User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-4028641-20170305053009: Difference between revisions
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I very much would think to say that I'm "only accepting half of what you say" is not a personal attack, but it's minorly hypocritical. If I've been failing to see half of your points, then surely you've been doing the same to me? This isn't the first time I've justified many of these stances. It's not a bad thing, but you can't put this just on me somehow. | I very much would think to say that I'm "only accepting half of what you say" is not a personal attack, but it's minorly hypocritical. If I've been failing to see half of your points, then surely you've been doing the same to me? This isn't the first time I've justified many of these stances. It's not a bad thing, but you can't put this just on me somehow. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
''Treatment'' is the topic, not ''validity''. | ''Treatment'' is the topic, not ''validity''. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170222073756-4028641/20170305053009-4028641]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:49, 27 April 2023
I very much would think to say that I'm "only accepting half of what you say" is not a personal attack, but it's minorly hypocritical. If I've been failing to see half of your points, then surely you've been doing the same to me? This isn't the first time I've justified many of these stances. It's not a bad thing, but you can't put this just on me somehow.
Thefartydoctor wrote: The emphasis being on the "it must logically link to the DWU". There is no evidence for that. I'm not stupid, I know it's a multi-dimensional prison. Do you honestly think I sat in that cinema twice and never worked that out? Your link to the DWU is unfounded. It's just a leap that you seem to think is fair. Well, myself and others don't find it a fair leap. It's speculation.
Alright, let's take that away then. Let's not say it has to be connected to the DWU.
Instead, let's say "The Daleks have to be from a DWU." Confirmed by basic logic and the creator. There's little to no speculation there. Then, by logic, Daleks must have been moved there at some point by someone to the Phantom Zone. Thus the story is connected to the DWU.
And when it comes to if the game's narrative makes sense, you are making the mistake of focusing on the game play (the very thing that makes the story invalid only on this wiki) instead of the in-game story (the only thing in the game that's meant to "count" towards the narrative and thus the events within the franchise). There is no logical reason not to discuss the game when it comes to how the franchise treats the DWU when it is the biggest example of such. It is an obvious precedent of the treatment of the DWU, and excluding how the developers included context and information feel like a technicality.
Treatment is the topic, not validity.
