Shi ni Modori, Subete wo Sukuu Tame ni Saikyou he to Itaru - Vol. 3 Ch. 27.1

[comeonnow0]

@throwaway4ccount If everyone in the world told you you're not reasonable, then I bet you would just whine and complain and say everyone else is wrong. If everyone in the world said they didn't like you, you would probably whine and complain that they're lying.

There was literally one other person who said I was wrong, and I responded to them. They never replied back. The logical conclusion is that that they had nothing to respond with. That would suggest that unlike you, they accepted that my point was valid. Unlike you, they accepted being wrong.

 

[throwaway4ccount]

@comeonnow0 Again with personal attacks with no basis behind them. Me disagreeing with you does not means I disagree with everybody. Do you believe all conspiracy theories? Do you accept that all conspiracy theories are reasonable? If you standard for what is reasonable is "multiple people agreeing with it" then ALL conspiracy theories that are widely circulated would be, according to you, "reasonable", but I've never met anybody who thought all of them were reasonable. I actually don't care if people don't like me or not. I don't base my actions on being liked, because I don't see life as a popularity contest.

Also, a person not replying to you doesn't mean that you were right and they were wrong. They might see it as not necessary for them to reply, too, since I already am replying. I see the logical assumption being that they still hold their stance, but don't deem it worth more than one reply. The fact that you invent a concession on their part to fit your narrative is ridiculous. The logical outcome would be that a person is more likely to continue holding the stance they did before, whether or not they reply, than to change it based on one person's comments. Often, if they do change, they will give a reply to the person, thanking them for giving them a different perspective that changed their stance. I've gotten several of those comments on here and other forums. If somebody doesn't reply to me, I normally assume that they still hold their former view, because that is more in line with human nature. I guess experiencing people thanking me for that insight gives me a perspective you haven't gained, yet.

But since you've stated that you do interpret it that way, then we see that when you have tried to get me not to reply "out of consideration" that you were really just trying to get my to not reply so you could say you were right, and that I had nothing more. Again showing you to have a duplicitous nature. Also, there was another person in the comments that didn't directly link you, but did say that Tina passing was reasonable, and that Jere was teaching her an extra lesson after she had already passed with an "A". Which means 3 people disagreeing with you in the comments.

@Red225 Did you accept being wrong, or just not bother replying to comeonnow0? If you don't reply, I will assume that my assertion that you still disagree with comeonnow0 is correct. (After all, using comeonnow0's logic, a lack of reply means accepting the comment that references you.)

 

[comeonnow0]

@throwaaway4ccount You're criticizing me for personal attacks with no basis behind them when YOU are the one who literally claims against explicit evidence that I hate Tina? I literally told you that no, you are wrong, and yet you continue with this charade. You're the one literally denying reality. You literally won't listen to truth when I say I don't hate Tina. You're shutting your ears and ignoring the what actually happened, and yet you go herp derp, somehow comeonnow0 is the conspiracy theorist.

Yes, it's so good for you to go the complete opposite way and make the assumption that if Red225 doesn't respond, then that means they are in support of your position. Yes, of course that makes sense.

So what, three people disagreeing with me versus three people agreeing with me, meaning 4 on my side versus three. That still means I'm reasonable. And you try to say that I'm the conspiracy theorist? Yes, totally correct analogy. This coming from you, when you whined about inapplicable analogies. Okay, whatever.

I'm much more reasonable than you with your walls of text and complete lack of consideration for other people. You literally don't care when people say they are bothered by it. You just choose to be a bother.

 

[comeonnow0]

@throwaway4ccount Here's a solution. I've clearly stopped replying to you in a substantive way because I've already said what I needed to say and pointed out your lies and mistakes. How about you just let other people decide by letting them read? No reason for either of us to continue to post and annoy other people, as you have chosen to do multiple times. Other people literally are the decider of what is reasonable and what is not.

