Can someone explain me Shin's character thoroughly? Pls explain it within the anime's episodes 1-17 so that I won't get spoiled.

RabbitBeardy said:
Basically he's broken man, plaque by guilt resulting suicidal tendencies. He also hides his feeling deep and that's only the it Worst.

addie1998 said:
From WIKI!!! Not my post

Shin is an incredibly kind person, even after being wronged by so many people in his life. He considers himself to be at fault in the matter with his brother and believes he is the one that needs to apologize. Even after being ostracized and feared by the other Eighty-Six, Shin felt that it was his responsibility to shoulder the deaths of his comrades and let them pass peacefully into the afterlife.

He had always been the only person left alive until he met Raiden Shuga. Thus, even after meeting a companion that could survive along side him, he always felt it was his duty as the survivor to silently carry the tags of the fallen to his final destination. Even once letting go of his fallen comrades on the border between San Magnolia and Giad, he still used his comrades' deaths as an excuse to return to the battlefield.

Shin's ability to hear the voices of the Legion places enormous mental strain on him, even when he has become accustomed to listening to the constant wails of the dead. The weight of both his responsibilities and the effects of his ability have contributed to his stoic nature and lack of mirth. Despite that, he has a gentle side to him that usually comes out when interacting with Fido.

His kindness also manifests in selflessness to an extreme degree. This is demonstrated in when he chooses to face the Shepherd alone to put his brother to rest, as well as when he forcibly takes control of the Spearhead Squadron's last Juggernaut and attempts to hold off the Legion so that the rest of his squadron can escape

Shin had a distinct lack of care for himself. He compared himself to the Legion, calling himself a ghost, aimless and wandering.Consequently, he often threw himself into dangerous situations without regard for his own safety, somehow surviving through luck and combat skill. This tendency grew worse once Shin had completed his mission of putting his brother to rest and losing his reason or purpose for living.

a4ru said:
So he basically has very low self-esteem to the point where he doesn't care about his own life, making him suicidal.

DoobieSam said:
The way I see him, he's very loving for those in his life and cares a great deal about their well-being. On the other hand, his massive traumas have led to him hating himself and longing for death in battle.

MorphoX said:
Killing comrades is a reason enough for anyone to be broken and cold to others. If it's one or ten maybe ok but his kill count is already over few hundred.

Merve2Love said:


One a Sidenote: Why don't you just watch it? If you're that interested in specific Characters already...

Answer: War torn child Soldier.
That's basically all you need to know. Loves his friends. Is deeply hurt, has some kind of PTSD. Part of a suppressed group of People. A self destructive badass with special Ability's.

You've seen this kind of Character in media at least ones I'd imagin

You are visibly ignoring the part where I remind you I already elaborated on how the rest applies. If you disagree with it, you may argue against it, but you cannot claim I have not, as that would be a plain lie.

At no point do I state I am right because you cannot prove me wrong, I note that because you cannot prove me wrong you choose a different, fallacious route through which to argue, namely, whether or not enough of what you consider an authority says so, which in turn is unable to prove said point.

"While character depth indeed has to do with how much information is presented, and it is indeed true that this is objective." So, a bold-faced lie.

You make two major errors: first, you assume that the physical size of a work, that is, the number of pages it consists of, comprises "quantity," whereas the actual information within is "quality." Second, you arbitrarily decide that some information is or isn't quality. All information, by definition, has to be "quality," else it isn't information at all. If a piece of "information" has no quality to it, if it doesn't say anything whatsoever about the work itself, it's simply not information. Hence, your point does not work.

Unpredictable ≠ inconsistent. Once more you get two entirely different words mixed up and embarrass yourself.

The point I'm making is that you're taking it on faith. You're essentially admitting you don't fully understand the subject, since you are willing to drop your entire opinion on it when a big strong man tells you otherwise. Like I asked, what happens to your disagreement? As presented, you think what I said is wrong, why would you not think the same if some professor said it

Again, you're assuming it "fits," without actually examining the full scope of the criteria I outlined. Arnie Shankman, for instance, becomes a Monk off-screen, not over the course of the story, which immediately disproves your point.

Both here and above you're making the Fallacy of Consensus, assuming something is already decided true when it can easily be argued against just as well. I.e, "You are wrong about X because you are wrong about Y, without proving one is wrong about Y."

Your point? Again, Modal Fallacy. Being necessary does not make someone automatically good, just because there are those that are both.

Akaky shifts to focusing on his new Overcoat, grows into more of a man because of it, and then dies after it is taken away from him, as is his newfound strength. Change is not always one-way.

In the same way I take TDIAD's animation into account when listing all the things it does wrong. What is your point?

Well you're just assuming that has to be my opinion, without even the possibility of it being a fact, making your point bad faith. Once again, the Fallacy of Consensus; "You are subjective here because you are subjective there when of course nothing proves I'm subjective there."

You failed to establish why that ultimatum should function as you intended it to, so your conclusion is false. Any claim you make as a result of it is therefore based in unprovable assumption.

Prove I am not, if you are so certain of that. (Note I'm not saying I automatically am if you cannot, so you cannot claim this is fallacious).

It is without proving said legitimacy. What if I declared myself a legitimate authority, would that immediately make me right?

Poverty can also be extended to mean a lack of "status" in a particular field or culture. E.g, you believe that I am inherently wrong in comparison to any professor, due to not (or rather, you assuming I'm not) being a professor myself, when nothing prevents me from saying something right and any highly-decorated figure from saying something wrong.

You were being snide about it, instilling the idea that it was flawed but refusing to immediately discuss why.

"Trust?" Seriously? This only proves my earlier point - you have no idea what you are talking about, so you will take the word of anyone who you see as above you.

Trust is not important. Being correct is.

Your not "accepting" it doesn't make it incorrect, that's an Appeal to Incredulity. I've established why it holds true, the fact you refuse to believe it doesn't make it any less valid.

This exemplifies exactly the type of bad faith you're coming in here with. You immediately assume I'm lying because it suits your point.

A - You omit answering my previous question, why is this the case?

B - Let's extrapolate your idea of natural events always (you said are, not can be) being considered characters. Suppose you had a series, lets say an SOL, where someone's aunt died of natural causes, and nobody else did for the rest of the show. Would that make "Death" or "Cancer" or whatever the antagonist of the series, despite never being a threat for the MCs to defeat/outsmart?

C - According to your logic, every SOL has exactly the same characters. Since SOL is primarily character-oriented, this would suggest that every SOL should be of virtually identical quality. Do you confirm this?

A - I have proven it, if you refuse to actually go and dispute it you simply can't claim that isn't the case.

B - If you believe you have proven your example to work, then by your logic mine is also proven beyond doubt, meaning you have no point here.

Recursive argument. That's what you're trying to prove, not your evidence for proving it.

If you have a set of objective criteria defining athletic quality, and they fulfil it, that statement would be correct. No issue.

Again, you're reiterating your idea rather than trying to argue it. Just saying "It's not true" all the time does nothing.

Identify any point at which I have made a claim about the content relying in any part of my experience of it, rather than simply recalling what is presented within.

And the text of the book is the same for you as it is for me. Your point? Or am I looking at the measurement through a "subjective lens?"

Why can I, nor anybody do that, and what fallacy? Logically, only as much can be put into the show as the author thought up, so at the very least there's one person who can fathom everything in it, Asato Asato.

I've already made clear that I consider my opinion of Shin and the facts of how he is written as two entirely different things. You are claiming these two are one and the same, with your only evidence being a delusion that everything has to be subjective, which I have since disproven. Hence, your claim is untrue in every sense of the word.

But I debunked that statement, which you ignored. So you have nothing.

No, you assumed that and took me pointing out it was an assumption as proof, fallaciously.

You yourself admit later that there exist objective adjectives, meaning this is an untrue statement. It's also an Appeal to Popularity since the only given justification is "some students think so."

This is a textbook Straw Man. You've completely altered the meaning of what I presented. If you cannot argue against it as given, you are not disproving it, you're disproving something else, something simpler but entirely unrelated.

I have already explained how everything you present as Shin meets the criteria fails to do so. As you can see, the only way you can make it fit is by first making a Straw Man of the given criteria, meaning what you say now does not match my original claim in the slightest. Like I said just above, you're disproving a claim I never made, while the one I did make holds true.

This is untrue. I have never once "morphed" the definition after giving it. My pointing out how Shin fails to meet it specifically makes note of the existing wording, not changing it.

Him as the "reaper" is completely disconnected from him looking for his brother

- I called it an outline, if you recall, meaning your statement "there are rather outlines on what the character needs to have in order to be one" only proves mine.

II - "Considered a Round/Static character?" Considered by who? Fallacy.

III - "There is no factual matter in said field." Entirely and obviously untrue. Refer to my earlier point on how information is objective.

IV - Your claiming I've drawn an arbitrary line is incorrect. I've explained why it isn't arbitrary, and again, your refusal to recognise it or inability to understand it does not make it untrue.

IV - If you truly found nothing that supports my claim, provide it all, everything you've looked at, everything you've researched. I can guarantee, with absolute certainty, that what I've presented can be found within.

hastop said:
The summary of the whole thread

UTMAN said:


Guilty as charged. And what's borderliner doing?

hastop said:
The summary of the whole thread

borderliner said:


Now you've pointed it out...

Lovers' tiff

;-)

borderliner said:
And here is the root of your problem(s)

There is no corroboration because there is no mandate and no appeal to objective fact. The language on all these sites is couched in terms of suggestions, none of these sites say if you do not do this you will fail they say do this and you are more likely to succeed.

And what did Kurt say!?

He said "should"
you say "must"

He said "want"
you say "having a prevailing goal that justifies their presence in the narrative"

He said "even if it is only a glass of water."

I said "His primary goal was of course to lead whoever was left in the squad through legion territory to a place of possible sanctuary.
His ancillary goal was of course to track down and confront his brother. Both as a personal task and as means of disrupting the Legion.
He also set himself the goals of remembering his fallen comrades and denying the legion access to their brains."

you said "You're conflating the conventional definition of a goal with the literary concept of the same name. A goal, for a character such as Shin, would be a prevailing ideology that their entire being is built around pursuing."

Remember that filter thing you so vehemently deny.

You think a statement like "Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.” extrapolates directly to your ridiculous statements.

You will accept wanting a glass of water but deny finding a place of safety

You are entirely deluded

UTMAN said:
…sigh. I don’t care how you elaborated. That’s not the point I’m making. You have not justified the other 2/3-rd of your definition. Why does a character have to fit those narrative points? And according to who? I can play this game too.

I already proved you wrong multiple times, with legitimate citations and sources that debunk everything you say.

Are you fucking kidding me? And you want us to beleive that you write?

HOW MUCH INFORMATION IS THERE – QUANTITY!

No? I said 10.000 pages worth of quantity. So basically 1 page could consist 1-500 or any number of information. (depending it fits the said page)

How much is in there is quantity:
X kills 1 by shooting, X kills 2 by slitting his throat, X kills 3 by making her drown.

These are objectively 6 pieces of information. It has value too, but subjectively every person will value it differently. 10 years old might value it less, a 25 old gore fetishist might value it more.

I can give you another example about ANY information value being subjective/relative: There is a guy. We are going to leak one piece of information about him to two people. 1 is to an assassin who wants to kill him, and the other one to a girl who has a crush on him and wants to buy him a gift.

The said information is this: His favourite colour is blue.

This might be totally valuable information for the girl since she can now buy the said gift in blue, but for the assassin, it’s totally invaluable, since it won’t get him closer to killing him.

They are unpredictable because they are inconsistent.

Also: (FYI the red colour, mean it's quite close in meaning)

I think I was clear about it in my previous answer. If a legitimate authority says something I disagree with, I’m willing to take a step back, because the probability is higher that he/she/it is right than the opposite.

What you are implying is denialism. “the practice of denying the existence, truth, or validity of something despite proof or strong evidence that it is real, true, or valid” And as I said like forever now a legitimate authority is considered a good/strong evidence for claims.

A dynamic character’s prerequisite is that it goes through change over the course of the story. Nothing says that it has to be on-screen or anything. The story is Dave Buznik was bullied as a child, grows up as a submissive person, and takes psychology consulting which is disguised as anger management. Through this story, Shankman grows up as well and changes into a Buddhist Monk from a Bully. Dude that’s the story. You would be only right if Shankman were not presented in the story at the beginning as a bully, and the only time we would see him is at the Buddhist Temple and just got some exposition that he used to be a bully. We saw him as a bully in the story, and we saw him as a Buddhist monk too in the story. The fact that the change happened off-screen is irrelevant.

That’s a non-sequitur. Never said that they are good. The fact is something is not bad, is not necessary to mean it’s good. It could be mediocre or anything else between good/bad. Also good/bad etc. any adjectives like these are subjective adjectives, which is not an objective take on the matter.

The fact that he is peer pressured into someone he is not, is not a subject of change. The fact that the overcoat was taken away from him proves this. If he truly has changed he would be able to present said changes with or without the overcoat. He is so static when given an opportunity to change, he flat out refuses:
„One director being a kindly man, and desirous of rewarding him for his long service, ordered him to be given something more important than mere copying [...] This caused him so much toil, that he was all in a perspiration, rubbed his forehead, and finally said, "No, give me rather something to copy." After that they let him copy on forever. „

My point is that you said you don’t care about the car’s top speed /animation. This means that you are not taking them into account. The fact that you indeed do, makes your sentence in your profile untrue.

I already demonstrated that adjectives like bad, good etc. are subjective indicators. Since you are using them you are not spouting an objective fact, but a subjective claim, an opinion.

No, you need evidence for definition. The fact that you can apply it to random characters does not mean you provided one.

Really? Prove that the universities and the professors in the relevant field are not legitimate authorities. Bug off….

I cited Colleges/Universities. And professors with PhD.
Colleges/universities have the authorisation that they can teach and speak about matters. If said college would not have legitimacy they would not be able to teach it, function or anything else as an institution.
Here is Sandra LaFave https://www.linkedin.com/in/sandra-lafave-0a178414 or https://lafavephilosophy.x10host.com/sandybio.html

I know you like to throw around „fallacies” left and right, but it doesn’t mean you understand them.
Appeal to poverty basically appeals to wealth. It’s a status on „wealth” or „success” basically, and basically not creditability. I would commit this fallacy, if I were saying things like „J.K Rowling who sold way more books than you do and richer than the Queen of England, so because of this she knows it better than you, which means she is right and you are wrong.”
I would still argue that the professor is right and J.K Rowling is wrong, despite the fact that Rowling probably has way more status and money than the Professor, but her legitimacy in the field is lower.

That’s not the point. I’m pointing out that I never accepted your definition since the beginning.

And an authority in the field is more likely to be correct than someone on MAL. