Report Lord_Dracule's Profile

So everything good?

Ah, I see. I only said that with Black Sheep specifically because me and them just aren't ever going to agree on this and because any further discussion wouldn't be fruitful for either of us, but things differ from person to person so I'd be fine talking about it with others (and have, actually!). It wasn't the topic I was not interested in pursuing; it was that topic with that specific person, simply because I feel we two had covered all the ground that we had to cover.

"If I were to play the devil's advocate, I would claim that Dr Stone's way of bending and simplifying real life logic is basically just a part of its style. It takes something that wouldn't work in our world, and uses "cheat codes" to ignore it to make the story more interesting (I suppose)." <--- I totally agree with that, for sure. It's just something that I consider a problem. A lot of people don't consider that, and that's totally cool too! I just felt the need to fully clarify my points for full understanding.

And this isn't dirt at all, so don't worry! I’m just glad that I was able to explain myself properly and make my criticism clear, and I’m delighted that you see where I’m coming from. And thanks, good luck to you too!

This essentially a response to the extensive comment of lord_dracule profile.

The reason Lord_dracule decided to go to my profile was because he sided with me on the argument. And since he has no wish to engage in this argument himself im assuming , it's understandable if he wishes to talk with me about cause as he stated he sided and voiced his opinion on the argument and how it was carried out, he wasn't trying to instigate or progress the argument based on my understanding of his point.. As for the questions addressed at him, he will have to answer those for himself i have no authority over how he thinks.

I actually thought I addressed this comment but i cant seem to find the original comment on my profile , so in turn i cant figure out which rebuttal was associated with it. But repeating what I said, yes Dr Stone is illogical and inconsistent on real life science thats why youre complaint adheres to realism and to broaden your horizon take any subject matter focused show with a standard fiction tag of drama , comedy etc., shows that focus on police procedurals, medical, law, military etc., and other specific subject focused oriented stories all take ideas and principles that rooted in real life , some times it stays true to them and sometimes it either exaggerates them or completely ignores them for the sake of the plot. The standard Im suggesting for these particular shows is that it adheres to the principles that it establishes for itself in order to satisfy its own story and the average viewer cause these specific inconsistencies pertaining to the genre specific subject matter can only be picked up by those with expertise in those specific subject orientated fields. Since my expertise is in psychology i can pick out those particular inaccuracies. Now for the rest of this paragraph, there is a misconception i would like to clear up first, not everything would erode in the span of that time, some structures that were built 2000- 4000 years ago still stand, erosion isn't constant throughout the world in proportion to time spent, it depends on the environment that the eroded substances are exposed to. The statues wouldn't be underground that would also be unrealistic cause the environment they are in wouldnt justify that, but they would be turn to dust as you say , its more REALISTIC, but as far as the internal logic demonstrates in the story erosion wasn't an emphasized factor in that particular plot point or other points in the story. In terms of what the story portrays these statues are able to withstand the passage of time but are susceptible to damage so they are not impervious that is what the story portrays and that is the internal logic, so yes like AJ said its an exaggeration not a contradiction. For the second statement, it is a fair assumption to make that they would be psychologically dysfunctional but that effect of isolation only as an effect because that the mind is unconscious and is able to interact with the immediate surrounding environment and in turn effects the mind, in Dr stone you have neither of those factors. As for the factors on the body you are right that is what would have happen but based on whats demonstrated all the bodies are able to get out of that state fine, and this is the internal logic demonstrated by the show, and considering that pretty much all shounen and possibly manga exaggerate the capabilities of the body for the sake of stimulating emotions and making the story more exciting i hardly why Dr stone is being singled out for this, so what i'm seeing here an a standard of adhering to real life concepts that its okay for other stories to ignore but Dr stone has to adhere to.



Before reading the points in this paragraph, i have a question if Dr stone wasn't focused on science would it be okay for it to pull the same stuff? Going back into the discussion at hand, it is unfair , cause your imposing a standard that the show has to meet based on personal assumptions that deal with reality and not considering the reality within the story , and phrasing your adherence to realism as not realism but a standard for internal logic, this is more a less or confusing and contradictory. Take for instance like i said before shows predicated on job oriented subject matter do you think that the way fiction portrays military, police, law or medical is how it is in real life and that principles in real life are the same principles that fictional material contain as internal logic , if so, then this speaks on your lack of awareness of these subjects. For the subject matter that Dr stone deals with which is science , take any sci-fi series for instance they get a lot of ideas for their plot points from real life principles but they exaggerate and ignore a lot for dramatic license and creativity. Now, disregarding sci-fi draw your attention towards shows that aren't necessarily sci-fi but hard sci-fi like Planetes, breaking bad, gravity that base their plot also on real life principles and like dr stone they omit or exaggerate, so criticising dr stone for this means to criticize these other shows for this as well, or any show really on specialized subject matter. Going back to dr stone, you claim that the show adheres to real life logic of science yet you criticize only these two instances. I mentioned in another message about the other inaccuracies that Dr stone has for instance the formation of nitric acid, the formation of salt peter are two instances i've picked out to be inaccurate so why haven't these two been mentioned as well. Its odd you bring up the last of us and kinda unfair considering last of us world borrows from a tried and tested troupe of the post apocalyptic world following the immediate apocalyptic event, in this case the zombie, even with that in consideration the environment portrayed in this world is a gross exaggeration, the buildings in the world wouldn't loose that much of their integrity nor degrade to that extent after a mere span of just 20 year nor would they be encompassed by vegetation of that level (that may be the result of the fungus nature of the epidemic but that's an assumption). Compare that to Dr stone which has invented a completely new variation of the post apocalyptic event, and therefore its effect and the nature of the world would be significantly different from the variation in the last of us. In fact , the surrounding environment with how the buildings, the vegetation, wildlife and how the buildings look is a more accurate depiction of a world devoid of human intervention albeit not perfect but arguably more accurate than the last of us in terms of surrounding environment in the world. By the way , changing the time span from 3700 to just 50-100 years would make a big difference cause within that time frame the world is still theoretically salvageable and hence the premise of the show would be defeated. Depends on what you mean by problem in writing, not adhering to its own established real life principles then no it isn't a flaw but breaking the logic being imposed on it that it should have then yes, its a flaw which by extension a flaw in realism which you have advocated to be vehemently against which is confusing.

For this paragraph:
1) I clarified this with Lord_dracule and he does state that he thinks this what happened and to expect an outside viewer to have a perfect grasp on the conversation that happened between two others especially when some points were private is unreasonable. And his perception isnt devoid of truth neither , its his perspective on the situation.

2) It is unreasonable all that can be expected of a show is to adhere to its own rules and logic no matter if they defy the rules of physics and chemistry, and no criticize it if it doesn't follow these rules is true a lens of realism. And its incredibly confusing that though you say you don't champion the idea and you're trying to dismiss it but through your criticism of dr stone you are actively promoting it as well. A Lot of what you say here speaks on your ignorance of real life science and i've mentioned the incidences in the previous argument, and i've also provided counter points to this argument in previous paragraphs or arguments if a need for clarification is required just ask for it.

Yes we should judge a stories world building based on the internal, contextual logic, but the problems is once you bring up outside information that's wasn't prevalent in the story nor emphasized as a factor in its internal or contextual i.e., bringing in outside information then it is asking for realism that is the implication of what you are asking and criticizing , not to sound patronizing or condescending but you may not realise that it is the implications of what you're saying but that is what you are asking for. I don't see how Dr stone has betrayed the its own contextual, and verisimilitude and internal believability matter as the logic portrayed in the story has been consistent youre bring in outside information that hasn't been explored or emphasized in the series and bringing in context from other stories takes away from the idea that it is simply about internal believability. And therefore seems, hypocritical. As for what the intentions and thought process of the author are i'm sure i don't know nor does it seem relevant in a discussion about in world consistency and believability which i addressed previously. Asking the series to take into account for what would happen after a 4000 years to the world and provide a more accurate depiction in its story of what you asses would happen simply because you assume that the other aspects of the series seem to be accurate in terms of realism even though the logic that governs those accurate moments is different from the accurate one is asking for more realism. That is the logical conclusion. The fact of the matter is that fiction in general only care about physics/ chemistry for establishing certain context and completely ignore it others, that is how it generally, its just that at times these omissions of the laws of physics are more noticeable than some other times which is what happened in this instance.

