And you are adamant about yours. I'll give you that much.
Thank you.
.....
.........
.............
Habanero, you want to say something here? I'm pretty sure Morbid's calling you an idiot.
I'm not arguing that "two circumstantial events" can't be a pattern. I'm saying (and what has been MY main point this entire ****ing thing that you cannot seem to comprehend) is that the pattern you keep jacking off to doesn't exist. Melee had only 1 "retro" while Brawl had 2.
The only "pattern" is that there's been at least one revival in the two games, which I ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED. However, it tied into my 2nd main point (the one you keep saying you agree with but still ***** at me for your own failure to grasp the first point) in that patterns don't dictate the future. Which I'm not convinced you actually agree with, since according to you, we're likely to get 2 "retros" just because Melee and Brawl did (when only Brawl did; pretty sure not even you can argue that one time, a pattern does not make).
No. That is not what I said, find me my quote that says that. You misinterpreted what I typed. You will find that I don't edit my posts after you respond to them, so it shouldn't be a problem.
Spouting off the same bull**** hundreds of times does not make it not bull****.
I can say the same thing about what you are posting, it is very circular. I think you have brought up most of these points already. I refuted them to the best of my ability (which doesn't necessarily mean I refuted them).
Because you fail at Devil's Advocate.
I think I am pretty good at it. I actually convinced you that I was for one side of the argument even though I am neutral. I am actually more on your side, I do not think that pattern is significant. I do not even think Sakurai is aware of it. So I am pretty damn good at it.
Funny that you bring up questioning your sanity, since with all the contradictions you make, it's any wonder why I still try to butt heads of logic with you.
First you say we're likely to get 2 retros because of a fabricated pattern, now you say you don't think it's going to happen just because of the same fabricated pattern. Just....what?
Please... name one contradiction I made. Just one. It has to be an actual contradiction, not something that you assumed I meant. I never stated that we would get two characters based on a fabricated pattern. I do not want to torment you by asking you for proof, but I am going to need the quote where I stated that.
Wait a minute....why would you even claim the "2 retros" pattern exists, if you don't even consider "the latter half" to be "retro"?
This is a true logical fallacy right here, because by all means, you shouldn't even believe in the pattern since it goes against what you believe!
MORE contradiction!
What logical fallacy is that? Which one? I call them historical characters and they are implied retros. That is what most reasonable people interpret them as.
Since you want to bring a religious example later into the argument, I'll use it too.
You are the same as an atheist that argues in favor of God's existence.
Hahahahahahahahahhaha. That is humorous, because I am always on the fence about something? That statement is more erroneous than you could possibly know. It is true that I do not necessarily feel to adamant about much in regards to a video game. However, I am fairly certain that I intend to convince you that a pattern exists (which will never happen because you don't know what a pattern is).
Just as a final note, because that appears to be all that you read. I agree with you; however, I can put my opinion aside for objective fact (there is a pattern). What we do with that is up to our discretion, it is your prerogative to believe it is bull****, and it is up to the guy I was defending to believe what he wants to believe. You have no evidence to support your claim, just opinion based on evidence (which is circumstantial evidence or empirical evidence at best).
You know, it's
heavily hypocritical to claim my statement as "just an opinion based on circumstantial evidence", while claiming
your "pattern", which is nothing but an opinion of yours based on circumstantial evidence (that isn't even accurate) as an objective fact.
When will the contradiction end?!
A pattern can be two, my evidence would have to be the notion that Ice Climbers and G&W/ROB and Pit are in the game. Secondly, I do not need evidence, I am not asserting a claim. That is not how it works. The only evidence I need, is to show that there is a pattern. This is a case of res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself).
Sakurai
never said that. You can't even
paraphrase it that way.
Here we go with the "Sakurai is god" mentality! We cannot possibly understand what Sakurai's direction is because he is so beautiful and in charge of everything. You can paraphrase it however you went in a reasonable context. I suppose heavily implying a revival cannot possibly be interpreted as the inclusion of a new character. That isn't logical at all. He could be talking about a stage or something!
What he said was that he planned on doing his best to breathe new life into older characters through Smash Bros., and that he's fortunate for the opportunity.
That doesn't mean there without a doubt will be one. Just that Sakurai is interested. Which is nothing new.
And nice copout, by the way. "If you don't accept my bull**** no matter how many times I fling it at you, I quit!" I actually wish people would do that more often; saves me the displeasure of having to
make them stop trying to feed me their bull.
You will get a kick out of this. You antagonized me, so you have another fun post to respond to. If you so choose, that is. If you don't want to, I can completely understand, I wouldn't want to either. Once you realize we should have agreed to disagree 2 days ago, you realize how pointless this argument is. I have a feeling that we both have misconceptions about each other. Nevertheless, let us continue our chronicles.
