Boukensha License wo Hakudatsu Sareta Ossan Dakedo, Manamusume ga Dekita no de Nonbiri Jinsei wo Oukasuru - Vol. 3 Ch. 10.1
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
@boag In other words, you have a strong belief, that isn't supported by fact, and you don't want to look like the loser because you can't think of anything else to say so you gave up after digging your own hole.
Well so long and farewell, if you weren't ready for intelligent debate you probably shouldn't have confronted me but picked someone else. Have a nice day.
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2018
- Messages
- 461
Boy do I regret looking at the comments for this chapter.
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2018
- Messages
- 892
@WillLi I'm sorry but no, it cannot be used in an argument, because the situation here is totally different.
An opinion is a personal interpretation. Moreover only real people can give their opinion so you can talk to that person directly and exchange ideas.
WHat is happening in the story is no exchange of ideas, it's an interaction between 2 fictional characters in a book, a manga. The reason why you cannot adopt a 3rd person point of view is because since it's a comic book you have to obtain the information necessary to understand the world and it's characters. Adopting a 3rd person pov, pretty much ignores that in favor or getting a cold and harsh understanding of a situation. you discard the characters emotions and feelings while looking at the situation from a neutral pov, however because you discarded the emotions of the characters in your reasoning, you get only half truths and once again, personal interpretations.
However, you are not there,
and chances are you don't share life experiences with the character, all you get is a biased pov
An opinion is a personal interpretation. Moreover only real people can give their opinion so you can talk to that person directly and exchange ideas.
WHat is happening in the story is no exchange of ideas, it's an interaction between 2 fictional characters in a book, a manga. The reason why you cannot adopt a 3rd person point of view is because since it's a comic book you have to obtain the information necessary to understand the world and it's characters. Adopting a 3rd person pov, pretty much ignores that in favor or getting a cold and harsh understanding of a situation. you discard the characters emotions and feelings while looking at the situation from a neutral pov, however because you discarded the emotions of the characters in your reasoning, you get only half truths and once again, personal interpretations.
However, you are not there,
and chances are you don't share life experiences with the character, all you get is a biased pov
@BloodySorcerer What I'm saying is you are saying we should be paying attention to the emotions of the characters. (Which no one is disagreeing with actually) but there is no such thing as a universal law for evaluating emotions. Everyone will evaluate the importance of emotions in a situation differently because emotions are not perfectly quantifiable. So you saying that emotions should be included in the evaluation of the characters by it's nature means that everyone will have a different outlook. So you can't sit here and act like everyone should evaluate this girl the same way you do. Because you're the one asking us to evaluate it with a criteria that is by it's nature subjective.
TLDR; You are telling us not to forget emotions and feelings, but there is no objective way to evaluate those, so that means everyone will come to different conclusions and you can't expect everyone to see it the same way you do.
TLDR; You are telling us not to forget emotions and feelings, but there is no objective way to evaluate those, so that means everyone will come to different conclusions and you can't expect everyone to see it the same way you do.
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2018
- Messages
- 339
Holy shit, all this arguing stemming from one little immature kid.
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2018
- Messages
- 892
@WillLi and that's what I disagree the most, It's pretty easy for people to reach a similar conclusion, you just have to shut yourself out of the mix. Don't think about what YOU think is the best, look for things that trigger a certain character's emotions, take the emotions they are feeling and try to reach a conclusion as to why they are feeling that emotion, remember, what YOU feel is not important here as that is not what is in question. anyway if you do that regardless of what you think, you'll see that the girl is not wrong here, she's not a bitch that deserves to be forgotten, nor is she a hollow character who brings nothing to the story.
Why? because while people can be gay, lesbian, straight or sexualy identify as a soap, all feelings and emotions are the very same no matter who feels them. The only thing that changes it is the trigger behind them. It should theoretically be possible to understand anyone by just doing this, even though you'll still not understand why people have differene emotional triggers.
And it's because of all this that I'll say that using logic to judge the situation, what is advantageous and why is she wrong, because she's not considering said advantage while taking said action. Using this logical solution here is the least logical argument someone could use, because what's important for people differs from people to people. So not everyone will follow the easy or more advantageous path or think it's the best option, same as the most efficient method is not always the right method. As well as the fact that not everyone likes to be help or asking for help. Me, this situation here was a cinch for me to undterstand, because I loathe to ask people for help, I always try to do everything right from the get go, and when I do commit a mistake, I go back, look for the reason behind that mistake and try to correct it myself as to not repeat it. And If I don't know how to do something, I look for a book or website with the information and learn about it myself without asking questions. You'll rarely ever see me asking for help, because when I do, it is always for something very serious I can't solve myself no matter what. The character is pretty much the same way, her flashback and her actions ever since the very first time she showed up, already showed that.
THat's why looking for the emotions is the "logical" action to take here. And not using logic per se.
Why? because while people can be gay, lesbian, straight or sexualy identify as a soap, all feelings and emotions are the very same no matter who feels them. The only thing that changes it is the trigger behind them. It should theoretically be possible to understand anyone by just doing this, even though you'll still not understand why people have differene emotional triggers.
And it's because of all this that I'll say that using logic to judge the situation, what is advantageous and why is she wrong, because she's not considering said advantage while taking said action. Using this logical solution here is the least logical argument someone could use, because what's important for people differs from people to people. So not everyone will follow the easy or more advantageous path or think it's the best option, same as the most efficient method is not always the right method. As well as the fact that not everyone likes to be help or asking for help. Me, this situation here was a cinch for me to undterstand, because I loathe to ask people for help, I always try to do everything right from the get go, and when I do commit a mistake, I go back, look for the reason behind that mistake and try to correct it myself as to not repeat it. And If I don't know how to do something, I look for a book or website with the information and learn about it myself without asking questions. You'll rarely ever see me asking for help, because when I do, it is always for something very serious I can't solve myself no matter what. The character is pretty much the same way, her flashback and her actions ever since the very first time she showed up, already showed that.
