with the party.

... Even though it is completely and utterly unnecessary, and the very game itself calls her Edea?

Well, that doesn't work like that for me. Whenever I think of something in my head, I draw a visual image.

How does that change anything? So do I. But I can hold Edea at the orphanage, Edea possessed, and Edea at the end all with just one name.

I didn't start this, you know. I called her Matron and look at what happened after that.

Yes, I said her name was Edea, and you went on a crusade to justify a 'difference' of some sort between Edea and 'Matron'

If you were actually criticising my agruements, you would be saying things like 'stupid agruement', 'bad agruement', or something like that. Calling the responsible person names directly, who made certain arguements, have nothing to do with 'criticising my arguements.' In other words,



Black line is fine.
Blue line is not cool. Meh, this is the Internet after all.

If I attack your argument and then make an attack against you personally, I am still attacking your argument. No fallacy has been committed.
Interestingly, however, your diagram DOES commit a fallacy, again that of the really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking., in which you have failed to note your statements which prompted my comments towards you- based originally on your really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.ning, hilariously enough- and reducing all that I have said, the vast majority of my responses to you, in direct criticism of your theories, not you, to simply 'bad'. I have been more than patient, more than eloquent in explaining why your theories are baseless. It is only when you have said such things as 'Parsimony and logic are bad' and have really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.ned my responses or otherwise acted without intellectual honesty that such invectives have been directed your way, and not undeservedly, in my opinion.

Because I said so.

Concession duly accepted for neither explaining this incident or why it would apply were the two not married.

You have never experienced them within the game. So, please elaborate. As you recall, time travel in VIII is not exactly the same as the one time travel theory in real life.

Paradox is paradox even in a 'fixed' temporal concept.

Yet you quoted all of my text in the first place.

I know I did. I did it for the Lulz!

Keep it civil, guys. I don't want to have to start actually reading all these posts to see if you're crossing the line.

I don't think I am, but I'll try and keep my temper in check, even when he says evidence, logic, parsimony, etc. are useless and deserves wrath directed at him.

[arcanedude34]

I guess since Cid is Robin Williams, there were those things with Valerie Velardi and Marsha Garces Williams...

[Christmas]

Sometimes Serapy for you, a question like this thread topic can be answered by a simple Yes or No from you.

[crazybayman]

And let's not even talk about how much of Galbadia Edea slept with.

So THAT'S why Irvine is so confident with the ladies.

My First Sex Teacher
Starring Edea
and Irvine

[Serapy]

And so he is a 'Tegginak.'

And so you've lost the flow of the joke.

My previous statement didn't cause any loss, and therefore, I don't see how this kind of outcome supports your claim. After all, I've only spelt 'Kanigget' backwards.

Adel had a knight? It seems that he/she failed at protecting Adel, then. Or perhaps, she didn't have a knight the whole time.

No, Seifer doesn't count.

Adel not having a Knight is considered why she went insane and corrupted so badly, yes.

So, according to your logic, Ultimecia went insane because she didn't have a knight with her?

And your point being? I've never once said that they are different persons.

No, just that 'Matron' is her real name and 'Edea' isn't.

How should we feel in this instance? Come on, we can't just ignore feelings and focus on facts instead. That's utterly impossible, especially in Squall's case.

Regardless of how bad the situation is.

Yes, Squall will be there by her side even if the whole world is against her. No Squall by Ultimecia's side.
R!=U.

Cid was willing to take 'Edea' down. If Cid was Squall, I doubt he would have done the same thing. If the Wall of Destiny told Squall to kill Rinoa, I doubt he would do it either.

Please justify that that wasn't a personal attack. You're the one who called me undefined names- such names that are replaced with actual swearing words to escape the forum's rules.

'Who cares, it doesn't matter, it's just a FF' is the very reason your theories generally fail. Because they fail to account for variables they should because you don't think they are important, 'because it's just a FF'

Wait, one tiny statement can become a theory?

We are arguing about VIII, not about ourselves. You have just proved how illogical your statement really is.

No, because my statement has perfect relevance. It is a quote meaning that 'Your mindset has kept you from succeeding'. Yoda, anyone?

Arguments do not equal to actual persons. Most of all, arguments do not entirely reflect a person. So, calling names is completely irrelevant.
However, if my argument was based on ourselves, then that's a different story.

You base your knowledge on making an argument. So, how arguments and personalities/attitudes are connected is way beyond me.

My agruement is based on VIII, and your response included a criticism of my English which was completely irrelevant and unnecessary. Knowing that it's impossible to be correct at all the time, so how is getting called names if I become wrong is way beyond me. And, I cannot think of a reason how is that not illogical!

You calling me names and criticising my English as a result of you being annoyed by my responses, which is most likely to be the culprit.

Because Squall is the main character. If he keeps the same due to destiny, that would be boring.

But he's the one changing, not Rinoa. So how is HE less affected?

Destiny smashed him at the end. Fortunately, he's survived.

Of course, destiny can't just make them marry each other and have Cid act like 'What's happening!?'

