Theory A theory about why Scootaloo has trouble flying

Ganondox · August 23, 2017

10 hours ago, Jedishy said:

Let's see you can see signs of neglect eh? How about developmental issues? ( A pegasi that can't fly ) and clear psychological ones ( No pony ever told her she could be the best at anything and she would kill to have a particular set of parents) and neglect does not mean you dont go to school. I grew up in an uber neglectful home and went to school for a sense of normalcy and connection that I failed to get at home.

Just because you can't see what others do and operate from terrible "facts" and misconceptions does not make others wrong. Oh and need more proof for my theory? What that she has physical or psychological issues? Funny I dont even think she is an orphan I just see how others could. Please read the things that are posted if you are going to use them as counter points.

If you could make your disagreements civil and not treat others poorly I would not even have bothered to respond. But if you not only treat others badly but do it using really bad logic and faulty facts its just too easy to shoot your ideas down. Civility goes a long way and anger clouds your judgement young skywalker

Those are not the signs of neglect. Scootaloo does NOT have normal psychological problems, I study abnormal psychology and I safely say her emotional struggles are entirely within the normal range, and if Scootaloo's developmental problems where the result of general neglect they wouldn't be localized to her ability to fly. Here are the actual signs of neglect: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/tc/child-maltreatment-symptoms#1 I don't think you actually lived in an uber neglectful home, you just don't have sense of scale for what severe neglect actually looks.

I could say the same about you, you've provided no external evidence to support your arguments, and you've failed to acknowledge my actual argument, which is that it's by default MUCH more likely that she isn't an orphan than that she is one because the overly whelming majority of foals are not orphans, therefor I don't need evidence to show that the null hypothesis is more likely than a contrived theory. You also seem to be frequently confusing evidence with proof, evidence just needs to show something is more likely, not that it's the only possible explanation. "Please read the things that are posted if you are going to use them as counter points." Haha, says you.

My disagreements were civil until you decided to go on the war path, all the contention is within your own head. Your logic is the bad one, because you're making fundamentally faulty assumptions about my argument.

10 hours ago, Mind Scape said:

Shame on me? So it's wrong to admit that I was wrong about something and changed my thinking to something more reasonable? That's the only reason why I edited my post. Not to make you look bad.

It's poor e-etiquette to remove content that people have already responded to as it confuses new readers to the conversation, and when you modify your original post without just making additions you are doing such. By removing the content in which you were wrong, you are essentially attempting to hide the fact you were wrong in the first place, even if that wasn't your intention. Doesn't matter if your intentions were good if the bad effect is still there.

Jedishy · August 23, 2017

59 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

Those are not the signs of neglect. Scootaloo does NOT have normal psychological problems, I study abnormal psychology and I safely say her emotional struggles are entirely within the normal range, and if Scootaloo's developmental problems where the result of general neglect they wouldn't be localized to her ability to fly. Here are the actual signs of neglect: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/tc/child-maltreatment-symptoms#1 I don't think you actually lived in an uber neglectful home, you just don't have sense of scale for what severe neglect actually looks.

I could say the same about you, you've provided no external evidence to support your arguments, and you've failed to acknowledge my actual argument, which is that it's by default MUCH more likely that she isn't an orphan than that she is one because the overly whelming majority of foals are not orphans, therefor I don't need evidence to show that the null hypothesis is more likely than a contrived theory. You also seem to be frequently confusing evidence with proof, evidence just needs to show something is more likely, not that it's the only possible explanation. "Please read the things that are posted if you are going to use them as counter points." Haha, says you.

My disagreements were civil until you decided to go on the war path, all the contention is within your own head. Your logic is the bad one, because you're making fundamentally faulty assumptions about my argument.

6

Really you are going to call me a liar about my home life growing up. Ok bubba. Never mind that your so called knowledge of abnormal psychology is belayed by your inability to use spell check. But lets continue. It would help if you didnt post a link that gives evidence to what I have been saying

Slower Developmentally: Does not show the same abilities and skills normally found in children her age.( It is a fact that if a child is not played with enough to gain fine motor skills they can indeed only have issues in that area. Hence neglect of a need via not having parents to show her how to fly)

Unusual Interaction with parent: The parent may not be interested in the child. ( You mean like the sort that would leave a young child desperate for a mentor or parental figure as shown by several statements and actions taken by Scoot)

Mental health problems Low self-esteem ( Oh you mean like no pony ever told her she could be special/the best)

In short, you kill your own argument. I mean really if you had any knowledge of abuse or neglect you would know that kids are GREAT at hiding it. I hide it for a long time from teachers because I was clever. Just because you lack the imagination to see what is there to provide the hints does not mean others are so lacking. Further, you failed to be civil in the first post I quoted. You are just an angry person that can't manage to form an argument you dont already defeat. If you were not trying so hard I'd suspect trolling.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Jedishy

ZethaPonderer · August 23, 2017

While this seems like an interesting catfight of a debate. All for a fictional pony that may or may not fly. I'll just leave my 2 cents throughout this as an Arbiter.

@Ganondox, You made your point about your last statement to Mind Scape since that is a valid point. An etiquette should be established to edit comments otherwise it feels like the intention is misplaced and people will get a paranoid feeling that the person is hiding something by editing their comments. But, for the rest of your arguments against Jedishy, its uncalled for on your end to be unnecessarily mad at a topic where people are just theorizing about a fictional pony that may or may not FLY :lol: .

As for @Jedishy, I'm sorry that you grew up in such a harsh and sometimes unforgiving environment. You have my sympathy and hope you make a full recovery from this. If what you say is true of your status as an orphan, then hope you find your real parents IF they're still alive out there and figure out the rest of your past. I've seen many orphans in my days and they behave exactly the way you describe. Most of them are good at hiding their pain.

As for this OT, it doesn't matter to me if Scootaloo may or may not fly. I know of a rumor where Lauren Faust wanted to create a physically disabled character in the show, but Hasbro thought it would be too dark to portray it so they changed it. Seems plausible, but still a rumor nonetheless. Nevertheless, it just makes Scootaloo the most interesting side characters other than Trixie Trump and Starlight Putin.

Edited August 23, 2017 by ZethaPonderer
Grammatical Errors on the first paragraph. Fixed... Somewhat.

Jedishy · August 23, 2017

Just now, ZethaPonderer said:

As for @Jedishy, I'm sorry that you grew up in such a harsh and sometimes unforgiving environment. You have my sympathy and hope you make a full recovery from this. If what you say is true of your status as an orphan, then hope you find your real parents IF they're still alive out there and figure out the rest of your past. I've seen many orphans in my days and they behave exactly the way you describe. Most of them are good at hiding their pain.

I never intended to imply I was an orphan. I said my home was neglectful a pretty important difference. I was in a home that was neglectful and abusive. Outside of foster care for a few years, I have never been away from my mother. Sorry if I was unclear here.

Violet Bookish · August 23, 2017

13 hours ago, Ganondox said:

It's not a theory of his, it's a dumb fandom meme. I don't care about his personal theory about the flight, I'm denouncing the fandom meme, and until you get that your response to my comment is completely irrelevant. People have been going on about it forever and it's always been a stupid theory. We haven't seen most ponies parents (especially before this season), so the notion that means it's plausible she's an orphan is ridiculous. It's like saying it's plausible Celestia poops out meteors just because we've never seen her poop. It made more sense to simply conclude pegasi in general didn't have parents then that Scootaloo is an orphan as for a long time we didn't see any of the pegasi parents, not just Scootaloo's. Sure, technically she could be an orphan, but there is no reason to believe such, and we all know that's not what people mean when they say Scootaloo is an orphan anyway.

That is simply your opinion. If you think that's a stupid opinion then fine but yelling at people that have it and being so aggressive about the matter just because you disagree is childish. Also, his comment is not irrelevant, you are just choosing to ignore it. His comment shed more light about what he actually thinks and removed false impressions. Again, his comment is not irrelevant, you are simply just not choosing to listen to the other side. Also, we are starting to see and hear about more of the ponies parents. We saw Rainbow Dash's, Flutter Shy's, Diamond Tiara's and we heard the story about Apple Jack's. So, actually, nowadays more and more of the ponies' parents are being shown. The fact we had that comment from Scootaloo in Rainbow Dash's episode also gives a great hint to the fact she may be an orphan or just not very close with her parents, especially since more parents are being revealed. Muffins mentioned this line too but sadly you decided to ignore it. Also, I'm sorry, but theorizing Scootaloo is an orphan because her parents are not shown is a lot different than predicting Celestia poops meteors because we never see her poop. One is a plausible real life scenario, the other is completely insane. Actually, that is incorrect. We have seen one of the pegasi's parents as I've stated before, that being Rainbow Dash's parents. Also, if you think she technically could be an orphan then why are you being so aggressive to people that have this theory? You just admitted it's a possibility and that's basically what a theory is, something that could be true but we'll have to wait and see.

