Except I'm on the side of the negative assertion. To draw my favorite analogy, say I am telling you of the existence of spacewhales, but all of my "evidence" has a truly much more mundane explanation. In this case, I, the positive assertion need more evidence to support my extraordinary claim. You, the negative assertion- of not believing in spacewhales- are the priveliged on, since if I cannot show any, or enough to properly support my position, your position of skepticism is favored by default.Originally Posted by Pharoh Amon Khan III
But... Isn't that what you're doing? Why can't people just share POVs instead of saying their's is 'what actually happened' or 'your POV is ridiculous' compared to mine. As you said, it's reasonable, but BOTH are reasonable. There's no need to reasonable arguement here accept intolerance. Remember how we discussed "Eden"?
Gonna have to kibosh that and tell you that when I saw it, I thought he was at most comatose, and was just passed out from sheer exhaustion.Actually, I was only kiboshing your 'everyone' statement. I recognize this is how I saw the scene, both initially, and after examining the scene. As for no more supporting evidence, no, but, and this is not to be rude, but my side of the argument has fewer terms that need to be supported. The 'death' side must call forth a hitherto unexpressed power of Rinoa's, explain why Squall is not becoming pallid as corpses do, and perhaps a few other terms. My side must merely explain squall's nonmovement, and now his apparent nonbreathing, thanks to MJN, though I don't really think that casual breathing has ever been visible in the FMVs, even during FF7AC.Again, that's just YOUR secular POV on the scene. Others have theirs. Your view is NOT superior to those that are different and does not give you the right to say other views are wrong or put a "Kibosh" on anything. You have no more supporting evidence than they do for this scene in a fantasy. There are those who will say they thought he was 'dead' versus 'fainted'. It doesn't matter. There's no need for opposition.
On this case, I will agree with you. There is not a satisfactory explanation for TC's resetting. Where I disagree is granting them nonzero validity.I don't even want to get into that, but that's why I think it's time we let bygone's be bygone's about this. Some say hallucination, some say Time Compression Unravelling, some say Squall trying to find something to hang onto to escape Time Compression... I find that none are superior to the other only 'favorable'. And for some reason because people have different views of the interpretation of this event they argure or 'debate' with others that disagree with their favorable conclusion. It's gotta stop. Let them see/be what they see/be.
Let's use the sun for this example. Let's go back in time before we figure out what it is. Someone says the face of a god. Someone says a giant glowing rock. Someone says a celestial fire. All of these claims have zero validity. And even if someone stumbled on the right answer in guessing, he too would have zero validity until such a time as he could support his position logically and empirically.
Actually, I quote/reply because it is the most efficient method of addressing everyone's points.AGAIN, that's just YOU and so many others that have different interpretations. C'mon, Ryu, you know exactly what I meant when I made that statement, so now you're just lumping yourself against a poor generalization I made; but you know exactly what I meant. Not ALL see it the same way. They don't see it the same as you or me! But there's no reason to go about cutting up people's statements with quotes just ot outright REJECT their ideals. And that's what still all you're doing. You're not posting original statements, just direct rejection responses to parts of a post.
And you are fully entitled to do that, just as I am fully entitled to my method.As you see, this is the first in a long time I've done the "Quote Qwazy" with you because I find it ridiculous and the discssion gets convoluted.
Bottomline: I've tried to summerize the views of all people that I've read that have different views and give fair view point to their reasons why.
I would appreciate it if you were to just make a post explaining your view on the scene; we already know that you don't agree with whatever anyone else says, but we DON'T know what you DO agree with... We don't know your view point.Well, there are other ways to put them, but most of them are rather verbose, or at least incredibly clunky. I'll try though.And, I'm asking you try to refrain for the over-usage of over-priced words such as "parsimonious" and "Occam's Razor"... I'm sure there's some other layman's terms you can use that others will understand. I know you're gonna say that "these are proper terms for a debate". But...
2. You can not have a discussion if we're not speaking the same language.[/quote]1. This is NOT a 'debate; this is a disucssion.
Well, they do apply to any sort of logical exchange of ideas (in which case the difference between debate and discussion rapidly becomes one of formality, and I've been using the term debate loosely anyways). You do, however, have a valid second point.
Firstly, parsimony has nothing to do with majority (which is what I am inferring from your mock quote of me), but rather the removal of all unnecessary terms in order to find the explanation which can work without any unnecessary assumptions. From that follows secondly, that as a matter of what each theory claims, mine has fewer assumed terms (hasty judgements) compared to the competing (death, revival, and if you're inserting the last bit, additional time travelling). Now, your theory could be correct, but without the additional evidence to determine it so, one should rationally default to a theory with fewer terms, if not the negative case entirely.See? There you go again. You're only speaking in favor of the interpretation of your choice and claiming it more acceptable than any other. How can you say that? I mean, really, You don't support it with a view point other than "It's what the majority of everyone else believes as well so there! No shut up with your ridiculous theories."