So, in short, your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is a non starter, since their being married due to 'destiny' is no different than their being married due to love, since destiny will make them love each other.

Them meeting each other was the turning point and that was it.

No, I'm talking about her own spells. So, how are her spells not powerful? For example, her manifiesting ability.

Sure, these aren't powerful in terms of destiny, but ...

Manifesting ability? Possessing people with JME, you mean?

Pulling something out of some egg.

Some, but not all. Also, :rolleyes2:rolleyes2.

Interpersonal relationships are ESPECIALLY the sort of thing we can only properly understand by comparing them to real world examples.

We can relate to things such as personalities, relationships, clothes etc. We don't easily relate to things that don't exist in reality. Those things that don't exist in reality are more difficult to analyse, especially when not being told in dialogues.

No. They call her Matron simply because of thier memories in the past. It doesn't make Matron any different than Edea. I'm calling her Matron because I'm sided with the party.

... Even though it is completely and utterly unnecessary, and the very game itself calls her Edea?

Then why did the game make Squall and Co. call her Matron? These are the good guys, and I'm siding with them!

Wait a second, you said that Matron is a nurse title. That's funny, then. Squall and the party calling her NURSE NURSE... N.U.R.S.E NURRRRRRRRSEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's ok, it wasn't your fault!

Well, that doesn't work like that for me. Whenever I think of something in my head, I draw a visual image.

How does that change anything? So do I. But I can hold Edea at the orphanage, Edea possessed, and Edea at the end all with just one name.

I don't think it changes anything. On some note, though, can you teach me how to make my 'Edea' variable declare a visual image of black clothes, long hair and kind words? I would appreciate it.

I didn't start this, you know. I called her Matron and look at what happened after that.

Yes, I said her name was Edea, and you went on a crusade to justify a 'difference' of some sort between Edea and 'Matron'

You said that it was Edea, not Matron. So, what was I supposed to do then? After I replied back, then you reply back and the cycle keeps repeating.

If you were actually criticising my agruements, you would be saying things like 'stupid agruement', 'bad agruement', or something like that. Calling the responsible person names directly, who made certain arguements, have nothing to do with 'criticising my arguements.' In other words,



Black line is fine.
Blue line is not cool. Meh, this is the Internet after all.

If I attack your argument and then make an attack against you personally, I am still attacking your argument. No fallacy has been committed.

Calling me names to attack my arguments... Indirectly, yes. Directly, no.

Interestingly, however, your diagram DOES commit a fallacy, again that of the really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking., in which you have failed to note your statements which prompted my comments towards you- based originally on your really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.ning, hilariously enough- and reducing all that I have said, the vast majority of my responses to you, in direct criticism of your theories, not you, to simply 'bad'.

Better? The only difference is that I didn't call you names or criticise your English. That's why I didn't add a line from my lolbox to your lolbox.

As for the 'bad' word, your responses to my statements were negative. The 'bad' word has a negative effect too. The diagram would be huge if I added actual words.

I have been more than patient, more than eloquent in explaining why your theories are baseless. It is only when you have said such things as 'Parsimony and logic are bad' and have really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.ned my responses or otherwise acted without intellectual honesty that such invectives have been directed your way, and not undeservedly, in my opinion.

What can I say?

Because I said so.

Concession duly accepted for neither explaining this incident or why it would apply were the two not married.

I meant that if they have never met before, the answer would be obvious, wouldn't it?

You have never experienced them within the game. So, please elaborate. As you recall, time travel in VIII is not exactly the same as the one time travel theory in real life.

Paradox is paradox even in a 'fixed' temporal concept.

But the point still remains, we have never experienced them within the game. How can we know for sure?

Yet you quoted all of my text in the first place.

I know I did. I did it for the Lulz!

This thread is warranted enough to be not serious?

[Ryushikaze]

My previous statement didn't cause any loss, and therefore, I don't see how this kind of outcome supports your claim. After all, I've only spelt 'Kanigget' backwards.

Yes, and Kagnigget is a phonetic spelling of the 'ye olde' pronunciation of Knight.

So, according to your logic, Ultimecia went insane because she didn't have a knight with her?

It's highly likely.

How should we feel in this instance? Come on, we can't just ignore feelings and focus on facts instead. That's utterly impossible, especially in Squall's case.

...
You want us to IGNORE FACTS in a discussion on what someone's Real IE- Factual name is?
Oi.

Cid was willing to take 'Edea' down. If Cid was Squall, I doubt he would have done the same thing. If the Wall of Destiny told Squall to kill Rinoa, I doubt he would do it either.

Even though Squall promised Rinoa that he'd make sure she never harmed anyone. It wouldn't be this 'wall of destiny' concept you made up, which somehow some people can resist and others can forcing his hand, but his own promise.

Wait, one tiny statement can become a theory?

That is typically how it works. Though to be more precise, it must first become a hypothesis, then be tested, then be graduated to theory.

Arguments do not equal to actual persons. Most of all, arguments do not entirely reflect a person. So, calling names is completely irrelevant.
However, if my argument was based on ourselves, then that's a different story.

