Buta Koushaku ni Tensei Shitakara, Kondo wa Kimi ni Suki to Iitai - Vol. 4 Ch. 22

[comeonnow]

@criver

Spoiler

Briefly on communism, you have continued to make a speculative CAUSAL connection between the French Revolution and the Soviet Union. This is literally based on your own words. You say that it is speculative and subjective to cite the French Revolution as the cause of modern-day republics and human rights and equality. It is equally speculative and subjective to cite the French Revolution as the cause of the Soviet Union and its atrocities.

The difference is that I have people and quotes who actually talk about the French Revolution for modern-day republics and human rights and equality. You have not shown any statements or quotes connecting the French Revolution to the Soviet Union.

It is hypocrisy for you to focus and demand a quantifiable, 0-100%, effect for the positives of the French Revolution and then for you to hand wave the connection from the French Revolution to communism/the Soviet Union.

Do you mean to tell me that you believe that there is no other historical event that has shaped in any form or importance what the French republic is? I hope not. What is your actual point here?

My point is that we should listen to the reasons that people give when they say they're doing things for a reason. You consistently try to belittle and ignore the reasons. You call the people's statements speculative and not quantifiable.

You have this fetishization on quantifiability of my connections (and ignore the fact that your own connections are not quantifiable). You have not even given a justification for why you need to know the number, 0-100%. If a person says that they are doing something because of X AND you have no reason to doubt them, then that X should be taken as their primary motivation. That is how communication and logic works. You cannot quantify it as 100% or 99% or even 51%. That is not how serious and rigorous scholarly discussion occurs. And no, this is not a strawman of what you're doing because this is what you are basically demanding of my arguments for them to be valid.

Did you even make the effort to try to read the thesis? Because I did try.

Apparently you didn't read the thesis or the actual article itself if you're asking that. It proves my point. The French Revolution played an important part in discussions of how to reform. It was the learned lesson that you are so loathe to admit.

You surely realize that all of these statements are strawmans.

They are not strawmen. You are just hiding behind the terms. You have not properly explained how this is a strawman, yet you make an empty statement that it is. I know that you "tried" to respond to how these arguments were strawmen above, but I explained how you are, in fact, still doing it and how my arguments are not strawmen.

At the end of the day, you have been applying a double standard between my arguments and yours where you hand-wave your causal connection between communism and the French Revolution and criticize my connection between the French Revolution and the "positive" effects. At the end of the day, you are trying to ask for a quantifiable relationship for my claims even though though you have not shown it to be necessary. Again, academics and scholars do not demand that a person explain in quantifiable terms what their motivation is when they say, out loud, what their motivation is.

 

[criver]

@comeonnow

Spoiler

You say that it is speculative and subjective to cite the French Revolution as the cause of modern-day republics and human rights and equality. It is equally speculative and subjective to cite the French Revolution as the cause of the Soviet Union and its atrocities.

you have been applying a double standard between my arguments and yours where you hand-wave your causal connection between communism and the French Revolution and criticize my connection between the French Revolution and the "positive" effects.

It is hypocrisy for you to focus and demand a quantifiable, 0-100%, effect for the positives of the French Revolution and then for you to hand wave the connection from the French Revolution to communism/the Soviet Union.

The above is simply untrue, and to my surprise it is once again an obvious strawman trying to reduce my argument to a hypocritical one.

In the same manner that you are making your argument about the importance of the French revolution in terms of human rights, I can make an argument about its importance for the violation of human rights in the face of the Soviet union: and we are talking millions of people subjected to unspeakable atrocities. But there's a common ground between these two arguments - the effect cannot be objectively quantified in both cases. So one has to resort to speculative subjective conclusions as to the magnitude and importance of the French revolution for the above outcomes.