THat's why looking for the emotions is the "logical" action to take here. And not using logic per se.
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2019
- Messages
- 244
Huge...huge eye-roll for that girl...yes I get from all the trauma that she had she needs someone to blame, she needs something to shift her attention from the real problem that she needs to solve. But ugh...she doesn't listen to people and just shouts, shouts and shouts. Can't sympathize with this blame game, "I'm dirty" thing but well that's okay. I just hope she won't later realize her mistake and want to join the MC party...hhh probably just going to be those cliche tsunderes and goes all caring, blushing mess, like/admire the MC too much but pretends she's isn't. May this arc end soon as treated as a passing wind....lol
@Bloodysorcerer it doesn't matter how 'easy' it is for people to reach the same conclusion. You could easily reach the same conclusion the other side has reached, but ou choose not to because it requires evaluating things different than by your ownn personal standard. If you have the privledge to evalute a subjective matter by yoru own standards, everyone else gets that right as well. To say anything else would be to imply that your own standards are more just or fair than anyone else's and that's just plain arrogant.
Right now you're honestly just trying to preach and impose your own values on other people, and honestly? That makes you wrong here.
Also, objectively, right now this girl has added nothign to the story. That's not even up for debate. That is straight objectivity. That might change, but at the end of this chapter, she has added nothing to the action story. It's just a moment of drama that is there as filler.
I will also tell you that logic always has to be involved, you can't just throw it out, because if you don't there is no consistency. You can change standards and perspective, but you can't jsut disclude logic, or you're not trying to 'solve' or 'evaluate' anything. You are just choosing a side and sticking with that because you like it, but not by any merit of the argument itself. There are many things I could say about that but it'll probably get me flagged under site rules. But I will say, you are not an intellectual debater, you are just someone with an opinion and thinks you have the answers to wolve humanity's problems.
The only real answer to this is that when emotions are involved everyoen will have their own persepctive and interpretation. THat is fact, and not really something you can argue. Ask any judge.
Right now you're honestly just trying to preach and impose your own values on other people, and honestly? That makes you wrong here.
Also, objectively, right now this girl has added nothign to the story. That's not even up for debate. That is straight objectivity. That might change, but at the end of this chapter, she has added nothing to the action story. It's just a moment of drama that is there as filler.
I will also tell you that logic always has to be involved, you can't just throw it out, because if you don't there is no consistency. You can change standards and perspective, but you can't jsut disclude logic, or you're not trying to 'solve' or 'evaluate' anything. You are just choosing a side and sticking with that because you like it, but not by any merit of the argument itself. There are many things I could say about that but it'll probably get me flagged under site rules. But I will say, you are not an intellectual debater, you are just someone with an opinion and thinks you have the answers to wolve humanity's problems.
The only real answer to this is that when emotions are involved everyoen will have their own persepctive and interpretation. THat is fact, and not really something you can argue. Ask any judge.
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2018
- Messages
- 892
@WillLi I'd never reach the conclusion you guys have reached, because it's impossible to reach a conclusion in which the girl is wrong unless you're biased, that's what i'm trying to tell you. It's not a matter of standards.Like I said the girl has a reason to act the way she i, you guys are ignoring that wwhile using a "logical argument" that she has more to gain by accepting what just happened, because you guys selfishly thinks that everyone is a stupid commoner that only thinks on immediate gains, and has zero emotions so you can always think logically regardless of the situation. Because this is the only freaking way for her to fall into the logical fallacy that you guys are using to dismiss her actions.
"Also, objectively, right now this girl has added nothign to the story. That's not even up for debate. That is straight objectivity. That might change, but at the end of this chapter, she has added nothing to the action story. It's just a moment of drama that is there as filler."
It's not a freaking action story, moreover the arc is not even done, so far we have a few characters that were just introduced, and whose presence may be important down the line BECAUSE this arc happened, but you guys won't ever accept this because you guys only care for instant gratification, if there is no instant gratification then the arc is useless in your views.
"Right now you're honestly just trying to preach and impose your own values on other people, and honestly? That makes you wrong here."
No that just make you guys incapable of accepting your own mistakes. No amount of bending will prevent your origianl argument of being wrong, even if you're right and I'm wrong at trying to force you guys to change your mistaken pov, that doesn't make me any degree of wrong when it comes to my interpretation of the story, that only makes me wrong into trying to change you guys.
You guys are trying to force logical thinking into an emotional situation, this is Illogical in itself.
"Also, objectively, right now this girl has added nothign to the story. That's not even up for debate. That is straight objectivity. That might change, but at the end of this chapter, she has added nothing to the action story. It's just a moment of drama that is there as filler."
It's not a freaking action story, moreover the arc is not even done, so far we have a few characters that were just introduced, and whose presence may be important down the line BECAUSE this arc happened, but you guys won't ever accept this because you guys only care for instant gratification, if there is no instant gratification then the arc is useless in your views.
"Right now you're honestly just trying to preach and impose your own values on other people, and honestly? That makes you wrong here."
No that just make you guys incapable of accepting your own mistakes. No amount of bending will prevent your origianl argument of being wrong, even if you're right and I'm wrong at trying to force you guys to change your mistaken pov, that doesn't make me any degree of wrong when it comes to my interpretation of the story, that only makes me wrong into trying to change you guys.
You guys are trying to force logical thinking into an emotional situation, this is Illogical in itself.
@bloodysorcerer First, just because someone has a reason to do something doesn't mean they are right. Otherwise 'aggravated assault' wouldn't be a crime. I can't believe you actually think that 'having a reasons' is all there's needed for someone to be excused of their actions. If that was the case almost no one would go to jail. You can have a reason, even a justifiable one, but that doesn't mean you actions will be right. Even if everyone totally understands and sympathizes with why you did it, it can still be wrong.
Second, above was a typo where is should be 'actual story' not 'action story'. The reason she doesn't add anything to the story is not because she doesn't bring action, but because despite her 'connecting' to a previous incident, she so far does not progress the story in any way. She has her own story, and has done nothing for the MC's story so far. Also if you actually paid attention, someone who -has- read the novel has said a few times, that this stuff with this girl has noting to do with the story and isn't important at all. So the one who isn't getting it is you, not us.