You base your knowledge on making an argument. So, how arguments and personalities/attitudes are connected is way beyond me.

My agruement is based on VIII, and your response included a criticism of my English which was completely irrelevant and unnecessary. Knowing that it's impossible to be correct at all the time, so how is getting called names if I become wrong is way beyond me. And, I cannot think of a reason how is that not illogical!

A criticism of your English that was not the criticism of your argument but completely ancillary to such.
And your English IS important because you need at least comprehensible English to express your concepts clearly.

You calling me names and criticising my English as a result of you being annoyed by my responses, which is most likely to be the culprit.

And now you're engaging in playing the victim and making Ad Hominems against me, making your actions just as bad if not worse than any personal attacks I made ancillary to criticisms of your arguments.

Destiny smashed him at the end. Fortunately, he's survived.

This notion does not address why if SQUALL was changing, Destiny was affecting RINOA.

Them meeting each other was the turning point and that was it.

Again, making their 'they didn't love each other, it was destiny' completely baseless and meaningless even in your own arguments.

Pulling something out of some egg.

Could you be less vague?

We can relate to things such as personalities, relationships, clothes etc. We don't easily relate to things that don't exist in reality. Those things that don't exist in reality are more difficult to analyse, especially when not being told in dialogues.

Even if this were completely true, it agrees with my assesment that interpersonal relationships are the things we can most analogize to real word relationships.

Then why did the game make Squall and Co. call her Matron? These are the good guys, and I'm siding with them!

They are children who raised her. Her HUSBAND calls her Edea. He is also a good guy.

Wait a second, you said that Matron is a nurse title. That's funny, then. Squall and the party calling her NURSE NURSE... N.U.R.S.E NURRRRRRRRSEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's ok, it wasn't your fault!

... I did not use the word 'nurse' at all, Serapy. I SAID 'Matron' is a title. It CAN be a title for a nurse, but it can be a title for women in other positions, such as police, heads of orphanages (hint hint) and other roles.

I don't think it changes anything. On some note, though, can you teach me how to make my 'Edea' variable declare a visual image of black clothes, long hair and kind words? I would appreciate it.

Why must it be taught?

You said that it was Edea, not Matron. So, what was I supposed to do then? After I replied back, then you reply back and the cycle keeps repeating.

You were acting like Matron was her name. I said Edea was her name. Matron is her title, a nickname perhaps, but only relevant in the context of her running an orphanage.

[QUOTECalling me names to attack my arguments... Indirectly, yes. Directly, no.[/quote]

No. My name calling of you is not an attack on your arguments. My attacks on your arguments are.

Better? The only difference is that I didn't call you names or criticise your English. That's why I didn't add a line from my lolbox to your lolbox.

No, not better. Because you have not been shooting down the common sense reasons why your arguments are bad, going on red herring tangents, really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.ning me, all of which is worse than a little name calling in a debate.

As for the 'bad' word, your responses to my statements were negative. The 'bad' word has a negative effect too. The diagram would be huge if I added actual words.

But you are paring it down to 'bad' instead of 'counterargument' or 'response'

What can I say?

You can start by using the common logical rules of rational discourse that you should be using.

I meant that if they have never met before, the answer would be obvious, wouldn't it?

What prevents it from working with someone else?
And even then 'had never met' is a major goalpost shift from 'if they weren't married'.
Goalpost shifting is another reprehensible debating tactic.

But the point still remains, we have never experienced them within the game. How can we know for sure?

We HAVE experienced a paradox in game. The information paradox.

This thread is warranted enough to be not serious?

This thread was intended to not be serious.

[Serapy]

My previous statement didn't cause any loss, and therefore, I don't see how this kind of outcome supports your claim. After all, I've only spelt 'Kanigget' backwards.

Yes, and Kagnigget is a phonetic spelling of the 'ye olde' pronunciation of Knight.

Thgink fo noitaicnunorp 'edlo ey' eht fo gnilleps citenohp a si teggingak dna, sey.

So, according to your logic, Ultimecia went insane because she didn't have a knight with her?

It's highly likely.

So, Adel doesn't have a knight and thereby she goes insane. You used this conclusion to claim that Ultimecia went insane because she didn't have a knight?

.

Circular reasoning at its best.

.

How should we feel in this instance? Come on, we can't just ignore feelings and focus on facts instead. That's utterly impossible, especially in Squall's case.

...
You want us to IGNORE FACTS in a discussion on what someone's Real IE- Factual name is?
Oi.

Her mindset isn't fact, though!

Cid was willing to take 'Edea' down. If Cid was Squall, I doubt he would have done the same thing. If the Wall of Destiny told Squall to kill Rinoa, I doubt he would do it either.

Even though Squall promised Rinoa that he'd make sure she never harmed anyone. It wouldn't be this 'wall of destiny' concept you made up, which somehow some people can resist and others can forcing his hand, but his own promise.

I didn't make it up. The game did. Time becomes set in stone after Squall's conversation with 'Edea' at the beginning. Everything between that timeline and the timeline when Ultimecia dies become destined.

