- Crusader
- |
- Exalted Member
Posted by: Shai Hulud
I'm disappointed that there are only two choices here. The theories, annoying as they may sometimes be, are neither truth nor nonsense. They're theories, hypotheses, opinions, etc. If you don't like them, ignore them, or post a counter-argument and try to convince the OP of the thread that he's more likely to be wrong about what he thinks than you are.
Unfortunately, most people posting here seem to know nothing about the philosophy of arguments. What constitutes as proof, what's mere opinion, why something is likely versus why something isn't. Most of what we get are opinions stated as closer-to-fact than they should be, and not a lot of evidence to back them up.
For example, since the time travel theories are numerous, annoying, and very poorly-argued, we get people proposing these theories on the basis that what we see of the darkside of Reach in the announcement teaser is visually similar to the planetoid we see at the end of the legendary ending of Halo 3. This doesn't hold up in any real argument in a philosophical sense, and though the similarities are evident, they don't come close to proving anything if you understand what "proof" means.
What those people should be doing is looking at evidence of time travel in the Halo Universe in Eric Nylunds First Strike, or even take a nerdier route and try to explain that time travel in a futuristic, fictional universe is entirely physically possible with Einstein's theory of special relativity. You can make pretty sound arguments for a time-travel storyline in Reach if you don't mind reading a bit before you do so.
you are right I should've made more answers but I just wanted to keep it simple :)
And convincing is very hard when people think they are right..