Uploaded by Background Pony #50AD
1475x1475 PNG 3.0 MB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Tags
+-SH safe2283761 +-SH edit181644 +-SH flash sentry15522 +-SH sci-twi32926 +-SH sunset shimmer83246 +-SH twilight sparkle373405 +-SH equestria girls269622 +-SH g42140440 +-SH biker230 +-SH blowtorch82 +-SH clothes686451 +-SH female1926385 +-SH jack of all trades8 +-SH lab coat3130 +-SH lesbian123903 +-SH male592311 +-SH meme97238 +-SH microphone8168 +-SH ship:flashimmer2882 +-SH ship:sci-twishimmer2990 +-SH ship:sunsetsparkle5473 +-SH shipping269402 +-SH straight191746 +-SH sunset shimmer is bisexual42 +-SH sunset welder35 +-SH talented10 +-SH welding mask118
Source
not provided yet
Loading...
Loading...
That makes no sense.
it’s one of myriad reasons why she rubs me the wrong way. I’ve always had a sore spot for lead characters who do nothing remarkable but somehow are more endearing to fans than the rest of the cast put together. those kinds of fictional personalities are casualties of bland, uninspired writing. :/
@RunDevilRun007
the Equestria Girls fandom IS the circus, and has been since the dawn of the sub-franchise.
@Ihhh
@Alexlayer
how in James Hetfield’s name is harping on others you disagree with celebrating? I don’t see what good can come out of attacking people who think differently from you! I love celebrating differences, but not if it causes anyone else misery.
look, you can gush over and headcanon about Sunset Shimmer all you want, but you’ve gone too far the moment you force your fantasies on others; let other fans enjoy her to their own liking.
@Ihhh
It is; this is all going too off-topic.
Edited
How is that hypocritical? Also, I feel that this discussion has gotten far too philosophical and has distracted from the core issue.
Ahh. So you’re just a hypocrite, got it.
Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance?
That’s not proof. That’s in fact the opposite assumption to “things are like they are in real world until proven otherwise.”
Further “things are like they are in real world until proven otherwise” implies that Sunset Shimmer (or any character) would have an orientation because, well, people in the real world have orientations, and nothing has proven otherwise.
I think I’m just going to have to say you’re lying when you say you operate under “things are like they are in real world until proven otherwise.”
I was pointing out his hypocrisy.
You do know exactly the same could be said to you, right?
Then why do you feel the need to reply to every comment I make on these images? Why could you not just ignore me?
Because real world physics flies out the window the moment that fantasy comes into play.
No. Again, this is fiction, and things can’t be true or false outside of what is shown. Perhaps she could be confirmed later, but until then, it is neither true nor false.
No. I keep explaining to you that truth and falsehood is not a dichotomy in fiction, yet you keep treating it as a dichotomy. Also, I don’t know what programming language you’re using, but in the vast majority, null doesn’t return a value for another value oh, it is not a function, it is a value, and it’s neither true nor false. Let me repeat, neither true nor false.
Yeah, ‘cause I like the content of these sort of things. I come here to celebrate, not to be a contrarian to everyone who’s just happy about something and try to invalidate the very thing they’re happy ’bout like you are.
Now how do you reconcile these two statements? ‘cause as I read them they go “I work under the assumption that “things are like they are in real world until proven otherwise”” and then “That only applies to the real world.” without offering proof otherwise, which is in direct contradiction to the previous statement: “Things are like they are in the real world until proven otherwise.” Simply put: what proves it doesn’t work like it does in the real world?
I also tend to apply the spirit of Schrödinger’s cat to more general things. If you’re in a position where one of two things can happen, plan for both, success/failure, correct/incorrect, etc.
Either K. Hadley’s statement is canon, or it’s not. If it is Sunset Shimmer is Bi. If it’s not Sunset Shimmer could be Bi.
EDIT: Our different stances could perhaps be articulate as: for me Null returns True for all values. Where as for you Null returns as False for all values.
Edited
I never said otherwise, though I could have been more careful with my wording.
I am not arguing that she isn’t, I’m arguing that it’s not canon. There is a big difference.
So do I, but that has nothing to do with orientation.
That only applies to the real world, and it only applies to particle-waves at the quantum level. It does not apply on the macroscopic level, and it does not apply in fiction.
If you want to know, my position is that Sunset’s orientation is null. I would use a different word, as the concept of a null variable comes from programming, but I don’t know a more colloquial word.
This I kinda-get. The difference in my stance is that being not-canon does not imply being false.
The argument that K. Hadley (or any author) does not have the authority to establish ex post facto canon, is a sound argument for the conclusion “Sunset Shimmer being bisexual is not canon.” But not for the conclusion “Sunset Shimmer is not bisexual.”
See, I actually agree with the tree supposition because it can’t be disproven or even really disputed given the evidence at hand. Just like in the real world odds are that somewhere a tree is being felled at any given moment. But I also work under the assumption that “things are like they are in real world until proven otherwise.”
Whereas the ‘are common’ aspect of ‘ligers are common’ can be easily disproven with the source material. “Ligers are common in EQG China” however… could be true because we have no evidence one way or another.
Schrödinger’s cat, if you can’t conclusively prove something to be in one of two opposite states, assume both.
