Since Rey likely isn't a Jedi...

"SnakesOnAPlane;c-1025499" wrote:
Do you ever research statements you make, after others, in this case many, give you a different assessment?

Every time it is a serious discussion. If it is with trolls, never.

"Woodroward;c-1025510" wrote:

"Tatebomb;c-1025504" wrote:
If it was one person or a few I would be like you and stick to my guns as well. But that's not the case here.

But to change your mind simply because of the number of people who say something is actually logical thinking error: Argumentum Ad Populum. So this point is actually not a point at all...

And that's the perplexing part: You found no reason to even check yourself when multiple individuals stated your version of the facts was not consistent with their version of the facts. There wasn't even multiple (more than 2) versions of facts, just yours and a plurality of others collectively agreeing you were mistaken.

"Tatebomb;c-1025511" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-1025505" wrote:

"Tatebomb;c-1025501" wrote:
You were given enough "proof" that if this was court they established beyond a reasonable doubt that kylo never had the tag. So glad that people's statements mean nothing. Wonder why cops get statements from witnesses though....

I was not given proof until the last two pages of this thread... nothing that would hold up in any legitimate court or in front of any scientific review board anyway.

Things a layman might accept as proof... sure.

Cops get statements from witnesses to try and figure out what happened. Do you think they believe everything they are told? This analogy supports my position far more than yours.

Well you're the Internet lawyer not me. And no I'm sure if there was one witness a cop would have doubts. But what if there were 10 witnesses saying the same thing? 100? 1000? What's the threshold where it's more likely than not the "herd" as you called us is actually right?

"Woodroward;c-1025510" wrote:

"Tatebomb;c-1025504" wrote:
If it was one person or a few I would be like you and stick to my guns as well. But that's not the case here.

But to change your mind simply because of the number of people who say something is actually logical thinking error: Argumentum Ad Populum. So this point is actually not a point at all...

If the people they were getting statements from were not involved at all, then their words would carry more weight. Who on this forum doesn't play this game? No one, the cops wouldn't take anyone in this thread at their word.

"Woodroward;c-1025512" wrote:

"SnakesOnAPlane;c-1025499" wrote:
Do you ever research statements you make, after others, in this case many, give you a different assessment?

Every time it is a serious discussion. If it is with trolls, never.

Yet the so called trolls were right all along.

"SnakesOnAPlane;c-1025515" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-1025510" wrote:

"Tatebomb;c-1025504" wrote:
If it was one person or a few I would be like you and stick to my guns as well. But that's not the case here.

But to change your mind simply because of the number of people who say something is actually logical thinking error: Argumentum Ad Populum. So this point is actually not a point at all...

And that's the perplexing part: You found no reason to even check yourself when multiple individuals stated your version of the facts is not consistent with their version of the facts. There wasn't even multiple versions of facts, just yours and a plurality of others collectively agreeing you were mistaken.

Because I never cared if I was right. I don't care if I am right or wrong most of the time. The rare times I am wrong are actually refreshing: I get to enhance prior knowledge that day.

I certainly don't care to prove people wrong unless I will actually help them somehow by doing so. I had no reason to double check. I certainly didn't have the time to waste looking for it.

It irritates me if people say I'm wrong about something I have witnessed with my own eyes and produce no proof.

"SnakesOnAPlane;c-1025525" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-1025512" wrote:

"SnakesOnAPlane;c-1025499" wrote:
Do you ever research statements you make, after others, in this case many, give you a different assessment?

Every time it is a serious discussion. If it is with trolls, never.

Yet the so called trolls were right all along.

No, the trolls have been wrong numerous times. The trolls aren't the ones who disagreed with me. The trolls are the ones hurling the ridicule.

In my book, this was an argument about attitude and etiquette rather than about Kylo's tag.

Again, it's about the principle of the matter. Some people say the ends justify the means. I say the means are more important than the ends.

"Tatebomb;c-1025526" wrote:
What's our motive to lie though? If anything being involved in the game would make us expert witnesses. Well most of us anyway.

Because it was entirely possible and plausible that he did have it and everyone commenting simply didn't notice when it happened.

Lying? Nah, I never thought that. Wrong? I never thought that of anyone here, nor did I accuse them of such.

Being involved in the game means you are involved, the cops would take your statement with a grain of salt before even switching to considering motive simply because of that.

"Tatebomb;c-1025534" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-1025528" wrote:

"SnakesOnAPlane;c-1025515" wrote:

"Woodroward;c-1025510" wrote:

"Tatebomb;c-1025504" wrote:
If it was one person or a few I would be like you and stick to my guns as well. But that's not the case here.

But to change your mind simply because of the number of people who say something is actually logical thinking error: Argumentum Ad Populum. So this point is actually not a point at all...

And that's the perplexing part: You found no reason to even check yourself when multiple individuals stated your version of the facts is not consistent with their version of the facts. There wasn't even multiple versions of facts, just yours and a plurality of others collectively agreeing you were mistaken.

Because I never cared if I was right. I don't care if I am right or wrong most of the time. The rare times I am wrong are actually refreshing: I get to enhance prior knowledge that day.

I certainly don't care to prove people wrong unless I will actually help them somehow by doing so. I had no reason to double check. I certainly didn't have the time to waste looking for it.

It irritates me if people say I'm wrong about something I have witnessed with my own eyes and produce no proof.

Oh you would have helped all of us if you could have proved us wrong.

Nah, it wouldn't have changed a thing. Knowing that something was a certain way for a short period at some point in the past opens no doors for anyone.

If it was true, it would at most have been a minor bit of trivia, nothing that would help anybody.

Let's get back on topic.

So Midichlorians...

While there is definitely a basis for them in scientific reasoning as shown by not only the evidence of symbiotic bacteria in complex lifeforms, but also through the recently isolated particles that determine the very laws of physics in our universe.

It was a very great way to establish the scientific background for the presence of the force.

The problem with it is that Star Wars was originally a blending of Sci-Fi and Fantasy. The Jedi are like light magic users and the sith are like dark magic users. The Jedi even had that aura and peculiar way of talking that monks, gurus, and mystics get. To take the fantasy and turn it into Sci-Fi is to take the magic out of it.

So, while logically it was a great thing to stick into the series, for entertainment value it was a massive faux pas.