That song was made last year. Also, wrong month.

Seeing as there's currently is no cure for cancer and they ARE trying both alternative/modern medicine, I don't see what the problem is. They just want to save their child dude. And I don't think they JUST took her to a real doctor, I think they've been with them for awhile. I'm sorry about your friend, but you have to understand where they're coming from, you know?

ok bye

"Neigh child. "

Not sure why you have to start every comment with such a rude opening, it's incredibly annoying.

"Perhaps I can use your analogy. We are in the position, where we have video knowledge of that thief co-worker walking in and kind of hasstling with your wallet. We didn't directly see him (or her) take the money, but we have quite alot of evidence to suggest that they did.
That alone would convict any criminal. "

Very true! So what is this open-knowledge in this case? That's the "proof" we want.

"Now, what you're proposing is we throw away all that suggestive evidence because it's not definitive enough? Or 100% absolute? "

Not throw away, but not claim as fact so hastily.

"That sounds like absolute madness to me. If we see evidence to the contrary, like video image of him putting back the money and leaving, then of course! We should be doubtful then. But if we are at the place where Cadence has a bloody heart on her ass (indictive of special talent) and she's the only one casting love spells, then what the hell other conclusion can we make? "

All the heart on her flank says is that her talent is those love spells. That's it. You're right, that is the immediate conclusion and mine as well. Realize it is NOT fact though. So please stop treating it as such without definitive evidence and stop treating others who think differently with such an attitude. Respect other people's opinions if you want them to respect yours.

"Be honest now. It is actually illogical to say "well that can mean many things" or it's not 100-honest-to-god-confirmed" Don't complicate things until you have evidence of them. Absolute knowledge is impossible and unnecessary for our day to day lives. No one actually operates on such infallible terms. We go for the 'most likely'. until proven otherwise."

It's not MANY things. But it can definitely mean more than one, and that's not complicating anything, it's the truth. And you say that we go for the 'most likely' until proven otherwise sort of thinking, yet it seems as if you're the only one thinking this while everyone else commenting thinks otherwise.

"I mean by this same argument you could dismiss absolutely anything about the show or support anything, from flying kangeroos to a Pinkie Pie riding on giant green lizards. To me, thats a sign of a very weak argument. "

You could say the same thing with your line of thinking. It seems at this point, everything is a sign of a weak argument to you, so I'm not surprised you look at it that way.

I'm really sorry for jumping in but, I just don't understand.

A writer saying "No other Unicorn in all of Equestria can cast this same spell" would be valid proof.

Assuming no other Unicorn can cast the same spell just because we have yet to see another Unicorn do it is NOT valid proof. Sure, it's COMPLETELY logical, but that doesn't make it fact.

One day I left my wallet in the break-room of my job and all my cash was gone by the time I came back. Three co-workers of mine were working alongside me that day and all 3 of them went into the break-room after me. Now, co-worker A has committed theft before, while B and C had never done such a thing. LOGICALLY, I thought co-worker A had taken the money. It turned out co-worker B gave it back to me a couple minutes later, laughing at my anger and admitting he took it as a joke.

My point is, even though it was COMPLETELY LOGICAL to think that co-worker A stole my money, his history DID NOT make it proof that he did it.

There is nothing definitive about your claim. Maybe it's not an exclusive power. Maybe it is. Just because we've yet to see it doesn't answer anything.

lumiunako is saying we don't know for sure if it's an exclusive power (which is completely true!), but you're saying you do just because "it makes sense!" That's the wrong way to go about it.

Look, I agree with you. I DO think Cadence's power is exclusive to her. But I have no right to tell anyone who thinks otherwise that they're wrong.

It's not that you have an opinion, it's that you're making your judgement before the episode has even aired. Nobody said the Mane 6 won't have little adventures anymore, even if it is permanent. After it airs, THEN make your judgement.

i lol'd

I do understand where you're coming from, but I wouldn't take a single article so literally. Even if it is true that Hasbro gave the push, why does that completely omit the possibility of the writers accommodating the change nicely?

It could definitely go both ways, so let's save our judgement for when the episode airs.

The WHOLE show itself was created to sell the toys, so this shouldn't be a surprise. Despite that, the writers really are trying to make it the best it can be. And you say "downgrading" while assuming the worse and are totally being ignorant of the fact that it can go also go WELL instead. It can go both ways, but I have faith in the writers considering every other episode has been amazing thus far.

Stay positive man, at least save your judgement before the episode comes out.

They aren't "messing" with the character, they're developing her.