1. #7241
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,858
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaghettiMonk View Post
    Sure it is
    It isn't a plot hole just because you don't like it. It isn't a lack of care with the lore because Durin III was alive when the rings were forged and Durin IV was alive when the War of the Ring took place. The timeline has been compressed so those events take place within a shorter span of time so Amazon can build up the same characters through out the season. Because of that compression it means that both are alive at the same time. Amazon could have chosen to go with random Dwarven kings instead but do you honestly think they wouldn't be nitpicked for not having a Durin?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    There is no other use of the title in any other context within the narrative. Meaning if you are going to use an argument that the Lord of the Rings title of the book refers to someone or something that isn't Sauron, you'd have to be talking outside of the context of the narrative.
    You wouldn't have to be talking outside the context of the narrative because that same narrative sets up the One Ring to be a ruler. What is another name for a ruler? It really is as simple as that. If people can still make theories about the Two Towers which has an actual definitive answer then something that doesn't have one can have theories as well, yes? Lmao.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    People can make a debate out of the shape of the world. Doesn't mean all views here are valid. Just because you have someone arguing against facts doesn't mean that their proposed falsehoods are in any way true, it just means that, as always, there are people trying to make bullshit points.
    What is the name of a ruler? Lord. What is the One Ring doing? Ruling the other rings. If we are talking about just facts with out feelings and opinions then Lord of the Rings can certainly apply to the One Ring. But as you say people try and make bullshit points just like you are doing now.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  2. #7242
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    What is the name of a ruler? Lord. What is the One Ring doing? Ruling the other rings. If we are talking about just facts with out feelings and opinions then Lord of the Rings can certainly apply to the One Ring. But as you say people try and make bullshit points just like you are doing now.
    First of all, the Ring's power over the others isn't absolute. Even when Sauron was united with it, the Rings it was supposed to dominate resisted him, to varying degrees, and he suffered three defeats while he had the One.

    Second, the Ring doesn't do the ruling. The bearer does. The Ring, on its own, has very limited powers, the only one being to change its size to slip from its bearer's Finger. Other than that, the Ring never does anything on its own. It requires a Ringbearer, and the one thing it does, with all of them, except for Tom Bombadil who is completely immune to it, is trying to force them to return to Sauron.

    Third, the will the Ring possesses is, effectively, an extension of Sauron himself, so at best you can argue that the Ring and Sauron are the same entity in two different 'bodies', but that's a stretch at best.

  3. #7243
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    Second, the Ring doesn't do the ruling. The bearer does. The Ring, on its own, has very limited powers, the only one being to change its size to slip from its bearer's Finger.
    Right. So the Lord of the Rings is the one who wears the ring and not necessarily Sauron. So any who can master and withstand the corruption can become the Lord. Doesn't that imply that the ring is the true Lord? As it is the one who holds and bestows the power? Even Sauron is implied to have become a servant of the Ring.

    "Unless some other seized it and became possessed of it. If that happened, the new possessor could (if sufficiently strong and heroic by nature) challenge Sauron, become master of all that he had learned or done since the making of the One Ring, and so overthrow him and usurp his place. -Letter 131

    "Also so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it; it was beyond the strength of any will (even his own) to injure it, cast it away, or neglect it. " -Letter 131


    "The Third Age is concerned mainly with the Ring. The Dark Lord is no longer on his throne, but his monsters are not wholly destroyed, and his dreadful servants, slaves of the Ring, endure as shadows among the shadows." - Letter 131


    This article from TOR does a good job at exploring the evolution of the ring between the unpublished and published work. It does indicate that the One Ring evolved from a trinket that depended on the wearers intent into a force of its own.
    Last edited by rhorle; 2022-10-21 at 01:05 PM.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  4. #7244
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    Right. So the Lord of the Rings is the one who wears the ring and not necessarily Sauron. So any who can master and withstand the corruption can become the Lord. Doesn't that imply that the ring is the true Lord? As it is the one who holds and bestows the power? Even Sauron is implied to have become a servant of the Ring.

