Minor God of War Removal II

[Pepsimanslover_69]

It's disheartening that you, and apparently @KLOL506 and @Tanin_iver believe that this constitutes justification for an alternative interpretation, or that this resolves the issues I pointed out. That line very clearly is nothing more than providing visualization of Atropos at work amidst the conversation. The conversation involves a logical series of reactions and rebuttals, in a way that directly recites the original myth of Atlantis. You are attempting to argue that the appearance of a logical exchange is a giant inexplicable cosmic coincidence but that the conversation is actually a disjointed series of out-of-context statements about entirely unrelated matters, one after the other.

"Clotho disapproves of using war with this man's fate, so Atropos just impulsively sinks a continent, and then Clotho randomly brings up Atlantis." Believing such a scenario is even worth considering when reading it as "Clotho disapproves of using war, Atropos logically defends the method by referencing "sinking a continent this way" (sunk Atlantis with war), and Clotho logically rebukes that Atlantis (a continent that sank due to war) says it wasn't worth the effort. "

It's not a close call, an "agree to disagree" or a matter of opinion. It is merely a question of whether you understand the passage or do not understand it, or (alternatively) are willfully misunderstanding it to further an argument. There are plenty of situations in literature where the best interpretation is subjective, this is not such a case.


That is literally what happened in Greek myth.

Or, the convo go's like this,

Atropos plucks a thread,
Clotho doesn't like the thread,
Atropos angrily responds by sinking a continent by again plucking and says how proud she is of it,
Clotho responds to her statement by saying that the way she sunk Atlantis wasn't her best.

Not only is this in character, but it's also a way for the events of Atlantis in GOW to not be contradicted by both the game and the VERY NOVEL we're talking about, and be generally consistent.

And I don't care about Greek myths, you already know my past stance about it.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

This seems like a whole lot of fluff and condescension about my question, given that it ultimately doesn't address the fact that not only does the novel automatically assign blame to Kratos for sinking Atlantis in the first chapter

wouldn't this be working against the point the opposition is making, given it directly implicates Kratos in the sinking of Atlantis as a tool for the Fates, rather than them doing it via Earth Manip

 

[Deagonx]

I don't even understand why did you take that comment seriously, its just a joke, like the ones above.

Sure, I don't really care to argue about your original intent. You recognize that the notion of seriously questioning any of the votes is a silly thing, and that's well enough for me.
---------

This seems like a whole lot of fluff and condescension about my question, given that it ultimately doesn't address the fact that not only does the novel automatically assign blame to Kratos for sinking Atlantis in the first chapter but even assuming that the author somehow forgot about the game he is referencing less than 4 chapters before this, the whole part is discardable given it would become a contradictory piece of secondary canon.

Arguing how other interpretations are nonsensical veers around the fact that this is ultimately something that does not happen within the main canon of the series

Authors contradict themselves on a routine basis. The fact that one piece of information contradicts an earlier piece of information is not free license to ignore the meaning of a passage, and contort it into a nonsensical version of itself.

As far as the accusation of "veering around" the fact that it does not happen within main canon, I would encourage you to actually read the threads you are having these tantrums on:

This is not the canon fate of Atlantis in GoW, but the text-as-written makes any other interpretation impossible, even if it is not canonical to GoW.

Amazing that I can reference the non-canon status twice in the same sentence and still be accused of "writing headcanon" or "veering around the non-canon status." Wasted breath, it seems. This was never about attempting to claim Atlantis canonically sank due to war in GoW as in the Greek myth. It was solely focused on explaining the fact that this is what the passage means, and that this meaning is obvious and undeniable. Once again, it is a matter of whether one understands the passage or not.

wouldn't this be working against the point the opposition is making, given it directly implicates Kratos in the sinking of Atlantis as a tool for the Fates, rather than them doing it via Earth Manip

No, because they are claiming that the continent Atropos sank is unrelated to Atlantis, and Clotho bringing up Atlantis in the next line is... just random.

Yes, that's really the argument.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Sure, I don't really care to argue about your original intent. You recognize that the notion of seriously questioning any of the votes is a silly thing, and that's well enough for me.
---------


Authors contradict themselves on a routine basis. The fact that one piece of information contradicts an earlier piece of information is not free license to ignore the meaning of a passage, and contort it into a nonsensical version of itself.