12 hours ago, Ganondox said:

The only reason I'm coming down so heavy on it in the first place was because you initially claimed that it was "most likely", which is simply false, and now you and others keep being so defensive even after admitting it wasn't, so I'm going to keep pushing back, responding to all the replies which are missing the original context. The fact you edited your post makes my reaction look much less reasonable than it actually was, so shame on you.

So what if he claimed it was most likely? He fixed his theory and admitted he could be wrong but instead of being mature you decided to ignore this and kept bagging on him. Also, we are not being defensive, we are simply saying why we believe what we believe. I'm sorry but I feel like the only pushy one in this situation is you. All the others have been tame and seemingly polite while you've been rather aggressive. Also, no, sorry, but shame on you. He admitted he was wrong so he fixed his theory. That's what one should do. If a theory has a flaw it needs to be corrected and fixed, so he did that. Again, everyone was mostly trying to be tame and calm and then you came in here pointing fingers, not listening to muffins, and being all aggressive like. I really don't want to be mean but, you put this on yourself and frankly I feel like you are just trying to make Muffins look bad at this point.

1 hour ago, Ganondox said:

It's poor e-etiquette to remove content that people have already responded to as it confuses new readers to the conversation, and when you modify your original post without just making additions you are doing such. By removing the content in which you were wrong, you are essentially attempting to hide the fact you were wrong in the first place, even if that wasn't your intention. Doesn't matter if your intentions were good if the bad effect is still there.

I can understand this point but Muffins admitted he was wrong and at this point of the conversation I do not feel like he is trying to hide the fact he edited it. Perhaps putting reasons why he edited it would be good so new readers can understand his old argument and see he is simply improving on it, but no, I do not feel lime Muffins is trying to hide it. I can understand the etiquette part but, since his intentions are obviously not bad I feel like you should be so aggressive. Again, I understand your point but you should have nicely told him it was bad etiquette and perhaps asking him to add a note to show he changed it the first time rather than your negative, accusatory response. What I'm trying to say is, you should have responded this way the first time around, not the second.

55 minutes ago, ZethaPonderer said:

While this seems like an interesting catfight of a debate. All for a fictional pony that may or may not fly. I'll just leave my 2 cents throughout this as an Arbiter.

@Ganondox, You made your point about your last statement to Mind Scape since that is a valid point. An etiquette should be established to edit comments otherwise it feels like the intention is misplaced and people will get a paranoid feeling that the person is hiding something by editing their comments. But, for the rest of your arguments against Jedishy, its uncalled for on your end to be unnecessarily mad at a topic where people are just theorizing about a fictional pony that may or may not FLY .

As for @Jedishy, I'm sorry that you grew up in such a harsh and sometimes unforgiving environment. You have my sympathy and hope you make a full recovery from this. If what you say is true of your status as an orphan, then hope you find your real parents IF they're still alive out there and figure out the rest of your past. I've seen many orphans in my days and they behave exactly the way you describe. Most of them are good at hiding their pain.

As for this OT, it doesn't matter to me if Scootaloo may or may not fly. I know of a rumor where Lauren Faust wanted to create a physically disabled character in the show, but Hasbro thought it would be too dark to portray it so they changed it. Seems plausible, but still a rumor nonetheless. Nevertheless, it just makes Scootaloo the most interesting side characters other than Trixie Trump and Starlight Putin.

Thank you for being so kind and understanding that everyone just needs to chill out when it comes to theories. They're just fun little theories we're making on one of our favorite shows about some of our favorite characters and it shouldn't be such a big deal. It's not something others need to get aggressive about. However, because I believe this, if my responses to @Ganondox seems unnecessarily harsh I apologize to them and to the others in this conversation. I am really just trying to show that there are other ways to go about it rather than being aggressive and that there's no reason to be aggressive, and we all just need to chill out. Because, I generally just want it to stop and I'm tired of friendly fan conversations turning dark because someone decides to be way more aggressive than they should be. It's no fun and it's just ruining what should have been a civil fan conversation. So, I agree with you. It's unnecessary and uncalled for and I hope this behavior is put to a close. Can we all just calm down and be respectful of the others opinion? We should have fun with theories rather than getting all cut throat to each other, and again, I apologize if I was being like that as well.

I also agree and do not care if Scootaloo flies that much. I just want to see her character grow and develop and this season did that pretty well in my opinion. It definitely will be interesting to learn more about Scootaloo and I can't wait till more is revealed. But for now, all we've got is our theories. Also, they did have a disabled pony once but they were in the background. I'm talking about the pony in Trade Ya that had a wheel contraption in place of their back legs. It's always nice when Hasbro makes little touches like that. I agree though that little secret like these make Scootaloo one of the more interesting side characters, and in fact, she's probably one of my favorites. Trixie is definitely interesting and I love seeing her interact with Starlight and Starlight is definitely another one of my favorite characters because of her past and the struggles she has to face because of it and her insecurities. Can't wait what the show reveals about all of them.

Ganondox · August 23, 2017

1 hour ago, Jedishy said:

Really you are going to call me a liar about my home life growing up. Ok bubba. Never mind that your so called knowledge of abnormal psychology is belayed by your inability to use spell check. But lets continue. It would help if you didnt post a link that gives evidence to what I have been saying

Slower Developmentally: Does not show the same abilities and skills normally found in children her age.( It is a fact that if a child is not played with enough to gain fine motor skills they can indeed only have issues in that area. Hence neglect of a need via not having parents to show her how to fly)

Unusual Interaction with parent: The parent may not be interested in the child. ( You mean like the sort that would leave a young child desperate for a mentor or parental figure as shown by several statements and actions taken by Scoot)

Mental health problems Low self-esteem ( Oh you mean like no pony ever told her she could be special/the best)

In short, you kill your own argument. I mean really if you had any knowledge of abuse or neglect you would know that kids are GREAT at hiding it. I hide it for a long time from teachers because I was clever. Just because you lack the imagination to see what is there to provide the hints does not mean others are so lacking. Further, you failed to be civil in the first post I quoted. You are just an angry person that can't manage to form an argument you dont already defeat. If you were not trying so hard I'd suspect trolling.

I'm not saying you are a liar, I'm saying you don't know what you are talking about. Severe neglect kills people, it's extremely obvious that's not what you are talking about. The fact you are resorting to appealing to spelling errors is a pretty low blow as his nothing to do with anything. Stop acting like you're morally and logically superior, because you're clearly not. I don't care about you childhood, the fact is it's much more likely that Scootaloo is not an orphan, that's all I was establishing, and all your petty arguing about insignificant points does not change that.

I did read the link, the problem is that you don't understand it so you think you can shoehorn it to your narrative. It's WebMD, not a professional manual.

The ONLY place where Scootaloo shows any developmental delays is with flight, her fine motor skills are clearly intact from her ability to dance and ride her scooter.

We have never seen Scootaloo interact with her parent, so we can't say anything about this criterion as it applies to Scootaloo. What I can say is that you think Scootaloo's parents not being super supportive of all her endeavors (at least from Scootaloo's perspective) is what they mean the parent doesn't show interest in their children is utterly ridiculous:

Low-self esteem is not a mental disorder in and of itself, not anymore than being sad is. Scootaloo's self-esteem isn't even that low, and we've seen that her self-esteem problems come not form neglect, but from bullying. You finding an single "or" within an "or" for things that *might* be indicators is not using the checklist correctly.

In short, you don't know what you are talking about, and you better just stop. No, kids really aren't that great at hiding it, the truth is just that most people don't know what to look for, but in retrospect the signs tend to be pretty obvious. I'm currently conducting a study on attempted suicide and the signs were pretty much always there. I was completely civil in the first post you quoted, again, all the hostility is in your own head and you're just projecting it down onto me. Now, since that post I haven't been civil, but that's because you've been an ass to me, so you've lost all my respect.

