[004]
triassicranger
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Somebody explain to me how the PiratesOfTheCaribbean and Spiderman 3 examples were ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike? I can understand cutting the Chow Yun Fat one from the former, but I don\'t understand the rest. They looked legit to me.
to:
Somebody explain to me how the PiratesOfTheCaribbean and {{Spiderman}} 3 examples were ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike? I can understand cutting the Chow Yun Fat one from the former, but I don\\\'t understand the rest. They looked legit to me.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Somebody explain to me how the PiratesOfTheCarribean and Spiderman 3 examples were ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike? I can understand cutting the Chow Yun Fat one from the former, but I don\'t understand the rest. They looked legit to me.
to:
Somebody explain to me how the PiratesOfTheCaribbean and Spiderman 3 examples were ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike? I can understand cutting the Chow Yun Fat one from the former, but I don\\\'t understand the rest. They looked legit to me.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"If you have it, but the game doesn\\\'t give you the option to use it, one can safely assume that you just don\\\'t have the required amount.\\\"
See, that\\\'s FanWank. There\\\'s no evidence either way whether it would or wouldn\\\'t be enough. You\\\'re just using the logic of \\\"well, 1) it didn\\\'t happen, therefore 2) it could not have happened, therefore 3) the materials/abilities/mages were not enough, therefore 4) it could not have happened, therefore 5) you are wrong.\\\" Watch steps 2-4 again and you might notice the [[LogicalFallacy circular logic]] in action. Also, steps 1-2 are a [[LogicalFallacy logical non sequitur]].
Anyway, this burden of proof nonsense is being handled wrong. I\\\'m not here to prove that the scenario is \\\'\\\'right\\\'\\\', per se. I am proving that the scenario is \\\'\\\'plausible\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'possible\\\'\\\' (ie. it \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' be right) and it is because the source material doesn\\\'t properly explain away the scenarios here that the trope is an AvertedTrope. If you want my scenarios for how the lyrium could be done instead of sacrificing a person:
#The lyrium is enough and Jowan can do it by himself.
#The lyrium is not enough but Jowan can use lyrium and a non-lethal blood sacrifice and do it by himself.
#The lyrium is enough but it takes more than Jowan, but we have Morrigan and maybe Wynne which makes it enough.
#The lyrium is not enough but Jowan can do it with a non-lethal sacrifice but still requires Morrigan and/or Wynne.
None of these have been disproven. The factors are sensible enough, so there are enough routes to a plausible solution that involves using lyrium instead of killing someone or going to the Circle that you can say that there is a valid trope aversion because no such solution was brought up or mentioned.
See, that\\\'s FanWank. There\\\'s no evidence either way whether it would or wouldn\\\'t be enough. You\\\'re just using the logic of \\\"well, 1) it didn\\\'t happen, therefore 2) it could not have happened, therefore 3) the materials/abilities/mages were not enough, therefore 4) it could not have happened, therefore 5) you are wrong.\\\" Watch steps 2-4 again and you might notice the [[LogicalFallacy circular logic]] in action. Also, steps 1-2 are a [[LogicalFallacy logical non sequitur]].
Anyway, this burden of proof nonsense is being handled wrong. I\\\'m not here to prove that the scenario is \\\'\\\'right\\\'\\\', per se. I am proving that the scenario is \\\'\\\'plausible\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'possible\\\'\\\' (ie. it \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' be right) and it is because the source material doesn\\\'t properly explain away the scenarios here that the trope is an AvertedTrope. If you want my scenarios for how the lyrium could be done instead of sacrificing a person:
#The lyrium is enough and Jowan can do it by himself.
#The lyrium is not enough but Jowan can use lyrium and a non-lethal blood sacrifice and do it by himself.
#The lyrium is enough but it takes more than Jowan, but we have Morrigan and maybe Wynne which makes it enough.
#The lyrium is not enough but Jowan can do it with a non-lethal sacrifice but still requires Morrigan and/or Wynne.
None of these have been disproven. The factors are sensible enough, so there are enough routes to a plausible solution that involves using lyrium instead of killing someone or going to the Circle that you can say that there is a valid trope aversion because no such solution was brought up or mentioned.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"If you have it, but the game doesn\\\'t give you the option to use it, one can safely assume that you just don\\\'t have the required amount.\\\"
See, that\\\'s FanWank. There\\\'s no evidence either way whether it would or wouldn\\\'t be enough. You\\\'re just using the logic of \\\"well, 1) it didn\\\'t happen, therefore 2) it could not have happened, therefore 3) the materials/abilities/mages were not enough, therefore 4) it could not have happened, therefore 5) you are wrong.\\\" Watch steps 2-4 again and you might notice the [[YouFailLogicForever circular logic]] in action. Also, steps 1-2 are a [[YouFailLogicForever logical non sequitur]].
Anyway, this burden of proof nonsense is being handled wrong. I\\\'m not here to prove that the scenario is \\\'\\\'right\\\'\\\', per se. I am proving that the scenario is \\\'\\\'plausible\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'possible\\\'\\\' (ie. it \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' be right) and it is because the source material doesn\\\'t properly explain away the scenarios here that the trope is an AvertedTrope. If you want my scenarios for how the lyrium could be done instead of sacrificing a person:
#The lyrium is enough and Jowan can do it by himself.
#The lyrium is not enough but Jowan can use lyrium and a non-lethal blood sacrifice and do it by himself.
#The lyrium is enough but it takes more than Jowan, but we have Morrigan and maybe Wynne which makes it enough.
#The lyrium is not enough but Jowan can do it with a non-lethal sacrifice but still requires Morrigan and/or Wynne.
None of these have been disproven. The factors are sensible enough, so there are enough routes to a plausible solution that involves using lyrium instead of killing someone or going to the Circle that you can say that there is a valid trope aversion because no such solution was brought up or mentioned.
See, that\\\'s FanWank. There\\\'s no evidence either way whether it would or wouldn\\\'t be enough. You\\\'re just using the logic of \\\"well, 1) it didn\\\'t happen, therefore 2) it could not have happened, therefore 3) the materials/abilities/mages were not enough, therefore 4) it could not have happened, therefore 5) you are wrong.\\\" Watch steps 2-4 again and you might notice the [[YouFailLogicForever circular logic]] in action. Also, steps 1-2 are a [[YouFailLogicForever logical non sequitur]].
Anyway, this burden of proof nonsense is being handled wrong. I\\\'m not here to prove that the scenario is \\\'\\\'right\\\'\\\', per se. I am proving that the scenario is \\\'\\\'plausible\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'possible\\\'\\\' (ie. it \\\'\\\'could\\\'\\\' be right) and it is because the source material doesn\\\'t properly explain away the scenarios here that the trope is an AvertedTrope. If you want my scenarios for how the lyrium could be done instead of sacrificing a person:
#The lyrium is enough and Jowan can do it by himself.
#The lyrium is not enough but Jowan can use lyrium and a non-lethal blood sacrifice and do it by himself.
#The lyrium is enough but it takes more than Jowan, but we have Morrigan and maybe Wynne which makes it enough.
#The lyrium is not enough but Jowan can do it with a non-lethal sacrifice but still requires Morrigan and/or Wynne.
None of these have been disproven. The factors are sensible enough, so there are enough routes to a plausible solution that involves using lyrium instead of killing someone or going to the Circle that you can say that there is a valid trope aversion because no such solution was brought up or mentioned.