Well, the only thing the Neocon and I share in this case is the negative position. We can present more than enough evidence to crush the neocon's position. In this case, he is being willfully ignorant. I can and will change my stance if you can show me empirical evidence of your point. It's like being skeptical of ID. They can't show evidence to support their position, so we don't consider it. They show us evidence, we consider it, examine it, and determine if we need to revise our stances.For me, that's like a Neo-Con saying that racism doesn't exist or things were much better back in the 'old days'. It's narrow-minded.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.I don't see how breaking down the scene is going to 'add' anything. It's simple, he fainted or died, died and came back to life, whatever... It's fantasy; it's possible. Why can't people leave it at that? It's fantasy stop argueing amongst each other about how it ends.
Granted, there are many things which cannot be determined, such as matters of preference, or subtle variations in the eye causing different colors. Of course, those differences of perception do not change what is actually there, such as the wavelength of what we call 'seagreean'. I seek to find the wavelength, the thing that is actually there, in FF8. Why? Cuz it's kinda fun.Tomato/Tamato; Sky-Blue/ Sea-Green; Purple/Violet; Taste Great/Less Filling.
We're all color-blind and we gotta live with that. Some of just don't see all the same colors of the rainbow/spectrum.
I find quote/reply efficient both for myself and for readers. ::shrug::It doesn't quite seem like it... More like you're constantly referring to "Squall Stands With Rinoa" scene. We know this... It's just questionable that as he's lying there he seems to have died... or fainted. Either or. This is why it's most likely best if you POST instead of "add reply"/"quote"...
And no, while that scene is referenced as prove that Squall lives in the end, my question now is whether or not Squall ever died before this point.
I admit to being ridiculous. I happen to find it useful for highlighting a point.Now you're just being ridiculous, :p and just so Christmas will not 'Deck My... uh,...Halls' :p I'll agree with that Pupu statement.
It's not the point of view I have issue with- for example, you can like or hate Rinoa all you like- it's different views of events.I see your reason for this, but I don't understand... Why does it seem so wrong that people have a different POV when their's nothing to support either side?
And that, by the way, was a very subtle, and no doubt well intentioned golden mean fallacy. Not all claims are equal.
The point is actually that we have no direct evidence of what happened between that scene and the garden party. However, we also have no evidence for anyone being able to teleport at will, and direct evidence that neither person can (EX: the ragnarok), so assuming that they teleported home, rather than having it swing around, or walking there, or taking the Ragnarok, or something, is not a reasonable assumption to make.And I know you mean to use the statement "It's safe to assume that Balamb Garden swooped by and picked them up." as a reference to your point of how 'ridiculous' these parsimonious and unfounded claims are made... Here comes the sarcasm: "There's no evidence that Balamb Garden picked them up so it's much have been teleoportation". C'mon, Ryu, you know exactly what I mean. I'm just saying why are people argueing that their version is better than their version. Oy!
I suppose it can be summed up as "When in doubt, be mundane"
Idunno... destroying time to get yourself nookie? It's definitely at one end of the spectrum, the only question is which.No, that would be Dr. Odine... G.W. Bush running second... Laguna is dead last.
It's not really about seeing it differently, it's about supporting your view with empirical backing. And, as a reductionalist, shaving away all but the simplest viable explanation.Well, even fantasy should be internally consistent.You do realize you're talking about fantasy, right? I don't see the point of an arguement here...
Well, I can sympathize with them, as a cynic and a goer of action movies, I never doubt the ability of a person to 'not die' somehow, at least until I see the body. Of course, I tend to hold such things in a schroedinger state, neither dead nor alive until such a state can be proven, though given the conditions of a 'death' I may favor one or the other.Let's take the movie "Crank" for example. Guy, does some amazing things and survives impossible odds... But even at the end some people left the theatre claiming that *SPOILER* that he lived.[
If you've seen the movie... Well, you can see why I wasn't gonna support this idea... I don't think he lived... But... Let them believe what they wanna. They didn't want their hero to die. They wanted their happy ending... I'm thinking: "... Ah, let 'em eat cake."
Of course, this is a different matter, though. Is not the point of a discussion such as this an attempt to come closer to the empirical truth, such as it can ever be in a video game? If not, it is simply fanfiction.
Not Kentucky Fried Chocobos?An even strong example was Future Esthar... His theories were extremely... uh... different, but when he wasn't explaining himself I asked him to... I never outright rejected his statements. I asked him to explain and refer to his source/inspiration so we can all see where he was coming from... When he couldn't do that... Well... Let 'em eat cake.
And I want his empirical backing for said POV. I have no problem with FE fronting a different version of FF8. I have an issue with him fronting said version nearly entirely devoid of support.I mean, let this guy post whatever he wants, no matter how strange it is... Something might come out of it. I just want to get his POV, no argue with him.
I can't disagree with that sentiment, though I do think if you're trying to tell people you've found the truth of the game, you should be consistent with it.And that's what I think everyone should do... It's just fantasy. Have fun with it.
I'll do so in a bit. There's too much of your post to simply reply to. I think we'd both get lost if I did so.Please post instead of reply/quote. I wanna understand where you're coming from perspective wise...
Sure, why not. Go go.
Reply With Quote