Third, we're not making mistakes. We're evaluating things differently from you. The only mistake is you not being able to accept lines of reasoning different from your own. Also you are now even more wrong because you don't even know what my 'original argument' was. You actually have no idea how I interpreted the story because I have intentionally not revealed that. My original argument was that not all people are capable(or willing) to sympathize with the girl enough to understand why she is mad at the MC and justify her behavior. So yes, you are wrong, because my whole point was you are wrong for trying to force your standards on people, and that simply people are seeing it differently than you.
Never was this about whether your interpretation of the events was possible(there is no way to prove if it is correct without asking the author so that is a senseless argument) it's always been "Other people see things differently and are allowed to." In case you haven't noticed I have not once told you your interpretation was wrong, or impossible. So yeah were were even in the wrong argument from the get go.
As for using logic in an emotional situation, there always must be logic in any form of evaluation. The very fact that you are saying "She is emotional and thus is acting out" is a form of logic. Logic is what lets you 'put yourself in her shoes' and not see things purely from your own perspective. In fact every time you tried to tell us to not be bias you were telling us to use logic. The difference between other people's reasoning and your's is not logic. The difference is ethics. Your ethics allow you to forgive more than the people who aren't forgiving her. It's not that they are blind to her situation. It's that they have weighed her situation against her behavior and their scales are saying that her behavior is too much for her trauma. And that's not something you can argue against. Because every person sees things different, but also every person reacts differently. So the individual reading it makes a choice to determine how much of her behavior is too much.
Second, above was a typo where is should be 'actual story' not 'action story'. The reason she doesn't add anything to the story is not because she doesn't bring action, but because despite her 'connecting' to a previous incident, she so far does not progress the story in any way. She has her own story, and has done nothing for the MC's story so far. Also if you actually paid attention, someone who -has- read the novel has said a few times, that this stuff with this girl has noting to do with the story and isn't important at all. So the one who isn't getting it is you, not us.
Third, we're not making mistakes. We're evaluating things differently from you. The only mistake is you not being able to accept lines of reasoning different from your own. Also you are now even more wrong because you don't even know what my 'original argument' was. You actually have no idea how I interpreted the story because I have intentionally not revealed that. My original argument was that not all people are capable(or willing) to sympathize with the girl enough to understand why she is mad at the MC and justify her behavior. So yes, you are wrong, because my whole point was you are wrong for trying to force your standards on people, and that simply people are seeing it differently than you.
Never was this about whether your interpretation of the events was possible(there is no way to prove if it is correct without asking the author so that is a senseless argument) it's always been "Other people see things differently and are allowed to." In case you haven't noticed I have not once told you your interpretation was wrong, or impossible. So yeah were were even in the wrong argument from the get go.
As for using logic in an emotional situation, there always must be logic in any form of evaluation. The very fact that you are saying "She is emotional and thus is acting out" is a form of logic. Logic is what lets you 'put yourself in her shoes' and not see things purely from your own perspective. In fact every time you tried to tell us to not be bias you were telling us to use logic. The difference between other people's reasoning and your's is not logic. The difference is ethics. Your ethics allow you to forgive more than the people who aren't forgiving her. It's not that they are blind to her situation. It's that they have weighed her situation against her behavior and their scales are saying that her behavior is too much for her trauma. And that's not something you can argue against. Because every person sees things different, but also every person reacts differently. So the individual reading it makes a choice to determine how much of her behavior is too much.
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2018
- Messages
- 892
@WillLi "First, just because someone has a reason to do something doesn't mean they are right. Otherwise 'aggravated assault' wouldn't be a crime. I can't believe you actually think that 'having a reasons' is all there's needed for someone to be excused of their actions. If that was the case almost no one would go to jail. You can have a reason, even a justifiable one, but that doesn't mean you actions will be right. Even if everyone totally understands and sympathizes with why you did it, it can still be wrong."
Ah yes, totally different situation altogether, you just compared a crime to divergence of ideas. Listen, people have personal experiences and emotions, when you step on them, even by honest accident, don't expect people to be happy about it. That's the reason for the girl's behavior
Rest is in spoiler tag due to length
Ah yes, totally different situation altogether, you just compared a crime to divergence of ideas. Listen, people have personal experiences and emotions, when you step on them, even by honest accident, don't expect people to be happy about it. That's the reason for the girl's behavior
Rest is in spoiler tag due to length
"Second, above was a typo where is should be 'actual story' not 'action story'. The reason she doesn't add anything to the story is not because she doesn't bring action, but because despite her 'connecting' to a previous incident, she so far does not progress the story in any way. She has her own story, and has done nothing for the MC's story so far. Also if you actually paid attention, someone who -has- read the novel has said a few times, that this stuff with this girl has noting to do with the story and isn't important at all. So the one who isn't getting it is you, not us."
I see, that makes it better to understand your point. Anyway:
Is the novel complete? Did the guy properly read the LN and not the WN? There are many problems with this argument, and frankly I can't blame you for them. Either way, one person reading the novel at more advanced chapters don't really prove the character is useless, differences between LN and WN, incomplete story, there are lots of ways to counter even a LN reader, granted that said reader has not yet read the entire story, or that he has read only then WN, or even that the LN presents a totally different story in which even the manga version may differ. Mangas that are adaptations of WN instead of LN exist after all. Anyway, there's an utter lack of info here, so this argument here doesn't really say much.
"Third, we're not making mistakes. We're evaluating things differently from you. The only mistake is you not being able to accept lines of reasoning different from your own. Also you are now even more wrong because you don't even know what my 'original argument' was. You actually have no idea how I interpreted the story because I have intentionally not revealed that. My original argument was that not all people are capable(or willing) to sympathize with the girl enough to understand why she is mad at the MC and justify her behavior. So yes, you are wrong, because my whole point was you are wrong for trying to force your standards on people, and that simply people are seeing it differently than you. "
You don't get to use "We're evaluating things differently from you" when you ignore all elements from the story and judge a character or an arc by your own pov and personal experiences. The vast majority of people here completely ignored the character's emotions and experiences in favor of their bullshit "logic" of "the girl is wrong because she has profited more from not spending her own money to solve her situation, which would otherwise leave her broken if she did." Sure, because emotions are a fictional concept and people always think while using cost efficiency as a measure to choose all their actions irl...
Like I said, anyone that uses their own pov to judge a fictional story is fundamentally wrong from the get go, you don't get to ignore story elements and character personality and call your biased reasoning an opinion. Even opinions need at least a minimum of basis to be a valid point of view about something. Otherwise I could just say that laws are bullshit and totally unnecessary for society, while knowing little about legislation in general and call it "my opinion" when proven wrong.
"Never was this about whether your interpretation of the events was possible(there is no way to prove if it is correct without asking the author so that is a senseless argument) it's always been "Other people see things differently and are allowed to." In case you haven't noticed I have not once told you your interpretation was wrong, or impossible. So yeah were were even in the wrong argument from the get go."
My "interpretation" is an analisis of everything the character has shown me so far, the guy I was debating about this pretty much ignored everything about her to judge her actions. Also, this argument here:
"there is no way to prove if it is correct without asking the author so that is a senseless argument"
There's not even a reason to ask the author as everything I said was pretty much implied by the character's every reaction and personality, her backstory only served to further cement this as a fact.
You want proof?
Let us summarize everything we know about her so far, girl was an orphan sold by a criminal playing the role of a good samaritan, she was forced into prostitution from an early age and grew up in a life not of her own choosing, she had no help, nor any proper emotional support while growing up(this here is key). She grew up and used alternate forms of making money, including deciving people into money making schemes.
The author pretty much told you that she is a loner, he also told you that despite a lot people around her showing pity for her situation no one actually did a thing to change that. The current owner tried to change things but it was already too late as ther girl in question had alredy managed to buy her freedom from the brothel and was now travelling abroad.
There's more than enough information to let the reader know that her reaction came from the fact that she is a loner, which pretty much implies that she does not count on anyone but her own self to solve her problems, remember she had already solved one part of her problem herself with no one's help. Using the other information you can pretty much guess that she doesn't like being helped. And so her reaction finally makes sense. You don't need to be a genius to understand that people dislike when other people do what they dislike.
"As for using logic in an emotional situation, there always must be logic in any form of evaluation. The very fact that you are saying "She is emotional and thus is acting out" is a form of logic. Logic is what lets you 'put yourself in her shoes' and not see things purely from your own perspective. In fact every time you tried to tell us to not be bias you were telling us to use logic. The difference between other people's reasoning and your's is not logic. The difference is ethics. Your ethics allow you to forgive more than the people who aren't forgiving her. It's not that they are blind to her situation. It's that they have weighed her situation against her behavior and their scales are saying that her behavior is too much for her trauma. And that's not something you can argue against. Because every person sees things different, but also every person reacts differently. So the individual reading it makes a choice to determine how much of her behavior is too much."
You seem to have a bit of a problem with me saying to abandon logic, as a matter of fact your reaction itself is the main reason why I mean to abandon logic, look for the definition of logic and you'll possibly understand where I'm coming from.
What I said about logic is this meaning here:
"a formal, scientific method of examining or thinking about ideas"
You're using the phylosophical meaning of Logic, I'm using the Scientific meaning.
Also this here: "The difference is ethics. Your ethics allow you to forgive more than the people who aren't forgiving her"
There's no ethics involved in my argument, there's actually nothing that warrants forgiveness in her actions because she is not really wrong in her reaction. This here is a problem of different points of view. I'm telling people to not restrict theirs, a person in a helicopter can see more than a person behind a wall. I'm telling people to not confine themselves behind a wall, to either climb the wall of even topple it, literally anything, but to stop drawing conclusions while behind it. This, of course, doesn't mean that the MC is wrong, he was just left in a gray situation, where there no such thing as a right or wrong action.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/logic
I see, that makes it better to understand your point. Anyway:
Is the novel complete? Did the guy properly read the LN and not the WN? There are many problems with this argument, and frankly I can't blame you for them. Either way, one person reading the novel at more advanced chapters don't really prove the character is useless, differences between LN and WN, incomplete story, there are lots of ways to counter even a LN reader, granted that said reader has not yet read the entire story, or that he has read only then WN, or even that the LN presents a totally different story in which even the manga version may differ. Mangas that are adaptations of WN instead of LN exist after all. Anyway, there's an utter lack of info here, so this argument here doesn't really say much.
"Third, we're not making mistakes. We're evaluating things differently from you. The only mistake is you not being able to accept lines of reasoning different from your own. Also you are now even more wrong because you don't even know what my 'original argument' was. You actually have no idea how I interpreted the story because I have intentionally not revealed that. My original argument was that not all people are capable(or willing) to sympathize with the girl enough to understand why she is mad at the MC and justify her behavior. So yes, you are wrong, because my whole point was you are wrong for trying to force your standards on people, and that simply people are seeing it differently than you. "
You don't get to use "We're evaluating things differently from you" when you ignore all elements from the story and judge a character or an arc by your own pov and personal experiences. The vast majority of people here completely ignored the character's emotions and experiences in favor of their bullshit "logic" of "the girl is wrong because she has profited more from not spending her own money to solve her situation, which would otherwise leave her broken if she did." Sure, because emotions are a fictional concept and people always think while using cost efficiency as a measure to choose all their actions irl...
Like I said, anyone that uses their own pov to judge a fictional story is fundamentally wrong from the get go, you don't get to ignore story elements and character personality and call your biased reasoning an opinion. Even opinions need at least a minimum of basis to be a valid point of view about something. Otherwise I could just say that laws are bullshit and totally unnecessary for society, while knowing little about legislation in general and call it "my opinion" when proven wrong.
