|
Post by Piccolo on Apr 16, 2014 21:03:59 GMT -5
And I strongly disagree with your opinion about Eve and Cena. It basically says Eve has no responsibility for her actions The opinion where he said that Cena kissed her back enthusiastically? So, Cena shouldn't have kissed back because of his friendship with Ryder. That doesn't imply that Eve isn't responsible for kissing him, just that Cena is at fault for responding the way he did. Do you want to say that Cena did NOT participate in the making out? Unless you do, it's difficult to say that Cena was not culpable for his behavior as regards betraying Ryder just because Eve initiated it. It takes two to tango, and a loyal friend would've broken away immediately from the overtures.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Apr 16, 2014 21:45:02 GMT -5
I wasn't offended by his phrasing. It had little to do with my statement and accomplished nothing in countering anything I said. It's not a personal gripe to me, but one of logic. I simply want him to prove WHY he thinks Cena's character is not inconsistent. Not his personal views and wants to justify it to fit his own constructed narrative. But actual constructive, reasonable, logical proof that debunks the stance and vindicates the character. That's it. That is, as always, the crux of our differences. I state something. He disagrees. I (or someone else) provide examples, and he does not provide a lick of logical proof to negate or dispute it, yet continues to argue from a flawed and beaten base anyway. The truth is, the whole issue and argument(s) could have been avoided had he simply said he doesn't care that Cena is inconsistent and that he just enjoys the character as is. That is at least a subjective opinion that cannot be challenged or bested. Anything else has been countered many times in different threads by many people. Yet, the cycle begins again. And again. And again. I've explained to you why I think his actions are logical. You come back that my opinion shows others are illogical. I could say I enjoy the character despite him being inconsistent, but that would be a lie because I don't find him inconsistent. Cena makes sense to me. I don't think he's very funny, men dressed up as women is only funny if it involves Monty Python, but what he's doing with it makes sense to me. Since people dislike my comparisons to wrestling from other media, I'll use one from wrestling. Remember when the Hart Dynasty lost to Show-Miz and as a consequence Bret had to call Show-Miz the greatest team ever? He did so and then pointed out he could say anything, because just saying something didn't make it true. Cena calls bullshit on people and I like that. He seems to respect them in the ring and until we get a heel who runs away crying because someone disregards his gimmick the in ring action matter more to me. And I strongly disagree with your opinion about Eve and Cena. It basically says Eve has no responsibility for her actions Doesn't make his countless other inconsistencies in character any less prevalent -- for example like the Rey thing. I've yet to see a rational explanation as to why a good guy whose entire mantra is of honor, respect and loyalty to those he cares about couldn't let the Champ rest a week. It was a dick move that contradicted his whole moral fiber. And Eve was guilty. And Cena was just as guilty. That's the issue. They played up the narrative that he wasn't, which was absurd. And he even slut shamed the poor woman to save face the next week after the crowd booed the shit out of him for betraying his friend. That all said, the crux of the problem is that you won't admit that the character is inconsistent, which he clearly is from a writing standpoint, as has been pointed out in greater detail in this thread since I last posted. It comes down to you ultimately not wanting it to be that way, rather than it actually being that case. There is far more evidence that supports it, then there is evidence to support your defense. And by proxy, your stance has been defeated. Yet, you won't concede. Your arguing at this point has become the wrestling equivalent of a member of flat earth society. Wherein someone has literally taken you around the globe without you having plummeted off the edge into the vastness of oblivion -- yet you still cling to a flawed and disproven belief simply because, again, you WANT it to be that way. You need to learn that there is no shame in being wrong or still liking something in spite of gaffes or plot-holes. I for example love CM Punk's character and very much enjoyed the pipe bomb promo. But I'm not so absurdly stubborn to disagree with others criticism that as a former multiple time World Champion, that his plight as being "held back by management" didn't have a few plot holes and inconsistencies to it. Or that, despite decrying the status quo, for a while there, he pretty much became the same lame jokester as his predecessor with stupid insults that registered as child-like insults. But I still enjoyed him overall, because I like him. Things don't have to make sense to be enjoyed. Yet, you seem to need it to, even in the obvious face of it not being that way, often creating your own side narrative to make it so, or blatantly ignoring facts to support your incorrect views.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Apr 16, 2014 21:59:02 GMT -5
no, it comes down to me not viewing it that way. The things you say are inconsistent do not come off as inconsistent to me.
Write a thousand stories with a thousand different characters, I would never think that the guy in Cena's place was guilty.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Apr 16, 2014 22:06:50 GMT -5
no, it comes down to me not viewing it that way. The things you say are inconsistent do not come off as inconsistent to me. Write a thousand stories with a thousand different characters, I would never think that the guy in Cena's place was guilty. Then you have perception and comprehension problems. And I'll leave it at that. You cannot be rationally argued with. It's futile. It's like going into a court case where the defense attorney looks at the overwhelming evidence, turns to the jury, and says, "Well, I don't think he's guilty." That's it. That's the case. And he expects to win. I'm finished debating with you. You're too weird.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Apr 16, 2014 22:18:29 GMT -5
|
|