Anime Information

Forums

Well I've never disagreed with that, so that doesn't explain why you're hounding me.

Well, you actually joined in on hounding me elsewhere on MAL first. I don't have to agree with you that anything in particular is truly good or bad itself or in comparison with anything else, and that's not wrong. The same also applies to others. Just because something is $VALUE_JUDGEMENT under your standards does not make it truly or more properly $VALUE_JUDGEMENT than $ALTERNATE_VALUE_JUDGEMENT, since there is no true or best set of standards under which to make value judgements. Jumping to derogatory labels and straw man arguments as fast as you can when challenged on this doesn't seem like very good or intelligent behavior to me. The label I applied to you previously in this thread is based on your demonstrated pattern of behavior, whereas the ones you give to me without even trying to properly communicate first were and are obviously just based on "I hate that you won't agree with me". If that wasn't the case then you had plenty of time to demonstrate otherwise, such as by revealing your reasoning all the way back to your axioms and explaining how nothing revealed was inaccurate or biased (subjective, arbitrary, etc.).

My point the whole time was that there are certain objective criteria to judge things by, character archetypes, literary conventions and the lot. And as such, regardless of likes or dislikes, something may indeed be objectively bad based on those criteria, just like how Pikachu is a very bad example of a Byronic hero, since he does not have any of the qualities needed to be such.Quite. That's why I gave up discussing with you, since that was all you did.
Who was it that started the whole tirade about labeling anyone that did not agree with her as elitists? That's right dearie, it was you.I am stunned.
You labeled me as an elitist in your opening post in that C&C thread before even talking to me at all, while I did not start calling you a circle-argumenting fangirl before you had time and agin refused to see obvious logical arguments and admit the flaws in the things you liked.
If you had actually read what I posted before, you would see me explaining my reasoning over and over. I'd suggest you go back tot hat thread on C&C and actually try reading the oppositions arguments before jumping on the whinebulance. If you did, you'd see me expressing my point as mentioned above over and over and again.

And until you actually read my arguments seriously, you can consider this discussion ended. Come back when you disengage your butthurt defensive fangirl mode and can have a normal discussion like a grown up.

Whatever criteria you have are arbitrary (i.e. biased, even if adopted due to minority consensus/groupthink), not objective. The fact that you have never shown that your criteria are unbiased is enough to have no need to agree with you. Regardless of whether Pikachu is considered a bad Byronic hero by a majority of a minority (most would never think of such things, if only because it really doesn't matter; a character is what it is; classification is only a limitation after a point, especially when it's used to make overall value judgements) that doesn't mean that Pikachu is truly bad (or good). Whether Pikachu is good or bad to one depends on how one is and thus reacts to Pikachu, and there is no truly right or wrong way to be or react to things.

Hey, you did it immediately, and all the time. Sorry, but deciding what I mean for me and calling me a fangirl is not a very intelligent way to make any point, especially in lieu of actually being objective at any point and revealing all of your axioms and reasoning and explaining how none of it is biased or inaccurate. Your idea that "anyone who doesn't agree with me" was labeled an elitist is just another straw man argument. Hostile + pretentious (i.e. pseudointellectual; unable and/or unwilling to actually express anything even nearly neutrally (i.e. without attacks), much less be objective and explain their supposed lack of bias and also the supposed accuracy of their reasoning) = elitist. That's obviously you, who labels those who don't agree with him as "hostile morons, smug creationist loonies, or sore losers". You conveniently having some insulting label or other for anyone you don't accept makes it obvious that you're an elitist. Of course, you won't likely accept that you personally simply defining people as things doesn't mean that they apply well at all. Just calling someone a moron, a loony, or a loser hardly demonstrates that you proved anything at all. Since you continue to talk down to others without proving things the label elitist is very fitting for you.

I did call you an elitist, but it wasn't without you demonstrating yourself to be one. I actually allow people to demonstrate that they're normal people before concluding such things, but you acted just like the other elitists, so what is one to think? Your explanation of your reasoning is all bunk (i.e. not rational to believe in) until you prove it to be unbiased and accurate starting with the very beginning, which means the axioms it rests upon. You never did this, so what you said was never important to rationally agree with. Saying that I make circular arguments when I explain myself clearly all the way back to my axioms (this being the exact opposite of circular reasoning) and even proffer such information is just another frivolous label of yours. You never actually engaged me in terms of where my axioms or reasoning were supposedly flawed, but instead continuously repeated your same conclusions as though they proved anything.

What are your arguments? That R2, Avatar, etc. are truly bad without giving any proof? All I say is that people are equal and may have any tastes or standards they please without being wrong/less right or inferior in any way, since value judgements (like good, bad, superior, and inferior) are subjective. Elitists would rant at me that Lelouch was a bad strategist, etc., and thus was a bad character, but the latter hardly follows. Even if one thought he was the worst strategist possible that can be compensated for by other things. How one feels about (i.e. value judges) something may completely vary in both polarity and intensity without it becoming truly wrong/inferior/etc. to other feelings. In any case, elitists are often the strongest fanboys of them all (as well as being trolls far more often than average; some even admit to being trolls). It's common for elitists to pop up anywhere and everywhere without provocation to push their favorite(s) as good and to push that whatever they popped in to attack as truly bad, supposedly emphasized by their comparison. By comparison, do I go all over the place to smugly push the idea that any of my favorites are great and that whatever is truly bad? Nope, but apparently simply talking about Code Geass in a relevant thread as if it wasn't an abomination is fangirling to you.

As for growing up, at least I know what objective actually means and reveal all of my thinking in a clear, complete way, instead of simply pushing hostile conclusions that are claimed to be more intelligent/right/superior/etc. without expressing them in a way that actually proves them to be unbiased and accurate (i.e. objective; not merely only necessarily correct for oneself, that instead being subjective), with openness to (intended or actual) rational counterpoints, questions, explanations of any flaws, etc. If you start out with a conclusion you are unwilling to either give up or explain then you're not being objective. Calling something "objectively" bad needs some serious proof, not just mere situational (arbitrary, biased, subjective, etc.) proof. You're probably right to yourself, but that needn't apply to others unless you can prove that it must apply independently of you or anyone at all. Given that value judgements are purely mental constructs you are likely not going to have an easy time proving that it's not the evaluator, but rather the evaluatee itself that forces or creates any given "correct" value judgement. Regardless, saying that someone who is open with her axioms and reasoning and simply wants proper equality for all (rather than a system where "elites" express disdain for those "below them") needs to grow up is quite silly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you skipped the previous paragraphs as tl;dr but are still interested in why I feel Baman should not be a moderator, then you may read the following paragraph, which is still a response to Baman.

It's unfortunate that MAL has to tolerate someone like you as a mod. It's actually quite unclear why an anime moderater ought to default to having forum moderator privileges, too, given that gaining the latter ought to require reasonable, accepting behavior towards the community, rather than hostile pseudo-intellectualism "supported" primarily by straw man arguments and ex nihilo labeling towards anyone that doesn't prostrate themselves before your demanded conclusions. Call everyone you please morons, loonies, losers, and fangirls/boys all you like, but people that don't like your attacks towards them and many others are hardly going to thrilled that you have greater influence and power on MAL, which is presumably for anyone, no matter how "elite" they are.

This question can be asked for a lot of "top anime" on ranking lists. The ranking here is done using the average rating of members of the site who have watched the anime. Popularity can definitely affect the average rating of an anime. But that is not always the case.

On a plotwise level CG was better (in my opinion), but a lot of persons enjoyed R2 a lot more because it was flashier or seems more complicated or whatever. I thought R2 was amazing until I sat down and thought of it in depth (the plot is kind of awkward in some parts).

As said before people rate anime on enjoyability and quality. While the quality of CG was better, R2 was more easily enjoyable for a lot of people that rely on more than plot to rate an anime.

It's a lot better to just ignore rankings in anime. While they can help you find real treasures, the bias of different people will always make conflict over which anime deserves to be labelled as "one of the best".

Come on already!
Not everyone has to bow down to the faggotry of the lotgh army and praise Legend of the Fagtastic Heroes, jesus christ..if it was such a good anime then why do so little people discuss in the real world. Just because it has a bunch of cheesy speeches and tactics that my dog could come up with, does not make it vastly superior to other anime, such as Code Geass..CG is entertaining, freaky and funny at times. Anime is MEANT to be entertaining, you are not supposed to analyse it and critic it like someone with obsessive tendencies. If you can't enjoy anime for what it is without analyzing it, then why watch it?

Go do something else productive, because nobody cares about your input.

I like Code Geass, so do THOUSANDS of other people around the world, why is it so popular if it is so "terrible"?

Don't worry I'm 100% with you on this one :)

haters gonna hate..

Thousands of other people also hate it. Don't get me wrong, I really don't care if Code Geass is ranked first, twelveth or whatever rank it has here. Opinions are opinions, and their real value only applies to the people that have them. But you're just trying to say that CG can't be terrible if many people like it, and that has nothing to do with it. CG being good or bad has to do with the personal tastes of the person that is watching it, not with the opinion of the majority.

This season was WAY better than the 1st but my god
If you;ve seen ANYOTHER MECHA ANIME you know why this show IS NOT 4th material...
Personaly I liked it back when TTGL was 2nd but thats IMO of course.
Also ELETITS DON"T GET A F&*)(& $%$ WHEN SOMEONE THINKS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN YOU ON THE MOST F***** TRIVIAL THING OUT THERE!!!.
(Ive had to cemcor my rage as the frum mods suck and keep banning mr form this site)

The real world? you mean the same people who think DBZ, Pokemon, and Yugioh are the best cartoons ever made?... they are, and always will be, misinformed sheep. The simple reason LoGH hasn't received the praise it deserves is because there are too many people like yourself who prefer to judge a book by it's cover. It also doesn't help that the series is quite old and hard to obtain.



Cheesy? Code Geass is the definition of cheesy. If it takes you 20 minutes to analyze a single LoGH episode maybe it would be best for you to spend your time getting a proper education so you can comprehend what's actually taking place.

Anime does not restrict itself to the imagination of a teenage girl who thinks everything in the world should be cute and cuddly.

Don't put DBZ in the discussion please. That's very insulting.

I'm sure you think there are some things that you 'dislike' that are considered 'popular'.

But you must admit, many people who _have_ watched other mecha series, don't exactly enjoy Code Geass.

To some of us, mecha is more than flashy girls and robots that reach the level of 'super robot'.

From my experience, the past decade hasn't been very kind to the hard-core mecha fans. I admit, I most enjoyed Eureka 7 and RahXephon; but both are more super robot than real robot.

Conversely, I would have to argue that not everyone who likes Code Geass -even if we're only talking about mecha fans and not the general fan population- exclusively cares about girls and the so-called (incorrectly, IMHO, if we wanted to be technical about the accurate use of the term as opposed to its common, superficial meaning) "Super Robots" you've referenced above. It's not exactly an impossible task.

In short, responding to straw men with more of their own kind doesn't exactly help matters. I can't agree with several of Mirraz's arguments either, to say the least, because popularity is far from being the main factor in the equation (and I won't even comment further on his painfully hilarious description of LOGH)...but, just as well, let's not romanticize the mecha genre any more than what is strictly necessary.

At heart, many of the classic series that created the genre in the first place were all about flashy attacks and colorful robots more than anything else in particular. They did not have exceptionally good writing nor exceptionally good characters and the less said about their absolute lack of realism the better. If we want to be frank, none of this should be overlooked.

However, hardcore fans can -and many still do- appreciate those old shows for other reasons, either because they also contained a few interesting elements (and perhaps the audience's own imagination let them fill in some of the blanks that weren't properly developed or employed by the creators), or, if necessary, simply because the viewers were able to adjust their expectations accordingly and enjoy those series for what they were/are. Nothing more, nothing less. There is nothing particularly wrong about assuming such an attitude.

Even within the realm of Mobile Suit Gundam, which created the standard for what we consider to be "Real" among robot series and subsequently gave birth to many good entries in the long run, the mecha genre has rarely escaped all of the limitations connected to its own roots. An underlying fact remains: more often than not, toys and merchandise are what truly powers the engines of its continued success. Everything else varies in quantity and quality from title to title.

But, in the end, that doesn't prevent people from having the right to like or dislike any given series for completely or slightly different reasons. Just because one show is, from a critical perspective, better than another doesn't mean the reasons motivating its fanbase are going to be automatically superior (or inferior) to those motivating a different part of the audience. Different people appreciate different things.

Wrong. TTGL is the epitome of cheesy. Most lousy piece of garbage I have seen in my life.

Well, no one cares about your input either.

And your agreement with Daisuki's retarded whining about me without having read the original discussion or even interacted with me at all certainly proves your idiocy. Have a good day, plebeian.

Oh Baman, can't you understand that you make enemies all over the place? Just because you personally think you're an acceptable-or-better person is meaningless in relation to that fact. And "interacting" is also meaningless. If people view what they consider to be bad behavior they won't necessarily ignore it just because they weren't the direct or even indirect targets of it. You have to accept that you may perhaps make even more than twenty enemies for each one you ever interact with.

Aha? Including you, I count what, 4 or something? And that's only if I stretch the term "enemy" to include people who don't understand sarcasm and butthurt fans that can't handle someone elses opinion.
And I have no idea what you're talking about with "bad behaviour". My interactions are always proportionate in relation to the other party (As per international practice, I'm sure the International Court of Justice would find me quite just in my actions ( ¯3¯) ), if I throw feces at them, it's because they started it. Childish perhaps, but that's the internet, we're here to have fun, no?
But I do know better than to use an argument between someone else that I do not have full record of as a pretext to join in and throw feces at one of the parties. That's how WW1 got started :/

I can't even name 10 people that I'd call my "enemies", but I take it you're talking from experience, hmm? I guess you learned something from those silly arguments over at the oh-so"elitist" C&C club, eh?

Thread uses Ad Hominem!
It misses!
Chavez uses lock!
It's VERY effective!

Really now, this thread was alright until you guys started getting off topic and disagreeing on one's background rather than one's argument.