"Never was this about whether your interpretation of the events was possible(there is no way to prove if it is correct without asking the author so that is a senseless argument) it's always been "Other people see things differently and are allowed to." In case you haven't noticed I have not once told you your interpretation was wrong, or impossible. So yeah were were even in the wrong argument from the get go."
My "interpretation" is an analisis of everything the character has shown me so far, the guy I was debating about this pretty much ignored everything about her to judge her actions. Also, this argument here:
"there is no way to prove if it is correct without asking the author so that is a senseless argument"
There's not even a reason to ask the author as everything I said was pretty much implied by the character's every reaction and personality, her backstory only served to further cement this as a fact.
You want proof?
Let us summarize everything we know about her so far, girl was an orphan sold by a criminal playing the role of a good samaritan, she was forced into prostitution from an early age and grew up in a life not of her own choosing, she had no help, nor any proper emotional support while growing up(this here is key). She grew up and used alternate forms of making money, including deciving people into money making schemes.
The author pretty much told you that she is a loner, he also told you that despite a lot people around her showing pity for her situation no one actually did a thing to change that. The current owner tried to change things but it was already too late as ther girl in question had alredy managed to buy her freedom from the brothel and was now travelling abroad.
There's more than enough information to let the reader know that her reaction came from the fact that she is a loner, which pretty much implies that she does not count on anyone but her own self to solve her problems, remember she had already solved one part of her problem herself with no one's help. Using the other information you can pretty much guess that she doesn't like being helped. And so her reaction finally makes sense. You don't need to be a genius to understand that people dislike when other people do what they dislike.
"As for using logic in an emotional situation, there always must be logic in any form of evaluation. The very fact that you are saying "She is emotional and thus is acting out" is a form of logic. Logic is what lets you 'put yourself in her shoes' and not see things purely from your own perspective. In fact every time you tried to tell us to not be bias you were telling us to use logic. The difference between other people's reasoning and your's is not logic. The difference is ethics. Your ethics allow you to forgive more than the people who aren't forgiving her. It's not that they are blind to her situation. It's that they have weighed her situation against her behavior and their scales are saying that her behavior is too much for her trauma. And that's not something you can argue against. Because every person sees things different, but also every person reacts differently. So the individual reading it makes a choice to determine how much of her behavior is too much."
You seem to have a bit of a problem with me saying to abandon logic, as a matter of fact your reaction itself is the main reason why I mean to abandon logic, look for the definition of logic and you'll possibly understand where I'm coming from.
What I said about logic is this meaning here:
"a formal, scientific method of examining or thinking about ideas"
You're using the phylosophical meaning of Logic, I'm using the Scientific meaning.
Also this here: "The difference is ethics. Your ethics allow you to forgive more than the people who aren't forgiving her"
There's no ethics involved in my argument, there's actually nothing that warrants forgiveness in her actions because she is not really wrong in her reaction. This here is a problem of different points of view. I'm telling people to not restrict theirs, a person in a helicopter can see more than a person behind a wall. I'm telling people to not confine themselves behind a wall, to either climb the wall of even topple it, literally anything, but to stop drawing conclusions while behind it. This, of course, doesn't mean that the MC is wrong, he was just left in a gray situation, where there no such thing as a right or wrong action.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/logic
@BloodySorcerer Paragraphs 1 and 2 are there to counter your points and reiterate the key. Paragraph 3 is important to your understanding of what is going on, cause you obviously don't get it. Paragraph 5 helps reestablish 3, and Paragraph 6 is there for you to learn how to be a better debater.
Scams are a crime, which is something she did. So If you can't excuse crimes, she's still a jerk for being a criminal. But even putting that aside. You just proved my point. "Experience and emotion" is not an end all be all, conditions are much more important and evaluation is necessary. Because her having a reason doesn't get her off scot free. You say people wont be happy if you step on them, even back accident, but she's stepping all on the MC, on purpose, so why do we have to be okay with that? You're putting out a double standard here.
As for the second point, I don't need to prove the character is permanently useless because I've constantly said "right now" and "So far" I brought that up because you keep asserting that she "Is not useless right now" and I wanted to point out that in the immediate future, she has no use to the story. Maybe long down the road she might, maybe even as soon as next arc, but that also means she could've easily been written in a less aggravating manner and still filled the role.
Third point this is the simple thing that you're not getting, and this is what makes you unfit to debate. We're not ignoring anything from the story, We just ascribe different worth and weight to it. If we were ignoring it I wouldn't be able to even talk with you because I wouldn't remember the things that happened. You for some reason seem incapable of realizing that we're not idiots. WE fully understand her situation, and her condition. We are not lacking in information. Where we differ is in our opinions in how much each piece is 'worth' when stacked against each other. WE're not going "Oh she's just acting like a jerk." As I've said in a previous post, for people, her negative behavior -outweighs- her trauma and they've decided that it's too much. This inherently means that they have weighed the two things against eachother. You also don't seem to get that no one is expecting her to be rational. The two camps are, people who literally do not understand -how- her past lead to her being mad at teh MC. They understand her being angry, they just don't get why it's directed at the MC. And the second group, they understand her anger and her reaction, but they say even if her actiosn are 'human' they are still wrong and shouldn't be over looked just because she is traumatized.
Your paragraph about pov and judging, is just garbage. That's not what a POV is really in the first place, and people aren't ignoring the circumstances of the story.
Now the rest of this mess, first, she's not actually a loner, that's proven by her attachment to the 'princess' or whatever. And for the rest of that paragraph, that's more garbage. All you're doing is stating things the book placed infront of us, and trying to say that that makes her actions excusable. Once again, no one(including the guy you were arguing with) is denying what actually happened in the story. No one was talking about that. People have either been on "Why direct that brattyness at the MC." and "Her situation doesn't give her the right to be a jerk to the MC." Never did anyone ignore what happened. I don't know how you have come to this conclusion that anyone is just ignoring what happened in the book.
