Shin is one of the best male mcs in recent years in LN adaptations(This thread has spoilers from LN)
86--EIGHTY-SIX (light novel)
Thigh_Tide said: borderliner said: You really haven't explained anything. You simply think that Shin is a poorly written character in a story by some hack author. I contend that Shin is a deliberately constrained character written that way with intent. Your "proof" is a bunch of statements about how a character "should" be written that you have transmuted into absolute edicts. I contend that meeting arbitrary criteria is trumped by telling an engaging story with compelling protagonists. The stats available on MAL bear out my contention. Well, yes, I am discussing how a character "should" be written, in order to be a compelling protagonist. The "criteria" I am talking about is precisely how to write an engaging story. The fact that I can tell you that, that I know how to write, is supposed to make me wrong how, exactly? All you're really saying in deference of how I've laid out the issues with the story is that you somehow like the show regardless, but it's already been shown that you fail to understand the most basic of terminology and technique so what does that amount to, really? If you close your eyes and can't understand what's going on, it's a good show? Ridiculous. If you think what I've talked about is "arbitrary," explain why you think that is the case. Otherwise, that's just a groundless statement, much like when you earlier brought up circular reasoning then failed to point to where I did so, despite being asked to twice. And of course, bringing up the stats on MAL is just an embarrassing fallacy. Most importantly, I posed several damning questions in my last response, and you haven't even attempted to answer them. If you won't make any attempt to do so, I will assume you realise and accept how they disprove your view. Put simply, you don't like Shin as a character and so you refuse to see his goals, motivations, traits, development, and when other posters put forward examples you say those aren't valid thereby completing the circle in your reasoning. There is a difference between should and must, and there is a world of difference between knowing the rules for doing something and being able to do it well. And yes, these "rules" for literature are arbitrary, if an author of repute decides to break all of them and produces something compelling they will be fawned over. The point being that some piece of art that is compelling to its target audience is what matters not "following the rules" what you think of as rules are simply a recipe that promises a greater chance of success. But it's success (as in reaching your intended audience) that really matters You are engaging others on a platform that allows everyone to express their own opinion by flagging and rating the shows they watch, you give the strong impression you think everyone else's opinion is worthless, but there are no wrong opinions where personal tastes are being shared. The only claim you make that I see any merit in is that Shin's character is shallow. But, as I've said, I think you misunderstand the author's intent, we have been shown glimpses of the playful, energetic, loving boy inside of Shin. But the story of at least these last eleven episodes has focused on the veneer he has built around his character. I've seen you say similar to this in a few other posts you've made If you won't make any attempt to do so, I will assume you realise and accept how they disprove your view The fact that I choose to ignore you when you try to circularise the conversation is mine to make, since you understand the use of words better than me, you should realise how making a statement like that makes you appear to all other posters. |
borderlinerSep 16, 2021 5:09 AM
| Quantum ille canis est in fenestra |
borderliner said: Put simply, you don't like Shin as a character and so you refuse to see his goals, motivations, traits, development, and when other posters put forward examples you say those aren't valid thereby completing the circle in your reasoning. First, the idea that I refuse to see things about Shin because I don't like him is simply incorrect. This goes back to your earlier (and i remind you, unbacked) claims that I "don't understand it," where you assume that I must have some sort of bias against a work simply for pointing out its issues. You're essentially assuming it is "right" to like the work, and any detractor is wrong for not doing so, which is obviously just nonsense. Second, you omit the critical fact that no "examples" that were put forward have yet been valid. Take what you gave, for example, when I pointed out that he has no goals or agency - You listed minor, inconsequential decisions, and I had to explain to you what the terms meant, since you did not know. I'm not causing any artificial alteration of information. Additionally, this isn't even a circular argument, as you claimed, because "saying those aren't valid" doesn't lead to me "disliking the character," as you assumed. There is a difference between should and must, and there is a world of difference between knowing the rules for doing something and being able to do it well. By which you mean to say what? 86 fails to follow the rules for "doing something," as you put it, so such a statement is meaningless. And yes, these "rules" for literature are arbitrary, if an author of repute decides to break all of them and produces something compelling they will be fawned over. The point being that some piece of art that is compelling to its target audience is what matters not "following the rules" what you think of as rules are simply a recipe that promises a greater chance of success. Here you've made a huge mistake in your thinking. While it is more or less true that someone genuinely talented can make a piece of media that does not follow all of the "rules" of writing but is still good, that does not mean that those "rules" aren't important. Specifically, any decision that is made to distance a work from a particular paradigm of storytelling is done intentionally to enhance another element of the work. For example, some movies stray away from overarching conflict in favour of an introspective look into a particular character, or others use many simple characters to discuss the behaviour of society as a whole. The key here is that any author doing such a thing understands why such "rules" exist in place, and how to make a story work despite them. It most certainly does not mean less able creators are able to ignore such basic necessities. As an example, suppose you had a gourmet chef who made an excellent dish that works with only a little bit of seasoning. But someone else, someone cooking just in their own kitchen, has a recipe that would benefit from a lot of seasoning. By your logic, they don't need any, because someone else made a dish that didn't use it, ignoring the fact they're completely different meals and one is a lot more skilled at cooking than the other. The "rules" are in no way arbitrary, it is also important to note. They're how stories function, based on how we as a species understand them. Deep characters who affect their storylines, thematically meaningful plots and concepts, such requirements are all simply what we want from fiction, and what fiction is for. If you want to question their validity, you may as well question why there the story needs such a thing as a protagonist, or why it needs to have a beginning, middle and end. Put simply, no, you can't just ignore the "rules" on a whim. But it's success (as in reaching your intended audience) that really matters Utter bullshit. Commercial success does not equate to objective quality. I don't know how you could even think that. James Cameron's Avatar was the highest grossing and highest DVD-selling movie of all time, are you saying that it, having reached the most amount of people, is unquestionably the best movie ever created? You are engaging others on a platform that allows everyone to express thier own opinion by flagging and rating the shows they watch, you give the strong impression you think everyone else's opinion is worthless, but there are no wrong opinions where personal tastes are being shared. That's a declarative statement of your own, not indisputable fact. I expect you to try and justify it. The only claim you make that I see any merit in is that Shin's character is shallow. And from there everything else wrong with the show follows, his lack of drive, his inagency, his extraneity, so you're almost agreeing with my point. But, as I've said, I think you misunderstand the author's intent, we have been shown glimpses of the playful, energetic, loving boy inside of Shin. But the story of at least these last eleven episodes has focused on the veneer he has built around his character. If it were the intent to have a seemingly shallow character who reveals depth later on, he would still have goals, agency and the like that would be exhibited and could be analysed. You're more or less just trying the excuse "he might have been bad deliberately," which just doesn't work, especially as he fails to actually demonstrate that depth later as you believe is the case. I've seen you say similar to this in a few other posts you've made If you won't make any attempt to do so, I will assume you realise and accept how they disprove your view The fact that I choose to ignore you when you try to circularise the conversation is mine to make, since you understand the use of words better than me, you should realise how making a statement like that makes you appear to all other posters. I don't quite understand what you're implying here, but the parts of what I've said that you've ignored are those that demonstrate precisely what is wrong with your viewpoint. If you cannot demonstrate how such points are supposed to be wrong, as you think, then it follows that your opinion is. Take what's written above, for instance, where I ask you to justify the statement you made. You want to use that as part of your argument, but if you can't explain why the statement is true, then it is meaningless, you'd just be backing up your opinion with another opinion. After all, if you refuse to answer a question, then that can only mean you have no answer, and that's the point I make by asking. On that note, I do advise you to answer the many, many questions you've chosen to not, otherwise I will have to conclude I've hit upon the flaws in your opinion. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
Silent2000 said: Thigh_Tide said: No, that's not at all the reason. You're making a blatant and ridiculous Straw Man. I listed many reasons why the series is, quote, "a plie of shit," namely weak attempts at character that lack depth and development, as well as struggling to make a coherent narrative that utilised said characters in any meaningful way. None of that is in any way dependent on my own profession - I don't need to write myself to know that such things are inarguably bad and speak of a lack of talent. You "asked me first," then assumed an answer. I'm asking you how you assumed that answer. -the other guy said you dropped the show after 3 eps and after a couple of back and forth responses you then claimed that you read the novel huh? Should I beleived you reasoning and what kind of behavior is this -if this series is inarguably bad and that author is also lack of any talent then why did this series received a literary award(dengeki novel grand prize) and made her a professional novelist today -I asked you first since you're bringing up a serious problem - That doesn't in any way respond to what I said above, and I've already talked about that above in this thread. - Awards mean nothing, and bringing them up is a fallacy, an appeal to authority. All an award means is some other people liked the book, but nothing proves they are correct in having that opinion of it. - Like I said, you "asked me first," then assumed an answer. I'm asking you how you assumed that answer. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
Thigh_Tide said: borderliner said: Put simply, you don't like Shin as a character and so you refuse to see his goals, motivations, traits, development, and when other posters put forward examples you say those aren't valid thereby completing the circle in your reasoning. First, the idea that I refuse to see things about Shin because I don't like him is simply incorrect. This goes back to your earlier (and i remind you, unbacked) claims that I "don't understand it," where you assume that I must have some sort of bias against a work simply for pointing out its issues. You're essentially assuming it is "right" to like the work, and any detractor is wrong for not doing so, which is obviously just nonsense. Second, you omit the critical fact that no "examples" that were put forward have yet been valid. Take what you gave, for example, when I pointed out that he has no goals or agency - You listed minor, inconsequential decisions, and I had to explain to you what the terms meant, since you did not know. I'm not causing any artificial alteration of information. Additionally, this isn't even a circular argument, as you claimed, because "saying those aren't valid" doesn't lead to me "disliking the character," as you assumed. There is a difference between should and must, and there is a world of difference between knowing the rules for doing something and being able to do it well. By which you mean to say what? 86 fails to follow the rules for "doing something," as you put it, so such a statement is meaningless. And yes, these "rules" for literature are arbitrary, if an author of repute decides to break all of them and produces something compelling they will be fawned over. The point being that some piece of art that is compelling to its target audience is what matters not "following the rules" what you think of as rules are simply a recipe that promises a greater chance of success. Here you've made a huge mistake in your thinking. While it is more or less true that someone genuinely talented can make a piece of media that does not follow all of the "rules" of writing but is still good, that does not mean that those "rules" aren't important. Specifically, any decision that is made to distance a work from a particular paradigm of storytelling is done intentionally to enhance another element of the work. For example, some movies stray away from overarching conflict in favour of an introspective look into a particular character, or others use many simple characters to discuss the behaviour of society as a whole. The key here is that any author doing such a thing understands why such "rules" exist in place, and how to make a story work despite them. It most certainly does not mean less able creators are able to ignore such basic necessities. As an example, suppose you had a gourmet chef who made an excellent dish that works with only a little bit of seasoning. But someone else, someone cooking just in their own kitchen, has a recipe that would benefit from a lot of seasoning. By your logic, they don't need any, because someone else made a dish that didn't use it, ignoring the fact they're completely different meals and one is a lot more skilled at cooking than the other. The "rules" are in no way arbitrary, it is also important to note. They're how stories function, based on how we as a species understand them. Deep characters who affect their storylines, thematically meaningful plots and concepts, such requirements are all simply what we want from fiction, and what fiction is for. If you want to question their validity, you may as well question why there the story needs such a thing as a protagonist, or why it needs to have a beginning, middle and end. Put simply, no, you can't just ignore the "rules" on a whim. But it's success (as in reaching your intended audience) that really matters Utter bullshit. Commercial success does not equate to objective quality. I don't know how you could even think that. James Cameron's Avatar was the highest grossing and highest DVD-selling movie of all time, are you saying that it, having reached the most amount of people, is unquestionably the best movie ever created? You are engaging others on a platform that allows everyone to express thier own opinion by flagging and rating the shows they watch, you give the strong impression you think everyone else's opinion is worthless, but there are no wrong opinions where personal tastes are being shared. That's a declarative statement of your own, not indisputable fact. I expect you to try and justify it. The only claim you make that I see any merit in is that Shin's character is shallow. And from there everything else wrong with the show follows, his lack of drive, his inagency, his extraneity, so you're almost agreeing with my point. But, as I've said, I think you misunderstand the author's intent, we have been shown glimpses of the playful, energetic, loving boy inside of Shin. But the story of at least these last eleven episodes has focused on the veneer he has built around his character. If it were the intent to have a seemingly shallow character who reveals depth later on, he would still have goals, agency and the like that would be exhibited and could be analysed. You're more or less just trying the excuse "he might have been bad deliberately," which just doesn't work, especially as he fails to actually demonstrate that depth later as you believe is the case. I've seen you say similar to this in a few other posts you've made The fact that I choose to ignore you when you try to circularise the conversation is mine to make, since you understand the use of words better than me, you should realise how making a statement like that makes you appear to all other posters. I don't quite understand what you're implying here, but the parts of what I've said that you've ignored are those that demonstrate precisely what is wrong with your viewpoint. If you cannot demonstrate how such points are supposed to be wrong, as you think, then it follows that your opinion is. Take what's written above, for instance, where I ask you to justify the statement you made. You want to use that as part of your argument, but if you can't explain why the statement is true, then it is meaningless, you'd just be backing up your opinion with another opinion. After all, if you refuse to answer a question, then that can only mean you have no answer, and that's the point I make by asking. On that note, I do advise you to answer the many, many questions you've chosen to not, otherwise I will have to conclude I've hit upon the flaws in your opinion. No. You go way beyond "simply pointing out its issues" when you say "If you can get attached to that complete literary failure, you must be as shallow as he is." This is another of your circularisation's - since you know from the MAL stats and other posters that Shin and the show are well liked you develop a narrative there is something wrong with other people. It is only in your mind that no other poster was able to put forward a valid example, you have set yourself up a sole arbiter on what is and isn't valid. Thinking that tacking on qualifiers like "minor" or "inconsequential" proves your point is more circular thinking. It is you who needs to prove to other posters why their examples don't count. On the point of proof, it is you who made the objective claim that "Shin is a badly written character ... due to Asato Asato being incapable of making a compelling work." Many others disagree with you. You try to get around this by attacking assertions that both character and show are good by treating them as independent objective statements (rather than the reactions to your posts that they are) and demanding proof. But you know that's not how it works, it is you who made an objective (and therefore provable) claim but has failed to persuade anyone of your argument. I simply gave my subjective opinions and pointed out that there is no proof available as to who's subjective opinion is right or wrong. It is you who introduced these rules and insists the show must abide by them, if you prove 86 failed to follow the rules for telling a compelling story you still haven't proven it's not a compelling story. There was no mistake in my thinking at all, importance doesn't matter. But once again you've tried to circularise, since you've already designated the author as less able you feel able to declare they must not stray. Your mistake was not understanding that I was pointing out that any author may stray but those of renown are more likely to be lauded for that. Since you brought up our species and given what I pointed out above about your apparent distain for other posters, do you have some subset in mind that excludes the thousands of our species that rated this show highly. So far as I'm aware stories don't "need" a protagonist but now I'm braced for you declaring that 86 doesn't have one. I never mentioned commercial success, why did you even think I meant that? I spoke about reaching its intended audience, I thought what that meant would be clear to you. What type of declarative statement do you think I made? It's always amusing to see someone write "you're almost agreeing" Let me write it out in a way that clears up any misunderstanding. You hate Shin's Character, I like Shin's character, you hate the story I like the story, you hate the author I like the author. Now, if you can spot a point of agreement there feel free to point it out logical fallacy, it's easier to spot if I replace bad with what you actually mean "he might have been poorly written deliberately". If how we perceive him is the author's intent then by definition he is well written. |
borderlinerSep 16, 2021 8:32 AM
| Quantum ille canis est in fenestra |
borderliner said: No. You go way beyond "simply pointing out its issues" when you say "If you can get attached to that complete literary failure, you must be as shallow as he is." This is another of your circularisation's - since you know from the MAL stats and other posters that Shin and the show are well liked you develop a narrative there is something wrong with other people. The show is bad, for the many reasons I have described. If someone likes the show, gets attached and relates to the characters, then there's something wrong with them. No "circularisation" is taking place. What does "the show being well liked" have to do with anything? Are you implying that if something is popular, it cannot be bad? It is only in your mind that no other poster was able to put forward a valid example, you have set yourself up a sole arbiter on what is and isn't valid. Thinking that tacking on qualifiers like "minor" or "inconsequential" proves your point is more circular thinking. It is you who needs to prove to other posters why their examples don't count. If you think that what you say is valid, where I point out that it isn't, you are entitled to argue why you think so. You don't have to be content with me as "a sole arbiter." Again with this "circular thinking" angle, where? Point to, quote blocks and all, where I ever make any circular argument. So far you're just saying it to everything without rhyme, reason or evidence, thinking it'll sweep away whatever I've said. Where did I perform circular thinking? On the point of proof, it is you who made the objective claim that "Shin is a badly written character ... due to Asato Asato being incapable of making a compelling work." Many others disagree with you. You try to get around this by attacking assertions that both character and show are good by treating them as independent objective statements (rather than the reactions to your posts that they are) and demanding proof. What are you even saying here? That I should not attack obviously incorrect assertions, because you don't like it? That "many others disagreeing with [me]" is supposed to mean something? Really, what? But you know that's not how it works, it is you who made an objective (and therefore provable) claim but has failed to persuade anyone of your argument. I don't need to "persuade" anyone of anything. The show is bad, here's why. You think otherwise, here's why you're wrong. I'm just pointing out the facts of the matter, if you choose or choose not to change your mind is entirely unimportant. After all, what determines "you being persuaded" to be a measure of "correct?" I simply gave my subjective opinions and pointed out that there is no proof available as to who's subjective opinion is right or wrong. And I pointed out that your subjective opinions were wrong, through being both actively contradictory and rooted in a lack of knowledge. Hence, what I said stands. It is you who introduced these rules and insists the show must abide by them, if you prove 86 failed to follow the rules for telling a compelling story you still haven't proven it's not a compelling story. "If you prove 86 failed to follow the rules for telling a compelling story you still haven't proven it's not a compelling story." You're trying to argue that even though the work doesn't do anything that is necessary to be good, it may still possibly be good anyway. How do you work that out? And if that is the case, what makes 86 good despite everything going against it? I've been talking about why it's not a compelling story since the beginning. The "rules" are what is required for a story to build up the necessary depth and direction that allows for the reader/watcher to become invested in the events unfolding and who they occur to. There was no mistake in my thinking at all, importance doesn't matter. But once again you've tried to circularise, since you've already designated the author as less able you feel able to declare they must not stray. Your mistake was not understanding that I was pointing out that any author may stray but those of renown are more likely to be lauded for that. I didn't say they couldn't stray from the "rules" due to being less able, I said that any straying of the rules by those that are able is done intentionally to enhance another aspect of the work, while Asato Asato has not done this, instead they've done so out of inexpertise. Since you brought up our species and given what I pointed out above about your apparent distain for other posters, do you have some subset in mind that excludes the thousands of our species that rated this show highly. So far as I'm aware stories don't "need" a protagonist but now I'm braced for you declaring that 86 doesn't have one. Very simple: few people actually think critically about the media they consume. Case in point: you fail to understand the necessity of such "rules," and how such techniques have been derived to accentuate the quality of any work. I never mentioned commercial success, why did you even think I meant that? I spoke about reaching its intended audience, I thought what that meant would be clear to you. Commercial success occurs when a piece of entertainment reaches as many people as possible, as you claimed was the goal of all media. If you rightfully disagree with the idea that commercial success defines quality, then your view that "reaching the intended audience" is incorrect also. The two are one and the same. What type of declarative statement do you think I made? That "there are no wrong opinions." If you accept that the concepts of "good" and "bad" media exist, then it follows that you accept those who think otherwise must be wrong. It's always amusing to see someone write "you're almost agreeing" Let me write it out in a way that clears up any misunderstanding. You hate Shin's Character, I like Shin's character, you hate the story I like the story, you hate the author I like the author. Now, if you can spot a point of agreement there feel free to point it out My point is that Shin is bad because, mainly, he is shallow, and you concur that he is shallow. Hence, you're starting to realise what's wrong with him. This goes back to what I said several paragraphs ago - "Persuading" you of my view is unimportant, only getting across the facts of mine. I'm not going to be able to make you stop liking the series, but I am able to point out why you're wrong to do so. logical fallacy, it's easier to spot if I replace bad with what you actually mean "he might have been poorly written deliberately". If how we perceive him is the author's intent then by definition he is well written. Which logical fallacy? Even if you assume that he was badly written deliberately which somehow amounts to being well written in your mind, he'd still be a bad character. The fact that he was made so intentionally doesn't fix him in any way. You're basically arguing "well he could have been better," ignoring that he wasn't. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
Silent2000 said: Thigh_Tide said: Using PTSD to excuse the bastard's lack of personality is both an immature and offensive misunderstanding of the condition. If you can get attached to that complete literary failure, you must be as shallow as he is. Shin is a loving, lively child and doesn't like sweets who can hear the voices of the people around him because of their imperial bloodline, he also loves to play together with annete, his brother and fido before shit happens, this is not a personality? When his brother tried to kill him this made shin very scared towards his brother and accepts that his brother would never forgave him and actually believes he is the reason to all of it and it also didn't help that shin's name means "Sin" in which his brother said while choking him, he is still 8yrs old at this time. So this is an immature and offensive misunderstanding of the condition? Having the power to hear voices isn't a personality, it's an ability. You're using the same logic as when people make shitty OCs, where more powers = more character. Explain how "playing with other kids" supposed to be a personality. It isn't, it's just doing an activity. The second paragraph doesn't even have anything to do with PTSD, so I've no clue why you bring it up. You're trying to prove apples are red by holding up oranges. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
naniiiii1 said: Thigh_Tide said: The show is bad, for the many reasons I have described. If someone likes the show, gets attached and relates to the characters, then there's something wrong with them. No "circularisation" is taking place. Come on, Narcissus-kun. Throwing such sharp conclusions without having psychiatric expertise is pretty ridiculous. Let's see at an example. You liked that great piece of art that is "High School DxD", didn't you? Maybe you have problems socializing with women, that you have to settle for watching ecchi and hentai anime to satisfy your most intimate desires? Isn't this inference probably true totally unfair and unsupported? Why don't we let people enjoy what they want, without criticizing them because they like this or that show? Explain from where you get the assumption that I have no psychiatric experience, or from where you think it is just to call me narcissistic. Bringing in Highschool DxD is entirely meaningless, as, in the same why I have already pointed out earlier in this thread, you haven't yet established whether that show is good or not. I could argue it has quality beyond immediate sexual gratification, which would rend your argument meaningless, for instance. Explain why you think it is necessary to "let people enjoy what they want," when what they "want" is utter shit? |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
Silent2000 said: You're obviously ignoring this "Shin is a LOVING, LIVELY child and DOESN'T like sweets and also likes to play with annete, his brother and fido or socialized with others(OPENNESS)" But that's not a personality. What does "LOVING and LIVELY" or "not liking sweets" tell us about his motivations, his personal philosophy or morality, his place in the story? PTSD symptoms: -"Fear or Anxiety" - when he saw his brother after the incident and when he sleeps there by reexperiencing the traumatic event". "Maladaptive Guilt" - the incident with his brother which caused him to believed that he was the reason to all of it, also adding the meaning of his named which is "SIN". "Survivors Guilt" - right after he was conscripted(11 yrs old), his first squadron had all been WIPED OUT to saved him including HER COMMANDER who gave him the scarf that he always wear which caused him to beleived that he should be the one to carry all his comrades to thier final destination "Negative Thoughts About Self and the World" - he thinks himself as very dirty, his suicidal fighting style, he also believes that there is no hope in the world that the world is so ugly and his inability to visualize future milestones or old age. "Emotional Numbness"- results in temporary restrictions in the capacity to feel or express emotions this caused by all the events he experienced. "Memory Loss" - his inability to remember the things happened before the incident with his brother. "Emotional Avoidance" - his inability to socialized with other people Etc. I thought you read the LN bye All of what you've listed is tenuous at best. You're ignoring the many other possible symptoms of PTSD that don't apply, or the fact that many of what you've listed are blatant retrofitting. Take the points of "Survivors' Guilt" and "Emotional Avoidance" for instance; neither, when taken at face value, actually demonstrate PTSD. Or "Memory Loss" - A genuine attempt to show a damaged mind, or retconning in new details? Or "Negative Thought About Self" - It's far more apparent he has no future plans because that would require thinking about how he is supposed to be written. The fact remains, the character has no personality. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
Silent2000 said: So "OPENNESS" is not a personality? He is till 8 yrs old at this point before everything completely destroyed him. Your also denying the fact what he's been through up this point which is super crazy. "Openness" is not a personality. It provides nothing in the way of characterisation. Like I said, it says nothing about what he wants, what he thinks, what he is. I'm not denying that he went through the events of the book, I'm saying they don't present anything about his personality, or rather lack of one. The fact that you said that it didn’t TELL US(should have been it didn’t TELL ME) about his personal philosophy, morality, his place in the story is confusing af because the LN already shown us all of these that you claimed you already read but this genuinely shows the fact that you never read it all. If you think that the LN demonstrates such things, then point out where it does. I've asked you to do so at least three times by now, and you have not been able to, which is a clear indicator that your claim is simply untrue. Tenous? Blattant retrofitting? You don't even know what the hell you're talking about seriously. You're claiming how it was immature and offensive to that condition but it genuinely did not do that at all. His character is genuinely miles better than you If I "don't know what the hell I'm talking about," then tell me how what I said is incorrect. Where did I say anything that is untrue, illogical, or contradictory? And it goes without saying, but his character being "miles better than me" is both a fallacious argument, and just plain impossible - I'm a real person, not a fictional character. I take it that you are grasping at straws, now. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
naniiiii1 said: Thigh_Tide said: I could argue it (High School DxD) has quality beyond immediate sexual gratification, which would rend your argument meaningless, for instance. HAHAHAHAHA Thigh_Tide said: Explain why you think it is necessary to "let people enjoy what they want," when what they "want" is utter shit? Because if it were not like that, you would be forbidden to enjoy High School DxD, which is, for me, the name by antonomasia of utter shit. It's pretty simple, don't you get it? Remember everyone, pushing a girls nipples in and shouting BOOST is a legitimate "Literary Goal" because Thigh_Tide has proven it. |
| Quantum ille canis est in fenestra |
Silent2000 said: This means nothing A pitiful non-argument. Why does it mean nothing? Silent2000 said: He changed his profile gender to FEMALE My profile didn't have gender displayed on it. Not to resurrect a dead pseudo-meme, but you assumed I was male, and being referred to incorrectly was irritating. At least you've shown that people will notice, so that's helpful. At any rate, this is irrelevant to the argument at hand. Silent2000 said: Your response genuinely confirmed that you didn't read the LN but you obviously LIED, there are also types of LIAR idk what type you are. God I can't even take you seriously anymore. Answer me are you an expert on psychology? YES or NO? If YES explain to me HOW it's being an immature and offensive misunderstanding of the condition. If NO bye. Scroll up. I explain exactly how 86 misrepresents the condition in the very first conversation I had in this thread. naniiiii1 said: Wow, @Thigh_Tide is quite a multifaceted guy. Recently she claimed to have read the novel, now she is an expert in psychiatry. What will she become tomorrow? a particle physicist, a civil engineer, a man again? As written above, I never had my gender displayed, and even if it were the case that I hadn't, that's irrelevant to the argument. naniiiii1 said: HAHAHAHAHA Because if it were not like that, you would be forbidden to enjoy High School DxD, which is, for me, the name by antonomasia of utter shit. It's pretty simple, don't you get it? Go on then, explain to me why you think that series is "utter shit," and I'll discuss its strengths. borderliner said: Remember everyone, pushing a girls nipples in and shouting BOOST is a legitimate "Literary Goal" because Thigh_Tide has proven it. Except, I haven't, and that's not even what the term "literary goal" refers to. I've only pointed out that bringing in another show in the sense of "you like X show which is bad so you are wrong about Y show" is fallacious, since "X show" has not been proven good or bad yet. More importantly, what happened to the debate we were having earlier? You've chickened out, it seems. If you have no further counterarguments, I'll take it that mine stand. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