As the above quote confirms, I have applied the exact same scrutiny to my own argument about the relationship between the French revolution and communism. You will conveniently find the phrases "cannot be objectively quantified" and "speculative subjective conclusions" when I am referring to both my and your argument. There's no hypocrisy or double standards here. It is beyond me why you would keep strawmanning right after I called you out on it multiple times. Did you not read what I wrote? Or is it that you subconsciously misinterpreted it to be easier to pull apart? What's the purpose of this exercise of consistent strawmanning? I am honestly baffled at the fact that half of your comment is very basic strawmanning.

The difference is that I have people and quotes who actually talk about the French Revolution for modern-day republics and human rights and equality. You have not shown any statements or quotes connecting the French Revolution to the Soviet Union.

But I did so:

the Jacobin cause was picked up by the Marxists and became a central element in communism.

If you wanted references you could have done a cursory search or just asked. But sure, here you go (from wikipedia):

The Jacobin cause was picked up by Marxists in the mid-19th century and became an element of communist thought around the world. In the Soviet Union, "Gracchus" Babeuf was regarded as a hero.[240]

Following the upheaval of the French Revolution, communism later emerged as a political doctrine.[32]

You are free to read the cited books, I have not read them, but I know the above statements to be true having grown up in a country previously in the Soviet union. The analogy of the Russian revolution to the French revolution has consistently been used in Soviet states for indoctrination and propaganda - the idea that they were selling ,was that the Soviet union is a form of ideological continuation and potential realization of the utopia towards which the French revolution was aiming. Granted, with a lot of perversions of the original ideas. Still doesn't change the fact that historically the French revolution is one of the greatest influences and a role model for the Russian revolution, as well as the subsequent new flavor of reign of terror in the Soviet union. It's almost funny how similar the development was. It's almost as if using a similar ideological platform and singling out the elite and using them as a scapegoat by blaming every issue on them, leads to reproducible results. Who would have guessed? In that sense I could have even argued that my argument has better historical and empirical support, instead of just saying that it is a purely subjective and speculative matter. Which to be sure, it is in some extent, similar to your own argument.

My point is that we should listen to the reasons that people give when they say they're doing things for a reason. You call the people's statements speculative and not quantifiable.

Because that's what they are. Historians cannot agree on the effect and its magnitude, but you supposedly can wave that away, because someone stated something somewhere. Am I to trust that you are an expert in the field?

You have not even given a justification for why you need to know the number, 0-100%.

Why am I not surprised. I am fairly certain that either: a) you read selectively, or b) you are being intellectually dishonest. Here you go "not given a justification":

The latter is quite important, since it makes this argument fairly unreliable, especially considering that your main point rests on the presumption that this percentage is large - something you cannot objectively show.

You cannot quantify it as 100% or 99% or even 51%. That is not how serious and rigorous scholarly discussion occurs.

Historians quantify the magnitude of historical effects all the time. Not literally in percentages, but they do quantify those, giving a wealth of supporting data. The problem here is that there is no such data, and even historians disagree on the magnitude of the effect regarding other countries. If you want to be pedantic: there's next to nothing on Sweden and Norway, but there is for example on Denmark.

because this is what you are basically demanding of my arguments for them to be valid.

I am not demanding anything of your arguments. I am pointing deficiencies in those, unlike the objective arguments I gave (not communism), which are based on the immediate effects of the revolution.

Apparently you didn't read the thesis or the actual article itself if you're asking that. It proves my point.

How about you actually click on the pdf?

You have not properly explained how this is a strawman, yet you make an empty statement that it is.

Literally 3/4 of this comment is me explaining how you are strawmanning and supporting that with quotes.
Also, my replies to you strawmanning, literally in my previous comment:

You conveniently ignored importance and strength, on which basis the rest of your sarcastic statements were constructed.

The simple fact that I acknowledge that there can be positive effects and that it is not impossible clearly disagrees with what you state that I claim.

I didn't claim I had a better example, you did, so please do not backpedal on this.

And unfortunately this phenomenon is not limited to my previous comment. You just keep throwing more and more strawmen at me as is obvious from the current comment, which is 3/4 addressing those strawmen. What do you want? To show me that you are intellectually dishonest? You are doing a very good job at that.

Again, academics and scholars do not demand that a person explain in quantifiable terms what their motivation is when they say, out loud, what their motivation is.

In fact scholars question all the time the motivations for a specific event, and the relations of that event to previous ones.

 

[comeonnow]

@criver

Spoiler

It's quite bothersome how you continue to apply double standards and try to wriggle out of things.

You say that the connection between the French Revolution and communism is just as unquantifiable as the connection between the FR and more generally accepted positive effects such as greater equality. If that is true, then it is a wash. It is a tie. It is a moot point, and neither of us are right, and neither of us are wrong on this point.

The problem is that you do not end there. You continuously pick up your examples as somehow over and above my examples. If you really were saying that both of our arguments are unquantifiable, then you would end the statement there. The very fact that you continue by trying to provide further detail DESPITE your own unanswered criticism of your point shows that you are being dishonest with your own point.

If you get to keep talking about the applicability of the connection between the FR and communism, then by logical necessity, I get to keep talking about the connection between the FR and more generally accepted positive results. That is unless and until you give some distinguishing factor on the specific issue of quantifiability. This is the double standard. This is the hypocrisy that you show.

This also shows why I am not strawmanning. The entirety of my posts are done in response to what you yourself have done. A discussion is not simply a string of sentences. It is how the participants respond to each other. The fact that you continued to criticize me on various points AND the fact that you offer your own arguments that you yourself acknowledge are just as criticizable for the same reasons is the issue that you have never addressed. This is a performative contradiction. If what I am doing is strawmanning, then by logical necessity, it shows your own contradiction. My so-called strawmanning only appears as a result of you engaging in this double standard and hypocrisy.

Again, the solution to all of this would've been to say that this is a wash, that both of our examples are inapplicable because of the lack of quantifiability, what you call speculation. You did not do that. You have instead continued to support your own example over and above my own despite the acknowledgment that it is also not quantifiable. That is the problem with your position.

 

[criver]

@comeonnow

Spoiler

I'll do you the courtesy of suggesting what's wrong with your logic, maybe you'll take something away from it.

If that is true, then it is a wash. It is a tie. It is a moot point, and neither of us are right, and neither of us are wrong on this point.

You do not know what the purpose of discussions are, do you?
I already gave you objective and quantifiable arguments, which you dismissed as materialistic, but that is beyond the point. I now understand the main issue considering this last statement of yours. It's not the topic, nor is it the arguments. You simply believe that this is some exercise that you or I are supposed to "win", instead of a conversation from which you can take away something, as obvious from the above quote.

This also shows why I am not strawmanning. The entirety of my posts are done in response to what you yourself have done.

Do look up strawmanning in a dictionary or Wikipedia. Half of the time you were modifying statements of mine in such a manner that they could be easy to argue against or be dismissed (just scroll through our conversation when you cool off). I do not know whether you simply lack the knowledge regarding this and it was an unintentional thing, or if it was full blown trolling, but at least be honest to yourself. Intellectual dishonesty is unproductive - you were just wasting your and my time by relying on this fallacy.

The fact that you continued to criticize me on various points AND the fact that you offer your own arguments that you yourself acknowledge are just as criticizable for the same reasons is the issue that you have never addressed. This is a performative contradiction. If what I am doing is strawmanning, then by logical necessity, it shows your own contradiction.

There's nothing wrong in pointing out issues with an argument. Heck I am happy if someone points out a flaw in my logic or argumentation, since I can learn something from it. You should try that too. There's nothing wrong with presenting arguments that you know are not perfect - it is better than nothing (mind you not fallacies) and helps the discussion progress.

My so-called strawmanning only appears as a result of you engaging in this double standard and hypocrisy.

Your strawmanning is a product only of you modifying statements I made to mean whatever is easy for you to dismantle. That's the whole point of it - you were trying to argue with a straw man, you were not trying to have a discussion with me, which is unfortunate. It's just a futile and ultimately useless exercise. I hope that now you know better.

 

[comeonnow]

@criver

Spoiler

I did not dismiss the objective and quantifiable as materialistic. I dismissed them as SPECULATIVE in their CAUSAL LINK. That is a problem that you have never responded to.

You simply believe that this is some exercise that you or I are supposed to "win"

This is just wrong. This is not MERELY a conversation. This is an argument. A debate of some sort. One side (me) supports one position while the other side (you) supports another position. It was a debate from the moment that you disagreed with me. I can still learn from this debate as much as you can learn from this debate, but it is dishonest to not characterize this as a debate.

And again, calling my arguments strawmanning is only possible insofar as you were being dishonest about what you were doing. From the moment that you disagreed with what I said, this became a debate. That means something in and of itself. You were apparently under the impression that this was not an argument/debate. That is the problem. That is what led you to doing what you did, and my writing was in direct response to that.

The only intellectual dishonesty is where you continued to support your own arguments as over and above my own despite the fact that you have now admitted that your arguments are just as susceptible to your criticism about being unquantifiable. Again, yes, we were in a debate of some sort. Again, you did not communicate in a way that makes sense to other people.

There's nothing wrong in pointing out issues with an argument. Heck I am happy if someone points out a flaw in my logic or argumentation, since I can learn something from it. You should try that too. There's nothing wrong with presenting arguments that you know are not perfect - it is better than nothing (mind you not fallacies) and helps the discussion progress.

The entirety of this paragraph is just strawmanning as hell. NOWHERE have I said that there is anything wrong with pointing out issues with an argument. I have done that throughout for not only your arguments but also for my own, such as where I admit that the FR led to violence in the short-term. Yet you come in here like oh, I'm somehow against pointing out issues with an argument. Hypocrisy and strawmannning.

Your strawmanning is a product only of you modifying statements I made to mean whatever is easy for you to dismantle.

False. The so-called strawmanning is a result of you not knowing how a debate works. You have not actually responded to the fact that you offered your own examples as over and above mine despite your own criticism attaching just as strongly.

From the moment that you first disagreed with me, this was a debate, not merely a discussion. That means that there are certain expectations and understandings, expectations and understandings that you violated by constantly shifting what you were doing. That is the problem.

 

[criver]

@comeonnow

Spoiler

I did not dismiss the objective and quantifiable as materialistic. I dismissed them as SPECULATIVE in their CAUSAL LINK.

I thought that you were referring only to my communism relation in respect to speculation with this. Then it is even worse, I just didn't fathom you could try to defend such a position. And sure enough, you cannot. Those are not speculative: the radicalism, reign of terror, inflation, wars, and dictatorship are documented direct results of the revolution. Go to any history book or encyclopedia - those are not debated outcomes. It baffles me that you think they are. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

It was a debate from the moment that you disagreed with me.

You can have a disagreement in a discussion just fine. But that's beyond the point, call it a debate if you will, it changes little.

You were apparently under the impression that this was not an argument/debate. That is the problem. That is what led you to doing what you did, and my writing was in direct response to that.

I do not see what the "problem" that you speak of is. What is this referring to: "That is what led you to doing what you did"?

The only intellectual dishonesty is where you continued to support your own arguments as over and above my own despite the fact that you have now admitted that your arguments are just as susceptible to your criticism about being unquantifiable.

There's nothing dishonest about defending a position. I presented reasons why I believe those arguments are more reliable. Sure enough, the objective arguments that I listed are not something you can argue against. Or rather you can, but then you are disagreeing with historical records. What is it? You do not believe that the revolution resulted in the reign of terror? I am sorry, but that's a objective fact that you can look up in any history book or encyclopedia. On the other hand, what role and importance the revolution had for the politics of Norway and Sweden is debatable, and is not something you can find unanimous opinions about. Similar to the problem of what role and importance it played for the Soviet union, though the accounts in that regard are more unanimous.

The entirety of this paragraph is just strawmanning as hell. NOWHERE have I said that there is anything wrong with pointing out issues with an argument.

But you did see an issue with me providing an argument that is in the same ballpark of subjectivity as your own:

The fact that you continued to criticize me on various points AND the fact that you offer your own arguments that you yourself acknowledge are just as criticizable for the same reasons is the issue that you have never addressed. This is a performative contradiction.

So in light of this, how is that strawmanning - you are saying that you didn't claim something that you did, and I have the quote to prove it - you're being incoherent at this point. You literally wrote that me providing such an argument is an issue, and in the very next comment you claim: "NOWHERE have I said that there is anything wrong with pointing out issues with an argument." Seriously?

The so-called strawmanning is a result of you not knowing how a debate works.

You do not know what strawmanning is apparently. Here you go, educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
It is not an integral part of a debate, on the contrary, it has no place whatsoever in any kind of conversation/discussion/debate. You're just being obtuse at this point.
While you're at it you might want to look up the definition of performative contradiction, since either: a) you do not know what it means, or b) you're just being incoherent.

That means that there are certain expectations and understandings, expectations and understandings that you violated by constantly shifting what you were doing.

So what did I supposedly violate? And what exactly did I shift? My arguments have remained the very same since the beginning.

 

[comeonnow]

@criver

Spoiler

I thought that you were referring only to my communism relation in respect to speculation with this.

You're literally ignoring how I have said that you have applied a double standard and hypocrisy. I am not disputing that people say that the material conditions had a causal effect on the FR. I am saying that the causal connection is just as speculative as you accused my position of being. You're ignoring the context and making a strawman of what I said.

You can have a disagreement in a discussion just fine. But that's beyond the point, call it a debate if you will, it changes little.

Wrong. Calling it a debate changes things. This is one definition of debate. "a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward."

That means there are formal expectations. Most importantly, though, it is a discussion where OPPOSING arguments are put forward. Opposing means something. It does NOT mean complementary. It means that they are against each other. When I said X and you said Y, then that means you are saying Y INSTEAD OF X. That's what that means. Then you come in and say oh, no, I actually meant Y in addition to X. You say that you meant the material conditions in addition to the actual stated reasons for the FR.

That is how you violated the expectations of communication. You did not communicate properly.

I do not see what the "problem" that you speak of is. What is this referring to: "That is what led you to doing what you did"?

The problem is that you failed to communicate properly. Imagine if we were both talking about how good sugar is. Then you suddenly said "it's pretty sour". I ask what you mean. Then you say that by "it", you meant lemons. Your statement of "it's pretty sour" is perfectly grammatical and coherent. It does not fit into the conversation. You shifted the topic.

That is the issue here. We were very clearly engaged in a debate where I proposed X and you proposed not X, Y instead of X. Then, suddenly, you said oh, no, you were actually talking about Y in addition to X. That violates the expectations of the listener in the same way that suddenly using "it" to refer to lemons violates the expectations of the reader. Is it the exact same situation? No. It is similar enough to explain my point.

But you did see an issue with me providing an argument that is in the same ballpark of subjectivity as your own:

The problem comes when you realize that this was supposed to be a debate. When you provide an argument that is subject to your own criticism, then it looks like you're applying double standards and/or being a hypocrite. That's the issue. Debate means something.

So in light of this, how is that strawmanning

Again, a debate means something. It means being against a counterpoint.

You do not know what strawmanning is apparently.

You apparently don't know what a debate means. Here you go, educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

I NEVER said that strawmanning is an integral part of a debate. I said that you misconstruing this as not a debate led me to what you perceived as strawmanning. Your failure to understand that this is a debate led me to making statements that you then called strawmanning. It was through your lack of understanding that I wrote things that you accuse of being a strawman.

So what did I supposedly violate? And what exactly did I shift? My arguments have remained the very same since the beginning.

I explained above that you violated the expectations inherent in what a debate is. You shifted from being in a debate, where both sides propose a position AGAINST each other to you trying to propose a position IN ADDITION to my position. That is the shift.

 

[criver]

@comeonnow

Spoiler

I explained above that you violated the expectations inherent in what a debate is. You shifted from being in a debate, where both sides propose a position AGAINST each other to you trying to propose a position IN ADDITION to my position. That is the shift.

That's just incoherent. The argument of the French revolution resulting in appalling violations of human rights in its legacy in relation to the Soviet union is working against your point, not for it. The fact that I can realize that the effect and its magnitude is subjective and speculative is me simply being upfront about deficiencies in my argument, which I also noted in your argument - and had to call out because you wouldn't. Would you rather have me ignore those? I am sorry, but that would constitute intellectual dishonesty. Basic courtesy in discussions and debates requires trying to steel man the arguments of your opponent and considering their perspective too, not strawmaning and contradicting yourself, as incidentally you have been doing. Your imaginary debate rule is simply incoherent. There's no rule that states that you cannot have any common ground with the other party or anything of the sort. If anything communication would break down if that were the case. There's also no rule against honestly acknowledging underlying issues with your argumentation, on the contrary. I am not sure what you are on about, but I can tell that you're incoherent.

I said that you misconstruing this as not a debate led me to what you perceived as strawmanning.

That's factually incorrect. You were putting words in my mouth, and I have quoted you doing this multiple times already, and rephrasing statements of mine to mean something entirely different, which can be pulled apart easily. That is the textbook definition of strawmanning. It has nothing to do with whether it is a debate, a conversation, or a discussion. It's plain and simple: you have been resorting to logical fallacies whether intentionally or not, for a while now. What's even more jarring is that you started contradicting statements, which you made yourself.

I am not disputing that people say that the material conditions had a causal effect on the FR. I am saying that the causal connection is just as speculative as you accused my position of being.

And I explained that it is not, nor is this something contested. There's no speculation in the fact that the French revolution directly caused all of the objective facts that I mentioned. You are disagreeing with historical records: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
You are obviously free to disagree with objective facts, but do not expect to be taken seriously - we call that being in denial.

Imagine if we were both talking about how good sugar is.

Imagine you didn't use false analogies and logical fallacies. How nice and short this "debate" would have been.

So in light of this, how is that strawmanning

Again, a debate means something. It means being against a counterpoint.

The above was a reply to me pointing out you contradicting yourself in two comments back to back. This being a debate has no bearing on your contradictions used to claim that I am strawmaning, by actually quoting exactly what you said.

 

[comeonnow]

@criver

Spoiler

I can simplify this down a large amount.

That's factually incorrect. You were putting words in my mouth

I had to interpret your words in a way that made the most amount of sense. Refer back to my example of sugar and lemons. I'll reiterate it. We're talking (not debating here) about sugar and how good it is. Then you suddenly say "It's a bit sour". Then I say "What kind of sugar have you had?" Then you say something like "I have sugar from the grocery store". Then I say "Your grocery store is really weird if you're saying that the sugar from there is sour." Then you say that I'm putting words in your mouth because you were actually talking about lemons when you said it's sour.

A NECESSARY part of communication is interpreting words in a way that makes sense. When you were making statements that didn't make sense, I had to interpret them in a particular way to make them make sense. It only came to light LATER that you didn't realize that this is a debate. I only strawmanned your statements because it was necessary for me to do so considering the fact that you violated commonsense expectations of how to communicate during a debate. I "put words in [your] mouth" only insofar as your original words were nonsensical without them because you didn't follow commonsense expectations for a debate.

As to the French Revolution, again, you are trying to marginalize and dismiss the actually stated words of what the people said was the reason that they revolted. Or apparently you're just supplementing their words with the material conditions. Again, you're trying to obscure how we're supposed to even discuss this in the first place. The end result is that you don't know how to communicate.

 

[criver]

@comeonnow

Spoiler

I do not have to refer to a false analogy to be able to tell apart a straw man and intellectual dishonesty from a misunderstanding. I addressed everything that you said, rather satisfactorily I believe. You keep on repeating the same thing over and over and focusing on irrelevant details like me considering this a discussion while you consider it a debate. I already explained why this is inconsequential and why your "rule violations" are bs that you thought up, and to boot applies in no manner whatsoever to what I have been saying.

I only strawmanned your statements because it was necessary for me to do so considering the fact that you violated commonsense expectations of how to communicate during a debate.

There is no excuse for consistently resorting to logical fallacies, I called those out multiple times, sometimes you were stuck on the same thing after I had already clarified it and called you out on it. You either have reading comprehension issues or are simply being intellectually dishonest, there's no other explanation to misinterpreting unambiguous statements several times in a row. Debate vs discussion has nothing to do with it. Your common sense "violations" are abstract delusions as far as I am concerned, since you failed to make any unaddressed coherent point regarding those.

As to the French Revolution, again, you are trying to marginalize and dismiss the actually stated words of what the people said was the reason that they revolted.

I am not trying anything, I cited factual evidence, you are free to be in denial.

The end result is that you don't know how to communicate.

Or that you have reading comprehension issues or are being intellectually dishonest. Which to be sure there is more than enough evidence for. Your last comments after you ran out of viable arguments have been mostly made up of logical fallacies and nitpicks. The latest ones even containing self-contradictions. Forget the fact that you are misusing words constantly. What you see is a failure of communication designed by none other than yourself. At this point I can guess several reasons why you would do that. But it's irrelevant at this point, I do not believe there's much left to discuss.

 

[comeonnow]

@criver

Spoiler

You dismiss the fact that this is a debate as inconsequential. You have absolutely no response to this issue except to say that it's inconsequential even though it clearly is.

Again, you have the communication abilities of the person who talks about lemons. You have attempted to hand wave this away.

Literally all of the perceived strawmanning and so-called reading comprehension issues that you accuse me of were your fault. They were your fault because you had failed to follow the expectations of communication. I therefore HAD TO attempt to interpret your nonsensical gibberish in a way that made any sense at all.

You accuse me of misusing words when you can't even communicate properly. Laughable.

Literally anyone who saw these posts would think that we were having a debate. Any rational person would think that I was supporting X and you were supporting Y AGAINST X. The consequence of your failure to understand that is that you continue to misunderstand what even happened in the first place.

Anyone could see that in the end. Clearly I am not going to convince you of your own failure to understand. Anyone else can feel free to chime in.

 

[Kutabarie]

wtf is this comment chain lmao.

 

[kaikalaila]

Slow is right, the problem is......we need more japanese translator and redrawer!

Jokes aside, yeah sometime sacrifices have to be made . BUT what is Cephas full plan anyway? Unless commoners have a means to to fight back/rebel or had supports, all he does is making things worst for any 'good' noble in promoting equality.

///opss wrong chapter review to post sorry//

 

[Tiny_3vil]

does that thing where they slap the neck and make you pass out for an hour or two really work ?

 

[Ashisu]

bro what is that bird stance on pg 13 LOL

 

[Iskarioth]

Wow Lenin-junior is having fit in the comment section, meanwhile the translation still doesn't make sense at times. "You SANG "? Yeah right wtf....

 

[krater]

@Kutabarie idk but it's interesting

 

[Jinyo]

He cries about how he didn't get born with talent cause he isn't a noble while having noble blood is what gave him his initial talent. Lol