Now about logic...are you stupid? This discussion is by nature philosophical and sociological. Why the hell would you use the 'scientific definition' of logic even more so assume anyone else was using the scientific definition? Seriously? Are you really on that level? THe definition of logic that applies here is 'reasoning' and that should be obvious by how I use the word and the very fact that I specifically said that dealing with emotions is non-quantifiable and can't be 'objective' which means you can't use a scientific evaluation on it.
As for the second point, I don't need to prove the character is permanently useless because I've constantly said "right now" and "So far" I brought that up because you keep asserting that she "Is not useless right now" and I wanted to point out that in the immediate future, she has no use to the story. Maybe long down the road she might, maybe even as soon as next arc, but that also means she could've easily been written in a less aggravating manner and still filled the role.
Third point this is the simple thing that you're not getting, and this is what makes you unfit to debate. We're not ignoring anything from the story, We just ascribe different worth and weight to it. If we were ignoring it I wouldn't be able to even talk with you because I wouldn't remember the things that happened. You for some reason seem incapable of realizing that we're not idiots. WE fully understand her situation, and her condition. We are not lacking in information. Where we differ is in our opinions in how much each piece is 'worth' when stacked against each other. WE're not going "Oh she's just acting like a jerk." As I've said in a previous post, for people, her negative behavior -outweighs- her trauma and they've decided that it's too much. This inherently means that they have weighed the two things against eachother. You also don't seem to get that no one is expecting her to be rational. The two camps are, people who literally do not understand -how- her past lead to her being mad at teh MC. They understand her being angry, they just don't get why it's directed at the MC. And the second group, they understand her anger and her reaction, but they say even if her actiosn are 'human' they are still wrong and shouldn't be over looked just because she is traumatized.
Your paragraph about pov and judging, is just garbage. That's not what a POV is really in the first place, and people aren't ignoring the circumstances of the story.
Now the rest of this mess, first, she's not actually a loner, that's proven by her attachment to the 'princess' or whatever. And for the rest of that paragraph, that's more garbage. All you're doing is stating things the book placed infront of us, and trying to say that that makes her actions excusable. Once again, no one(including the guy you were arguing with) is denying what actually happened in the story. No one was talking about that. People have either been on "Why direct that brattyness at the MC." and "Her situation doesn't give her the right to be a jerk to the MC." Never did anyone ignore what happened. I don't know how you have come to this conclusion that anyone is just ignoring what happened in the book.
Now about logic...are you stupid? This discussion is by nature philosophical and sociological. Why the hell would you use the 'scientific definition' of logic even more so assume anyone else was using the scientific definition? Seriously? Are you really on that level? THe definition of logic that applies here is 'reasoning' and that should be obvious by how I use the word and the very fact that I specifically said that dealing with emotions is non-quantifiable and can't be 'objective' which means you can't use a scientific evaluation on it.
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2018
- Messages
- 892
"Scams are a crime, which is something she did. So If you can't excuse crimes, she's still a jerk for being a criminal. But even putting that aside. You just proved my point. "Experience and emotion" is not an end all be all, conditions are much more important and evaluation is necessary. Because her having a reason doesn't get her off scot free. You say people wont be happy if you step on them, even back accident, but she's stepping all on the MC, on purpose, so why do we have to be okay with that? You're putting out a double standard here."
"Scams are a crime, which is something she did" You are literally the only one here holding this against her, every one else is simply complaining about her being a dick to the MC.
The mc stepped on her first, she's just returning what's owned, that was what I meant by "accident". Her entire reaction shows that she was "stepped" upon. Every action has a reaction, even though the mc didn't really deserve the reaction because he didn't do it on purpose, his actions were pretty much the same as stomping all over her actions, and while he may have not meant to step on her, he actually did.
"As for the second point, I don't need to prove the character is permanently useless because I've constantly said "right now" and "So far" I brought that up because you keep asserting that she "Is not useless right now" and I wanted to point out that in the immediate future, she has no use to the story. Maybe long down the road she might, maybe even as soon as next arc, but that also means she could've easily been written in a less aggravating manner and still filled the role."
Like I said before no decent author creates characters to be robots, authors write because they want to give life to his world and it's characters, there is no such thing as "could've been written in a less aggravating manner". Also not everyone found her to be aggravating, and I can assure you that many who did are only guided by their experiences with similar but not equal situations in other stories, and are projecting that onto this character. Also: "I don't need to prove the character is permanently useless because I've constantly said "right now" and "So far""
Yes you said "right now" and "so far", however there's no such a thing as right now and so far, is there? A character doesn't exist to only advance the plot, they exist to give the world depth, thus making it feel more alive. And she did just that, moreover because there's always a possibility of a character being useful down the road, you should NEVER call a character useless, just because they don't immediately contribute to the plot. The story is more of a slice of life, there is no such a thing as immediate exploration of a plot here. Otherwise the character would have already returned to first city and he'd be either strangling the guy who cursed him or questioning his motives. Meaning, every character interation is important to the story here even when it doesn't contribute to the plot, meeting people in an adventure is already important enough, wether you like the character or not.
"Third point this is the simple thing that you're not getting, and this is what makes you unfit to debate. We're not ignoring anything from the story, We just ascribe different worth and weight to it. If we were ignoring it I wouldn't be able to even talk with you because I wouldn't remember the things that happened. You for some reason seem incapable of realizing that we're not idiots. WE fully understand her situation, and her condition. We are not lacking in information. Where we differ is in our opinions in how much each piece is 'worth' when stacked against each other. WE're not going "Oh she's just acting like a jerk." As I've said in a previous post, for people, her negative behavior -outweighs- her trauma and they've decided that it's too much. This inherently means that they have weighed the two things against eachother. You also don't seem to get that no one is expecting her to be rational. The two camps are, people who literally do not understand -how- her past lead to her being mad at teh MC. They understand her being angry, they just don't get why it's directed at the MC. And the second group, they understand her anger and her reaction, but they say even if her actiosn are 'human' they are still wrong and shouldn't be over looked just because she is traumatized."