    "Unless some other seized it and became possessed of it. If that happened, the new possessor could (if sufficiently strong and heroic by nature) challenge Sauron, become master of all that he had learned or done since the making of the One Ring, and so overthrow him and usurp his place. -Letter 131

    "Also so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it; it was beyond the strength of any will (even his own) to injure it, cast it away, or neglect it. " -Letter 131


    This article from TOR does a good job at exploring the evolution of the rnig between the unpublished and published work. It does indicate that the One Ring evolved from a trinket that depended on the wearers intent into a force of its own.
    Sauron is not implied to have become a servant of the Ring. It is more or less outright stated that he poured too much of his own power into it and became dependent on it. The loss of the Ring cut him off from a great deal of his power. It's what ultimately leads to his downfall, in his greed to create a weapon to dominate he made one that could undo him. But in the end, all the Rings only exist because of Sauron and his ambition. They were made to dominate the inhabitants of Middle-Earth. Sauron just overdid it. He miscalculated, gravely.

    The article you linked puts it nicely. The Ring is a receptacle of Sauron's power. It seeks to return to him.

    I'm not going to tell you that the Ring is merely a trinket. As is said in the books, it has a will of its own. And I'd also agree that it should be considered a character. It is, however, not a Lord, since on its own, it is worthless. It wants to be worn, and it needs to be worn, to have any kind of impact, and when it is worn, it only seeks to return to its Master's hand.

  5. #7245
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    Sauron is not implied to have become a servant of the Ring. It is more or less outright stated that he poured too much of his own power into it and became dependent on it.
    So the One Ring has a will of its own. It has the power. It controls the other rings. It binds servants to it. It's destruction removes that power but doesn't kill its wearer. But it is the wearer that is the Lord? If the One Ring is to be considered a character then it also most be considered the real Lord of the Rings.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  6. #7246
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    So the One Ring has a will of its own. It has the power. It controls the other rings. It binds servants to it. It's destruction removes that power but doesn't kill its wearer. But it is the wearer that is the Lord? If the One Ring is to be considered a character then it also most be considered the real Lord of the Rings.
    Except for the Ring having a will of its own, everything you said here is outright wrong.

    The Ring doesn't have the power, it is the vessel for that power, because its Master created it that way.

    It doesn't control the other Rings, it confers the power to control them to a sufficiently powerful individual, without which the Ring is nothing.

    Its destruction removes the power from it. Since Sauron tied his existence to it, it also destroyed him.

    And not the wearer is the Lord. Explicitly, only Sauron is. Frodo wasn't, Gollum wasn't, Isildur wasn't, Bilbo wasn't, and Samwise wasn't, either.

    And no, it most definitely mustn't, because the power it inherits is merely a portion of Sauron's power. He retains a decent part of that power, even without the Ring. Just look at the Nazgul. They are the only instance where Saurons plan actually worked. He gave them the Rings, which he in turn controlled through the One. When he was seperated from the one, they continued to serve him, not the Ring, and not the one holding the Ring. If the Ring had had any level of control over anything it wouldn't have spent over 2000 years sleeping with the fishes.

    The Ring is like a credit card. It invokes greed, and that greed can drive people to be corrupted by it, it can be used by anyone, if misplaced or given to someone who's not trustworthy it can really cause damage to the owner, and the holder gains a fraction of the power that the original owner posesses, but ultimately, that power will return to the original holder of the card.

  7. #7247
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    If people can still make theories about the Two Towers which has an actual definitive answer then something that doesn't have one can have theories as well, yes? Lmao.
    People can make theories all they want, it doesn't change the fact there is already a definitive answer. All you've been saying this entire time is that people can make theories.

    Like the example I gave to Veggie, I could make a plausible sounding theory that Return of the King is referring to the Witch King of Angmar, or if we are talking Rings of Power, Sauron as Halbrand, self proclaimed King of the Southlands.

    This theory wouldn't change who the King in the title Return of the King is actually referring to. Make sense? Even though we know exactly who the King is, anyone can make up a theory. It doesn't mean the theory would be valid whatsoever when we take the context of the narrative into account. It doesn't need Tolkien making a statement about who the returning King is referring to in order to be definitive. The narrative already sets it up clearly and unambiguously.

    Just because anyone can theorize it could refer to Halbrand doesn't mean Aragorn is no longer the definitive answer.


    Right. So the Lord of the Rings is the one who wears the ring and not necessarily Sauron.
    Gandalf already addressed this by explaining that Frodo is not the Lord of the Ring, it can only be Sauron. Gandalf is the narrative authority on the subject.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-10-21 at 04:31 PM.

  8. #7248
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    Except for the Ring having a will of its own, everything you said here is outright wrong. The Ring doesn't have the power, it is the vessel for that power, because its Master created it that way.

    ...Its destruction removes the power from it
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    It is more or less outright stated that he poured too much of his own power into it and became dependent on it
    Isn't it strange that the ring can have power when it fits your claim but it can not when it supports mine? Isn't it strange that power can be removed from the ring, and middle-earth, but the Ring doesn't actually have power? The Ring does control the other rings. "One Ring to rule them. One ring to bind them." Not one Sauron.

    A credit card doesn't take down the entire evil empire if it gets destroyed. It just removes a tool. The destruction of the Ring took down all of the empire because of how Sauron infused the Ring with power. It removed all of his power for good when it was destroyed. Because he put his "native power" into the Ring and with out that couldn't accrue non-native power. And yet we are supposed to be believe the Ring wasn't the true power and lord?

    We know that the Ring just requires a vessel and not specifically Sauron. As Gandalf says he would become like the Dark Lord if he took the Ring from Frodo.

    "‘No!’ cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. ‘With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.’ His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. ‘Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great, for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.’"


    What about Galadriel? Who states the Ring works on in may ways with or with out Sauron around.


    "For many long years I had pondered what I might do, should the Great Ring come into my hands, and behold! it was brought within my grasp. The evil that was devised long ago works on in many ways, whether Sauron himself stands or falls."


    The Ring has the power. The Vessel can augment their power with the Ring but it is still coming from the Ring itself.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    People can make theories all they want, it doesn't change the fact there is already a definitive answer.
    Again, you are using that word wrong. There is no definitive answer. A character saying a person has a title doesn't mean that the book title also refers to that. There are other texts of the book that can fit for the Ring being the title. Even Tolkien himself has put greater focus on the the Ring at times. In the text and out of the text it are important when discussing a book title.


    "P.S. I have given some thought to the matter of sub-titles for the volumes, which you thought were desirable. But I do not find it easy, as the 'books', though they must be grouped in pairs, are not really paired; and the middle pair (III/IV) are not really related. Would it not do if the 'book-titles' were used: e.g. The Lord of the Rings: Vol. I The Ring Sets out and The Ring Goes South; Vol. II The Treason of Isengard, and The Ring goes East; Vol. III The War of the Ring, and The End of the Third Age'?1 If not, I can at the moment think of nothing better than : I The Shadow Grows II The Ring in the Shadow III The War of the Ring or The Return of the King. JRRT" -Letter 136


    The reason why you can make a theory/argument for "Return of the King" referencing the Witch-King is because the text alone doesn't give a definitive answer. There is room for it to be in reference to the Witch-King. Or even Sauron as he was about to defeat the last resistance to his rule and barrier to his return.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  9. #7249
    Sauron is the lord of the rings, anyone stating otherwise is a troll and should be ignored. To pretend otherwise is someone whose head is so far in the sand talking to them is literally pointless.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarim View Post
    It's a strange and illogical world where not wanting your 10 year old daughter looking at female-identifying pre-op penises at the YMCA could feasibly be considered transphobic.

  10. #7250
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    The reason why you can make a theory/argument for "Return of the King" referencing the Witch-King is because the text alone doesn't give a definitive answer. There is room for it to be in reference to the Witch-King. Or even Sauron as he was about to defeat the last resistance to his rule and barrier to his return.
    Nope. The answer is also definitive, all you're arguing is that you could put out a theory that ignores the narrative truth. Which has been my point the entire time - you are using arguments in ignorance. You're trying to apply factual truths to paint a picture outside of the context of the narrative, which is dishonest at best since the topic is all about the narrative and not what the title could mean outside of that context. By all means, I could theorize that Tolkien himself is the Lord of the Rings since he is the ultimate creator of the Rings and the authorative source who has control over all the characters who wielded it. That doesn't make it true to the title of the book series.

    We could say Lord of the Rings isn't set in Middle Earth at all, and we can theorize that the entire story was a Shutter Island scenario where Frodo was a mental health patient living out a fantasy the entire time. It doesn't change the facts about the narrative of the Lord of the Rings being set in the world of Middle Earth. The setting of Middle Earth is definitive, even if someone presents an alternative theory.