As far as the accusation of "veering around" the fact that it does not happen within main canon, I would encourage you to actually read the threads you are having these tantrums on:

Amazing that I can reference the non-canon status twice in the same sentence and still be accused of "writing headcanon" or "veering around the non-canon status." Wasted breath, it seems. This was never about attempting to claim Atlantis canonically sank due to war in GoW as in the Greek myth. It was solely focused on explaining the fact that this is what the passage means, and that this meaning is obvious and undeniable. Once again, it is a matter of whether one understands the passage or not.

Your trying to use noncanon, a very flakey interpretation that can be replaced by a way simpler one as I provided, and most importantly yours is contradictory to the main events.

No, because they are claiming that the continent Atropos sank is unrelated to Atlantis, and Clotho bringing up Atlantis in the next line is... just random.

Yes, that's really the argument.

Your not here to speak about the opposition's arguments, if staff asks, we give the answers to what we are actually talking about.

You can provide criticism as much as you want, but you can't exactly speak for us.

Anyway, I provide a simple interpretation that's consistent to the lore, do you have criticism about it?

Or, the convo go's like this,

Atropos plucks a thread,
Clotho doesn't like the thread,
Atropos angrily responds by sinking a continent by again plucking and says how proud she is of it,
Clotho responds to her statement by saying that the way she sunk Atlantis wasn't her best.

Not only is this in character, but it's also a way for the events of Atlantis in GOW to not be contradicted by both the game and the VERY NOVEL we're talking about, and be generally consistent.

And I don't care about Greek myths, you already know my past stance about it.

 

[Deagonx]

Your trying to use noncanon, a very flakey interpretation that can be replaced by a way simpler one as I provided, and contradictory to the main events.

The interpretation I provided is not "flaky" rather, it is the obvious and self-evident meaning of the passage.

Atropos plucks a thread,
Clotho doesn't like the thread,
Atropos angrily responds by sinking a continent by again plucking and says how proud she is of it,
Clotho responds to her statement by saying that the way she sunk Atlantis wasn't her best.

This is similarly nonsensical, and the conversation doesn't go like this in the first place.

- Atropos plucks a thread,
- Clotho doesn't like the thread,

Yeah, not what happens. Atropos says she's focusing on an important mortal's fate, Clotho asks negatively if she intends to use diseases, Atropos says she's using war. Clotho sneers.

- Atropos angrily responds by sinking a continent by again plucking and says how proud she is of it,

At this point you claim that Atropos randomly sinks a continent by plucking a string. Not only does this have no relation to the conversation leading up to it, but it is also contrary to the nature and function of strings which represent lives. Atropos cannot simply inflict sudden massive environmental damage by touching a string, she can merely orchestrate events by manipulating lives. So we have no reason to choose an interpretation that is not only disconnected to prior events, but also requires a hitherto undemonstrated power that is conceptually inconsistent with the function of threads.

- Clotho responds to her statement by saying that the way she sunk Atlantis wasn't her best.

Further, you imply that we randomly arrive at Clotho bringing up Atlantis with no context or lead-up, rather than Clotho addressing the very topic that Atropos quite obviously just mentioned. You also describe this as Clotho saying "the way Atropos sunk Atlantis wasn't her best" which, again, is just plainly not what Clotho said. Clotho said that Atlantis was not worth Atropos' effort given the mortal and godly fates they have to weave, she never criticized the "way" she sunk Atlantis, she said that Atropos had better things she could've been doing.

And I don't care about Greek myths, you already know my past stance about it.

You caring about them or not caring about them has no meaning here. You are still asserting that it is a massive coincidence that Atropos outlines the events of the original greek myth surrounding Atlantis, and that Clotho then responds by saying Atlantis wasn't worth her effort.

The fact that you willfully editorialize the progression of events (by claiming Clotho reacted negatively to an earlier plucking of a string, and that she criticized the way Atlantis was sunk) and sidestep the issue of the Greek myth by declaring "well I don't care about Greek myths" is sufficient in and of itself to disregard your approach.

It's very simple, the meaning of the text is obvious, and the attempts to twist oneself in knots to make it read nonsensically for battleboarding purposes is something that should be discouraged.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

The interpretation I provided is not "flaky" rather, it is the obvious and self-evident meaning of the passage.


This is similarly nonsensical, and the conversation doesn't go like this.

Atropos plucks a thread,
Clotho doesn't like the thread,

Yeah, not what happens. Atropos says she's focusing on an important mortal's fate, Clotho asks negatively if she intends to use diseases, Atropos says she's using war. Clotho sneers. At this point you claim that Atropos randomly sinks a continent by plucking a string. Not only does this have no relation to the conversation leading up to it, but it is also contrary to the nature and function of strings which represent lives. Atropos cannot simply inflict sudden massive environmental damage by touching a string, she can merely orchestrate events by manipulating lives. So we have no reason to choose an interpretation that is not only disconnected to prior events, but also requires a hitherto undemonstrated power that is conceptually inconsistent with the function of threads.

Further, you imply that we randomly arrive at Clotho bringing up Atlantis with no context or lead-up, rather than Clotho addressing the very topic that Atropos quite obviously brought up. You also describe this as saying "the way she sunk Atlantis wasn't her best" which, again, is just plainly not what Clotho said. Clotho said that Atlantis was not worth Atropos' effort, she never criticized the "way" she sunk Atlantis, she said that Atropos had better things she could've been doing.


You caring about them or not caring about them has no meaning here. You are still asserting that it is a massive coincidence that Atropos outlines the events of the original greek myth surrounding Atlantis, and that Clotho then responds by saying Atlantis wasn't worth her effort.

The fact that you willfully editorialize the progression of events (by claiming Clotho reacted negatively to an earlier plucking of a string, and that she criticized the way Atlantis was sunk) and sidestep the issue of the Greek myth by declaring "well I don't care about Greek myths" is sufficient in and of itself to disregard your approach.

It's very simple, the meaning of the text is obvious, and the attempts to twist oneself in knots to make it read nonsensically for battleboarding purposes is something that should be discouraged.

I can already tell you didn't understand what I was saying, but regardless let's talk about it.

I concede on the beginning, regarding what started the events.

But this part somehow you missed entirely.

"At this point you claim that Atropos randomly sinks a continent by plucking a string"

this wasn't random at all, Atropos pretty clearly does this to respond to Clotho's reaction,

"Do you approve of my work this time Clotho? I sunk an entire continent this way!"

Again, Atropos is impulsive, insane, and temperamental. This is in character.

"you imply that we randomly arrive at Clotho bringing up Atlantis with no context or lead-up"

We don't arrive "randomly", Clotho here is responding to Atropos sinking a Continent and her insane rumbling about it,

As for her saying "Atlantis wasn't worth your effort" this doesn't change anything regarding what we are debating here regardless.

Again, Greek myths are noncanon, the events are contradicted by Gow's events.

As for their threads, they have shown the ability to affect things supernaturally, the continent sink, being capable of crippling their victims by aggressive tweaking.

 

[Pepsimanslover_69]

Also, can we please stop using religion as some sort hard evidence? It has already been established we don't use religion for indexing unless it's canon, otherwise we end like how JJK was.

 

[Deagonx]

Also, can we please stop using religion as some sort hard evidence? It has already been established we don't use religion for indexing unless it's canon, otherwise we end like how JJK was.

No one proposed using religion for indexing. The point is that alternative interpretations must regard the fact that Atropos seemingly reciting the original myth for Atlantis sinking was a coincidence, and that what she meant was entirely different. This is -- frankly -- a pretty dumb argument to be making.

I can already tell you didn't understand what I was saying, but regardless let's talk about it.

I've already addressed those points, and I am not inclined to go in circles indefinitely, so I'll restate my position plainly: The passage is not difficult to understand, in the face of Clotho's sneering at war, Atropos defends herself by referencing a past war-based accomplishment that Clotho responds was "not worth her effort." No loose ends, each piece logically connects to the piece before and after it, and the imitation of the original myth needn't be imagined as some fantastical coincidence, nor Clotho invoking that original myth immediately after the description is given. This is not a matter of opinion, the meaning is self-evident.

It's not uncommon for people to attempt to contort even the most minor instances of literary vagueness in support of a blatantly illogical interpretation of simple passages, nor for me to have the rather sorry task of painstakingly dissecting plain English in the hopes that something as obvious as this will be made apparent to those for whom the logical conclusion is inconvenient.

Given that the 48 hours have passed for this thread passing, the unanimous staff vote, and that no counter-arguments have been brought in favor of keeping these abilities, I will consider this matter to be closed now.