Lifes.Lover said:
And there can't be contradictions? There is no such thing as a rule that is cut and dry completely. There are shades of gray to everything, and thus not everything can be encompassed into a rule. Therefore, that's why we have exceptions. Because there's more to rules than what we see. But the base of the rule stays the same. Body + Soul - Heart= Nobody.
Logically, there can't be contradictions to the true rules. It's like this, when someone loses their heart,
their heart becomes a Heartless. This is a basic rule established early in the series. However, then we
learn of the PoH and how when they lose their hearts they don't turn into Heartless. This doesn't brake
the rule for no reason. There is a reason why this opposes the established rule. Since there is a reason
for the occurrence, even though the rules say it can't happen, then the rules need to be revised. So
now the rule is if someone with a heart with darkness in it loses said heart, then that heart becomes a
Heartless. Basically when rules are faced with contradiction, small changes of the rules become
necessary to explain events logically.
Lifes.Lover said:
Where does it say that Roxas is the only one who doesn't want his heart back?
It says that Roxas is not sure if he wants his heart back in Another Report, (somewhere in time...)
Lifes.Lover said:
Not really. I said nothing about fake emotions. Once Roxas is back inside, and fully tied to Sora, he has the feelings that Sora feels. Therefore, he attaches the real emotion that Sora uses to the memories he has of what he once had. Therefore, fake emotions have no basis on anything.
And this says nothing about my soul having imprinted memories emotions on it, thus letting him have emotions theory.
You for the most part are agreeing with what I said (or at least it seems you are)
Lifes.Lover said:
I understood what you were saying perfectly well. However, you're not understanding what I'm saying, it looks like. You brought the theory and it's relation to Roxas into a debate that we're having. You only did it for relating purposes, but when you bring something into a debate, you should expect it to be debated. However, since you weren't, and I don't want to debate about it, considering that it's just a 'relation', you should not have brought the theory into the debate at all.
I didn't intend for it to be any part of any such debate.
I referenced the theory as more of a side note.
People are allowed to reference their theories without
actually posting them (points to 'Key to Ven's Identity' thread)
Lifes.Lover said:
I think you are close-minded about me, to some degree. Because you read that I say that Roxas cannot have a heart due to his Nobody status, and the rules of the Nobodies stand true for me, you don't think at all to ask me about why I would think Roxas has a heart.
Here's how it stands with me. Just because I think Roxas doesn't have a heart due to his Nobody status, does not mean that I believe that Roxas is a Nobody. If you have read other posts of mine before, you'd know that I believe strongly in Nomura's abilities and like for twisting the plot on us and that if he has done it twice or more times on us before, then he will once again.
Therefore, it is not above my thinking to believe that, during one of the new games, Nomura will give us a plot twist and say something to the affect that either Naminé, Roxas, or Xion are not, in fact, actually Nobodies at all.
Perhaps Ansem the Wise isn't as wise as we thought, and he didn't actually have a clue what he was writing about, and perhaps Roxas and/or Naminé were mistaken for Nobodies when, in fact, they are not.
However, until this comes up, I believe fully in the rules that we have been given so far, and as such, Roxas is still a Nobody, and therefore cannot have a heart. I'm not goint to throw the rulebook out the window just because I want to believe Roxas has a heart, come hell or high water.
I suppose, in your eyes, that still makes me close-minded, doesn't it?
I made the comment about close mindness because you said
you had no intention to read my theory. I always make an effort
to read over new theories and give each one proper consideration,
even if the theory is posted by a member with a double digit post
count, or if the theory is based off something that I don't necessarily
believe but agree it is logically possible. I didn't mean that you were
completely closed minded, what I meant that instead of considering
my theory, you'd rather purposely not read it for the sole reason of
not bothering to observe my views and ideas. So maybe that reason
for you not considering read my theory is a tiny bit closed minded.
(However, if you were not to read it because it is too long, then
that's an acceptable reason)
Naturally though, I too am inclined to be closed minded at times as
well, and since I'm such an opposer of thinking, I am thankful when
I am cirticized for it.