Wait, one tiny statement can become a theory?

That is typically how it works. Though to be more precise, it must first become a hypothesis, then be tested, then be graduated to theory.

Then my tiny statement isn't a theory.

Arguments do not equal to actual persons. Most of all, arguments do not entirely reflect a person. So, calling names is completely irrelevant.
However, if my argument was based on ourselves, then that's a different story.

You base your knowledge on making an argument. So, how arguments and personalities/attitudes are connected is way beyond me.

My agruement is based on VIII, and your response included a criticism of my English which was completely irrelevant and unnecessary. Knowing that it's impossible to be correct at all the time, so how is getting called names if I become wrong is way beyond me. And, I cannot think of a reason how is that not illogical!

A criticism of your English that was not the criticism of your argument but completely ancillary to such.
And your English IS important because you need at least comprehensible English to express your concepts clearly.

You corrected some of my words. My misspelt words were already obvious enough to be acknowledged. I only missed a letter, or obvious because I put a wrong letter. So, how is that not obvious? Therefore, correcting these obvious words are not warranted enough to support your point, and thus, it has nothing to do with our arguments.

You calling me names and criticising my English as a result of you being annoyed by my responses, which is most likely to be the culprit.

And now you're engaging in playing the victim and making Ad Hominems against me, making your actions just as bad if not worse than any personal attacks I made ancillary to criticisms of your arguments.

I didn't start it, though!

Destiny smashed him at the end. Fortunately, he's survived.

This notion does not address why if SQUALL was changing, Destiny was affecting RINOA.

Who made everything become destined? That person was Squall. That's why.

Them meeting each other was the turning point and that was it.

Again, making their 'they didn't love each other, it was destiny' completely baseless and meaningless even in your own arguments.

So are your counter claims.

Pulling something out of some egg.

Could you be less vague?

Pulling Griever out of Squall's head. All of our heads are shaped like eggs.

We can relate to things such as personalities, relationships, clothes etc. We don't easily relate to things that don't exist in reality. Those things that don't exist in reality are more difficult to analyse, especially when not being told in dialogues.

Even if this were completely true, it agrees with my assesment that interpersonal relationships are the things we can most analogize to real word relationships.

Therefore, we cannot just base on our laws to analyse VIII's nonexistent things.

Then why did the game make Squall and Co. call her Matron? These are the good guys, and I'm siding with them!

They are children who raised her. Her HUSBAND calls her Edea. He is also a good guy.

As for him being a good guy is debatable. It really depends on your view on Good / Evil.

Wait a second, you said that Matron is a nurse title. That's funny, then. Squall and the party calling her NURSE NURSE... N.U.R.S.E NURRRRRRRRSEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's ok, it wasn't your fault!

... I did not use the word 'nurse' at all, Serapy. I SAID 'Matron' is a title. It CAN be a title for a nurse, but it can be a title for women in other positions, such as police, heads of orphanages (hint hint) and other roles.

See? They call her Matron for a reason.

I don't think it changes anything. On some note, though, can you teach me how to make my 'Edea' variable declare a visual image of black clothes, long hair and kind words? I would appreciate it.

Why must it be taught?

So then I'll concede to your argument.

You said that it was Edea, not Matron. So, what was I supposed to do then? After I replied back, then you reply back and the cycle keeps repeating.

You were acting like Matron was her name. I said Edea was her name. Matron is her title, a nickname perhaps, but only relevant in the context of her running an orphanage.

She no longer runs an orphanage and yet they are still calling her Matron.

Calling me names to attack my arguments... Indirectly, yes. Directly, no.

No. My name calling of you is not an attack on your arguments. My attacks on your arguments are.

How is calling someone names not directed?

Better? The only difference is that I didn't call you names or criticise your English. That's why I didn't add a line from my lolbox to your lolbox.

No, not better. Because you have not been shooting down the common sense reasons why your arguments are bad, going on red herring tangents, really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.ning me, all of which is worse than a little name calling in a debate.

Common sense and logic aren't that important.

As for the 'bad' word, your responses to my statements were
negative. The 'bad' word has a negative effect too. The diagram would be huge if I added actual words.

But you are paring it down to 'bad' instead of 'counterargument' or 'response'

LOL! Why does this diagram have to be more scientific? It looks pretty equal to me.

What can I say?

You can start by using the common logical rules of rational discourse that you should be using.

I already have done that.

I meant that if they have never met before, the answer would be obvious, wouldn't it?

What prevents it from working with someone else?

If Squall told Edea the idea of SEEDs / Gardens, and later Edea never shared it someone else (e.g. Cid), what would happen?

And even then 'had never met' is a major goalpost shift from 'if they weren't married'.
Goalpost shifting is another reprehensible debating tactic.

Them getting married or not isn't relevant.

But the point still remains, we have never experienced them within the game. How can we know for sure?

We HAVE experienced a paradox in game. The information paradox.

That's not even a paradox! I'm talking about paradoxes that blow up the whole universe!

This thread is warranted enough to be not serious?

This thread was intended to not be serious.

I'm not that cruel, don't blame me.

[Ryushikaze]

Thgink fo noitaicnunorp 'edlo ey' eht fo gnilleps citenohp a si teggingak dna, sey.

Nope. Not amusing.

So, Adel doesn't have a knight and thereby she goes insane. You used this conclusion to claim that Ultimecia went insane because she didn't have a knight?

No, it's not circular reasoning. We know Adel went crazy for lack of a knight. It's known in universe sorceresses go crazy for lack of a knight. Ultimecia is crazy AND has no knight. Hardly circular.

Her mindset isn't fact, though!

Her mindset, however, is irrelevant, regarding what her name is.

I didn't make it up. The game did. Time becomes set in stone after Squall's conversation with 'Edea' at the beginning. Everything between that timeline and the timeline when Ultimecia dies become destined.

Which A: Doesn't affect the relationship between Cid and Edea which occurred before this, and B: would affect everyone after it period, making your excuses for Cid not loving Edea utterly moot.

Then my tiny statement isn't a theory.

I know you're completely desperate to avoid having to back up all of your assertions, but theory, hypothesis, assertion, they all suffer the burden of proof.

You corrected some of my words. My misspelt words were already obvious enough to be acknowledged. I only missed a letter, or obvious because I put a wrong letter. So, how is that not obvious? Therefore, correcting these obvious words are not warranted enough to support your point, and thus, it has nothing to do with our arguments.

Hence why I called them ancillary to the actual arguments. But it's not just misspelled words, kiddo. You're nigh incomprehensible at times.

Who made everything become destined? That person was Squall. That's why.

Which, AGAIN, does not address why Rinoa, not Squall, is affected while Squall is changing.

So are your counter claims.

So now it's down to a 'I know you are but what am I' slap fest?
All my counterarguments are are pointing out gaps in your logic.

Pulling Griever out of Squall's head. All of our heads are shaped like eggs.

No they aren't, and this isn't 'pulling something out of an egg' any more than any other drawing of a GF is.

Therefore, we cannot just base on our laws to analyse VIII's nonexistent things.

But RELATIONSHIPS are not among those things, so it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

As for him being a good guy is debatable. It really depends on your view on Good / Evil.

THE GAME ITSELF calls her EDEA.

See? They call her Matron for a reason.

I never said they didn't, and acting like I did is just another really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.. My argument is simply that EDEA IS HER NAME and MATRON IS NOTHING BUT A TITLE.

She no longer runs an orphanage and yet they are still calling her Matron.

Because how do they know her from? The context of her running an orphanage.

How is calling someone names not directed?

Because it's not directed at your arguments, but the way you've been conducting yourself. Unless you're trying to say you're criticizing my counterarguments by getting mad at me 'calling you names'

Common sense and logic aren't that important.

YES THEY ARE. They are fundamental.

LOL! Why does this diagram have to be more scientific? It looks pretty equal to me.

The diagram is utterly unnecessary in the first place.

I already have done that.

No you haven't. You've even declared logic and common sense unnecessary, refuse to fulfill your burden of proof, commonly address things other than my counterarguments, and generally act in poor debate fashion.

If Squall told Edea the idea of SEEDs / Gardens, and later Edea never shared it someone else (e.g. Cid), what would happen?

Again, what keeps Edea from simply telling someone else?

Them getting married or not isn't relevant.

You previously said it was.

That's not even a paradox! I'm talking about paradoxes that blow up the whole universe!

The information paradox IS a paradox.
Not all paradoxes needs to explode the known universe.

I'm not that cruel, don't blame me.

That makes absolutely no gorram sense.

[line_genrou]

Wow...

[Rad Bromance]

I'm thinking him and Xu had something going...

[Serapy]

Thgink fo noitaicnunorp 'edlo ey' eht fo gnilleps citenohp a si teggingak dna, sey.

Nope. Not amusing.

I'm not surprised.

So, Adel doesn't have a knight and thereby she goes insane. You used this conclusion to claim that Ultimecia went insane because she didn't have a knight?

No, it's not circular reasoning. We know Adel went crazy for lack of a knight. It's known in universe sorceresses go crazy for lack of a knight. Ultimecia is crazy AND has no knight. Hardly circular.

It's not circular reasoning, how? You've used the 'universe sorceresses go crazy for lack of a knight' premise to claim that Ultimecia and Adel went crazy simply because they lack thier own knights.

We cannot just assume that, because the backstory of Adel within the game isn't widely available, let alone Ultimecia's. We do not know what happened to themselves before the events that have brought them here.

The game has shown us Adel's imprisonment. So, I firmly believe that Adel went crazy due to her imprisonment. How can anybody not to become insane after being imprisoned for a long period of time?

Her mindset isn't fact, though!

Her mindset, however, is irrelevant, regarding what her name is.

Her mindset changes when she's possessed. How is that not relevant?

I didn't make it up. The game did. Time becomes set in stone after Squall's conversation with 'Edea' at the beginning. Everything between that timeline and the timeline when Ultimecia dies become destined.

