Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26037921-20150309212855/@comment-26285761-20150601015841

ThePhilosophunculist wrote: No firm evidence for either ship? Seriously? What do you bring to the table to disprove the fact that Pearl loved Rose then? Or that Stevonnie is a thing? Have we even been watching the same show? Since Connie's first appearance we've literally seen their relationship flourship to get to the point that we are at now (and to the future point(s) we will be at in the future). And you're saying that's not a thing? What proof do you have? C'mon then. Prove your stance with the facts. As for Pearl and Rose, it is literally clearer than glass that Pearl have feelings for Rose that were more than likely not reciprocated. The whole episode was literally laced with evidence to support the Pearl loving Rose stance.

You actually haven't given anything that makes you any more credible than the other people who support these ships. What you said was literally: "Anything and everything is possible so it could be true and it couldn't be but who knows."

Oh and hints do stand as evidence. Scientist have literally been using hints to reach the factual and legitimate conclusions that they have (i.e Newton and the falling apple) since forever. So your statement is invalid.

Honestly though this is a stupid conversation and I can't wait until somebody shuts all the idiots down. Just to be clear, I'm going to answer each paragraph with its own. Here goes:

Sorry, you came too late for "guilty until proven innocent." Actually, i do believe in Stevonnie, but there actually is no actual firm evidence, as frustrating as it may be, unless you have quote directly from a creator that is not out of context? To date, there is only Lars's quote upon discovering both trapped within a bubble, and he did not know enough about the situation for it to count. If he does it later on again in a more knowlegdable manner, then it is acceptable.

I know I haven't. This truly is a matter of opinion, and ALL opinions should be respected unless they are specifically derrogatory to other opinions. Also, I did basically say that. Problem?

They do not. The falling apple is actual evidence when added to all objects in the universe known so far, because they all follow the laws that Newton created, unlike any other theories that scientists had that contradicted Newton's final conclusions. There is simply not enough evidence to be sure either way in this case, however, despite your arrogantly ignorant statement. Also, scientists have been using hints to reach conclusions (since a long time, I'll give you that, but not forever,) but that does not make them immediately legitimate.

No, it's not, and yes, i wish they do as well, as long as they don't forget to shut you down.