"...We're not ignoring anything from the story, We just ascribe different worth and weight to it..."
Need I quote from other posters to show you that people are indeed ignoring story elements? The guy who was discussing this with me pretty much did that and it was clear that he did.
"Your paragraph about pov and judging, is just garbage. That's not what a POV is really in the first place, and people aren't ignoring the circumstances of the story."
"...for people, her negative behavior -outweighs- her trauma and they've decided that it's too much. This inherently means that they have weighed the two things against eachother. You also don't seem to get that no one is expecting her to be rational. The two camps are, people who literally do not understand -how- her past lead to her being mad at teh MC..."
Except that a dozen of people have already explained why she is mad at the MC, ever since the first page of this comment section, with full explanations from the story and their whole reasoning behind it, but still you and other people have been ignoring our comments from the get go and you dare to say you guys are not ignoring story elements?
"Now the rest of this mess, first, she's not actually a loner, that's proven by her attachment to the 'princess' or whatever. And for the rest of that paragraph, that's more garbage. All you're doing is stating things the book placed infront of us, and trying to say that that makes her actions excusable. Once again, no one(including the guy you were arguing with) is denying what actually happened in the story. No one was talking about that. People have either been on "Why direct that brattyness at the MC." and "Her situation doesn't give her the right to be a jerk to the MC." Never did anyone ignore what happened. I don't know how you have come to this conclusion that anyone is just ignoring what happened in the book."
Like I said this "Once again, no one(including the guy you were arguing with) is denying what actually happened in the story. No one was talking about that. People have either been on "Why direct that brattyness at the MC." and "Her situation doesn't give her the right to be a jerk to the MC."
Is pretty much "ignoring story elements", the story has already shown that the mc did something to deserve her reaction, you guys just cannot accept that and are using outside elements to judge her actions.
Also, it seems that you don't understand what defines a loner. Being a loner is not the same as being a social recluse. "that's proven by her attachment to the 'princess' or whatever"
This literally proves nothing, unlike social recluse people, loners don't go out of the way to stay away from literally everyone, they are people who don't like or cannot associate with new people, Loners do associate although poorly to the people they already know. So yes it is expected that she does have at least one person who is close to her, however she has clearly shown to not interact much with anyone aside from her diminute social circle. And her reaction to the MC, is also proof of that. Not liking recieving help is also a trait of being a loner.
Conclusion, she IS a loner
"Now about logic...are you stupid? This discussion is by nature philosophical and sociological. Why the hell would you use the 'scientific definition' of logic even more so assume anyone else was using the scientific definition? Seriously? Are you really on that level? THe definition of logic that applies here is 'reasoning' and that should be obvious by how I use the word and the very fact that I specifically said that dealing with emotions is non-quantifiable and can't be 'objective' which means you can't use a scientific evaluation on it."
Are you freaking kidding me? Are you really that dense? The guy I was debating with literally just used Scientific logic to try and prove his argument, and my argument was literally the same as what you're trying to point out to me, what the hell are you smoking? I was literally berating the guy from using scientific logic to judge emotions.
Also the freaking definition you used about Logic IS the phylosophical logic, the concept of logic came from phylosophy.
"Scams are a crime, which is something she did" You are literally the only one here holding this against her, every one else is simply complaining about her being a dick to the MC.
The mc stepped on her first, she's just returning what's owned, that was what I meant by "accident". Her entire reaction shows that she was "stepped" upon. Every action has a reaction, even though the mc didn't really deserve the reaction because he didn't do it on purpose, his actions were pretty much the same as stomping all over her actions, and while he may have not meant to step on her, he actually did.
"As for the second point, I don't need to prove the character is permanently useless because I've constantly said "right now" and "So far" I brought that up because you keep asserting that she "Is not useless right now" and I wanted to point out that in the immediate future, she has no use to the story. Maybe long down the road she might, maybe even as soon as next arc, but that also means she could've easily been written in a less aggravating manner and still filled the role."
Like I said before no decent author creates characters to be robots, authors write because they want to give life to his world and it's characters, there is no such thing as "could've been written in a less aggravating manner". Also not everyone found her to be aggravating, and I can assure you that many who did are only guided by their experiences with similar but not equal situations in other stories, and are projecting that onto this character. Also: "I don't need to prove the character is permanently useless because I've constantly said "right now" and "So far""
Yes you said "right now" and "so far", however there's no such a thing as right now and so far, is there? A character doesn't exist to only advance the plot, they exist to give the world depth, thus making it feel more alive. And she did just that, moreover because there's always a possibility of a character being useful down the road, you should NEVER call a character useless, just because they don't immediately contribute to the plot. The story is more of a slice of life, there is no such a thing as immediate exploration of a plot here. Otherwise the character would have already returned to first city and he'd be either strangling the guy who cursed him or questioning his motives. Meaning, every character interation is important to the story here even when it doesn't contribute to the plot, meeting people in an adventure is already important enough, wether you like the character or not.
"Third point this is the simple thing that you're not getting, and this is what makes you unfit to debate. We're not ignoring anything from the story, We just ascribe different worth and weight to it. If we were ignoring it I wouldn't be able to even talk with you because I wouldn't remember the things that happened. You for some reason seem incapable of realizing that we're not idiots. WE fully understand her situation, and her condition. We are not lacking in information. Where we differ is in our opinions in how much each piece is 'worth' when stacked against each other. WE're not going "Oh she's just acting like a jerk." As I've said in a previous post, for people, her negative behavior -outweighs- her trauma and they've decided that it's too much. This inherently means that they have weighed the two things against eachother. You also don't seem to get that no one is expecting her to be rational. The two camps are, people who literally do not understand -how- her past lead to her being mad at teh MC. They understand her being angry, they just don't get why it's directed at the MC. And the second group, they understand her anger and her reaction, but they say even if her actiosn are 'human' they are still wrong and shouldn't be over looked just because she is traumatized."
"...We're not ignoring anything from the story, We just ascribe different worth and weight to it..."
Need I quote from other posters to show you that people are indeed ignoring story elements? The guy who was discussing this with me pretty much did that and it was clear that he did.
"Your paragraph about pov and judging, is just garbage. That's not what a POV is really in the first place, and people aren't ignoring the circumstances of the story."
"...for people, her negative behavior -outweighs- her trauma and they've decided that it's too much. This inherently means that they have weighed the two things against eachother. You also don't seem to get that no one is expecting her to be rational. The two camps are, people who literally do not understand -how- her past lead to her being mad at teh MC..."
Except that a dozen of people have already explained why she is mad at the MC, ever since the first page of this comment section, with full explanations from the story and their whole reasoning behind it, but still you and other people have been ignoring our comments from the get go and you dare to say you guys are not ignoring story elements?
"Now the rest of this mess, first, she's not actually a loner, that's proven by her attachment to the 'princess' or whatever. And for the rest of that paragraph, that's more garbage. All you're doing is stating things the book placed infront of us, and trying to say that that makes her actions excusable. Once again, no one(including the guy you were arguing with) is denying what actually happened in the story. No one was talking about that. People have either been on "Why direct that brattyness at the MC." and "Her situation doesn't give her the right to be a jerk to the MC." Never did anyone ignore what happened. I don't know how you have come to this conclusion that anyone is just ignoring what happened in the book."
Like I said this "Once again, no one(including the guy you were arguing with) is denying what actually happened in the story. No one was talking about that. People have either been on "Why direct that brattyness at the MC." and "Her situation doesn't give her the right to be a jerk to the MC."
Is pretty much "ignoring story elements", the story has already shown that the mc did something to deserve her reaction, you guys just cannot accept that and are using outside elements to judge her actions.
Also, it seems that you don't understand what defines a loner. Being a loner is not the same as being a social recluse. "that's proven by her attachment to the 'princess' or whatever"
This literally proves nothing, unlike social recluse people, loners don't go out of the way to stay away from literally everyone, they are people who don't like or cannot associate with new people, Loners do associate although poorly to the people they already know. So yes it is expected that she does have at least one person who is close to her, however she has clearly shown to not interact much with anyone aside from her diminute social circle. And her reaction to the MC, is also proof of that. Not liking recieving help is also a trait of being a loner.
Conclusion, she IS a loner
"Now about logic...are you stupid? This discussion is by nature philosophical and sociological. Why the hell would you use the 'scientific definition' of logic even more so assume anyone else was using the scientific definition? Seriously? Are you really on that level? THe definition of logic that applies here is 'reasoning' and that should be obvious by how I use the word and the very fact that I specifically said that dealing with emotions is non-quantifiable and can't be 'objective' which means you can't use a scientific evaluation on it."
Are you freaking kidding me? Are you really that dense? The guy I was debating with literally just used Scientific logic to try and prove his argument, and my argument was literally the same as what you're trying to point out to me, what the hell are you smoking? I was literally berating the guy from using scientific logic to judge emotions.
Also the freaking definition you used about Logic IS the phylosophical logic, the concept of logic came from phylosophy.
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2018
- Messages
- 78
@BloodySorcerer I was NOT using scientific logic or whatever, I was using common sense. The fact that you haven't understood this by now boggles the mind. But hey, don't mind me I'm just here to clear up that misunderstanding. You can go back to defending bad people and criminals now...
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2018
- Messages
- 892
@tip390 Does it sound like common sense to use numbers to decide the validity of an emotional reaction to you? Because that's what you literally did in your argument. There's no such a thing as common sense as to misinterpret a scene about an emptional outburst using an argument that completely ignores emotions whatsoever.
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2018
- Messages
- 78
@BloodySorcerer Please do tell, where exactly did I try to use "numbers to decide the validity of an emotional reaction?" None of my comments had anything to do with numbers or math for that matter. How wrong can you be, sheesh, at least pay attention when losing a debate.
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2018
- Messages
- 892
@tip390 when you decide that your argument has any value because logically speaking the character being analized has more advantages in recieving help, you're pretty much dismissing that character's pov and her emotions, you pretty much did that and you even confesed to it. When you weight physical advanatages related to numbers(money in this case) you're using a mathematical approach to the situation, even if you don't use actual numbers. Which means that you're using scientfic logic. Since according to numbers(money) she is wrong because she is saving money by accepting help, so she has no right to criticize or be pissed at the MC, because if she saved herself she'd be broke. This was literally your argument.
Meaning, "from an economical point of view she is wrong and should be ashamed of it". This was literally your argument, you just have to go back a page or two in this comment section to see it.
Meaning, "from an economical point of view she is wrong and should be ashamed of it". This was literally your argument, you just have to go back a page or two in this comment section to see it.
Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2018
- Messages
- 78
@BloodySorcerer I have already stated what the point of my argument was and it was NOT from an economical POV. Her being broke after saving herself would only be a side effect of her choice and NOT the main point of my argument. My main point as I previously stated was that her argument was illogical from a common-sense POV and then I used her own words to counter her argument. Nowhere in any of my comments did I focus in on the money, all I did was mention it as a side effect of her choice. Now please do tell, where exactly did I try to use "numbers to decide the validity of an emotional reaction?" Because all I've done since the start of this was, use her own words to discredit her argument.
Like I said before when I agreed to disagree with you, we clearly have differences of opinion on everything in life so there's no point to me arguing with you because we won't ever find common ground to reach a conclusion together. I live in a cold harsh reality surrounded by "facts" and you live in a world where having a shitty past excuses all of your bad actions. We live in two different worlds, this was clear to me awhile ago.
Like I said before when I agreed to disagree with you, we clearly have differences of opinion on everything in life so there's no point to me arguing with you because we won't ever find common ground to reach a conclusion together. I live in a cold harsh reality surrounded by "facts" and you live in a world where having a shitty past excuses all of your bad actions. We live in two different worlds, this was clear to me awhile ago.
Similar threads