Which A: Doesn't affect the relationship between Cid and Edea which occurred before this, and B: would affect everyone after it period, making your excuses for Cid not loving Edea utterly moot.

But everything in that destined timeline cannot just appear magically or appear out of no where so that destiny can be followed. Everything before that timeline must be fixed in order to fuel the wall of Destiny.

Then my tiny statement isn't a theory.

I know you're completely desperate to avoid having to back up all of your assertions, but theory, hypothesis, assertion, they all suffer the burden of proof.

The burden of proof also lands on yourself if you want to disprove my statements. But that's irrelevant anyway, because this is not a theory. What I did was along the lines of "What could this [insert thing here] mean, and then I express my opinion." That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm asserting my opinion as fact.

You corrected some of my words. My misspelt words were already obvious enough to be acknowledged. I only missed a letter, or obvious because I put a wrong letter. So, how is that not obvious? Therefore, correcting these obvious words are not warranted enough to support your point, and thus, it has nothing to do with our arguments.

Hence why I called them ancillary to the actual arguments. But it's not just misspelled words, kiddo. You're nigh incomprehensible at times.

Thank you, sir.

Who made everything become destined? That person was Squall. That's why.

Which, AGAIN, does not address why Rinoa, not Squall, is affected while Squall is changing.

It wasn't just Rinoa that's affected

So are your counter claims.

So now it's down to a 'I know you are but what am I' slap fest?
All my counterarguments are are pointing out gaps in your logic.

That's pretty hardcore. Pointing out gaps in anybody's opinion that's about the game.

Pulling Griever out of Squall's head. All of our heads are shaped like eggs.

No they aren't, and this isn't 'pulling something out of an egg' any more than any other drawing of a GF is.

Oh?

Therefore, we cannot just base on our laws to analyse VIII's nonexistent things.

But RELATIONSHIPS are not among those things, so it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

I wasn't talking about relationships, I was talking about things such as time travel, time paradoxes and magic.

As for him being a good guy is debatable. It really depends on your view on Good / Evil.

THE GAME ITSELF calls her EDEA.

But the game itself made Squall call her Matron.

See? They call her Matron for a reason.

I never said they didn't, and acting like I did is just another really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.. My argument is simply that EDEA IS HER NAME and MATRON IS NOTHING BUT A TITLE.

I have never neglected the fact that herself is actually Edea, not Matron. I was just trying to point out why Squall and the party called her Matron.

She no longer runs an orphanage and yet they are still calling her Matron.

Because how do they know her from? The context of her running an orphanage.

They've learnt that Matron is Edea, and later into the game (especially at the ending), they still call her Matron.

They do not want to call her Edea because of what exactly happened at Deling's city.

How is calling someone names not directed?

Because it's not directed at your arguments, but the way you've been conducting yourself. Unless you're trying to say you're criticizing my counterarguments by getting mad at me 'calling you names'

That was what I was trying to say. Anything that is pointed at things other than arguments are indirected, and therefore irrelevant. Well, me replying to your counterclaims regarding English was of course irrelevant, but I didn't start it!

Common sense and logic aren't that important.

YES THEY ARE. They are fundamental.

Isn't fantasy a pleasant situation that you enjoy thinking about, but which is unlikely to happen, or the activity of thinking itself? I don't see common sense or logic in that!

LOL! Why does this diagram have to be more scientific? It looks pretty equal to me.

The diagram is utterly unnecessary in the first place.

I drew it to explain things better. It's not my fault as my English is terribly horrific.

I already have done that.

No you haven't. You've even declared logic and common sense unnecessary, refuse to fulfill your burden of proof, commonly address things other than my counterarguments, and generally act in poor debate fashion.

I already have! You're just refusing to believe them because they don't make sense in terms of fantasy.

If Squall told Edea the idea of SEEDs / Gardens, and later Edea never shared it someone else (e.g. Cid), what would happen?

Again, what keeps Edea from simply telling someone else?

If Cid was nonexistent, imagine her telling one of the kids, "Yo, let's put some seed on the garden!"

I think she was lonely. And Cid just came out of no where to save her. All hail to Destiny, respect!

Them getting married or not isn't relevant.

You previously said it was.

I wronged that word, sorry.
It's not relevant because of Destiny.

That's not even a paradox! I'm talking about paradoxes that blow up the whole universe!

The information paradox IS a paradox.
Not all paradoxes needs to explode the known universe.

I think I need to get some drink.

I'm not that cruel, don't blame me.

That makes absolutely no gorram sense.

How did this thread start from not serious to serious? I voiced my opinion in a very respectable manner and then ... all hell breaks loose!

[Ryushikaze]

I'm not surprised.

So you knew it was a bad idea.

It's not circular reasoning, how? You've used the 'universe sorceresses go crazy for lack of a knight' premise to claim that Ultimecia and Adel went crazy simply because they lack thier own knights.

I've used a previous established fact regarding how sorceresses go insane sans knights to explain why two insane sorceresses sans knights have gone mad.

We cannot just assume that, because the backstory of Adel within the game isn't widely available, let alone Ultimecia's. We do not know what happened to themselves before the events that have brought them here.

Coming from you, THAT'S the height of hypocrisy.

The game has shown us Adel's imprisonment. So, I firmly believe that Adel went crazy due to her imprisonment. How can anybody not to become insane after being imprisoned for a long period of time?

She was crazy beforehand, spanky.

Her mindset changes when she's possessed. How is that not relevant?

Because it's irrelevant to what her name factually is.

But everything in that destined timeline cannot just appear magically or appear out of no where so that destiny can be followed. Everything before that timeline must be fixed in order to fuel the wall of Destiny.

So ALL TIME is fixed, making ALL OF THIS moot.

The burden of proof also lands on yourself if you want to disprove my statements.

No it doesn't. The default claim is the only one free from the burden of proof.

But that's irrelevant anyway, because this is not a theory. What I did was along the lines of "What could this [insert thing here] mean, and then I express my opinion." That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm asserting my opinion as fact.

Then concede this as ABSOLUTELY nothing more than your opinion, and not based in the game at all.

Thank you, sir.

That was not a compliment.

It wasn't just Rinoa that's affected

So then bringing up Rinoa in the first place was COMPLETELY POINTLESS. Glad we settled that.

That's pretty hardcore. Pointing out gaps in anybody's opinion that's about the game.

You can hide behind 'opinion' all you want, but unless it's PURELY subjective, you still have to support it somehow.

Oh?

Heads are not egg shaped.

I wasn't talking about relationships, I was talking about things such as time travel, time paradoxes and magic.

Which is UTTERLY OFF TOPIC to what you FIRST BROUGHT THIS UP ABOUT, which is HUMAN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS.

But the game itself made Squall call her Matron.

And it makes the status menu, her dialogue bubbles, etc, all the impersonal, objective references to her that exist, call her EDEA.

I have never neglected the fact that herself is actually Edea, not Matron. I was just trying to point out why Squall and the party called her Matron.

And now you're shifting the goalposts. This entire bruhaha started because of you saying, AND I QUOTE "It's Matron. Edea was just a code name for her being a sorceress."
QED.

They've learnt that Matron is Edea, and later into the game (especially at the ending), they still call her Matron.

And I still call the lady who I grew up calling Gaga by the name Gaga, even though her name is Katherine.

They do not want to call her Edea because of what exactly happened at Deling's city.

Or because of habit.

That was what I was trying to say. Anything that is pointed at things other than arguments are indirected, and therefore irrelevant. Well, me replying to your counterclaims regarding English was of course irrelevant, but I didn't start it!

I love how you're trying to repeat my vocabulary now.
And your English ability is relevant, if of tertiary nature.

Isn't fantasy a pleasant situation that you enjoy thinking about, but which is unlikely to happen, or the activity of thinking itself? I don't see common sense or logic in that!

Common Sense and Logic are required to understand that fantasy, however.

I drew it to explain things better. It's not my fault as my English is terribly horrific.

Yes it is.

I already have! You're just refusing to believe them because they don't make sense in terms of fantasy.

...
...
"because they don't make sense"
Concession accepted.

If Cid was nonexistent, imagine her telling one of the kids, "Yo, let's put some seed on the garden!"

Or imagine her telling another ADULT!

I think she was lonely. And Cid just came out of no where to save her. All hail to Destiny, respect!

Or they met, fell in love, and married. Parsimony. REPRESENT!

I wronged that word, sorry.
It's not relevant because of Destiny.

You wronged more than a word, Serapy.

I think I need to get some drink.

I think you don't understand paradox.

How did this thread start from not serious to serious? I voiced my opinion in a very respectable manner and then ... all hell breaks loose!

Exactly. You gave a serious answer that made no sense.

[qwertysaur]

Cid is dreaming about the time he can have wild adventures with again

[Christmas]

Cid is dreaming about the time he can have wild adventures with again

can GIVE and TAKE! Everyone wants

[Serapy]

I'm not surprised.

So you knew it was a bad idea.

Arguing about common sense, logic, or whatever that has nothing to do with VIII was always a bad idea.

It's not circular reasoning, how? You've used the 'universe sorceresses go crazy for lack of a knight' premise to claim that Ultimecia and Adel went crazy simply because they lack thier own knights.

I've used a previous established fact regarding how sorceresses go insane sans knights to explain why two insane sorceresses sans knights have gone mad.

But that 'previous established fact regarding how sorceresses go insane sans knights' quote is considered as a conclusion. You used that conclusion to claim that Ultimecia went insane simply because she didn't have a knight. You cannot just assume that without knowing what exactly happened to Adel or Ultimecia before the game's timeline. It's still circular reasoning.

We cannot just assume that, because the backstory of Adel within the game isn't widely available, let alone Ultimecia's. We do not know what happened to themselves before the events that have brought them here.

Coming from you, THAT'S the height of hypocrisy.

I've made various claims that don't connect with each other. That is not hypocrisy. At the end, I'll evaluate and choose which one to believe.

The game has shown us Adel's imprisonment. So, I firmly believe that Adel went crazy due to her imprisonment. How can anybody not to become insane after being imprisoned for a long period of time?