55 minutes ago, ZethaPonderer said:

While this seems like an interesting catfight of a debate. All for a fictional pony that may or may not fly. I'll just leave my 2 cents throughout this as an Arbiter.

@Ganondox, You made your point about your last statement to Mind Scape since that is a valid point. An etiquette should be established to edit comments otherwise it feels like the intention is misplaced and people will get a paranoid feeling that the person is hiding something by editing their comments. But, for the rest of your arguments against Jedishy, its uncalled for on your end to be unnecessarily mad at a topic where people are just theorizing about a fictional pony that may or may not FLY .

As for @Jedishy, I'm sorry that you grew up in such a harsh and sometimes unforgiving environment. You have my sympathy and hope you make a full recovery from this. If what you say is true of your status as an orphan, then hope you find your real parents IF they're still alive out there and figure out the rest of your past. I've seen many orphans in my days and they behave exactly the way you describe. Most of them are good at hiding their pain.

As for this OT, it doesn't matter to me if Scootaloo may or may not fly. I know of a rumor where Lauren Faust wanted to create a physically disabled character in the show, but Hasbro thought it would be too dark to portray it so they changed it. Seems plausible, but still a rumor nonetheless. Nevertheless, it just makes Scootaloo the most interesting side characters other than Trixie Trump and Starlight Putin.

I'm not mad, Jedishy just keeps picking fights with me because he's taking this topic personally because he's mad at his parents so I keep responding to him. If he would just let it go and stop attacking me I'd stop.

Violet Bookish · August 23, 2017

8 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

I'm not mad, Jedishy just keeps picking fights with me because he's taking this topic personally because he's mad at his parents so I keep responding to him. If he would just let it go and stop attacking me I'd stop.

Well you're acting like it. Also, I don't believe they were just talking about your responses to him, though I agree those were uncalled for as well. You were also really aggressive towards Muffins as well. Also, he is not attacking you and "picking fights" as you call it, he is simply stating his opinions and backing them up. If anything I feel like you're the one attacking and taking things a big too personally. So, he can't disagree with you and has to stop commenting but you can keep constantly fighting with Muffins and apparently it's okay? I'm sorry but that's terribly hypocritical, especially since in that situation you were arguably trying to start a fight with Muffins according to your own logic.

Edited August 23, 2017 by ButterQuilt

Jedishy · August 23, 2017

@Ganondox You did not say I was a liar oh really? " I seriously doubt you grew up in an uber neglectful home " If you can't even be honest about what you have said any opinion never mind supposed professional knowledge you cite is questionable at best. Further, you cannot cite a source and then claim oh well it's not a "real" source when it suits you. Or more aptly when it's used to show you are wrong. The fact is there are enough signs to cause the idea that she has parents that are not there for people to theorize about it. If you dont see it that way fine but your so called facts and debunking have been shown faulty by your own failed logic and sources time and again. Your first post was condescending with faulty logic. You time and again are rude simply because you lack the imagination to see what others see. In short, I fear for anyone you work with because if its not direct text book you are going to miss it.

Gestum · August 23, 2017

People can have problem with things without being negectled, so to say that Scootaloo is neglected because she has a problem with flying is wrong.

Violet Bookish · August 23, 2017

19 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

@Ganondox You did not say I was a liar oh really? " I seriously doubt you grew up in an uber neglectful home " If you can't even be honest about what you have said any opinion never mind supposed professional knowledge you cite is questionable at best. Further, you cannot cite a source and then claim oh well it's not a "real" source when it suits you. Or more aptly when it's used to show you are wrong. The fact is there are enough signs to cause the idea that she has parents that are not there for people to theorize about it. If you dont see it that way fine but your so called facts and debunking have been shown faulty by your own failed logic and sources time and again. Your first post was condescending with faulty logic. You time and again are rude simply because you lack the imagination to see what others see. In short, I fear for anyone you work with because if its not direct text book you are going to miss it.

I agree. They keep claiming things and acting like they are fact yet their barely providing evidence for it. I also agree that there are enough signs in the show to suggest she may not have parents so of course people with theorize this. I really wanted to be nice but I'm honestly tired of playing nice. They keep acting like they haven't done anything and then pointing fingers at everyone else as if it was their fault when it wasn't. They've also keep throwing shade at the other side whenever they disagree to make them look bad and to act like they're obviously doing something terribly wrong by disagreeing with them. It's hypocritical and I'm tired of it. I also am annoyed they keep trying to paint everyone else as mean when throughout this whole conversation they've been rather rude and condescending. I also can not respect fans that yell at others or try to paint others as idiots or bullies simply because of they have a different opinion. It's just childish. I'm glad you spoke up against what they were doing and thank you.

16 minutes ago, Gestum said:

People can have problem with things without being negectled, so to say that Scootaloo is neglected because she has a problem with flying is wrong.

He did not say Scootaloo is neglected because she has a problem with flying. It was the other way around and you misunderstood. He said Scootaloo may have problems with flying because she was neglected (this linking with his other theory that she may be an orphan and or just have really distant parents) and because no one was there to teach her and help her learn to fly. That may not be the cause of her problem but it's just a theory.

Edited August 23, 2017 by ButterQuilt

Ganondox · August 23, 2017

53 minutes ago, ButterQuilt said:

That is simply your opinion. If you think that's a stupid opinion then fine but yelling at people that have it and being so aggressive about the matter just because you disagree is childish. Also, his comment is not irrelevant, you are just choosing to ignore it. His comment shed more light about what he actually thinks and removed false impressions. Again, his comment is not irrelevant, you are simply just not choosing to listen to the other side. Also, we are starting to see and hear about more of the ponies parents. We saw Rainbow Dash's, Flutter Shy's, Diamond Tiara's and we heard the story about Apple Jack's. So, actually, nowadays more and more of the ponies' parents are being shown. The fact we had that comment from Scootaloo in Rainbow Dash's episode also gives a great hint to the fact she may be an orphan or just not very close with her parents, especially since more parents are being revealed. Muffins mentioned this line too but sadly you decided to ignore it. Also, I'm sorry, but theorizing Scootaloo is an orphan because her parents are not shown is a lot different than predicting Celestia poops meteors because we never see her poop. One is a plausible real life scenario, the other is completely insane. Actually, that is incorrect. We have seen one of the pegasi's parents as I've stated before, that being Rainbow Dash's parents. Also, if you think she technically could be an orphan then why are you being so aggressive to people that have this theory? You just admitted it's a possibility and that's basically what a theory is, something that could be true but we'll have to wait and see.

So what if he claimed it was most likely? He fixed his theory and admitted he could be wrong but instead of being mature you decided to ignore this and kept bagging on him. Also, we are not being defensive, we are simply saying why we believe what we believe. I'm sorry but I feel like the only pushy one in this situation is you. All the others have been tame and seemingly polite while you've been rather aggressive. Also, no, sorry, but shame on you. He admitted he was wrong so he fixed his theory. That's what one should do. If a theory has a flaw it needs to be corrected and fixed, so he did that. Again, everyone was mostly trying to be tame and calm and then you came in here pointing fingers, not listening to muffins, and being all aggressive like. I really don't want to be mean but, you put this on yourself and frankly I feel like you are just trying to make Muffins look bad at this point.

I can understand this point but Muffins admitted he was wrong and at this point of the conversation I do not feel like he is trying to hide the fact he edited it. Perhaps putting reasons why he edited it would be good so new readers can understand his old argument and see he is simply improving on it, but no, I do not feel lime Muffins is trying to hide it. I can understand the etiquette part but, since his intentions are obviously not bad I feel like you should be so aggressive. Again, I understand your point but you should have nicely told him it was bad etiquette and perhaps asking him to add a note to show he changed it the first time rather than your negative, accusatory response. What I'm trying to say is, you should have responded this way the first time around, not the second.