As for this whole paragraph i already provided a response previously in this same comment.

And here is my explanation, if AJ doesn't see any inconsistencies with his reasoning thats fine i guess well just have to agree to disagree about his stance on this. In end my final point is, i dont see how a disagreement is a misrepresentation, even when i went into explanation for it.

Yo! Just figured I’d clear a bunch of things up.

Out of curiosity - Since you’ve gone to my profile, read a conversation I had, and then gone to someone else’s profile to talk about how my opinion about Dr. Stone is inconsistent and unfair, why not actually talk to me about it? You referenced that you’re not exactly sure if you’re correctly interpreting what I said, so why not ask me instead of musing about it and essentially saying I’m wrong elsewhere? Not gonna lie, it’s quite discouraging and upsetting to see something like that. Why are you checking my conversation with someone else, finding things that you want to counter against, finding supposed contradictions, and then not addressing me about this as well? It makes no sense and it doesn't give me a chance to defend myself. I found it because someone linked me to it earlier today and it wasn't nice to read at all. You say that I "supposedly understand" things, insinuating that I don't understand them, you say that I contradict myself, you say that you don't see where my problems with Dr. Stone are founded despite not asking me what they were. It's all pretty unfair and dishonest in my opinion. But the thing that bothers me the most is that you didn't feel comfortable talking to ME about it. And if I had not responded in this elaborate way, I would've never been able to clarify anything to you as I do below.

My original complaints were the following: "“‪For a show that’s rooted in science, Dr. Stone really is pretty illogical and inconsistent. It seems to fundamentally misunderstand the magnitude of change that would occur after 3700 years. Everything would erode. The human statues would be underground or ground to dust. 3700 years is a gargantuan amount of time, it’s a big exaggeration. And ‪Why are these people, who have been semi-conscious, clinging on and trapped for 3700 years, totally functional and psychologically healthy? It’s like literally nothing happened to them. Surely they’d have some sort of psychological effect, even just a tiny bit of lingering trauma? Long-term isolation is one of the most pathological and dysfunctional things that can happen to a person, and yet the story has skipped out on that for the first three characters. Maybe that tackle that later on (and if they do, I’ll re-evaluate) but for right now, it’s a big oversight."

I don't think it is at all, whatsoever unfair or inconsistent reasoning to expect a show that focuses on the stringent realities of science and chemistry to have a basic sense of scope with regards to time and how it affects erosion and geographical formation. 3700 years is ridiculous. That isn't an unfair complaint, and that's a clear flaw with the story for reasons I explained. And saying that it isn't a problem in the story is overlooking a blatant flaw - which is totally fine, but it remains a flaw nonetheless. It doesn't impact my enjoyment much, but it's a problem with the writing. Change the 3700 years to ~50-100 years and there's no problem here. The Last Of Us, for example, is a story that has a great sense of scope. I dunno if you've played it, but if you observe the changes to the world after 20 years of no industrial development, it pulls it off perfectly. Dr. Stone does it badly, and it can't be excused by contextual worldbuilding.

For the record, you did misinterpret my point, and you did misread some things that were said. You said that "I think the reason AJ became slightly offended, or accused you for misrepresentation, is because he thinks you said that he "applied realistic standards to Dr Stone". You probably didn't, but it doesn't change the fact the AJ still applied very strict standards to the show based on realism."

1) He DID say that I applied realistic standards to Dr Stone. I may have paraphrased the wording a tad but he said that exact sentiment. I'm not sure how you can be evaluating our exchange and commenting on it when you didn't read that and thus have a completely inaccurate impression of the points being made.

