1) It's a stra
1) you can say my basic turn of phrase isn't necessarily a metaphor, that comparison is kind of weak, but as explained it was about you and the other people I'm writing comments to in how you judge the brother's action. That's not a strawman because you literally called him a bully. I want you to know that, that IS a crime. So I made mention to the worst thing we've seen his brother do this entire series. His brother told him to not bother the older sister but he didn't threaten him to not hang out with her. And no, that's not to down play anything, that's just what literally happened in the story.
(sorry about the two 2s I was trying to straighten out the points)
2) Of course the context matters, even in real life it matters but more so here because these aren't real people, they're characters in a story. There are lines that shouldn't be crossed but by and large teens are going to egg each other on to build themselves up even when they aren't aggressive toward each other. The brother calling out the MC for drinking water is petty but its so believing by petty that if it really hurts the MC's self-esteem, there's a deeper problem at play.But it doesn't, he takes on the challenge and they both equally pay for it by the end. That is to show that dispite everything, as brothers, they're still equals. Plus we've seen that deeper problem is with how OTHER people compare the two of them which stings more because the girl that the MC likes, likes his brother.
4) I think the biggest problem with your anaylsis is that its built entierly off of things you don't know and you're using that to hold up your argument. You could at the very least try to make an actuate translation of the words you used in this point and get across the sevarity of them but that doesn't change what his brother did was teasing because from basic social queues its nothing more than that.
5) And back to your analysis, its built off more so trying to fill in blanks than analyzing the context of the story. If you went up to anyone to complain about what the Brotehr has done to the MC at most they'd tell you that he's been a little rude but there's nothing anyone could really do anything about it because nothing has really happened yet. I agree that he's a little mean but I wouldn't even call the brother an asshole, let alone a bully from what we've actually seen. Things happen for a reason. These extra chapters have been about both sets of siblings for a reason. You're are suposed to compare and contraxt the context in which these characters are interacting with each other. Which you've done, but the bad faith "defense mechanicsim of smiling to your agressor" mentality is just a bad reading of what that is. Your angle is that the brother is a bully and you're doing your best to explain why that is but that reading is so far fundamentally wrong and mischaracterizes their relationship in an extra ment to show you that there isn't complete bad blood between the two of them.
1) You said: "I didn't know mean mugging was a crime now."
I never claimed that it was. All I said was the older brother was clearly bullying him. But the thing is, bullying isn't a crime. There are acts associated with what is considered bullying (coercion, physical violence, etc.) but there is no specific criminal penalty attached to the term "bullying" itself. You cannot be arrested, brought to trial nor convicted on "bullying" charges. Because it is not a crime, I could not have asserted that glaring -- even in a threatening manner -- is a crime which negates your assertion made in your rhetorical question.
So, yeah, it's a strawman.
2) If, as you said, said context is critical because this is a work of fiction, you should give equal weight to every other scene where the older brother appears and what is shown: Domineering personality, displays of open contempt and threatening glares. You're merely focusing on one panel and using it as justification to dismiss the vast preponderance material that should be forming the context that you say is important.
Also, none of this actually addresses my point about the established underlying psychology that supports my interpretation and refutes yours. Since I'm pointing these logical fallacies out, this is known as ignoratio elenchi.
4) Okay, this is how this part of the conversation went:
You offered the use of the word "teasing" as proof that the older brother's scoffing was harmless.
I reminded you that you shouldn't put any weight behind that because it's a translation, so the exact word used (and the intent because much of Japanese is context/relationship driven) by the actual author is, for the moment, unknown.
So, in reality, the person whose analysis is based on things they don't know is, ironically, you.
Seems like a combination of projection and tu quoque?
5) I could go up to anyone and ask? Really? That's an interesting claim considering there are comments in this very thread that disagree with you.
This is argumentum ad populum, or appeal to popularity.
Anyway, I'd just point out that my interpretation of event is backed by the majority of scenes the older brother is in, the younger brother's thoughts about seeing his brother as a threatening figure and established human psychology. I don't think your position is as well-supported.
But, let's just drop this, shall we? After this round of responses, it's absolutely clear that no amount of evidence will satisfy you (a fallacy with a very interesting name should you care to look it up) as you are only invested in winning an argument and not arriving at a better answer. There's no point to any further discussion.
Have a nice day.
