SitOnBread

Like I said there is no agreement on if opinions can be wrong or not, however, you can say they are factually baseless or invalid if they can be proved to be incorrect, you can search that up if you want, at this point it’s just different ideologies. Also, you can’t just say because it starts with I thought that it applies to the whole thing. I am referring to a specific part of what was said and there was no I thought in that part, it very clearly said that there was no exploring the potential of the universe, I say that’s false and can cite moments it did, if you want to believe that opinions can’t be wrong and that they can’t be factually baseless then that’s fine, we’ll just have to agree to disagree, have a good day [img=recommend]

Also when you say they felt they didn’t expand on it enough for there taste, they didn’t say that, that’s you inferring that, they flat out said that it didn’t happen and the author didn’t try. If they did say those words or something similar I would agree with them like I mentioned beforehand. Also, when it comes to if opinions can be wrong or not there is no conclusive answer, if you were to google it you’d find conflicting views, so I won’t push that issue, but, you should agree that his opinion was not factually sound and should have been phrased better to account for the effort the author put in, whether it was really not much at all or anything else.

Listen, using your own framework, because although I don’t agree that opinions can’t be wrong I’m willing to overlook that. So let’s say they can’t be wrong, within this context when he said that the potential etc wasn’t explored, that’s a opinion that is factually baseless, or based on a incorrect notion, you seem to think I want to be correct, I literally said that I would most likely agree with him if he changed his phrasing. In my opinion, it’s okay to say that someone’s opinion is wrong because factually there is either no basis or an incorrect basis. This isn’t a big issue, maybe there are certain situations where your right in saying opinions can’t be wrong, but within this one you can say it’a wrong and if you don’t want to then it’s factually baseless.

Like even if you don’t agree that the way he said his opinion was fact like, what he said was wrong in itself, but idk, I haven’t read this in a while so I’m not up to date on what’s happened in the fanfic, but it’s wrong to say that the author didn’t explore the potential of the world, that is just factually wrong because I can give you instances of it happening that I can remember, now if he said he didn’t do it enough or that he didn’t do it well, I would agree with that I think.

Okay let’s say that your correct and what he’s saying is mostly based on opinion, however, even if that was the case they can be wrong. He said “I knew multiverse fanfics would only destroy the intended world, not explore the potential that exists and take advantage of it” this is factually incorrect when it comes to this fanfic, there were clear attempts to develop the current world that the mc is in, and this is mentioned in my first comment under this review. He said his opinion as a fact, therefore I can treat it as a fact and say that he is factually incorrect; just because someone gives thier opinion on something doesn’t suddenly mean that what they are saying is correct, it can be criticised, just like how your critiquing what I said.

Also I said make up excuses because the reason he gave was factually incorrect, so to me it felt like he just didn’t like the story and was trying to find ways to justify that, just that the reason he gave was simply not true like I explained. Also, for what you mentioned last, it’s important to not give factually false information when writing a review, the person literally said something that was just wrong and anyone that read the fanfic would agree, so it’s completely fine for me to point it out.

What? I don’t think you understand what I said. It’s perfectly fine to not like something, but if you attach a reasoning behind it that just isn’t factually true it’s okay for me to point that out. Now if he just said I don’t like it or he gave a valid reasoning like the stories pacing is too slow, I would be like that’s completely okay, not everyone likes something and if you don’t like it for a solid reason or it’s just not for you that’s okay also, but you can’t just make up a bad factually wrong reason and say that’s why.

That’s fair haha. But I agree if you think within the confines of what actually happens and ignore plotholes, eliminating the Uchiha completely is a option, whether it’s the best one I don’t know, for Konoha probably yes though.

Well that wasn’t my point at all and I think someone as smart as you can understand that. I never said that a internal conflict would be better than eliminating the Uchiha. What I’m saying is they are just as bad as each other, you could say the internal conflict could be worse since Konaha would probably fall faster. What I’m saying is that there was a plot hole when Konaha wasn’t attacked after the Uchiha was eliminated, it doesn’t make sense. The internal conflict would have led to Konahas destruction, and eliminating the Uchiha should have done the same thing logically.

So you think that the Uchiha would do more damage than other villages attacking Konaha? I want to say that simply isn’t true. Also, the Uchiha didn’t ‘cause’ the war, they simply would be initiating it. The village itself as well as the hokage, advisors and Danzo were clearly antagonising the Uchiha, they are just fighting back. But the Uchiha are arrogant etc so maybe some hate towards them is justified. Also, itachi didn’t choose the lesser of two evils, he made a dumb decision that worked out because of plot. At the end of the day it’s a bit of a plot hole that Konaha wasn’t attacked after they lost most of the Uchiha. The lighting village kidnapped Hinata even while the Uchiha were there, so doesn’t make sense that they would do nothing, same with the other villages.