Silent2000 said: Thigh_Tide said: A pitiful non-argument. Why does it mean nothing? My profile didn't have gender displayed on it. Not to resurrect a dead pseudo-meme, but you assumed I was male, and being referred to incorrectly was irritating. At least you've shown that people will notice, so that's helpful. At any rate, this is irrelevant to the argument at hand. Scroll up. I explain exactly how 86 misrepresents the condition in the very first conversation I had in this thread. As written above, I never had my gender displayed, and even if it were the case that I hadn't, that's irrelevant to the argument. Go on then, explain to me why you think that series is "utter shit," and I'll discuss its strengths. Except, I haven't, and that's not even what the term "literary goal" refers to. I've only pointed out that bringing in another show in the sense of "you like X show which is bad so you are wrong about Y show" is fallacious, since "X show" has not been proven good or bad yet. More importantly, what happened to the debate we were having earlier? You've chickened out, it seems. If you have no further counterarguments, I'll take it that mine stand. Hmm why NOW? You sure you're not LYING again? Where I can't find it? It doesn't matter anyways You only have to answer YES or NO pretty simple but you're obviously ignoring the question so i assumed NO. You asked for an explanation, you got an explanation. Either try to refute it or let it stand. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
Silent2000 said: Thigh_Tide said: You asked for an explanation, you got an explanation. Either try to refute it or let it stand. Well i can't argue with a LIAR no more so BYE You cannot refute it, then. I take that to be the end of this line. If you wish to continue, do so by attempting to explain why my explanation was wrong. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
Thigh_Tide said: You cannot refute it, then. I take that to be the end of this line. If you wish to continue, do so by attempting to explain why my explanation was wrong. There's nothing to refute. You're the one with the work to do. You haven't in any way proven your hypothesis that Shin is a complete literary failure Much less your assertion that anyone who does not believe this must be as shallow as he is. In fact I don't think you even managed to explain what a literary failure is!? "The rules", "the rules" ah yes "the rules" go on, make us care about your rules then. You like absolute qualifiers, what purpose did you intend for that "complete" you used there? You've failed to prove anything but you've certainly demonstrated what kind of person you are. --- You can take this as a response to your other posts too. You've achieved nothing of merit. |
| Quantum ille canis est in fenestra |
borderliner said: There's nothing to refute. That which I am asking you to attempt to refute certainly exists, you can scroll up and see it. Saying "there is nothing" is just ignoring that fact because you cannot do so. If "there is nothing to refute," then explain why that is the case? You're the one with the work to do. You haven't in any way proven your hypothesis that Shin is a complete literary failure I've talked at length about how Shin fails to demonstrate basic principles of writing. How is this not "proving my hypothesis" that he is a literary failure? Much less your assertion that anyone who does not believe this must be as shallow as he is. I've talked at length about that also, and it's a very simple inference to make also. Can you, both with this at the point above, find any point where I have not explained it, demonstrated the substance of the view? In fact I don't think you even managed to explain what a literary failure is!? "The rules", "the rules" ah yes "the rules" go on, make us care about your rules then. It's blatantly obvious that I have explained that. You'll find it in the response I made previously that you completely ignored. You still haven't been able to give any counterarguments to the points I made in that response, I remind you, which throws your entire stance into ridicule. I recommend you attempt to respond to it. You like absolute qualifiers, what purpose did you intend for that "complete" you used there? He does not demonstrate any of the necessary principles, the "rules" behind character writing. What is difficult to understand here? You've failed to prove anything but you've certainly demonstrated what kind of person you are. Well that's just plain Ad Hominem. It doesn't matter what kind of person I am, if I'm right. You can take this as a response to your other posts too. You've achieved nothing of merit. The statement "you've achieved nothing of merit" does not work as a response to anything I've said. You're not pointing out any flaws in my criticism, or any issues with reasoning, or anything, you're just trying a blanket catch-all phrase to avoid having to actually defend your own view. I'll ask you once more, to be clear, can you say anything against any of the points I've raised? If you cannot, then I will have in fact "achieved something of merit." |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
naniiiii1 said: Thigh_Tide said: Go on then, explain to me why you think that series is "utter shit," and I'll discuss its strengths. I only mentioned High School DxD (aka utter shit) to exemplify that it is inappropriate to judge and categorize people based on the series they enjoyed. If you want to expatiate on the strengths of that utter shit (aka High School DxD), which I presume would be a strenuous mental exercise, go ahead. I would recommend that you use your valuable time to begin writing your second anthology. Or was it the third? It seems that you didn't even know it yourself (I hope it's not another of your delusions). Clearly you cannot understand my point, so I'll lay it out for you: You have made the following claims: "You like Highschool DxD. Highschool DxD is bad, and by your logic that would mean you are a bad person. So it is wrong to judge people based on what they enjoy." However, you have not provided any evidence to support the part that states "Highshool DxD is bad," which throws the entirety of your claim out the window. For instance, should I point out the many positives of the show, that would mean that from it I could be judged to be a good person, which no longer conflicts with the idea of judging people on what they enjoy. I'll say it once more - for your claim to be correct, you would need to justify that you are right in judging Highschool DxD to be bad. Until such time, your statements fail to argue anything. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
You've talked at considerable length, who have you swayed, what merit have you gained? However much you try to box in Shin's character to meet your claims, they are rejected by others, in fact some of the very things you raise as flaws are the things I find compelling about Shin's character. I wonder if my stance is being ridiculed? And I think alluding to the way another person engages in debate is a valid point to make, I'd say that if the logical outcome of your reasoning is that you proclaim entire groups of people as lazy and/or stupid you'd be best to back up and rethink your reasoning. But isn't it true to say that you have shown a number of times that you are perfectly happy to take your reasoning to that extreme without the slightest qualm. |
| Quantum ille canis est in fenestra |
borderliner said: You've talked at considerable length, who have you swayed, what merit have you gained? As I have already pointed out, "swaying" someone is no measure of being correct. "Merit," I don't even understand what you mean, am I supposed to impress you before you'll listen? I've explained my point, you've not yet refuted it. Simple as. However much you try to box in Shin's character to meet your claims, they are rejected by others, in fact some of the very things you raise as flaws are the things I find compelling about Shin's character. Ok, that's an actual opinion on the matter, I'll listen. Tell me how the issues with his character improve him in your eyes. I wonder if my stance is being ridiculed? Get a less ridiculous stance, then. And I think alluding to the way another person engages in debate is a valid point to make, Ad Hominem is not "alluding to the way another person engages in debate," since as I pointed out, "what kind of person I am" is irrelevant to the stance I am engaging to debate for. I'd say that if the logical outcome of your reasoning is that you proclaim entire groups of people as lazy and/or stupid you'd be best to back up and rethink your reasoning. But isn't it true to say that you have shown a number of times that you are perfectly happy to take your reasoning to that extreme without the slightest qualm. Explain why it is necessary to rethink my reasoning. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
