If you wanted to justify a pairing (or anything, for that matter), you lay out evidence. And if there is no hard, sound evidence, you interpret deeper. I agree with that.
However, if you're going to try to interpret something, your interpretation should at least sound logical and rational, even if it may not necessary be correct. In the end, what you're trying to do is convince others, and that's why you justify what you support.
I was just pointing out what I thought was kinda illogical. If your arguments are not sound, not logical, it's not going to be convincing. And that would just make your justification sound really off. Why would you want that?
No offense meant, but this is just my two cents on justifying a pairing you like. I personally don't mind the Cloud/Yuffie pairing, if you're wondering, so this isn't meant to debase the pairing.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-12 12:36 pm (UTC)However, if you're going to try to interpret something, your interpretation should at least sound logical and rational, even if it may not necessary be correct. In the end, what you're trying to do is convince others, and that's why you justify what you support.
I was just pointing out what I thought was kinda illogical. If your arguments are not sound, not logical, it's not going to be convincing. And that would just make your justification sound really off. Why would you want that?
No offense meant, but this is just my two cents on justifying a pairing you like. I personally don't mind the Cloud/Yuffie pairing, if you're wondering, so this isn't meant to debase the pairing.