Thank you for being so kind and understanding that everyone just needs to chill out when it comes to theories. They're just fun little theories we're making on one of our favorite shows about some of our favorite characters and it shouldn't be such a big deal. It's not something others need to get aggressive about. However, because I believe this, if my responses to @Ganondox seems unnecessarily harsh I apologize to them and to the others in this conversation. I am really just trying to show that there are other ways to go about it rather than being aggressive and that there's no reason to be aggressive, and we all just need to chill out. Because, I generally just want it to stop and I'm tired of friendly fan conversations turning dark because someone decides to be way more aggressive than they should be. It's no fun and it's just ruining what should have been a civil fan conversation. So, I agree with you. It's unnecessary and uncalled for and I hope this behavior is put to a close. Can we all just calm down and be respectful of the others opinion? We should have fun with theories rather than getting all cut throat to each other, and again, I apologize if I was being like that as well.

I also agree and do not care if Scootaloo flies that much. I just want to see her character grow and develop and this season did that pretty well in my opinion. It definitely will be interesting to learn more about Scootaloo and I can't wait till more is revealed. But for now, all we've got is our theories. Also, they did have a disabled pony once but they were in the background. I'm talking about the pony in Trade Ya that had a wheel contraption in place of their back legs. It's always nice when Hasbro makes little touches like that. I agree though that little secret like these make Scootaloo one of the more interesting side characters, and in fact, she's probably one of my favorites. Trixie is definitely interesting and I love seeing her interact with Starlight and Starlight is definitely another one of my favorite characters because of her past and the struggles she has to face because of it and her insecurities. Can't wait what the show reveals about all of them.

Having Scootaloo be an orphan in your headcanon is an opinion, whether or not it's *more likely* is NOT. All you're doing is beating a dead horse, you've taken sides and you're trying to throw in one more punch, but we've all established what we actually meant and there is no point in continuing any of this. You're trying to encourage civility, but all you are actually doing is inducing hostility, so just stop.

For the actual points, from a purely logical point stand point Celestia pooping meteors. From a rational standpoint it's much less likely than Scootaloo being an orphan, but Scootaloo being an orphan is by default extremely unlikely. Not seeing Scootaloo's is not evidence she is an orphan as it's by defacto that we don't see a character's parents. The real reason we haven't seen Scootaloo's parents is because she isn't a sibling of the mane six, outside of them only a couple of random characters have had their parent's seen. Her comment in Parental Glidance is only evidence for her being an orphan if you're specifically looking for evidence of her being an orphan, it's just confirmation bias. I'm not saying it's impossible for her to be an orphan as obviously it's not, just that there is no compelling reason to believe such, and she is de facto not an orphan.

20 minutes ago, ButterQuilt said:

Well you're acting like it. Also, I don't believe they were just talking about your responses to him, though I agree those were uncalled for as well. You were also really aggressive towards Muffins as well. Also, he is not attacking you, he is simply stating his opinions and backing them up. If anything I feel like you're the one attacking and taking things a big too personally. So, he can't disagree with you and has to stop commenting but you can keep constantly fighting with Muffins and apparently it's okay? I'm sorry but that's just terribly hypocritical.

I'm not acting like it, you don't know me, you're don't know what I act like when I'm mad, and you're just interpreting it as anger because you've taken Mind Scape's side and it shapes the way you read what I wrote. Really I'm just very thorough and blunt in my criticisms. I am a tad bit annoyed, but it's because I now have several people ganging up on me.

Who dafuq is Muffins? Do you mean Mind Scapes? I will admit I was a tad bit aggressive, but that was unintentional as I just got a bit carried away in the criticism, and again, it looks more aggressive than it actually was because he modified his post, my comment made more sense in the context of what he originally wrote.

" Also, he is not attacking you, he is simply stating his opinions and backing them up. " This is blatantly untrue:

"Just because you can't see what others do and operate from terrible "facts" and misconceptions does not make others wrong"

"Please read the things that are posted if you are going to use them as counter points. "

"Civility goes a long way and anger clouds your judgement young skywalker "

"Ok bubba. Never mind that your so called knowledge of abnormal psychology is belayed by your inability to use spell check."

"Just because you lack the imagination to see what is there to provide the hints does not mean others are so lacking."

You are just an angry person that can't manage to form an argument you dont already defeat.

And that's all ignoring the extremely condescending done he used when he actually did express his opinion or attempt to make an argument, with his constant "eh's" and whatnot. Again, you're just biased towards him because you took Mind Scapes side, which causes you see Jedishy's attacks as being less harsh. I'm not blaming you, it's a subconscious effect, but it's there.

How did I take anything personally? The only personal thing I've said is I've studied this sort of stuff. Jedishy is taking it personally because he finds me commentary on neglect to be invalidating his own personal experiences.

Gestum · August 23, 2017

14 minutes ago, ButterQuilt said:

He did not say Scootaloo is neglected because she has a problem with flying.

Ah, then I apologize. My bad.

Ganondox · August 23, 2017

21 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

@Ganondox You did not say I was a liar oh really? " I seriously doubt you grew up in an uber neglectful home " If you can't even be honest about what you have said any opinion never mind supposed professional knowledge you cite is questionable at best. Further, you cannot cite a source and then claim oh well it's not a "real" source when it suits you. Or more aptly when it's used to show you are wrong. The fact is there are enough signs to cause the idea that she has parents that are not there for people to theorize about it. If you dont see it that way fine but your so called facts and debunking have been shown faulty by your own failed logic and sources time and again. Your first post was condescending with faulty logic. You time and again are rude simply because you lack the imagination to see what others see. In short, I fear for anyone you work with because if its not direct text book you are going to miss it.

There is a difference between a lie and a false belief. What I'm taking to is the claim your home was *uber* neglectful, which I assumed was because you just don't know how bad it can really get. You want to know what an uber neglectful home looks like? Go look up Genie. Your hyperbole is offensive to children who actually were severely abused.

I didn't say it wasn't a real source, I'm saying you need to know how to use the source, which you don't. Everything on it is correct, it's just not super detailed.

"he fact is there are enough signs to cause the idea that she has parents that are not there for people to theorize about it." HAHAHA! There could be plenty of signs of the exact opposite and people would still theorize. Fact is once an idea gets into people's heads it's very hard to get it out.

Nope. I could say the problem is you lack imagination and understanding and that's why you are taking issue with what I'm saying, but I'm not going to do because that's not a real argument. Now get over yourself and let it go.

20 minutes ago, ButterQuilt said:

I agree. They keep claiming things and acting like they are fact yet their barely providing evidence for it. I also agree that there are enough signs in the show to suggest she may not have parents so of course people with theorize this. I really wanted to be nice but I'm honestly tired of playing nice. They keep acting like they haven't done anything and then pointing fingers at everyone else as if it was their fault when it wasn't. They've also keep throwing shade at the other side whenever they disagree to make them look bad and to act like they're obviously doing something terribly wrong by disagreeing with them. It's hypocritical and I'm tired of it. I also am annoyed they keep trying to paint everyone else as mean when throughout this whole conversation they've been rather rude and condescending. I also can not respect fans that yell at others or try to paint others as idiots or bullies simply because of they have a different opinion. It's just childish. I'm glad you spoke up against what they were doing and thank you.

Nice passive aggression there, really makes you take the high ground. Funny you call me a hypocrite but you can't see you've taken your own sides and are making your own attacks. Now, I never claimed to not be a condescending prick, the difference is I'm a condescending prick who is right.

Violet Bookish · August 23, 2017

33 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

Having Scootaloo be an orphan in your headcanon is an opinion, whether or not it's *more likely* is NOT. All you're doing is beating a dead horse, you've taken sides and you're trying to throw in one more punch, but we've all established what we actually meant and there is no point in continuing any of this. You're trying to encourage civility, but all you are actually doing is inducing hostility, so just stop.

For the actual points, from a purely logical point stand point Celestia pooping meteors. From a rational standpoint it's much less likely than Scootaloo being an orphan, but Scootaloo being an orphan is by default extremely unlikely. Not seeing Scootaloo's is not evidence she is an orphan as it's by defacto that we don't see a character's parents. The real reason we haven't seen Scootaloo's parents is because she isn't a sibling of the mane six, outside of them only a couple of random characters have had their parent's seen. Her comment in Parental Glidance is only evidence for her being an orphan if you're specifically looking for evidence of her being an orphan, it's just confirmation bias. I'm not saying it's impossible for her to be an orphan as obviously it's not, just that there is no compelling reason to believe such, and she is de facto not an orphan.

I'm not acting like it, you don't know me, you're don't know what I act like when I'm mad, and you're just interpreting it as anger because you've taken Mind Scape's side and it shapes the way you read what I wrote. Really I'm just very thorough and blunt in my criticisms. I am a tad bit annoyed, but it's because I now have several people ganging up on me.

