Yuuki hunger is not in question. But, we seen her craving blood when Yori walked by before Sara showed up. We see her biting herself and craving blood when she had "her loved one's" blood earlier. Those are facts and logic follows them that her craving might be natural to her without any outside influence. Now, that doesn't mean that it's the truth but logically it's a sound argument.
Can you tell me exactly which scenes you mean because I am confused?
I'm not actually even asserting any theory. What I am doing though it trying to show how unsound this theory is.
Unsound? to make this theory unsound it must not fit the manga or the plot. Or it must be false by the script. On what ground are you stating it is unsound?
Let's start at the end. Yuuki hunger is growing so the theory being that the blood tablets are the cause of this. Now we don't have any evidence towards that. Right? We can theorize once again to them having these effects.
Then how did she gets these pills to her? It isn't hinted or shown in this chapter or last? So once again a theory must be built on how she switched out these tablets
yes and if she had taken it, Hino would just reveal to you all the plot?
No where in the first arc Yuuki being a pureblood vampire was clearly pictured, neither the fact that even Rido existed (very few hints could point there, but if a conversation started questioning and connecting the death of Kaname’s parents with Yuuki and the appearance of Yuuki to the snow, the interest that Kaname shows her bla..bla..with that revelation, your answer to them would probably be the same.)
So they could not dicsuss that probability because the logic would be unsound to you? now I do not know what philosophy says about it, about I can tell you what democracy says and also what the correct manners say about participating in a conversation ...because if you think that you are making it here to insult the logic of the members by twisting around just about anything and bashing theories that you do not like because they sound unsolid, no that's not a good excuse, I suggest find another one.
Meanwhile Yuuki's comment to Zero that she had left the door open that shows how careless she is with the space.
Also what about the differences in taste? Once again another theory constructed to explain this.
What has the taste got to do if Yuuki has taken tha tablets or not? we do not built the theory of the children to proove anything about Yuuki, points unrelated to each other... after all the thread is called "blood-tablets" you really mind that much?
All theories are constructed based on hints/speculations, until they are confirned by the facts and then the theory is becoming a fact itself...
Backward logic is fine as long as you can give evidence towards it and you aren't building evidence to fit your theory.
If you construct an evidence then the theory will have problem ...if you use an evidence/hint to hypothesize something i do not see the wrong in this..and this is what we do...
Yuuki's thirst> questioning the effectiveness of the tablets>unpleasant feelings>blood cells of the prisoners that Sara has made slaves to build an army>tasty tablets?>kidnapped kids...
so we did not make none of the above; we connected them...
We did not make up the kidnapped children, we used it to give a meaning to the children’s kidnaps plus trying to guess what can make the tablets really taste.
Are you going to say that this has no logic behind it?
The same with Yuuki’s bloodlust.
We were looking for an alternative other than the obvious.
Not only it does not contradict the script, but if this theory is valid all hints are mainly used here to complete the picture.
Now also Sara motivations which are already very unclear for even coming there are also being inferred based these later theories. We don't use her already known reasoning and connect them up logically but we use one of many possibilities to connect to other possibilities and theories. As you can see a lot of this reasoning isn't solid. It depends on other things being true that aren't necessarily true. Like I said earlier I can't prove you wrong but I can prove your reasoning isn't solid.
Which are the based later thories? and which are the already known reasoning that connect logically? You are not telling me anything, other than ranting about it. I can't fight negativity, do you have an arguement?
Logic has rules as to how to tell a good theory from a bad/unsound one.
Then I would suggest applying them.
Yes, I'm attacking this theory, I don't accept all theories.
Some make sense some don't. In fact if people did that without critiquing then we'd never be able to separate good one from bads.
About theories until they are proven by the script or proven by other facts that come in that are wrong, are fine to exist. It could be wrong, it could be right, but theories have already served their purpose with people using their mind and their logic to make guesses, questioning the script and its intentions and that’s a healthy procedure. Later they can also see where they went wrong, what was right. What really worries me though is the fact that I need to go over these basic stuff, that's theory you know and open to development and corrections and bla bla... Now you don't like it, or its arguements, you can't follow its logic or you do not want it, that's your right but it is also your bother also. Not mine...
I don't believe there is positive value in accepting any theory.
Well I propose to you to get ready to write a lot of posts because here we are making tones of theories, some bad, some good ones, but true, some false..but we are enjoying it all together
. Or stay out of this if you prefer not to get interfered with theories, they are too many lurking around
The big bang didn't create the universe a giant space bunny did. Prove me wrong. You can't but you can show that from our knowledge such a thing is extremely unlikely.
Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity and isotropy of space). The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.
If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant. The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term Big Bang during a 1949 radio broadcast. It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative "steady state" cosmological model, intended this to be pejorative, but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two models. Hoyle later helped considerably in the effort to understand stellar nucleosynthesis, the nuclear pathway for building certain heavier elements from lighter ones. After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some version of the Big Bang scenario must have occurred.
I? proving you wrong? no you would have to prove wrong the above gentleman (that's how the logic goes) and the rest... Now that's what logic says.
Logic is a school of thought. I didn't make it up. I'm saying you can't base theories on theories and then call that solid logic. Maybe it's because I'm a philosophy student so i do this all the time but you just can't do that and expect people not to poke holes in it.
Thank god you did not make it up...LOL
But you do not philosophize anything, actually you are telling us to stop thinking and making theories. All you are telling us is to stick blindly to the script, overview some facts and neglect some others. Nice philosophy there.
Of course I could point out of number of inconsistencies to this but that doesn't make it impossible. Honestly though if you don't like your theories to be critiqued then keep them to yourself. That's a big reason people come to forum to read other theories and debate them.
Now apart from telling us what to think, you are going to tell us what to do as well? So if you do not like it stop reading them as well. Or stop insulting and offending people telling them how their logic should be used because that is way beyond philosophy, that's offense and you are trolling the discussion.
You have arguements againts this theory proove it wrong/ at least bring evidence that support how unsolid this is...
If you can not proove it, I think that as a theory it stands its grounds along with the Bing-Bang theory...