238
edits
Talk:Clemont's Chespin: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
::::"Winning" and your IQ are relevant to nothing. | ::::"Winning" and your IQ are relevant to nothing. | ||
::::And it matters not ONE BIT how many times you've been right or wrong. If I flipped a coin 100 times and got 100 heads, that doesn't mean it's impossible to get tails (or that it's a double-sided coin). You don't base good logic purely on ''outcomes'', that's pure folly. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 18:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC) | ::::And it matters not ONE BIT how many times you've been right or wrong. If I flipped a coin 100 times and got 100 heads, that doesn't mean it's impossible to get tails (or that it's a double-sided coin). You don't base good logic purely on ''outcomes'', that's pure folly. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 18:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC) | ||
:::::Did I say anything about outcome? No. And I said the flawed logic wasn't limited to just gender it applies to how they handle information in general from the anime. The logic used is "I haven't seen it so it doesn't exist/ hasn't happened" which is flawed logic. They've stated that established facts in the franchise don't always apply (Pokémon hatching from eggs, Pokémon evolve etc.) such as the aforementioned Froakie egg scenario (which I won). The only time they've acknowledged when a Pokémon's gender as been implied is with Ash's Greninja, honestly they could at least do that with Pokémon who's genders have been implied. It's not like they'd actually have to put in the article itself. | |||