It’s really been pissing me off reading everybody dogging on the makers of Adventure Time for disapproving of all this PB/Marceline crap. At first I was like, “Oh, it’s just usual fan stuff. More fan art, some bitching.” But I didn’t know anyone was actually taking this seriously. Has anyone seen the episode. Literally all that was implied was that Bubblegum and Marceline used to have some sort of relationship before they stopped getting along. I automatically assumed it was a friendship because there was NOTHING to suggest otherwise.
If it did suggest a romantic relationship, I would have been fine with that too. It would make a nice twist even. But to dog on the animators and creators of the show because they would rather not have something officially attached to the show say out right that that was the way it was supposed to be interpreted is out of line. If they want to be ambiguous, then it is their right to do so. It’s their show.
Don’t force your causes on them. Yeah, it would be a big step to have another openly lesbian couple on a children’s program. But Adventure Time isn’t here to make a social statement. Plus they already did that on Arthur. Go bug them if you want more. If there was any hint of them crushing on each other it was meant to be subtext at best. But like I said, there was no hint of that in the first place. It’s just a bunch of out of control shippers spurred on by all this youtube nonsense, and it’s gone too far because now it’s become a problem for the creators of the show. So can we all just get over it and focus on what the show is really about. Two epic bros going on mathematical adventures together.
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.