Who dafuq is Muffins? Do you mean Mind Scapes? I will admit I was a tad bit aggressive, but that was unintentional as I just got a bit carried away in the criticism, and again, it looks more aggressive than it actually was because he modified his post, my comment made more sense in the context of what he originally wrote.

" Also, he is not attacking you, he is simply stating his opinions and backing them up. " This is blatantly untrue:

"Just because you can't see what others do and operate from terrible "facts" and misconceptions does not make others wrong"

"Please read the things that are posted if you are going to use them as counter points. "

"Civility goes a long way and anger clouds your judgement young skywalker "

"Ok bubba. Never mind that your so called knowledge of abnormal psychology is belayed by your inability to use spell check."

"Just because you lack the imagination to see what is there to provide the hints does not mean others are so lacking."

You are just an angry person that can't manage to form an argument you dont already defeat.

And that's all ignoring the extremely condescending done he used when he actually did express his opinion or attempt to make an argument, with his constant "eh's" and whatnot. Again, you're just biased towards him because you took Mind Scapes side, which causes you see Jedishy's attacks as being less harsh. I'm not blaming you, it's a subconscious effect, but it's there.

How did I take anything personally? The only personal thing I've said is I've studied this sort of stuff. Jedishy is taking it personally because he finds me commentary on neglect to be invalidating his own personal experiences.

Sorry for the late response. The site was being weird so I had to reload the page.

I am sorry that I misinterpreted you but you have to understand that if you put things out there bluntly people will see it as aggressive. It's best to just tell them straight up that was not your intention the first time the issue arises. Believe my I type bluntly too and I'm sorry if you feel like I'm ganging up on you as that was not my intention. Also, I apologize for saying Muffins rather than Mind Scrapes, rookie mistake. Also, I am not biased. I agree with Mind Scrape but I am completely fine with others opinions as long as they state it respectfully. The first thing you did was basically call him stupid for thinking Scootaloo was an orphan. That is not respectful and that was the big reason I had an issue with your post. Also, I understand getting carried away in criticism but it's best to always look over your post before posting to make sure that doesn't drive the post. It just makes it incredibly unenjoyable for people to talk to you when your post are like that. Look over before posting to avoid this. Also, please stop the whole "you're doing it without knowing it" argument. Like I said, I'm not bias and I honestly enjoying the sharing of opinions as long as people do it respectfully. Your post came off as disrespectful and rude to me, so I had an issue. If you had stated it more respectfully and politely I wouldn't have an issue. Also, most of the things you're saying are condescending on simple criticisms. You *should* read things before you post, especially for the reason I talked about before. If you can say bias is clouding my judgment I think it's fair for him to say anger is clouding your judgment because of how aggressive you come off as. I also agree that just because you disagree or can't imagine it doesn't mean others are wrong or lacking for theorizing it. Also, again, if you have an issue with someone saying your judgment is clouded because you are mad, then by your own logic you are condescending by saying my opinion is clouded by bias.This is why I'm saying your taking it personally. What you're saying he is say that is condescending holds some truth to it and are criticisms that should be taken to heart, not ignored. Jedishy is simply saying his opinion and why he has it. Along with that you keep doing some of the things you criticize him for and to me I can't help but raise an eyebrow at your arguments because of it. It's hypocritical and I have an issue with you saying he was being condescended considering some of the things you've said during the argument.

27 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

There is a difference between a lie and a false belief. What I'm taking to is the claim your home was *uber* neglectful, which I assumed was because you just don't know how bad it can really get. You want to know what an uber neglectful home looks like? Go look up Genie. Your hyperbole is offensive to children who actually were severely abused.

I didn't say it wasn't a real source, I'm saying you need to know how to use the source, which you don't. Everything on it is correct, it's just not super detailed.

"he fact is there are enough signs to cause the idea that she has parents that are not there for people to theorize about it." HAHAHA! There could be plenty of signs of the exact opposite and people would still theorize. Fact is once an idea gets into people's heads it's very hard to get it out.

Nope. I could say the problem is you lack imagination and understanding and that's why you are taking issue with what I'm saying, but I'm not going to do because that's not a real argument. Now get over yourself and let it go.

Nice passive aggression there, really makes you take the high ground. Funny you call me a hypocrite but you can't see you've taken your own sides and are making your own attacks. Now, I never claimed to not be a condescending prick, the difference is I'm a condescending prick who is right.

It's funny you keep trying to paint me as bad and Jedi is bad when you say things like "I'm a condescending prick who's right." Becuase we're supposed to believe Jedi and I are the condescending over opinionated ones when you say things like that. Just because you say you're right sadly doesn't mean you're right. Sorry, but that is hypocritical. Also, you did claim you weren't condescending by saying you type bluntly and you didn't mean to be aggressive. So.. your suddenly changing your argument now because the last one didn't change our minds? And... we're supposed to believe what you say despite the fact you keep switching from "I'm not being aggresive" to then saying you are being aggresive? If you really want to convince us I suggest you pick one argument and stick with it. No one can be convinced if you say one thing and then turn around seconds later to say the opposite. And hey, you can say I've done it and I will gladly accept I might have and I shouldn't, but that doesn't change the fact that's exactly what you're doing. If you don't want people to be upset with your argument don't change it every single time it doesn't work out for you. You can't be trusted if your going to change your story everytime it doesn't fit your needs. I can't admit I was wrong or even know if I was wrong or what your aim is if you keep changing it. Also, I am making my own attacks because I feel like you are being overly aggressive and I'm tired off it. If you don't want people to attack you don't attack them.

Edited August 23, 2017 by ButterQuilt

Jedishy · August 23, 2017

22 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

There is a difference between a lie and a false belief. What I'm taking to is the claim your home was *uber* neglectful, which I assumed was because you just don't know how bad it can really get. You want to know what an uber neglectful home looks like? Go look up Genie. Your hyperbole is offensive to children who actually were severely abused.

I didn't say it wasn't a real source, I'm saying you need to know how to use the source, which you don't. Everything on it is correct, it's just not super detailed.

"he fact is there are enough signs to cause the idea that she has parents that are not there for people to theorize about it." HAHAHA! There could be plenty of signs of the exact opposite and people would still theorize. Fact is once an idea gets into people's heads it's very hard to get it out.

Nope. I could say the problem is you lack imagination and understanding and that's why you are taking issue with what I'm saying, but I'm not going to do because that's not a real argument. Now get over yourself and let it go.

I dont know how bad it could get. Ok, sweet heart, I was abused in most any manner you can think of, denied food, locked in a single room with nothing for long periods of time if I breathed funny. Which usually resulted in abuse prior to. Oh, and my baby sister was locked in a crib in the basement and we had to sneak her food. But yeah tell me what I know and dont know.

Yes, there are arguments either way. However, the issue is not hey I disagree. The issue is you being a jerk to people and shooting them down rather than saying hey I disagree and here is why then agreeing to disagree if minds cannot be changed. Sorry, bubba but you can't manage a coherent argument that is not defeated by your own logic and sources. Until you manage that your studies or opinion are of as much value to me someone else's socks. Sure they might find them useful but I dont and they stink to boot.

Ganondox · August 23, 2017

27 minutes ago, ButterQuilt said:

Sorry for the late response. The site was being weird so I had to reload the page.

