Talk:Clemont's Chespin: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
Line 77: Line 77:
::We are not "wrong" about that. The policy is not flawed, you're just mired in {{wp|confirmation bias}}; there's '''''no reason''''' to think it will ''always'' be like you want to assume. At any point, the show could introduce a situation that runs completely counter to ''your'' assumptions, and it would contradict '''''nothing''''' essential to the show.
::We are not "wrong" about that. The policy is not flawed, you're just mired in {{wp|confirmation bias}}; there's '''''no reason''''' to think it will ''always'' be like you want to assume. At any point, the show could introduce a situation that runs completely counter to ''your'' assumptions, and it would contradict '''''nothing''''' essential to the show.
::The policy will not change. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 17:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
::The policy will not change. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 17:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
:::You're talking to guy who won the argument a Ash's Froakie being "confirmed" to hatch from an egg and I also have an above average IQ I think I know what I'm talking about. And tell how many times has a Pokémon not been the gender it was implied to have? That Purrloin from BW doesn't count for anything because that was a plot device.
:::You're talking to guy who won the argument a Ash's Froakie being "confirmed" to hatch from an egg and I also have an above average IQ I think I know what I'm talking about. And tell how many times has a Pokémon not been the gender it was implied to have? That Purrloin from BW doesn't count for anything because that was a plot device. {{unsigned|Flain}}
::::"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.
:::::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. {{unsigned|Flain}}