(04-17-2015, 05:14 PM)Gegenji Wrote:(04-17-2015, 04:56 PM)Kayllen Wrote: My involvement in this part of the conversation stems from the notion that certain ideas can be uttered as fact without any real evidence or proof and others just sort of hit the ground running with it which, ironically, would then cause a sort of bandwagon mentality wherin someone who comes in and doesn't observe what has been asserted to be fact doesn't acknowledge it and is then questioned, derided, or even belittled for not being on said bandwagon. That's where I have umbrage.
And herein lies the crux of my issue with your argument. In no way has anyone stated that these matters are the "truth." Feasible? Yes. Likely? Possibly. However, at no point have they said "this is the truth, that is how it is."
Your involvement, on the other hand, seems to consist entirely of saying "well, it doesn't SAY that anywhere, so it is not only not true, it's also unfeasible and unlikely." You're effectively denying any attempt to "bend" the lore for entertainment purposes. These are not concepts that are being toted as reality - just feasibilities that people thought could be interesting to play their character from. If it does not explicitly state it in the lore, you cannot have a character that runs with this idea without providing evidence that fits your criterion.
Meanwhile, you do not stand on the opposite point. You don't provide evidence to why it couldn't be, only demand evidence why it could. Your "we don't really know" platform does not hold water, because just as we don't know whether the possible idea is true... we also do not know if it's untrue. So, if you are going to shoot down someone's ideas for bending the lore, at the very least you need to provide your own evidence as to why it can't be that way.
What you do not do is lay the job of providing evidence solely in the hands of your opponent. That is not debate - your counterpoint should consist of evidence as to why their idea is wrong or unfeasible, not lay it on your opponent to provide evidence for every little nitpick you throw while you yourself remain unassailed. "We don't know" is not a valid counterpoint.
If an idea sounds feasible enough, other people might run with it. To the point that it becomes a sort of understood fan-rule, but it is just that - fan-created. It is not truth and can be destroyed with properly provided evidence in the game or from the creators otherwise. Of course, you are right in that people should not be shamed into thinking that this fan-ruling is the actual truth and derided for not agreeing with it. We are not the role-play ruling body, nor will we ever be.
However, I'm going to assume (and possibly wrongly so!) that you mention that point because that is how you feel you are being treated in this thread. However, I posit that it's not because you disagree with the fan-theory, but that you put forth the image that you outright deny it utterly and demand that those who follow it provide evidence as to exactly where it's stated in game this exists (which it doesn't, because it's fan theory). Meanwhile, as mentioned, you do not provide any similar in-game evidence as to why the fan theory couldn't be... because it's in the hands of your opponent to provide all the evidence while you have to don't have to do more than shake your head and say "no no no." I believe that's where the anger and irritation comes from.
You're incorrect. Making assumptions is what got you here, in the first place. I'll state again that when you make a claim of $thing the burden of proof is on you. That's just how discussion works. I'm not standing here, as you acerbically put it, saying 'nonono', I'm stating that categorically none of you have proven the existence of systemic cultural racism (or discrimination, for Warren) and until that changes no one has any real reason to just listen and believe when you say that it is so and that that is the canon truth, asserted or stated.
I don't need to stand on the opposite point because A: it would be ridiculous for me to argue a point with no proof, and B: knowing that said argument has no proof and that plenty of you seem to be arguing among the stance of devil's advocate' I therefore don't need to make the argument on behalf of the opposing side as that is already being done.
Quote:What you do not do is lay the job of providing evidence solely in the hands of your opponent. That is not debateÂ
Actually!
My counterpoint is the lack of evidence in your case. That's all I need to prove my point which as stated several times now, as there is no evidence of $thing we cannot assume $thing is factual. You assertion that this somehow is a reflection of me telling people what they can and cannot do with their pretendy fun times is an ignorant one, as well. But I already covered that in my previous post and don't need to rehash it again.
my 'treatment' in this thread is irrelevant, otherwise. If you're asking for my honest and personal opinion then I can give it but as it hasn't been asked I don't feel the need to divulge it.