naniiiii1 said: Your interpretation of my words, although somewhat wrong, was very cute. I loved it <3 Just to clarify, do you think that someone who enjoyed a bad show is a bad person? If so, what does it mean to you to be a bad person (besides to being someone who may have bad taste) ? If my "interpretation" was wrong, correct me. What you want to clarify is my "interpretation" of what you said, not my own thoughts, so as I said, correct me on what you mean. Thigh_Tide said: I don't know if I understood correctly. Are you saying that a good person is qualified to criticize others based on what they enjoy? Interesting, tell me more. I'm saying that your argument, that you use to proport the idea that it is wrong to judge others based on the media they consume, is incorrect. Oh, and please enlighten us pointing out the many positives of Highschool DxD. I and many others, blinded by prejudice, have long defamed this masterpiece. It's time to confront the truth, and who better than you to reveal it to us? (I know I recommended you take your time in your umpteenth anthology, but what difference does it make, it will only take a couple of minutes) Fine, then, I was intending to anyway. Highschool DxD's main strengths can be highlighted by pointing towards its tight plot and proclivity toward dynamic characters. To elaborate, the story appears to be about two themes; The folly of Hedonism, and the nature of Camaraderie. I'll explain: The protagonist, Issei, begins as sybaritic, through and through. He's guided entirely by physical satisfaction, his main objective in life is to have a Harem. Brash, childish, embarrassing even, but what makes the series particularly significant is in challenging this aim, moulding him into a more balanced character. Having been placed well on the way to that goal, he is slowly faced with the realisation that the people surrounding him have their own ideals, their own histories, that they're more than mere flesh. Sure, there's still plenty of sexual content, as is only natural for the genre, but it's interlaced with development left and right. Change, also - by the as-of-yet-end of the show, Issei has realised he desires true connection with Rias rather than her being just another woman surrounding him. The interpretation could be made that this also represents coming of age, literally growing up to a more intelligent, more noble person. Narratively, the series is compelling also. As is natural with shows of its genre, the cast is expansive, but few feel extraneous, as all touch on different perspectives of the world they inhabit and the events unfolding. It also shows depth of thought - I single out Kiba as an example of this, a male character in a predominantly female position in the show, because it was necessary for his story to go directly in the face of sexual titillation. It's a little gesture, but it shows both self-awareness and ability. I'd also point to the particular setting of the series, which aids the previously mentioned theme of growing past Hedonism - What should be seen as a situation of depravity reveals itself to be politically complex, morally obscure, with virtue and flaw on both, or rather, all three sides of the issue. And that's not even touching on the multiple features that add robustness to the production, the compact structure of story segments that keeps tension without it becoming stale, or how the deep lines on the original artstyle gave it a very unique look, but all those are mostly inconsequential, as the meat of the work is what I've mentioned above. There. I expect you to attempt to justify the opposite view. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
Thigh_Tide said: borderliner said: You've talked at considerable length, who have you swayed, what merit have you gained? As I have already pointed out, "swaying" someone is no measure of being correct. "Merit," I don't even understand what you mean, am I supposed to impress you before you'll listen? I've explained my point, you've not yet refuted it. Simple as. However much you try to box in Shin's character to meet your claims, they are rejected by others, in fact some of the very things you raise as flaws are the things I find compelling about Shin's character. Ok, that's an actual opinion on the matter, I'll listen. Tell me how the issues with his character improve him in your eyes. I wonder if my stance is being ridiculed? Get a less ridiculous stance, then. And I think alluding to the way another person engages in debate is a valid point to make, Ad Hominem is not "alluding to the way another person engages in debate," since as I pointed out, "what kind of person I am" is irrelevant to the stance I am engaging to debate for. I'd say that if the logical outcome of your reasoning is that you proclaim entire groups of people as lazy and/or stupid you'd be best to back up and rethink your reasoning. But isn't it true to say that you have shown a number of times that you are perfectly happy to take your reasoning to that extreme without the slightest qualm. Explain why it is necessary to rethink my reasoning. When the points you are making are subjective you need to sway others to your opinion. You continually try to assert that you are making an objective assessment, but you can only provide a foundation of subjective opinions. Since your opinions are clearly subjective there is no requirement for anyone to refute them, we simply need to disagree and you fail. Everything I see above is posters disagreeing with you, therefore you have failed. |
| Quantum ille canis est in fenestra |
borderliner said: When the points you are making are subjective you need to sway others to your opinion. You continually try to assert that you are making an objective assessment, but you can only provide a foundation of subjective opinions. Since your opinions are clearly subjective there is no requirement for anyone to refute them, we simply need to disagree and you fail. Everything I see above is posters disagreeing with you, therefore you have failed. This only needs two questions to point out the flaws in what you're saying: 1 - Why do you think I need to sway others to my opinion "when the points I am making are subjective?" I've already pointed out several times that you agreeing with me would not signify being correct, the content of what I've said does. Nothing makes you an authority on what is and isn't right, simply because you agree or disagree, and the same is true for everyone else in this thread. 2 - Why are my points now "subjective?" You've completely changed the angle of argument, from trying to prove that Shin doesn't have the issues I discussed, to trying to portray such issues as positives (which you haven't backed up, despite me asking you to, which makes that claim bogus) to now trying to annul the entire discussion as "subjective," even though no criticism I've made about Shin ever delved into what I prefer, only the basic requirements for character depth that he fails at. You've also not explained why "I need to rethink my reasoning," do so, if the claim is not to be disregarded. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
Thigh_Tide said: borderliner said: When the points you are making are subjective you need to sway others to your opinion. You continually try to assert that you are making an objective assessment, but you can only provide a foundation of subjective opinions. Since your opinions are clearly subjective there is no requirement for anyone to refute them, we simply need to disagree and you fail. Everything I see above is posters disagreeing with you, therefore you have failed. This only needs two questions to point out the flaws in what you're saying: 1 - Why do you think I need to sway others to my opinion "when the points I am making are subjective?" I've already pointed out several times that you agreeing with me would not signify being correct, the content of what I've said does. Nothing makes you an authority on what is and isn't right, simply because you agree or disagree, and the same is true for everyone else in this thread. 2 - Why are my points now "subjective?" You've completely changed the angle of argument, from trying to prove that Shin doesn't have the issues I discussed, to trying to portray such issues as positives (which you haven't backed up, despite me asking you to, which makes that claim bogus) to now trying to annul the entire discussion as "subjective," even though no criticism I've made about Shin ever delved into what I prefer, only the basic requirements for character depth that he fails at. You've also not explained why "I need to rethink my reasoning," do so, if the claim is not to be disregarded. If you're not seeking to persuade others that you have a valid opinion what are you doing? There is no "correct" there is only a consensus of opinion, you just pine for objectivity because it validates you hating something that most of us like. If you're so weak that you can't dislike something on your own terms that's your problem not ours. I think you'll find I've always held your views to be subjective. Just go and read my comments properly. But in reality I expect you read everyone's comments through the same distorted lens that you view any character, author, animator, studio you dislike. |
| Quantum ille canis est in fenestra |
borderliner said: If you're not seeking to persuade others that you have a valid opinion what are you doing? I've said already, I'm explaining why the show is bad, and by extension you are wrong to praise it. There is no "correct" there is only a consensus of opinion, you just pine for objectivity because it validates you hating something that most of us like. Justify the claim that "there is no correct." Also note that you're not actually proving my critique isn't objective in the assumption you follow with. If you're so weak that you can't dislike something on your own terms that's your problem not ours. What does "you can't dislike something on your own terms" mean? Really, I don't understand what that's supposed to say. I think you'll find I've always held your views to be subjective. Just go and read my comments properly. You have not. Show where you think you have done so. But in reality I expect you read everyone's comments through the same distorted lens that you view any character, author, animator, studio you dislike. Again, I do not see what this is trying to say. I don't know if you're unaware, but you're not contesting anything I've said, both with this and the above. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