No. Once again, you are building a strawman.
I never said anything was unnatural. Again, a strawman.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. When did I bring up biology in the context of this cartoon? I only brought up reproduction as a response to your irrelevant statistics.
Religion is technically not fiction, as it is claimed to be fact, regardless of the veracity of it’s claims. Not all perceptions are valid, especially when they ignore context. And while perception may vary, the actual events of a work are rarely up to interpretation, especially when said work is targeted towards children.
Keyword being assistant. That does not give her creative control. And again, seperate country. Also, they are made-for-tv movies, and they are part of a series.
But it was published, and tolkien wrote it. It is not at all equivalent to a tweet. Regardless, if it’s not in the final product, then it’s not canon. And you still didn’t address my example.
Again, semantics. The fact that I used a word in a way that may or may not have been slightly incorrect does not change the meaning of my arguments. The general idea is the same. I never used the phrase “explicitly stated”
But you don’t provide any counterarguments. I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, and even if I did, one point should not compromise the integrity of the rest of your argument.
The difference is that being false and not being canon are not the same thing.
Again, this is fiction. Unlike in real life, there are no truths in fiction that exist separate from their proof. By your own logic, I could argue that a tree falls down in a far away forest in every movie, special, and short, and you could not say I was wrong. Also, it is canon that ligers are common in the EQG universe.
Edited
The Directors Guild of America (DGA) is an entertainment guild that represents the interests of film and television directors in the United States motion picture industry and abroad. Source
I fail to see the difference.
See, this is you trying to argue a negative. Where not-shown = none, as opposed to my stance of not-shown = any.
IMO as “any” includes none it is the more-correct assumption.
Implying that non-heteronormative individuals are unnatural? I do believe you’ve just gone full homophobic.
Fun fact: Of the roughly 5,000 species of mammals, only 3 to 5 percent are known to form lifelong pair bonds. Would you take this to mean that monogamous pairs/marriage is equally unnatural?
Further, even in the animal kingdom homosexuality exists. In particular I’d like to call out this bit:
“I think to some extent people don’t think it’s important because we went through all this time period in sociobiology where everything had to be tied to reproduction and reproductive success,” said Linda Wolfe, who heads the Department of Anthropology at East Carolina University. “If it doesn’t have [something to do] with reproduction it’s not important.”
Are you not trying to apply real world biology to a fantasy cartoon? Goalpost shifting, again.
*under your perceptions. Different people may perceive the same content differently. I offer as example; all of religion.
Legend of Everfree, 1h 13m run time on which K. Hadley was an assistant director. She was also a storyboard artist/revisionist for My Little Pony Equestria Girls: Rainbow Rocks 1h 28m run time and My Little Pony Equestria Girls: Friendship Games 1h 12m run time.
That’s three movies on which Ms. Hadley worked. One of which she was an AD on.
I understand. I do not agree. A lot goes into the production of a work that doesn’t make it into the final product. I offer as example: The Simarillion the book comprised of unpublished works and notes relating to the Lord of the Rings universe and setting, primarily written by J.R.R. Tolkien, but only published after his death.
ex·plic·it
/ikˈsplisit/
adjective: explicit
stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
Then what is your explicit evidence that EQG Twilight likes Timber Spruce?
I dispute this claim.
I dispute this claim.
Again, this is television, not just film, and she is working in a different country.
No, I am saying that we shouldn’t act as if she is.
No it isn’t. It is not possible for her to have any orientation at all unless it is shown to us. If it is not shown, it doesn’t exist.
Exactly.
That is exactly why her being bisexual is not canon. Again, if it’s not shown, it’s not true.
Except the two issues are not separate when they overlap.
Are you not doing the same?
I was responding in the tone of the image.
Whatever then.
I don’t see how that is relevant. It still doesn’t change the fact that heterosexuality is how we reproduce, and thus is the natural default.
You’re seriously applying real world statistics to a fantasy cartoon?
In real life, that argument is valid, but this is fiction. In fiction, nothing exists outside of what is shown and told. If something is not shown or told, it is not true until it is shown. There is no universe in which these characters exist.
Again, Sunset is a fictional character, and she never shows attraction to any females in the show. If she did, I would change my stance, but until then, she is not bisexual, not is she heterosexual, nor is she biromantic, nor is she any other orientation. Until an orientation is confirmed within the show, she doesn’t have one.
Again, you continue to talk about film, but we are talking about television, and television works differently.
You and I seem to have very different definitions of “explicit confirmation”. I have explained my standards clearly, but you are still leaning on your own definition. You don’t seem to understand that showing counts as explicit confirmation. Also, winking and blushing is not showing, as there is a specific context which you continue to ignore.
No. They do not exist as people outside of the works which they are a part of, so it’s not possible for them to have any defined orientation. I woulds be using many of the same arguments if someone claimed she was straight.
Let me give you an example. Say that someone claimed that in the EQG universe, there was a teapot orbiting the sun. It doesn’t matter who this person is, because it is not shown to us, and therefore it is not true until it is shown. Now do you understand?
Except I never claimed that she isn’t, I merely disputed thew claim that she is.
That is not relevant. Gish gallop is completely applicable to online debate.
As is also common in gish gallop.