I am sorry that I misinterpreted you but you have to understand that if you put things out there bluntly people will see it as aggressive. It's best to just tell them straight up that was not your intention the first time the issue arises. Believe my I type bluntly too and I'm sorry if you feel like I'm ganging up on you as that was not my intention. Also, I apologize for saying Muffins rather than Mind Scrapes, rookie mistake. Also, I am not biased. I agree with Mind Scrape but I am completely fine with others opinions as long as they state it respectfully. The first thing you did was basically call him stupid for thinking Scootaloo was an orphan. That is not respectful and that was the big reason I had an issue with your post. Also, I understand getting carried away in criticism but it's best to always look over your post before posting to make sure that doesn't drive the post. It just makes it incredibly unenjoyable for people to talk to you when your post are like that. Look over before posting to avoid this. Also, please stop the whole "you're doing it without knowing it" argument. Like I said, I'm not bias and I honestly enjoying the sharing of opinions as long as people do it respectfully. Your post came off as disrespectful and rude to me, so I had an issue. If you had stated it more respectfully and politely I wouldn't have an issue. Also, most of the things you're saying are condescending on simple criticisms. You *should* read things before you post, especially for the reason I talked about before. If you can say bias is clouding my judgment I think it's fair for him to say anger is clouding your judgment because of how aggressive you come off as. I also agree that just because you disagree or can't imagine it doesn't mean others are wrong or lacking for theorizing it. Also, again, if you have an issue with someone saying your judgment is clouded because you are mad, then by your own logic you are condescending by saying my opinion is clouded by bias.This is why I'm saying your taking it personally. What you're saying he is say that is condescending holds some truth to it and are criticisms that should be taken to heart, not ignored. Jedishy is simply saying his opinion and why he has it. Along with that you keep doing some of the things you criticize him for and to me I can't help but raise an eyebrow at your arguments because of it. It's hypocritical and I have an issue with you saying he was being condescended considering some of the things you've said during the argument.

Well no one pointed to anything specific that I said as being an attack, so I just had to come to the conclusion I was too blunt on my own much after I posted.

Yes, you are biased. I'm biased. EVERYONE is biased. It's impossible to avoid being biased, it's the way our brains our wired. The key is to admitting that you are biased so that you can overcome that bias. If you don't acknowledge that the bias exists, we will never agree, because we do not see things the same way. No, I'm not going to stop the you're doing it unintentionally argument, because it's the truth. Would you rather I claim you're being biased intentionally?

" The first thing you did was basically call him stupid for thinking Scootaloo was an orphan. " No, it was not. It was saying that that the belief was stupid, but I do not regarding someone as being stupid just because they believe in stupid things. Everyone believes in stupid things. One must separate themselves from their believes so that they can move away from them once they realize it is stupid. Also, my problem wasn't that he personally thought Scootaloo was an orphan, but that he was making the claim that Scootaloo was an orphan like it was some sort of objective fact which the opposite is true. Once again, confusion happened because he edited his original comment.

I do read what I write before I post it, though I should probably be more careful in order to catch more spelling errors. The thing is, I don't see what I wrote as aggressive (at least initially, I started being an ass later one once Jedishy started being condescending), because I see what I wrote differently than you do. Not only am I biased because I know what I actually meant, and you don't, but we have different perspectives on what a debate should look like because we come from different backgrounds and have different personalities. It appears I'm more of T type and you're more of an F type, meaning I place more value on correctness, while you place more value on maintaining harmony.

Except bias is a more general claim than anger, as my judgement being clouded by anger would be a type of bias. It's clear you are biased because you aren't holding Jedishy to the same standards you are holding me, but that is not to say WHY you are biased (though the most obvious explanation is because you've taken sides, so you judge those in your group less harshly than those outside). Also, I know I'm not angry, you don't. In order to know that you are not biased, you would have to have a perfect knowledge of all things, but you don't.

"Jedishy is simply saying his opinion and why he has it." No, he is not, but you can keep telling yourself that.

How about you quote say exactly where I was being hypocritical instead of just iterating the claim repeatedly?

12 minutes ago, Jedishy said:

I dont know how bad it could get. Ok, sweet heart, I was abused in most any manner you can think of, denied food, locked in a single room with nothing for long periods of time if I breathed funny. Which usually resulted in abuse prior to. Oh, and my baby sister was locked in a crib in the basement and we had to sneak her food. But yeah tell me what I know and dont know.

Yes, there are arguments either way. However, the issue is not hey I disagree. The issue is you being a jerk to people and shooting them down rather than saying hey I disagree and here is why then agreeing to disagree if minds cannot be changed. Sorry, bubba but you can't manage a coherent argument that is not defeated by your own logic and sources. Until you manage that your studies or opinion are of as much value to me someone else's socks. Sure they might find them useful but I dont and they stink to boot.

Sorry to hear that, but the fact your parents were abusive is irrelevant to the conversation about Scootaloo. That just sounds like typical child abuse anyway, not uber child abuse.

You're being a jerk to me, so why don't you go screw yourself instead of thinking you have to right to play police? You have no moral high ground if you're going to be all condescending with your "sweet heart" remarks and your other insults. No, the issue you can't accept that you're wrong and decided that you need to need correct perceived wrongs rather than just backing off. You have literally no argument at this point (you saying my argument is incoherent is not argument), you're just being a dick. Go away.

PS: Just because there is arguments for either side doesn't mean both arguments have equal value. I'll say it one last time: I don't care if you think Scootaloo is an orphan or not, but don't go around making claims that there is compelling evidence that she is, because there isn't.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Ganondox

Jedishy · August 23, 2017

@Ganondox come back when you have an argument that is not debunked and defeated by your own logic and sources. You have nothing and have done nothing but treat people poorly. You are outnumbered and lack anything useful to add. It's just contrarian crude that time and again is refuted by your own words. If you can't remember what is posted, can't post sources that dont defeat your argument and can't manage it in a civil way you really have nothing to stand on. You have come to bore me. Once anyone else has something worth while to post Ill start responding again.

Violet Bookish · August 23, 2017

18 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

Well no one pointed to anything specific that I said as being an attack, so I just had to come to the conclusion I was too blunt on my own much after I posted.

Yes, you are biased. I'm biased. EVERYONE is biased. It's impossible to avoid being biased, it's the way our brains our wired. The key is to admitting that you are biased so that you can overcome that bias. If you don't acknowledge that the bias exists, we will never agree, because we do not see things the same way. No, I'm not going to stop the you're doing it unintentionally argument, because it's the truth. Would you rather I claim you're being biased intentionally?

" The first thing you did was basically call him stupid for thinking Scootaloo was an orphan. " No, it was not. It was saying that that the belief was stupid, but I do not regarding someone as being stupid just because they believe in stupid things. Everyone believes in stupid things. One must separate themselves from their believes so that they can move away from them once they realize it is stupid.

I do read what I write before I post it, though I should probably be more careful in order to catch more spelling errors. The thing is, I don't see what I wrote as aggressive (at least initially, I started being an ass later one once Jedishy started being condescending), because I see what I wrote differently than you do. Not only am I biased because I know what I actually meant, and you don't, but we have different perspectives on what a debate should look like because we come from different backgrounds and have different personalities. It appears I'm more of T type and you're more of an F type, meaning I place more value on correctness, while you place more value on maintaining harmony.

Except bias is a more general claim than anger, as my judgement being clouded by anger would be a type of bias. It's clear you are biased because you aren't holding Jedishy to the same standards you are holding me, but that is not to say WHY you are biased (though the most obvious explanation is because you've taken sides, so you judge those in your group less harshly than those outside). Also, I know I'm not angry, you don't. In order to know that you are not biased, you would have to have a perfect knowledge of all things, but you don't.

"Jedishy is simply saying his opinion and why he has it." No, he is not, but you can keep telling yourself that.

If it's impossible to not be biased then why is it an issue? If we're all biased then none of us are wrong because we all have the same problem. By your logic I can argue your arguments also have issues because you are biased as well. Therefore both of our arguments are flawed. So.. why am I the problem again? We've just figured out both of our arguments are flawed so why point out mine is flawed rather than pointing out all of our arguments are flawed because of this? It's not making my argument look worse, it's making are arguments look equal as far as flaws go.

And to me personally, I feel like going into an argument saying someone else's argument is stupid is disrespectful. rather, you should politely give constructive criticism. I've said this before and I hope this elaborates on what I find disrespectful and what I don't. Also, this is just a theory for a show. There's no "they need to find the light and move away for their stupid theory!" That's ridiculous. Rather they should take in criticisms, which he did, and change their theory over time as new things are revealed, not get rid of it completely. It's silly to go into this kind of discussion thinking they should.

Again, you're changing your argument. You're saying you're not trying to be aggressive now yet a few post ago you said you were a condescending prick. There's nothing I can say about this unless you elaborate or pick what argument you want to go with because so far I can't tell which is true and which is not because you keep switching between them. Also, this shouldn't be seen as a debate, it is a fun discussion for people to bounce around ideas together. You need to understand you can't go into all conversation with the strict debate like attitude. Not all places work like that and not all people will respect or enjoy that. What you call type T's need to learn going in aggressively and going in head first can be seen as rude to others and can end up ruining a whole discussion because what once began as a civil discussion turns into a cut throat situation because, hey, a lot of people or well, F types as you called me, aren't interested in having a super aggressive debate. It's not fun for them, it's just pressuring and really unejoyable. If people say they are finding you too aggressive either try to tone it down a bit or back off. You're just going to end up hurting others and causing a whole dilemma like this one. Again, what I'm basically saying is you need to recognize not all people are okay with this behavior and you can't head into every single discussion with that kind of attitude.