"There is a pattern because I say so! Who cares if it's one that goes against what I believe and doesn't hold together, it
exists damn it!"
Irrelevant to the point.
No one's arguing the feasibility of it, especially since through evidence (not patterns), we know Sakurai is fond of reviving classics for the modern age.
What
is being argued is the whole concept of the "pattern" being reason it's going to happen, which you flip-flop about.
I do not flip-flop. My premise has always been the same. I do not think the pattern means anything, I merely acknowledge that there was a pattern. That isn't even the debate, you are just changing the premise so that it is easier for you to argue.
Yet even
more contradiction!
So, you claim that there being a pattern is objective fact and are going ape**** because I say there isn't....yet claim patterns are subjective and dependent on the individual?
Make up your ****ing mind; you can't have it both ways.
The pattern is objective, two components can make a pattern. The interpretation of the pattern is subjective. There is a difference. I suppose since you blantanly disregard the definition of a pattern, I will go ahead and quit. That is all I am arguing, if you don' t see the overt pattern, that is not on me.
But-but patterns r subjective n dependent on the individual...
With all your accusations of me not understanding what a pattern is, this is rather ironic.
If I don't be an ignorant sheep that blindly follows a false pattern, I'm not following an alternate pattern, I'm following
no pattern at all.
You just don't acknowledge the pattern that you are following.
I also
love the subtext with this. "It's ok to choose one pattern and dismiss another if people follow that pattern as a group! If you don't follow the group, then woe to you!"
I don't really care which group you are in, I am attempting to convey that you have a narrow mind-set. I am guilty of it as well, the main point is that following only one path will get you to one place. I like to try and remain objective, if and when something happens, I can claim I was a part of it. That is why I never really put my cards on the table, I like proceeding to be more ambiguous. I don't want to do this, but I have to for the sake of a good example. It might be objective fact to me that I am going to to get of the wheel (samsara) in Hinduism; however, by blatantly disregarding all other religion, there is a chance that I might be a part of the wrong one. That is a struggle many people deal with. So same thing, if there are two retro characters, you would be wrong and I might question your intelligence, if I am (arbitrarily) wrong and there are not two retros (despite not being what I am debating at all) I would look quite stupid.
Because two ****ing posts is "like crazy".
Only thing "like crazy" about this whole thing is you, MorbidContradiction.[/quote]
I am sorry, I stopped reading after the quoted portion. That notion is antithetical. This is why you can't comprehend what I am saying.
I am not arguing that red cant be considered a color, I am saying that red isn't a color. That is essentially what you just stated. I am not calling Habanero an idiot, I am saying that you are unintelligent and the only reason he could possibly agree with such fallacy ridden logic is because he likes you more. If he blantantly tells me that he agrees with the above quote, I will put him in the same category that I just put you in.
I just read a the last portion of your argument, I think it is funny that you don't think you are following a pattern. Sakurai is unpredictable for the sake of being unpredictable, hence you are following a pattern. I know the premise is difficult to grasp. It is true though.
As for the editing, you did it on 4 or 5. I am not sure your reasons on the other ones. The two were the only ones edited to the extreme. I was arguing qualitative or quantitative though. You doubled the length of one post and completely changed the context and meaning of another (both after I responded as a feeble attempt to make yourself sound feasible). A logical fallacy is a fallacy, you cant expect me to sit there and take a strawman fallacy. That is absurd.
You just interpret what Sakurai said differently, you cannot necessarily take the literal meaning when we don't understand the primary context. We already know the conversation was filtered to Smash, so it is up for speculation. I never directly stated that is what Sakurai intends to do, I implied it, which is rational. If you honestly think that there will not even be one retro character, you had better be prepared to be disappointed. There WILL be a retro character.
The only thing contradictory about me is that I stated I wouldn't respond. I couldn't help it though, not like you didn't beg me to, this is a circular argument and I can keep it up all day by re-stating the same points I made before (just like you). I have a serious question to ask you, I am not asking this in a derogatory way, I am not attempting to be pretentious, but how old are you? You have a job, that scares me (it doesn't really, there is no way you would question objective fact with an innate subjective nature to my face, or anyone's... the internet is truly a wonderful thing). It is a serious question though, I showed my sister a portion of this argument (the one we had 2 or 3 days ago that has devolved into ad hominem) and she wanted me to ask you. I predicted you were in your tweens, she said that you were too intelligent, I actually agreed. It is difficult to maintain any significant respect that I once had though. Not because you are being an asshole. I am an asshole. Mostly because you have the audacity to call me a contradiction. That is beyond hypocritical.
To summarize my point... again. A pattern exists
Regardless of any relevance or significance, regardless of whether it was Sakurai's intent, and regardless of whether or not it can be interpreted objectively.
If Little Mac was here, this would be THE definite SSB roster to me.
.