She was crazy beforehand, spanky.

Still, it wasn't mentioned whether she had a knight or not.

Her mindset changes when she's possessed. How is that not relevant?

Because it's irrelevant to what her name factually is.

We are not talking about what her real name is.

But everything in that destined timeline cannot just appear magically or appear out of no where so that destiny can be followed. Everything before that timeline must be fixed in order to fuel the wall of Destiny.

So ALL TIME is fixed, making ALL OF THIS moot.

Not all.

The burden of proof also lands on yourself if you want to disprove my statements.

No it doesn't. The default claim is the only one free from the burden of proof.

Actually, it does. Because if you did that, all the arguments would have ended quickly. We are getting no where as of this moment.

But that's irrelevant anyway, because this is not a theory. What I did was along the lines of "What could this [insert thing here] mean, and then I express my opinion." That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm asserting my opinion as fact.

Then concede this as ABSOLUTELY nothing more than your opinion, and not based in the game at all.

Everything what I've said or displayed actually come from the game. The only difference is that I connected these dots together.

Thank you, sir.

That was not a compliment.

Who said I was capable of being emotional?

It wasn't just Rinoa that's affected

So then bringing up Rinoa in the first place was COMPLETELY POINTLESS. Glad we settled that.

Not technically. Zell, Selphie, Matron, etc were the first to face Squall. Rinoa is somewhere after that order.

That's pretty hardcore. Pointing out gaps in anybody's opinion that's about the game.

You can hide behind 'opinion' all you want, but unless it's PURELY subjective, you still have to support it somehow.

There's nothing wrong with being a bit creative.

Oh?

Heads are not egg shaped.

That was an analogy. Of course, they are not exactly the same.

I wasn't talking about relationships, I was talking about things such as time travel, time paradoxes and magic.

Which is UTTERLY OFF TOPIC to what you FIRST BROUGHT THIS UP ABOUT, which is HUMAN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS.

I withdrew something from the game because Cid and Edea were involved. How is that off-topic?

But the game itself made Squall call her Matron.

And it makes the status menu, her dialogue bubbles, etc, all the impersonal, objective references to her that exist, call her EDEA.

But you cannot just ignore the fact that it made Squall / Party call her Matron. I'm focusing on that fact, not the fact that her name is actually Edea.

I have never neglected the fact that herself is actually Edea, not Matron. I was just trying to point out why Squall and the party called her Matron.

And now you're shifting the goalposts. This entire bruhaha started because of you saying, AND I QUOTE "It's Matron. Edea was just a code name for her being a sorceress."
QED.

No, I wasn't. I'm on Squall's side. So, I don't see how mentioning "it's Matron" would be morally incorrect.

They've learnt that Matron is Edea, and later into the game (especially at the ending), they still call her Matron.

And I still call the lady who I grew up calling Gaga by the name Gaga, even though her name is Katherine.

So?

They do not want to call her Edea because of what exactly happened at Deling's city.

Or because of habit.

A lot of things have happened in VIII.

That was what I was trying to say. Anything that is pointed at things other than arguments are indirected, and therefore irrelevant. Well, me replying to your counterclaims regarding English was of course irrelevant, but I didn't start it!

I love how you're trying to repeat my vocabulary now.
And your English ability is relevant, if of tertiary nature.

What I withdraw from the game is always more relevant.

Isn't fantasy a pleasant situation that you enjoy thinking about, but which is unlikely to happen, or the activity of thinking itself? I don't see common sense or logic in that!

Common Sense and Logic are required to understand that fantasy, however.

Brians are not designed to automate 'common sense' and 'logic' at the same time when inside a fantasy world.

I drew it to explain things better. It's not my fault as my English is terribly horrific.

Yes it is.

No, it's not.

I already have! You're just refusing to believe them because they don't make sense in terms of fantasy.

...
...
"because they don't make sense"
Concession accepted.

They don't make sense compared to our real world. So, you cannot just use your real world laws to adapt the VIII world's laws. That would be illogical.

If Cid was nonexistent, imagine her telling one of the kids, "Yo, let's put some seed on the garden!"

Or imagine her telling another ADULT!

We only see her and the kids at certain times. And on the world map, her house looks pretty... isolated from the other buildings.

I think she was lonely. And Cid just came out of no where to save her. All hail to Destiny, respect!

Or they met, fell in love, and married. Parsimony. REPRESENT!

That is circular reasoning, because you used the 'Cid and Edea are married' premise to claim that they actually have met and fell in love. Again, we don't know what happened to them before the game's timeline. You cannot just assume that.

That's nothing to do with parsimony, too.

I wronged that word, sorry.
It's not relevant because of Destiny.

You wronged more than a word, Serapy.

Yeah, a sentence.

I think I need to get some drink.

I think you don't understand paradox.

I do. Do you?

How did this thread start from not serious to serious? I voiced my opinion in a very respectable manner and then ... all hell breaks loose!

Exactly. You gave a serious answer that made no sense.

If it made no sense, why the need to fight against it?