Jump to content

Snoop Arryn

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Snoop Arryn

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Birmingham, AL

Recent Profile Visitors

414 profile views
  1. Snoop Arryn

    Do you believe Preston Jacobs' explanation for dragon riding?

    This is purely opinion and you're welcome to have that particular opinion. I however don't buy that. I am indeed making generalizations about his videos because most of his theories have been thoroughly refuted on these forums for a while. If I had a little more time at the moment, I could find plenty of old threads on here. But for now, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
  2. Snoop Arryn

    Do you believe Preston Jacobs' explanation for dragon riding?

    This is where you're losing people on this thread I think. At this point in the story, on just about every theory he's put out here, no one can say that he is either correct or wrong with certainty. That is why these are theories. We can argue whether or not his position is supported by the text, and maybe that's is what you meant. (in which case, apologies for arguing semantics.) PJ's videos are often full of textual support and hints for small things or initial ideas, the problems arise when PJ then compounds these things into large grand theories that require assumptions or leaps in logic to get from the starting text to the conclusion he's drawing. And often those assumptions or leaps in logic are easier to refute than to support.
  3. Snoop Arryn

    Do you believe Preston Jacobs' explanation for dragon riding?

    I've lurked through this whole thread today, and I just have a few thoughts... To the OP: I do enjoy all of PJ's videos and I'm a subscriber to his YT channel. That said, I think I believe in very few of them. (Honestly the pink letter video may be the only one I can agree with...). Preston Jacobs does take a lot of leaps when he comes up with his theories and there is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make them wrong, but it does open them up to simple refutations. The format by which he presents his theories makes it easy go on these leaps with him. By the end of a 10 min video, you have gone on this long, thought-provoking journey about a certain topic, and you may fail to realize that the one assumption you made 30 seconds into the video wasn't a great assumption based on the text. And that makes the whole train of logic derail to an extent. Discussion forums like this one make it easier to flesh out things like that. And a second thought to everyone: A common debate practice for lawyers or anyone wanting to be a better debater is to try and argue "the other side." I think that logic can applied to theories. If you are trying to decide if you subscribe to a theory; gather your support for it first, and then honestly try to refute it. If you're honest with yourself, you should be able to determine which side of the coin was easier to support with textual evidence. Maybe you find pages of quotes supporting your theory and 1 or 2 refutations, or maybe you find only a few quotes supporting it, but many refutations. After you complete this exercise, you can always still support a theory that may not hold up if you want to or enjoy it, just recognize the refutations where appropriate. This exercise is why I believe very strongly in R+L=J, it is easy to support and very hard to offer alternatives or refutations by comparison. (Haters will just say that's a theory being "too obvious," and to them I'd say that just means you don't want it to be true. The idea of something being "too obvious" is a logical myth based on gut feelings.)