Is Cid cheating on Edea?

[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.