But if saying you're clouded by anger is the same and or very similar to saying you are clouded by bias than he really was not being condescended and was being truthful. So, you really shouldn't have had an issue with what he said and the fact you said it to me yet act like it shouldn't be a big problem means you're being hypocritical. You are obviously biased because you are not holding yourself to the same standards you are holding Jedishy. You admitted a few lines ago what he said was similar to what you said to me, yet when he said it, it was apparently condescending towards you. I am holding you two to the same standards. I agree that I am biased and I agree when you said you were clouded by anger. My issue with you saying I was biased was because, in my eyes, you were using it as an excuse to avoid pointing out the flaws in my post. I feel like he gave good criticisms you should have taken while you've mostly gone around saying others theories were stupid. I'm sorry, but there's a difference between telling someone they are probably clouded by anger and advising they check their post before posting to claiming others arguments and or ideas are stupid. One is constructive criticism the other isn't. You can claim you stated why you find it stupid but most of your arguments were flawed and you had issues with your reasoning, so jedishy debunked your theory.

You can keep saying that if you want but that doesn't change the fact you haven't provided any good evidence as to why Jedishy is apparently the bad guy in this situation.

Edited August 23, 2017 by ButterQuilt

Ganondox · August 23, 2017

Just now, Jedishy said:

@Ganondox come back when you have an argument that is not debunked and defeated by your own logic and sources. You have nothing and have done nothing but treat people poorly. You are outnumbered and lack anything useful to add. It's just contrarian crude that time and again is refuted by your own words. If you can't remember what is posted, can't post sources that dont defeat your argument and can't manage it in a civil way you really have nothing to stand on. You have come to bore me. Once anyone else has something worth while to post Ill start responding again.

Haha, no. I don't take orders from people like you. You haven't debunked any argument, you left me with the last word and then refused to address it and instead just made personal attacks against me. If you're going to go shut up now, then good riddance, but I doubt you have the will power.

Violet Bookish · August 23, 2017

9 minutes ago, Ganondox said:

Haha, no. I don't take orders from people like you. You haven't debunked any argument, you left me with the last word and then refused to address it and instead just made personal attacks against me. If you're going to go shut up now, then good riddance, but I doubt you have the will power.

Yes but now all you're doing the exact same thing. You claim he hasn't debunked your argument when he did it earlier. He doesn't say anything else because he doesn't need to, your theory has already been debunked. Your theory fell through and instead of being mature you want to mock him and say apparently he was at fault. And... "If you're going to go shut up now, then good riddance, but I doubt you have the will power. " If you're going to whine time and time again about someone making personal attacks on you, you probably don't want to post things like that.

And as for that, I'm also done. I'm not interested in arguing with someone who is just going to keep changing their narrative every time it doesn't fit them nor do I want to talk with someone who is just going to keep making up excuses and pointing their finger at everyone else. I only stayed because some of your post were civil and it seemed like there was something to be discussed, but shortly afterwards, you'd post something childish and overly aggressive again. Sorry but I'm not going to have an argument with someone with that attitude and it's clear this isn't going to go anywhere and we're just going to go through this civil to aggressive cycle over and over again what's the point? It's not going to get either of us anywhere so I'm done. If you're gonna make the argument it's because Jedishy has gone well.. go ahead because it kind of is. The way you reacted to him leaving shows you don't want to have a mature discussion. Along with that, I agree with him. There's no point anymore. Your argument was debunked and now all that's happening is we're cycling through your excuses and, as he basically said, you end up being hypocritical and debunking yourself. There's nothing else to be done here so I'm not staying.

Edited August 23, 2017 by ButterQuilt

Ganondox · August 23, 2017

I'd like to apologize to Mind Scapes for derailing his topic, hopefully Jedishy and Butterquilt are done for real now.

53 minutes ago, ButterQuilt said:

If it's impossible to not be biased then why is it an issue? If we're all biased then none of us are wrong because we all have the same problem. By your logic I can argue your arguments also have issues because you are biased as well. Therefore both of our arguments are flawed. So.. why am I the problem again? We've just figured out both of our arguments are flawed so why point out mine is flawed rather than pointing out all of our arguments are flawed because of this? It's not making my argument look worse, it's making are arguments look equal as far as flaws go.

And to me personally, I feel like going into an argument saying someone else's argument is stupid is disrespectful. rather, you should politely give constructive criticism. I've said this before and I hope this elaborates on what I find disrespectful and what I don't. Also, this is just a theory for a show. There's no "they need to find the light and move away for their stupid theory!" That's ridiculous. Rather they should take in criticisms, which he did, and change their theory over time as new things are revealed, not get rid of it completely. It's silly to go into this kind of discussion thinking they should.

Again, you're changing your argument. You're saying you're not trying to be aggressive now yet a few post ago you said you were a condescending prick. There's nothing I can say about this unless you elaborate or pick what argument you want to go with because so far I can't tell which is true and which is not because you keep switching between them. Also, this shouldn't be seen as a debate, it is a fun discussion for people to bounce around ideas together. You need to understand you can't go into all conversation with the strict debate like attitude. Not all places work like that and not all people will respect or enjoy that. What you call type T's need to learn going in aggressively and going in head first can be seen as rude to others and can end up ruining a whole discussion because what once began as a civil discussion turns into a cut throat situation because, hey, a lot of people or well, F types as you called me, aren't interested in having a super aggressive debate. It's not fun for them, it's just pressuring and really unejoyable. If people say they are finding you too aggressive either try to tone it down a bit or back off. You're just going to end up hurting others and causing a whole dilemma like this one. Again, what I'm basically saying is you need to recognize not all people are okay with this behavior and you can't head into every single discussion with that kind of attitude.

But if saying you're clouded by anger is the same and or very similar to saying you are clouded by bias than he really was not being condescended and was being truthful. So, you really shouldn't have had an issue with what he said and the fact you said it to me yet act like it shouldn't be a big problem means you're being hypocritical. You are obviously biased because you are not holding yourself to the same standards you are holding Jedishy. You admitted a few lines ago what he said was similar to what you said to me, yet when he said it, it was apparently condescending towards you. I am holding you two to the same standards. I agree that I am biased and I agree when you said you were clouded by anger. My issue with you saying I was biased was because, in my eyes, you were using it as an excuse to avoid pointing out the flaws in my post. I feel like he gave good criticisms you should have taken while you've mostly gone around saying others theories were stupid. I'm sorry, but there's a difference between telling someone they are probably clouded by anger and advising they check their post before posting to claiming others arguments and or ideas are stupid. One is constructive criticism the other isn't. You can claim you stated why you find it stupid but most of your arguments were flawed and you had issues with your reasoning, so jedishy debunked your theory.

You can keep saying that if you want but that doesn't change the fact you haven't provided any good evidence as to why Jedishy is apparently the bad guy in this situation.

If you payed attention to what I said, I specifically stated that I did not blame you for being biased. It's a issue because it results in injustice, not because it's the result of malice, but it's not something that can be completely solved.

"If we're all biased then none of us are wrong because we all have the same problem." Um, no. The problem is you are still stuck in the mindset of people being right or wrong. This isn't about us, it's about ideas. Ideas are either right or wrong, and people just present them. Fact is everyone presents wrong ideas from time to time, and it's our responsibility to protect truth and not be dicks to each other because we make mistakes.

"By your logic I can argue your arguments also have issues because you are biased as well." No, you can't (well, you can, but you're missing the point). I don't know what exact fallacy that is, but it's a pretty blatant one. The fact I am biased means I have the potential of being wrong, not that any of my specific arguments is wrong. Saying you were biased was an explanation, not a logical step in making a claim.

I don't know, why are we arguing? I told you to cut it out because you aren't achieving your aims, but you kept at it. At this point it appears you aren't even addressing any of the actual arguments, you are just talking about abstract nonsense.