2) Asking for the show to simply apply scope intelligently is not "very strict," nor is it me judging a story using realism! It's incredibly frustrating that I have to continuously explain that I don't champion an idea that I always actively strive to dismiss, but maybe the problem is me so I'll accept the blame for this. So I'll explain again: If Dr. Stone was a story that didn't use measurements, exact calculations, chemical formulas, reactions and such that are literally a 1:1 representation of real life, I wouldn't care. BUT - it establishes throughout the 6 episodes so far that its setting is one that is an alternate reality of our own and incredibly similar at a scientific level. And the important part is, that it does not point out any distinctions between our reality and its own. And since it doesn't, it is logical to deduce that this is essentially, our earth. Scientifically, logistically, it is the world we inhabit in anime form and that idea will continue to be strengthened as long as the story continues to apply more real-world principles to the plot. That is not me shallowly judging the story using realism - it is me judging the story by the world it establishes, and it just so happens that that world is establishes is realistic. It may seem like a pedantic or tiny distinction, but it's huge and getting that confused basically completely misinterprets one of my main philosophies when it comes to writing, so I really hope you see the difference. I would not really have this problem with a show that expresses how science works in a different way, or a show that is very much rooted in silly idealism or wacky universe logic that is much different from ours. But Dr. Stone has a setting that does not do that - so it is a flaw in this case. Because everything is contextual, and verisimilitude and internal believability matter, NOT realism. That should make things clear, I hope.

Anyways, as a result, we are to judge the worldbuilding and internal, contextual logic by those standards. Yet, when this world, which follows the realities it establishes to a T, fails to take into account how much change and erosion would have occurred on the planet after nearly 4000 years, it is far more logical to conclude that this is a simple writing mistake rather than the ONE intentional difference that the writer put into the setting building - that time, scope and erosion interact differently in this setting - especially when no attention is paid to any intentional difference of that ilk. If I excuse that, then I’m excusing a story that is essentially saying: “Yeah, this setting adheres to real science all the time! ...Except when there’s an inconsistency.” I can’t find it within myself to excuse something like that and still call myself critically honest. It would be disingenuous.

You also said the following: "I definitely think AJ is being strict on Dr Stone, by not allowing it to reflect real life science and slightly modify it for extra comedy, drama and SIMPLICITY." None of this has anything at all to do with any of my problems with the series, so it's strange that you'd say this. I have no problem with the series' comedy, drama or simplicity. I like that it's goofy and over the top in presentation. The humour is fine with me. I have no problems with simplicity. You also said "I don't recall that Dr Stone has bent science to the point of inconsistency or absurdity." Well, my complaint is simply referring to one thing - the erosion thing, which I've already explained is inconsistent. The second problem I have with them being stuck for thousands of years and not being psychologically damaged has less to do with this topic, though it does feed in with the series' problems with scope. I get that the story doesn't place its cards with that approach, but 3700 years of isolation and NONE of these characters have been even SLIGHTLY affected by total, black, total isolation? Come on. I don't buy it. People go insane after less than a month of isolation, so I at least wanted a line or two referencing that it was excruciating, or painful, or lonely. I'm not even using the same framework to criticize this - I just find it unbelievable, in any context, that these people would have no issues with being stuck and trapped for 3700 years. Again, not a big problem, but a problem nonetheless for me.

Anyways, there is my explanation. I covered most of everything and I don't see any inconsistencies at all with my reasoning. And I've filled in the gaps that you weren't aware of, so hopefully you can see why I was being misrepresented and what my problems with the story are. It's unfortunate that I came upon your indirect arguments against me in this way, but meh.

Fair, we'll be getting in alot of arguments in the future I bet.

Well I kinda did say that he was applying realistic standards.

Anyway any anime that i love that you wanna trash?

How do you rate your anime I rate mine based purely on enjoyment , I find trying to do an objective rating to tedious and tiresome?

Yeah thanks for that, I've been wondering where did I fuck up in that exchange. Any anime you want to talk about. Just wondering.

And by AJ you mean aleczandxr ?

Oh, okay. Then we can discuss it further next time in private.

I recommend you this video about JoJo Part 5:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXPziHbmOEs&t=149s

I recommend you to read this One Piece chapter cover made by Dr. Stone's artist, Boichi.

https://readms.net/r/one_shot/Roronoa%20Zoro%20Falls%20Into%20the%20Sea/6057/1

that scene was truly amazing fucking loved the ending. Kiritsugu is my fav character from that series.

awesome u finished fate, howd u like it?

Toguro from YYH.

glad u like fate yeah i mis spelled it. Also how is persona 5, im watching a youtube play through of it but that shit is hours long so rip

u ever gonna put OP manga and PunPun in ur fav manga lust? also how is fat going?