    What you're trying to argue here is 'Facts aren't definitive as long as anyone can come up with an alternative theory', and that's incredibly bad faith and pedantic.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-10-21 at 05:04 PM.

  11. #7251
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Nope. The answer is also definitive, all you're arguing is that you could put out a theory that doesn't regard the truth at all.
    You've already changed from only Sauron is the definitive lord of the rings to now including Frodo. You keep using definitive incorrectly. The facts of the narrative allow for the Ring itself to be a "Lord of the Rings". Gandalf said it would cause him to become like Sauron. Galadrial said it has power with or with out Sauron around. Even the evolution of the Ring from Tolkien's unpublished work shows how the Ring itself become a character instead of a trinket.

    The text doesn't support Frodo being a mental patient in an asylum. That you keep concocting an increasingly crazy strawman should indicate that you don't have any ground to stand on.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  12. #7252
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    You've already changed from only Sauron is the definitive lord of the rings to now including Frodo.
    No, you just have poor reading comprehension. I can't be blamed for your own ignorance here, lol.

    Try again, maybe you'll get it the second time.

    The text doesn't support Frodo being a mental patient in an asylum. That you keep concocting an increasingly crazy strawman should indicate that you don't have any ground to stand on.
    Yet I can still argue that the theory could be made as per your argument. Theories don't have to abide by facts. There are no limits to what can be argued. That is why trying to point out that Flat Earth theories exist is not a credible means of countering the fact that the world is round. We are merely talking about a definitive truth, and a theory presented in ignorance of the truth.

    The narrative text doesn't support the One Ring being called a Lord either. Not once, not ever. There is no difference in theorizing that the One Ring is the Lord of the Rings when the text simply doesn't support this being true whatsoever. It is a theory that ignores the fact that this is definitively explained to be Sauron within the narrative. It is a definitive narrative truth.

    Now, people can personally regard any other interpretation if they choose to. That is anyone's right, to interpret the meaning of 'The Lord of the Rings' however they see fit. If someone believed Tolkien is the Lord of the Rings because he is ultimately the authoratative source who controls everyone in the fiction, then all the power to them for holding to their opinion. That doesn't change the context of the title being definitively applied to Sauron. And very blatantly, this is something you have not actually argued against at all, and you agree being true. All you've been saying is 'Anyone can also make (ignorant) theories that Bilbo is the Lord of the Rings', and I'm pointing out how those arguments don't really change the narrative truth that Sauron is who the Lord of the Rings refers to.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-10-21 at 05:58 PM.

  13. #7253
    Quote Originally Posted by bledgor View Post
    Sauron is the lord of the rings, anyone stating otherwise is a troll and should be ignored. To pretend otherwise is someone whose head is so far in the sand talking to them is literally pointless.
    I mean, Tolkien didn't specifically mention that the barmaid in the shire wasn't the lord of the rings.
    plot thickens.
    Error 404 - Signature not found

  14. #7254
    Quote Originally Posted by Kumorii View Post
    I mean, Tolkien didn't specifically mention that the barmaid in the shire wasn't the lord of the rings.
    plot thickens.
    Damn, you are right.

    Someone should inform Rhorle that Tolkien never wrote guns/cars didn't exist in his universe, can't wait for Celeborn to come riding in on an M-1 Abrams mowing down orcs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarim View Post
    It's a strange and illogical world where not wanting your 10 year old daughter looking at female-identifying pre-op penises at the YMCA could feasibly be considered transphobic.

  15. #7255

  16. #7256
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    Isn't it strange that the ring can have power when it fits your claim but it can not when it supports mine? Isn't it strange that power can be removed from the ring, and middle-earth, but the Ring doesn't actually have power? The Ring does control the other rings. "One Ring to rule them. One ring to bind them." Not one Sauron.

    A credit card doesn't take down the entire evil empire if it gets destroyed. It just removes a tool. The destruction of the Ring took down all of the empire because of how Sauron infused the Ring with power. It removed all of his power for good when it was destroyed. Because he put his "native power" into the Ring and with out that couldn't accrue non-native power. And yet we are supposed to be believe the Ring wasn't the true power and lord?