I never said his argument was stupid, that was you. That was just how you interpreted my comment, in which case the different is just semantics. I DID explain what was wrong with the argument, I didn't just call it nonsense. Again, you've seem to have forgotten what we were even arguing about and are now just arguing about arguing, which is inherently silly.

I DID let him revise his theory, I just criticized the one point about him claiming Scootaloo is most likely an orphan and I never even addressed the rest of his theory. The problem is people wouldn't let the that one little point go so I've kept biting back even though it now has absolutely nothing to do with his revised theory! Look back at the history of the conversation and maybe you'll finally get what I've been saying this whole time.

"You're saying you're not trying to be aggressive now yet a few post ago you said you were a condescending prick." I'm sorry you suck a following a conversation, but that was referring to two different parts of the conversation. I specifically stated I initially wasn't being aggressive, but I started once Jedishy started attacking me. Also, I was being facetious, don't take everything so seriously. I'm not changing my argument, my argument is about Scootaloo and I've been pretty, not about whether or not I'm aggressive. You're being ridiculous.

" Also, this shouldn't be seen as a debate, it is a fun discussion for people to bounce around ideas together. " What you don't get is that for me this IS a fun discussion, and YOU are ruining it with your policing. Not everyone is okay with your behavior either! You need to understand that not all people have problems with what I'm doing, this is the way we do it and we like it that way. I'm saying you should cut it out because you are defeating yourself. You want the discussion to be one way, but you are making it the opposite way by arguing about arguing! So just cut it out already! Also, you've failed to provide me with anything concrete that I've done wrong, so sorry, I can't do anything about, if you can't provide me with anything you're just going to have to accept me as I am.

"But if saying you're clouded by anger is the same and or very similar to saying you are clouded by bias than he really was not being condescended and was being truthful." What are you even talking about? You reasoning makes no sense. First, I denied the equivalence between claiming someone being clouded by anger and being biased. Second, whether or not he is being condescending has absolutely nothing to with the truthfulness of his conversation, it just has to be with whether or not he is being a jerk and thus a hypocrite. Finally, what are you even talking about? Are you talking about Jedishy? It wasn't him saying I was clouded by anger that was being condescending, I gave several actual examples of him being condescending which you conveniently ignored like his word choice. Him being *sarcastic* about Skywalker with clouding anger was one of many examples of him making attacks. You're taking everything out of context and making ridiculous strawmen arguments. You're not going to persuade me on anything because I know what you are saying is nonsense because I know what I actually said. Just stop.

" I agree that I am biased and I agree when you said you were clouded by anger." Um, no, I said was NOT clouded by anger, and you need to stop making about stranger's emotional states over the internet. I said I was BIASED and ANNOYED, but the two things are independent from each other.

"My issue with you saying I was biased was because, in my eyes, you were using it as an excuse to avoid pointing out the flaws in my post. " Well, I wasn't, so you can get over it. What flaws are you referring to?

"telling someone they are probably clouded by anger and advising they check their post before posting to claiming others arguments and or ideas are stupid. One is constructive criticism the other isn't." Yes: the later is constructive criticism, while the prior isn't. The thing you left out is I explained WHY the argument is stupid, and telling people they are clouded by anger doesn't, it's basically an ad hominem attack. You really need to study logical debate sometime because you've gotten pretty much everything backwards.

"but most of your arguments were flawed and you had issues with your reasoning, so jedishy debunked your theory." No, he didn't. I debunked his attempt at debunking, and then he just resorted to personal attacks instead of defending his argument.

43 minutes ago, ButterQuilt said:

Yes but now all you're doing the exact same thing. You claim he hasn't debunked your argument when he did it earlier. He doesn't say anything else because he doesn't need to, your theory has already been debunked. Your theory fell through and instead of being mature you want to mock him and say apparently he was at fault. And... "If you're going to go shut up now, then good riddance, but I doubt you have the will power. " If you're going to whine time and time again about someone making personal attacks on you, you probably don't want to post things like that.

And as for that, I'm also done. I'm not interested in arguing with someone who is just going to keep changing their narrative every time it doesn't fit them nor do I want to talk with someone who is just going to keep making up excuses and pointing their finger at everyone else. I only stayed because some of your post were civil and it seemed like there was something to be discussed, but shortly afterwards, you'd post something childish and overly aggressive again. Sorry but I'm not going to have an argument with someone with that attitude and it's clear this isn't going to go anywhere and we're just going to go through this civil to aggressive cycle over and over again what's the point? It's not going to get either of us anywhere so I'm done.

Yeah, no. The argument was left at me dismissing his claims that Scootaloo, and then he made no effort to his claims, instead his just made a slew of attacks against me. This is where he left the argument: " Further, you cannot cite a source and then claim oh well it's not a "real" source when it suits you. Or more aptly when it's used to show you are wrong."...which does not at all relate to what I actually said because I did no such thing as what I actually did was elaborate on why his attempts at filling the criteria did not work. Fact is he just couldn't accept his argument was wrong and shifted to attacks against me. He was the one mocking me rather than debating, but you failed to realize that because you're kissing his ass so hard. I'm now fed up with you too, you're almost as bad as Jedishy.

I like how you had to make one final attempt to be self-righteous before leaving, acting like it was your idea to end this argument when I've been telling you to cut it out the whole time. Well good riddance to you to! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Edited August 23, 2017 by Ganondox

Goat-kun · August 23, 2017

Congenital wing dysplasia. I blame the weather factory.

ZethaPonderer · August 24, 2017

@Butterquilt, Meh I only watched episodes from Season 1-3 and I still find Scootaloo to be the more interesting side characters. The rest of them might as well be equivalent to watching paint dry IMO. I'm not entirely familiar with Trixie from the later seasons after 3 and Starlight, but heard enough on MLP Forums for their character development improving.

So consider me a Non-Brony (Anti-Brony originally).

Violet Bookish · August 24, 2017

Just now, ZethaPonderer said:

@Butterquilt, Meh I only watched episodes from Season 1-3 and I still find Scootaloo to be the more interesting side characters. The rest of them might as well be equivalent to watching paint dry IMO. I'm not entirely familiar with Trixie from the later seasons after 3 and Starlight, but heard enough on MLP Forums for their character development improving.

So consider me a Non-Brony (Anti-Brony originally).

Oh okay, I see. Well... welcome to the community I guess. You may end up liking the show more or not but whatever floats your boat man. I personally feel like there are more interesting side characters besides Scootalo like Discord for example, but that's just my opinion.

Well, regardless you seem like a really nice dude and it was nice to meet you.

Mind Scape · August 24, 2017

I stopped talking since I didn't want to continue arguing, and everything that needed to be said has already been said and there is no need to continue to argue. This whole feud could have been done a long time ago if we all just agreed to disagree instead of continuously trying to prove others wrong when most of the time that's just unnecessary. I didn't think I needed to say this, but some people are just being immature. I am not arguing with anybody on this post, so please don't try to argue and point out what is wrong here because that's being immature and not seeing the point. I'm also not being aggressive. Let's stop pointing fingers and just move on. Actually talk about what this thread was originally about, respect others' opinions even when you disagree, and not get aggressive. I've tried very hard not to be aggressive and I know it's hard for others too, but if we all genuinely tried to stay calm even when something angers us, we could discuss our opinions peacefully. I know there are people who were trying not to be aggressive, and trying to be respectful. Again I'm not pointing fingers, and I know that others have moved on, and I've moved on too. This post should be the end to the feud.

I will include exactly why I edited my posts, and I'm sorry If I hurt anybody because I didn't include exactly why I edited it.

Thank you.

Sign In

Theory A theory about why Scootaloo has trouble flying

Recommended Posts

Ganondox 899

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hierok

Mind Scape

MidnightFire1222

Posted Images

Jedishy 3,542

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ZethaPonderer 2,196

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Jedishy 3,542

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Violet Bookish 349

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ganondox 899

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Violet Bookish 349

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Jedishy 3,542

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gestum 2,493

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Violet Bookish 349

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ganondox 899

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gestum 2,493

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ganondox 899

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Violet Bookish 349

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Jedishy 3,542

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ganondox 899

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Jedishy 3,542

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Violet Bookish 349

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ganondox 899

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Violet Bookish 349

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ganondox 899

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Goat-kun 2,498

Link to comment

Share on other sites

ZethaPonderer 2,196

Link to comment