Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 4tran
Does this look even vaguely like my argument, or is it just a blatant strawman? It doesn't help your position that you tried to reword your original synopsis of my argument to "She's smart and capable because she wound up winning and being so...So apparently she always was (Eventhough there's almost nothing to support this in character progression but the final outcome)" as if that's what you said to begin with.
|
This is STILL what you arguable believe so what's the difference?? (Yes that's rhetorical)...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WDness
You're basically telling me whatever winning course her character had taken she would have been capable of this because she's Lacus Clyne
|
You agreed with this, sheeesh...Obviously you believe she's really intelligent as you've stated countless times (I mean we do have a history of debating stuff so do I have to spell out everything I know about your opinions?)...So is she smart because we have valid evidence of her smarts, or is she smart because in the end she wins and winds up being smart?
My equation:
She's "capable" + She wins = Assume she's really smart
It was just a microcosm on your philosophy of evaluating this character...Which is purely mathematical...Which is why you continue to out-smart yourself...
You believe the ends justify the lack of coherency in the means when it comes to Lacus and everything you say just about supports this...
I know this isn't one of my stronger comebacks, but man you're losing it...I'd very much like the audience members to explain to me what the hell is going here...We need a
medium here...I don't think another breakdown of your anal over-analysing will make this debate blossom...I await some other reactions to this somewhat bizarre discussion we are having...Other members if I've gone off the deep end please throw me one of those donut-shaped things...