Thigh_Tide said: borderliner said: If you're not seeking to persuade others that you have a valid opinion what are you doing? I've said already, I'm explaining why the show is bad, and by extension you are wrong to praise it. There is no "correct" there is only a consensus of opinion, you just pine for objectivity because it validates you hating something that most of us like. Justify the claim that "there is no correct." Also note that you're not actually proving my critique isn't objective in the assumption you follow with. If you're so weak that you can't dislike something on your own terms that's your problem not ours. What does "you can't dislike something on your own terms" mean? Really, I don't understand what that's supposed to say. I think you'll find I've always held your views to be subjective. Just go and read my comments properly. You have not. Show where you think you have done so. But in reality I expect you read everyone's comments through the same distorted lens that you view any character, author, animator, studio you dislike. Again, I do not see what this is trying to say. I don't know if you're unaware, but you're not contesting anything I've said, both with this and the above. You have only explained that you think the show is bad, no-one else cares what you think. You've already conceded that not every "rule" must be followed in writing good fiction, try pulling that stunt with gravity. Physics has objective rules, Art has subjective rules. Subjective rules can be broken therefore there is no correct. I'm not surprised you don't understand, you're so wrapped up in trying to justify your own opinions and (more importantly) shoot others' opinions down that you really do believe you've become objectively correct. But, objectivity build on a subjective foundation is a delusion. Right at the start of this I said what's quoted below, if you didn't understand that I've always held your views as subjective that's on you. You also don't understand what a proof is, I'm not offering proofs because there are no proofs to offer. What you think is proof is just your own opinion, I happen to think it's a ridiculous opinion backed up by nothing better than your continued posturing. I didn't know much about you then but I think that statement encapsulated your style of posting. |
borderlinerSep 23, 2021 5:19 AM
| Quantum ille canis est in fenestra |
borderliner said: You have only explained that you think the show is bad, no-one else cares what you think. A - Show that this is only what I "think." B - Why would you caring affect the validity of either thought or fact? You've already conceded that not every "rule" must be followed in writing good fiction, try pulling that stunt with gravity. Physics has objective rules, Art has subjective rules. Subjective rules can be broken therefore there is no correct. There is simply no such thing as a "subjective rule." That's an oxymoron, you're taking two entirely incompatible ideas and jamming them together. I also never conceded that the rules "do not have to be followed," I said that skilled writers may abrogate such constraints to serve another aspect of their work, noting that 86 does not appear to do this. There is a significant difference between these two ideas. I'm not surprised you don't understand, you're so wrapped up in trying to justify your own opinions and (more importantly) shoot others' opinions down that you really do believe you've become objectively correct. But, objectivity build on a subjective foundation is a delusion. A - You haven't explained what on earth you were saying previously. It does not make sense, as a sentence, so attributing me not understanding it as proof of your point is a fallacy. B - Again, prove I have a "subjective foundation." Right at the start of this I said what's quoted below, if you didn't understand that I've always held your views as subjective that's on you. You also don't understand what a proof is, I'm not offering proofs because there are no proofs to offer. What you think is proof is just your own opinion, I happen to think it's a ridiculous opinion backed up by nothing better than your continued posturing. I didn't know much about you then but I think that statement encapsulated your style of posting. Oh, great, you don't know the definition of subjectivity either. "Subjective" means "influenced by personal feelings or preferences," not "well I think that's your opinion." The former, I never demonstrated to have done. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
Thigh_Tide said: borderliner said: You have only explained that you think the show is bad, no-one else cares what you think. A - Show that this is only what I "think." B - Why would you caring affect the validity of either thought or fact? You've already conceded that not every "rule" must be followed in writing good fiction, try pulling that stunt with gravity. Physics has objective rules, Art has subjective rules. Subjective rules can be broken therefore there is no correct. There is simply no such thing as a "subjective rule." That's an oxymoron, you're taking two entirely incompatible ideas and jamming them together. I also never conceded that the rules "do not have to be followed," I said that skilled writers may abrogate such constraints to serve another aspect of their work, noting that 86 does not appear to do this. There is a significant difference between these two ideas. I'm not surprised you don't understand, you're so wrapped up in trying to justify your own opinions and (more importantly) shoot others' opinions down that you really do believe you've become objectively correct. But, objectivity build on a subjective foundation is a delusion. A - You haven't explained what on earth you were saying previously. It does not make sense, as a sentence, so attributing me not understanding it as proof of your point is a fallacy. B - Again, prove I have a "subjective foundation." Right at the start of this I said what's quoted below, if you didn't understand that I've always held your views as subjective that's on you. I didn't know much about you then but I think that statement encapsulated your style of posting. Oh, great, you don't know the definition of subjectivity either. "Subjective" means "influenced by personal feelings or preferences," not "well I think that's your opinion." The former, I never demonstrated to have done. You were the one who introduced the notion of the rules of literature, those "rules" are subjective, point me to a resource that declares with good authority that the rules are objective. Abrogation is the same thing as not following. I was pointing out there being no proofs to offer If you can't offer proof of objectivity all you have left is a subjective opinion. |
| Quantum ille canis est in fenestra |
borderliner said: You were the one who introduced the notion of the rules of literature, those "rules" are subjective, point me to a resource that declares with good authority that the rules are objective. First, that's in itself a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. Second, in reference to said fallacy, who defines authority? You would likely claim any view that fails to agree with you has no authority. Third, I have explained at length why such "rules" are necessary, why they improve a work. I would argue that such an explanation constitutes authority. Fourth, and most importantly, and as I've asked numerous times before, how do you figure that the "rules" are subjective? Abrogation is the same thing as not following. Not exactly, but even substituting that, you still fail to note the important caveat that moving away from the "rules" is only beneficial when it is done to enhance a contrary element of the work, which is entirely different from allowing wanton ignorance of such techniques. I was pointing out there being no proofs to offer I've already dealt with that claim ages ago. To retread old ground, you cannot truthfully claim I never proved anything if you ignore the possibility of proof. If you can't offer proof of objectivity all you have left is a subjective opinion. As is evident from all my previous comments, I have not made any subjective evaluation of the work. Every critique I've pointed out relies solely on verifiable measures of if something is or isn't present in it, so by nature such an analysis is objective. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
| [quote=addie1998 message=64534917] Thigh_Tide said: borderliner said: You were the one who introduced the notion of the rules of literature, those "rules" are subjective, point me to a resource that declares with good authority that the rules are objective. First, that's in itself a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. Second, in reference to said fallacy, who defines authority? You would likely claim any view that fails to agree with you has no authority. Third, I have explained at length why such "rules" are necessary, why they improve a work. I would argue that such an explanation constitutes authority. Fourth, and most importantly, and as I've asked numerous times before, how do you figure that the "rules" are subjective? Abrogation is the same thing as not following. Not exactly, but even substituting that, you still fail to note the important caveat that moving away from the "rules" is only beneficial when it is done to enhance a contrary element of the work, which is entirely different from allowing wanton ignorance of such techniques. I was pointing out there being no proofs to offer I've already dealt with that claim ages ago. To retread old ground, you cannot truthfully claim I never proved anything if you ignore the possibility of proof. If you can't offer proof of objectivity all you have left is a subjective opinion. As is evident from all my previous comments, I have not made any subjective evaluation of the work. Every critique I've pointed out relies solely on verifiable measures of if something is or isn't present in it, so by nature such an analysis is Thigh_Tide said: First, that's in itself a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. Second, in reference to said fallacy, who defines authority? You would likely claim any view that fails to agree with you has no authority. Third, I have explained at length why such "rules" are necessary, why they improve a work. I would argue that such an explanation constitutes authority. Fourth, and most importantly, and as I've asked numerous times before, how do you figure that the "rules" are subjective? Not exactly, but even substituting that, you still fail to note the important caveat that moving away from the "rules" is only beneficial when it is done to enhance a contrary element of the work, which is entirely different from allowing wanton ignorance of such techniques. I've already dealt with that claim ages ago. To retread old ground, you cannot truthfully claim I never proved anything if you ignore the possibility of proof. As is evident from all my previous comments, I have not made any subjective evaluation of the work. Every critique I've pointed out relies solely on verifiable measures of if something is or isn't present in it, so by nature such an analysis is objective. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mindremakeproject.org/tag/different-types-of-liars/ Thigh_Tide said: First, that's in itself a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. Second, in reference to said fallacy, who defines authority? You would likely claim any view that fails to agree with you has no authority. Third, I have explained at length why such "rules" are necessary, why they improve a work. I would argue that such an explanation constitutes authority. Fourth, and most importantly, and as I've asked numerous times before, how do you figure that the "rules" are subjective? Not exactly, but even substituting that, you still fail to note the important caveat that moving away from the "rules" is only beneficial when it is done to enhance a contrary element of the work, which is entirely different from allowing wanton ignorance of such techniques. I've already dealt with that claim ages ago. To retread old ground, you cannot truthfully claim I never proved anything if you ignore the possibility of proof. As is evident from all my previous comments, I have not made any subjective evaluation of the work. Every critique I've pointed out relies solely on verifiable measures of if something is or isn't present in it, so by nature such an analysis is objective. THE MANIPULATIVE LIAR They lie to get what they want. They have an end goal and will do or say whatever it takes to achieve it. They often use flattery or say what they think you want to hear in order to get a promotion, make a sale, get elected… or get in your pants. Like the pathological liar, you won’t know where you stand with the manipulative liar. (Does she think you’re witty? Or does she like free dinner?) The manipulative liar is not malicious, but they can still cause harm. They have no place in your life. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mindremakeproject.org/tag/different-types-of-liars/ You can only trust that liars can't be trusted. What exactly is your point here? You're once again pushing the narrative that I "lied," but as I have already stated many times, you cannot prove this. You've not been able to show any instance I contradict the text of the book, or show that any part of my critique is rectified later on. Moreover, even if it were the case that I was "lying," that doesn't invalidate my analysis of the work, since, as I've just said, you are unable to show that it is incorrect. More importantly, the description of "the manipulative liar" simply does not apply to me. I have never given you any complements. I have never flattered you, I have never said what you want to hear. I really do not see how you think this archetype can be applied to anything I've said. I'll give you the ultimatum once more, point out how my critique is wrong, or I'll take that to mean you concede your opinion. |
| Well I for one already loved Lain. |
| Heh. Funny to see you bickering for way over a month and writing entire books each post. Admirable dedication. xD Anyway, I'm just gonna give me two cents. Shin might perform his role as a protagonist, but not as a central one. I tolerate him, because I don't expect much from him. Despite everything, he is still a Gary Stu, an ace of a squad who excels at everything, shows little emotion and overall seems like a generic self-insert character. Even his design is nothing original. Characters like him appear in every other LN nowadays, but still, I'd say he presents himself "above average". Lize on the other hand is a phenomenal character and thankfully she is the central protagonist. Not many writers are able to make a decent female character. |
 |
Casual_Watcher05 said: Piromysl said: Heh. Funny to see you bickering for way over a month and writing entire books each post. Admirable dedication. xD Anyway, I'm just gonna give me two cents. Shin might perform his role as a protagonist, but not as a central one. I tolerate him, because I don't expect much from him. Despite everything, he is still a Gary Stu, an ace of a squad who excels at everything, shows little emotion and overall seems like a generic self-insert character. Even his design is nothing original. Characters like him appear in every other LN nowadays, but still, I'd say he presents himself "above average". Lize on the other hand is a phenomenal character and thankfully she is the central protagonist. Not many writers are able to make a decent female character. You parroted what you said months ago without providing any proof again.Milize good,Nouzen bad.Milize central protagonist,Nouzen not central protagonist.Because you said so?Where is the proof?People keep bickering because they have actually read the LNs and know how well-written Shin is. 1.The POV in the novel is split 50-50.I'd say even 60-40 in favour of Shin.His standalone volumes are excellent.(Run through the battlefront volume 2 and 3,Fragmetal Neoteny,both LN and manga) 2.It's hilarious when you say nothing about Shin is original including his design when Lena is a literal esdeath copy with a standard attractive military female uniform. 3.Charecters like Shin appear in every LN these days?Name a few of them.Ik you won't be able to.Simply because you don't even know what you are talking about.LN male mcs have genetic bland,vanilla personalities with minimal traits and maximum edginess aka supposed to be relatable so the readers can self project.Shin stands miles above most of them.He isn't supposed to be relatable or a self insert.He's a cold blooded,almost schizophreniac battlebeast.His personality has a lot more common with Heero Yuy than LN mcs except the death threats.(Asato is a gundam fan so big chance)He is the furthest thing from a Gary Stu because he earned everything he has going on now.I can see why you think he's though.Actually competent,great at his job=Gary Stu,Incompetent,bad at everything=relatable.That's how you think about a charecter. 4.LNs on the other hand,every LN has a charecter like Lena,kind,caring,only one who wants to save the male mc from himself(Your point of her pathological altruism is just so laughable after reading the LN)Doesn't make her a bad charecter,but not an "excellent central protagonist" like you keep claiming she is.She offers us readers the outsiders pov in the lives of 86 and Shin and is a moderately competitive person. 5.You are the guy who said in "This Detective is already Dead" that the loli queen is voiced by a loli so anime of the season right?Also called Kokoro from Darling in the Franxx a slut and zero two a goddess right?Your ceiling for a decent female charecter is so low Lena barely has to do anything at all to cross that bar lmao.. Solid piece of advice,go read the light novels instead of trying to pass off your opinions as facts.It's no wonder the two guys with the bad takes about Shin have terrible tastes and keep lying about reading the LNs.We all know you didn't xD I sincerely apologize for daring my to have my own opinion and I totally deserved to be stalked on the forum and having an obvious joke used as an argument against me. Nowhere I stated, that my opinion is a fact and, "that Zero-Two is a goddess", so you might want to check that again. You are textbook example of someone affected with cognitive dissonance. Your position is even dumber, when taking into account, that I actually praised Shin as an actual bearable protagonist, different that when I was bickering pointlessly with racist OP before (Who seemingly got banned. I wonder why?), because I actually reassessed my opinion. Maybe I should refrain from voicing my opinion, knowing what kind of people are taking part in this discussion. My bad. Also, Lize is "generic" because one character in one different show is slightly similar in appearance, but Shin happens to be unique, despite being literally a Stock LN Hero. Funny. |
PiromyslOct 3, 2021 2:39 AM
|
More topics from this board
Poll: » 86 Episode 1 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Apr 10, 2021 |
391 |
by Boi55
»»
Nov 20, 7:22 AM |
|
Poll: » 86 Episode 11 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Jun 19, 2021 |
438 |
by Vastninja
»»
Nov 18, 4:32 AM |
|
Poll: » 86 Episode 3 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Apr 24, 2021 |
301 |
by RGreatDanton
»»
Nov 14, 6:43 PM |
|
Poll: » 86 Episode 2 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Apr 17, 2021 |
266 |
by RGreatDanton
»»
Nov 14, 6:36 PM |
|
Poll: » 86 Episode 10 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Jun 12, 2021 |
269 |
by Deru_021
»»
Nov 9, 12:46 PM |