If you disagree at this point, then you're just showing childishness. You can just let your arguments stand for themselves and let mine stand against them. Disagreement at this point is just you being whiny and choosing to bother people because you want to.

 

[throwaway4ccount]

@comeonnow0 Oh, wow, two comments this time (though one with my name misspelled so it didn't trigger a notification). "Explicit evidence"? So if a guy accused of bank robbery says: "I didn't do it" then it is "explicit evidence" that he didn't do it? You say you don't, but your solution would eliminate her presence for a considerable time. I see you saying you don't hate her, but I doubt the "truth" behind it. Somebody else in the thread also interpreted your comment to mean you don't like her (since they posted, after your comment, that they were the "only one that liked Tina"). You say that somebody else agreeing is proof that thinking you don't like her is reasonable. Also, you intentionally misconstrued my "conspiracy theory" point. If the basis of what is "reasonable" is "multiple people agreeing" then by your standard, all conspiracy theories are reasonable. Do you actually hold that stance, or do you agree that just having agreement doesn't prove reasonability?

No, my stance is that if Red225 doesn't respond, then we should assume that they continue to hold the stance they did before, which is the most reasonable position, whether or not we agree with them. I was merely pointing out that your assertion that a lack of response meant you were correct was foolhardy at best. If your assert that lack of reply before proved you were right, then my assertion of lack of reply would mean I was right, following your logic. Following my logic, a lack of reply only means a lack of reply, and not an endorsement of any future statements. The fact that you dislike me using your own logic against you, and mock it for being unreasonable proves your initial "logic" was unreasonable, which was my point.

4 to 3 is a small sample size out of so many comments, and again, it isn't a popularity contest. (And of those 4, is the person that states they agree because they dislike Tina, and you say you don't agree with that, which would make it more 3.5 to 3.5.) I'm not saying you are a conspiracy theorist (and if you read my comments and understood English that would be apparent). I'm saying your logic of "multiple people agreeing means it is reasonable" means that all conspiracy theories would be considered reasonable (because multiple people agree about them). Since I still doubt you think all conspiracy theories are reasonable, I'm saying your premise that "people agreeing proves reasonability" is flawed. Since you've had to shrink into "other people agreed with me so I'm right" because you can't debate the merits of the claims, that takes out your last point.

Technically, nobody in the thread said it was a bother, they just commented on the amount of text.

Also, you again give a two-faced solution. You say you've stopped replying in a "substantive way" which I agree with, because you posts have lacked "substance" for a while, even when they had more text. You say you've "pointed out my lies and mistakes" but you continually dodge my direct questions (because you know you can't answer them). You have stated that if somebody doesn't reply, you take that as confirmation that you have won and they have lost. Then you ask me to stop replying to avoid "showing childishness". You just posted 2 replies to one post, so by your logic you are twice as childish. You just want the last word because that is the only way you can claim victory. You can't refute my logic, so you stoop to personal attacks.

When you reply, you position it as showing your reasonableness and concern for the others in the thread, but if I reply I'm whining and disrespectful and childish. No, that's hypocritical. Your solution is designed to try to position yourself in the better position, and you try to present it that if I reply it is a knock against my character. I've continued to use "substance" for my points, you have used personal attacks and shifting of goalposts.

 

[comeonnow0]

@throwaway4ccount You were still notified. It makes no difference that I misspelled your username on one. Trying to distract from how pathetic you are.

Ah, yes, what a surprise that you say I lack substance in my comments when the truth is that you've been lying and making things up for a while. Whaaa surprise that you're a hypocrite.

I answered your direct questions multiple times. Plus, when I give you direct answers like I don't hate Tina, you just lie out of your ass.

You literally never gave a crap about other people complaining in this thread until I called you out on your bad behavior two times. Then you tried to dismiss it by saying no one actually complained. Yeah, reading comprehension like that is the reason why your arguments are so bad.

The solution is to let the public decide who is right. I gave my reasons why what you are doing is showing how pathetic you are. You are still showing how pathetic you are.

 

[throwaway4ccount]

@comeonnow0 I was notified by the second post, but since you've typed it correctly so far, it seems odd you misspelled it once, even after editing the post.

Another post of yours with nothing of substance, just personal attacks. You also accuse me of making things up when you are still the one that invented a "soldiers for commoners" division and a guild to suit your purposes.

You have never answered the direct question of how, without inventing groups not in the manga, she will overcome her shortcomings better by "reflecting" than through joining the Magic Knights. Also "direct answers" would be to direct questions. I never asked if you hated Tina, just showed why your posts that are full of attacks against her give the impression that you do.

You also haven't answered the direct question of whether you think all conspiracy theories are reasonable, since they are believed by multiple people. Why haven't you answered either? Because you can't without admitting you are wrong, so you'd rather attack me instead.

I don't care about people disliking me. That is still true. You didn't "call me out" on it, since you continue to post, too, unless you admit to being a big hypocrite. Since you claim your posts are out of "consideration for others" but mine show a "lack of consideration" your hypocrisy is on full display. I merely pointed out that nobody has done anything other than comment on the size of them, and that if they don't want to read them, they don't have to.

If that is the solution, then why do you keep replying. You say your replies "show how pathetic am" and that my replies "show how pathetic am." Such a double standard. Basically you are saying, "If you reply, I win because I said your replies are invalid; if you don't reply, I win because your lack of reply shows you admit I'm right." If you aren't going to say something new, why do you keep replying? I continue to dispatch your posts with logic, dealing with the content of our posts, the fact that you only use personal attacks shows you don't have merit to your points.

If my replies about substance show me to be pathetic, then just how much more pathetic are you for replying with only personal attacks?

 

[comeonnow0]

@throwaway4ccount It was a mistake in spelling. Unlike you, I can accept when I have made an error, and in this case, my mistake had no negative consequence. This is contrasted with Tina's mistakes having potentially disastrous and lethal consequences.

And yes, I did answer your direct question. Remember when I said enabling? The point is that EVEN If there are zero outside groups, it is still net worse to go with what you said because Tina's behavior is encouraged. Just as with most of what you said, your question was irrelevant because the answer doesn't matter. No matter what other options there are or are not, Tina being accepted now literally sweeps her bad behavior under the rug and encourages it.

Yeah, you never even asked if I hated Tina. You just made a blatantly wrong assumption and then deny all evidence thrown in your face.

Do you even know what reasonability is? Because you don't look like you do. I didn't address the issue of conspiracy theories because it was so stupid. Thinking that failing Tina would be good is not a fringe conspiracy theory. It is literally supported by over half of all people who talked about the issue here. Your burden is to find a conspiracy theory where over half of the people talking about the subject believe the conspiracy theory. Then you ALSO need to show why that particular conspiracy theory is unreasonable. Something being a conspiracy theory does not make it unreasonable to believe.

I called you out because I'm trying to get you to respect other people and not bother them. If someone is loud and bothering people and one person tells the loud person to be quiet, is the second person somehow a hypocrite? No, idiot. You are being like the loud person. I am telling you to think about the people around you and not be selfish.

You are beyond all hope. Your posts just shows how disrespectful and stupid you really are.

 

[Red225]

@comeonnow0 I hadn't responded as it's crunch time at work. While the points you brought up are valid, and you have had some lengthy discussion already, I am going to be honest and say I'm expecting that Tina is going to get at least some more basic training rather than being instantly inducted into the magic knights at full knighthood and honours and put into a squadron to fight on the front lines; this will allow Tina to be trained and understand to a degree that in military matters at least one should be open to your senior officers and not hold back information and not hide away when inappropriate.

If she does get some training, then all well and good - overlooking some issues and simply beating it out of her in military training is fine. If she DOESN'T get any training, then either the situation is desperate enough that the Captain is willing to accept half trained girls with significant obvious character flaws, or he's just an idiot who will accept anyone above a certain strength which may or may not bite him in the ass.

You and @throwaway4ccount look like you have a good discussion, though, so I won't butt in further.

 

[comeonnow0]

@Red225 Thank you for the response and for taking the time to write despite your busy schedule. I understand what you have said and respect it even if I disagree on the likelihood of certain points.

And throwaway is likely going to take your post as somehow full vindication and full support even though what you said is balanced.

 

[throwaway4ccount]

@comeonnow0 If you could admit error so well, other than an obvious typo, you would have conceded your arguments have no substance by now. The only time you will admit error is when you think you can dismiss your error as being of no consequence. Any time there is consequence to your error, you would rather double down that admit it.

You didn't directly answer the question. You didn't state how she would improve by being turned down, you just said that rewarding somebody for anything less than perfect execution is enabling. I already pointed out how foolish that assertion was. You have not demonstrated how it would be better, you just continue to shout "ENABLING" without knowing what it really means. If there is correction of the bad behavior, which military training would provide, then it is not rewarding that bad behavior. You also didn't respond to exactly what "bad behavior" you meant. Another direct question.

The only "evidence" is your own statement that "I don't like Tina, I just want her out of the story." As I said, a person being accused of theft saying they didn't steal isn't "evidence" they didn't steal. There has been no other "evidence" to contradict it.

Yes, I do know what reasonability is. I also know what "shifting the goalposts" is. Which is what you are doing here. Your previous statements are: "Fine, not a lot of people agreeing or disagreeing. It still shows at least some amount of reasonability. Reasonability is literally just seeing reason in another person's position. Yes, it's not a lot of people, but it still is some amount of evidence of reasonability." As such, I don't need to show more people that talk about a conspiracy theory agree with it than disagree with it for it to be considered reasonable by your standard. All of them have more than 4 people agreeing about them. By your standard, that makes ALL of them reasonable. The fact that you try to say "majority matters" is also a lie. If two more people came on here and said: "I think comeonnow0 is wrong" would you then say: "My stances are no longer reasonable, because I'm outnumbered 5 to 4."? Of course you wouldn't, so stop lying and deflecting.

Reasonability relies on defensibility, and you have long since stopped bothering to defend your points, and instead decided to use personal attacks. By the way, in debate, that is considered the sign of a weak argument, especially when you only do personal attacks.

You are the first person that made a statement, I replied, but you have made more posts than I have, so if our discussion is bothersome to others, that would make you the "loud person" not me. Also, normally it is the person only calling the other names that is considered the rude one. (Not to mention, you were the only one called out by name by somebody outside the discussion for a long post, which again makes you the "loud person".) But, you didn't "call me out" out of concern for others, but to try to manipulate me into not replying by portraying any response of mine as rude, but your responses as noble. But you've also shown that you consider somebody not replying to you to be a concession that you are right, and they are wrong, so you really just want me to not reply so you can claim "VICTORY!!!!"

Also, you are correct that I consider it full vindication of my statement that: "Also, a person not replying to you doesn't mean that you were right and they were wrong. They might see it as not necessary for them to reply, too, since I already am replying. I see the logical assumption being that they still hold their stance, but don't deem it worth more than one reply. The fact that you invent a concession on their part to fit your narrative is ridiculous. The logical outcome would be that a person is more likely to continue holding the stance they did before, whether or not they reply, than to change it based on one person's comments."

It does mean that your assertion: "The logical conclusion is that that they had nothing to respond with. That would suggest that unlike you, they accepted that my point was valid. Unlike you, they accepted being wrong." Was completely baseless and wrong. You failed at logic, and I succeeded.

"Don't be selfish" when what you really mean is: "Don't reply so I can say I won." If you didn't keep responding to me, I wouldn't keep posting on my own, so if your goal is for me not to post, you can accomplish that. Your goal is to say that you won because I "had nothing to respond with... [and] accepted being wrong."

 

[comeonnow0]

@throwaway4ccount All you've done is lie and show how pathetic you are. And then you lie more to try to cover yourself.

I don't need you to stop replying for me to claim victory. Even red225 said that my statements are valid even if he reaches different conclusions.

Literally the majority of people either outright agree with me or otherwise see that I have valid points.

I just wish you the best at this point because you've already shown how sorry and sad you are.

 

[throwaway4ccount]

@comeonnow0 You continue to project. You are the one who lied. The fact that you only do personal attacks without substance behind them (and have admitted your posts lack substance) shows that.

red225 made it clear they don't want to be part of the discussion, but still disagreed with your assessment. Thus they clearly find a different position to be more valid than yours.

Literally the majority of the people don't know this website exists. The majority that know probably don't know this manga exists. The majority that do know probably haven't read this chapter. Of those that have and have commented, the majority have not commented on your statements directly one way or the other. That leaves a very small portion of people. Do you really expect me to believe that if 5 more people say they think you unreasonable, that you would then say you were wrong? Of course you wouldn't. More lies by you.

In the one point where there was a provable instance of which of us came to the logical conclusion, about what it means when somebody doesn't respond to you, answered in this thread by an outside source, I am the one that proved to have the sound logic. You ended up being completely wrong, and my prediction ended up coming true basically word for word. Obviously that shows "how sorry and sad" I am, LOL.

 

[comeonnow0]

@throwaway4ccount Yeah, again you lie. Red225 literally said to me that "the points you brought up are valid".

I'm just repeating myself at this point because you just show how sad you are. You are an embarrassment.

 

[throwaway4ccount]

@comeonnow0 I didn't lie, as I said they disagreed with you (which you admit) and that meant they had to view another view as "more valid" (because if they viewed your view to be the "more valid" view, they would clearly concede that you were correct). Also, you said them not replying before was an admission of being wrong and changing their view, which they didn't do, and I said they probably held their original view and weren't continuing in the discussion because we were, which they said was the case on both accounts.

Why keep replying, then, if you aren't saying anything new and are just attacking me? Because you want the last word? Because you know the only real victory you could try to claim is that if I didn't reply, you'd said it meant I was "admitting I was wrong" like you did before? I agree you must find me an embarrassment, though. Literally basing your stance on your superior logic, then being proven to have used faulty logic, and have the person who you accused of not being capable of thought or reasoning be correct must have made you quite embarrassed.

 

[comeonnow0]

@throwaway4ccount You've lied multiple times, and you continue to lie and fail to read. The evidence speaks for itself and shows how much of an embarrassment you are.

 

[throwaway4ccount]

@comeonnow0 The evidence of who lied does speak for itself. You say your goal is to get me to shut up, but I stated that I wouldn't keep posting by myself if I wasn't replying. Yet you continue to post. Which means you lied about your goal. You said what you thought would make you sound better, knowing it wasn't true. Another place the evidence is apparent is about who had better logic about whether or not red225 still disagreed with you or had decided they were wrong. All you can do at this point is repeat: "You're a liar." Because you don't have real substance. All you have are insults. That's a sign you lost and should stop embarrassing yourself. Just come on now.

 

[comeonnow0]

@throwaway4ccount I never said that was my goal. Yet another example of your lies and your failure to read. All you can do at this point is make up more lies.

 

[throwaway4ccount]

@comeonnow0 You said: "I called you out because I'm trying to get you to respect other people and not bother them. If someone is loud and bothering people and one person tells the loud person to be quiet" "You are being like the loud person". So you said your goal was to get me to "be quiet" and "not bother them." Sure sounds like you stated your goal was to get me to stop posting. It looks like another round of "which one is lying?" ends with you being proven the liar. You always try to insult me, but the attacks you use keep being true of you, not me. The evidence is incredible.

 

[comeonnow0]

@throwaway4ccount Totally. I totally said that something was my goal. I used those words. That's what I said. Totally said that. That's how language works.

You keep lying.