    We know that the Ring just requires a vessel and not specifically Sauron. As Gandalf says he would become like the Dark Lord if he took the Ring from Frodo.

    "‘No!’ cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. ‘With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.’ His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. ‘Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great, for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.’"


    What about Galadriel? Who states the Ring works on in may ways with or with out Sauron around.


    "For many long years I had pondered what I might do, should the Great Ring come into my hands, and behold! it was brought within my grasp. The evil that was devised long ago works on in many ways, whether Sauron himself stands or falls."


    The Ring has the power. The Vessel can augment their power with the Ring but it is still coming from the Ring itself.

    - - - Updated - - -
    Isn't it strange that you only ever decide to nitpick at certain details that fit your narrative, instead of answering to the entire response? Isn't it also strange that, a few posts ago, you said that anything that is said in the books, like Gandalf outright naming Sauron as the Lord of the Rings, is to be disregarded, and now you're trying to use a quote by Gandalf to try to establish your ridiculous narrative?

    The Ring wasn't the true power, or the Lord. That power always came from Sauron. Whatever power the Ring has, it cannot use it on its own. Without a Ringbearer, the Ring is worthless, and only Sauron has come close to have any form of control over the Rings with it. The Nazgul keep doing Sauron's bidding, not the Rings.

    Also, picking out one line from the poem sure suits your narrative right. But let's look at it whole, shall we?

    "Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
    Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
    Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
    One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
    In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
    One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
    One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
    In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie."


    One Ring made for the Dark Lord, Sauron, by himself. One Ring, made to rule them all. Not doing ruling by itself, which it can't. One Ring, made to bind them. One Ring to bring them all to him, to Mordor, and to bind them in the Darkness. One Ring made in the Land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie.

    Also, Christopher Lee, close friends with Tolkien, names Sauron as the Lord.
    Last edited by Skulltaker; 2022-10-21 at 05:55 PM.

  17. #7257
    As someone who never minded too much if shows take liberties with source material ...I still think Amazon's Lord of the Rings ended up being pretty terrible and meh at best. I legit hoped for more.

  18. #7258
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Looks like Gandalf wasn't Wizard after all too.

    Better story/imagination than the writers of RoP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarim View Post
    It's a strange and illogical world where not wanting your 10 year old daughter looking at female-identifying pre-op penises at the YMCA could feasibly be considered transphobic.

  19. #7259
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    No, you just have poor reading comprehension. I can't be blamed for your own ignorance here, lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Yes, it could be argued. And it would be wrong because The Lord of the Rings is definitively not referring to Frodo or Bilbo.
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It's no different than trying to argue that Frodo was the Lord of the Rings because Pippin said so. It's correlation, not canon.
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    The fact he wrote Gandalf saying The Lord of the Ring is not Frodo, but the master of the Dark Tower of Mordor makes it definitive.
    It is neither my ability to read or my ignorance that is at question here. You flip flop and forget your own statements and claims. Your inane theory that the story is being told by a patient in a mental asylum can not be made per my argument. There is no supporting text in the books. There is no supporting text from the author. It shows a fundamentally lack of understanding on your part or a willful ignorance just so you don't have to admit you were originally wrong about the validity of the theory.

    You could theorize that Frodo, Sam, Bilbo, the Gondor contributors, and whoever else embellished or got wrong certain parts of the story. Since it is supposed to be a book written by in-universe characters as well. Yet that is a far cry from a patient in a mental asylum. Nothing about the book definitively indicates it refers to Sauron. Again you show you don't understand that words. I've provided enough evidence from the book, and from the author, that indicates nothing definitively states such. The only thing your argument definitively proves is that Sauron has the same title. It does not indicate the title can only apply to him.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by bledgor View Post
    Someone should inform Rhorle that Tolkien never wrote guns/cars didn't exist in his universe, can't wait for Celeborn to come riding in on an M-1 Abrams mowing down orcs.
    In his unpublished work and early drafts he actually did write about guns, metal boats, and even airships. Of course only explosives were left in his published work. So maybe stop your weird grudge against me because being clever doesn't suit you.

    Some were all of iron so cunningly linked that the might flow like slow rivers of metal or coil themselves around and above all obstacles before them, and these were filled in their innermost depths with the grimmest of the Orcs with scimitars and spears; others of bronze and copper were given hearts and spirits of blazing fire, and they blasted all that stood before them with the terror of their snorting or trampled whatso escaped the ardor of their breath

    "Our ships go now without the wind, and many are made of metal that sheareth hidden rocks, and they sink not in calm or storm; but they are no longer fair to look upon. Our towers grow ever stronger and climb ever higher, but beauty they leave behind upon earth. We who have no foes are embattled with impregnable fortresses - and mostly on the West. Our arms are multiplied as if for an agelong war, and men are ceasing to give love or care to the making of other things for use or delight. But our shields are impenetrable, our swords cannot be withstood, our darts are like thunder and pass over leagues unerring."

    Therefore many abandoned the Gods, and put them out of their legends. But Men of Middle-earth looked up with wonder upon them, and with great fear, for they descended out of the air ; and they took the Númenóreans to be Gods, and some were content that this should be so

    The old line of the lands remained as a plain of air upon which only the Gods could walk, and the Eldar who faded as Men usurped the sun. But many of the Númenórië could see it or faintly see it; and tried to devise ships to sail on it. But they achieved only ships that would sail in Wilwa or lower air. Whereas the Plain of the Gods cut through and traversed Ilmen [in] which even birds cannot fly, save the eagles and hawks of Manwë
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  20. #7260
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    It is neither my ability to read or my ignorance that is at question here. You flip flop and forget your own statements and claims.
    Have you read all that you've quoted?

    All of it is the same argument. That Sauron is the definitive Lord of the Rings.

    Where do I claim that Frodo is the definitive Lord of the Rings? No where in any of those statements, lol. Nothing has been flip-flopped.

    You could theorize that Frodo, Sam, Bilbo, the Gondor contributors, and whoever else embellished or got wrong certain parts of the story.
    Yes and that would be an argument in ignorance because you're ignoring the fact that Gandalf is the narrative authority on the subject. You could only argue this if there were another instance where the 'Lord of the Rings' is applicable to any other character which properly challenges Gandalf's own authority. And there is no case where this exists whether we're talking about Frodo or Sam or the Gondor contributors or anyone else.

    Understand that by saying you can come up with an ignorant theory, it does not make the truth any less true.

    ve provided enough evidence from the book, and from the author, that indicates nothing definitively states such.
    Absence of evidence is not evidence. You should know better than to apply a fallacy to an already ignorant argument.

    Like Bledgor made the example above, he never said the barmaid was not the Lord of the Rings either. It doesn't change the fact that the Lord of the Ring is a title specifically referring to Sauron in the narrative.

    The only thing your argument definitively proves is that Sauron has the same title. It does not indicate the title can only apply to him.
    It is mutually exclusive because Gandalf, the narrative authority, literally explains this to be the case. If you can't take the narrative as being true, then you may as well be arguing that Lord of the Rings has no meaning at all because you don't trust anything in the narrative defining such parameters. As I said, it's an argument you can absolutely make, and I can point out clearly that is an argument in ignorance, because you ignore the facts in order to present that theory.

    "My ignorance says this isn't definitive" is not a good argument to make, Rhorle. Like, I could theorize that you're not a real person and you could be a malicious internet bot on the internet. Just because I have a theory doesn't mean you aren't definitively human. And just because I can also say I don't trust any evidence you have to prove you are actually human doesn't open up the possibility that you are not a real human being. All this would mean is I would be presenting an argument in ignorance, one that doesn't take in factual evidence to reach a reasonable conclusion. Does this make sense?

    Your argument challenges that facts can not be considered definitive because you consider arguments in ignorance to be equally valid to the discussion. And you're willing to support this with fallacies like absence of evidence, or by completely ignoring the context and twisting facts so that the definitions of 'Lord' and 'Rings' could apply to anyone/thing that fits your argument. Which goes again to my point - if no one calls you a Human and I theorize that you are a bot, would you consider this theory a possibility that you are not human?

    The core issue here is that you are personally unable to or intentionally unwilling to differentiate a fallacy from a legitimate argument. The entire premise of the Lord of the Rings being applied to anyone other than Sauron would be an argument built on fallacies.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-10-21 at 07:27 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •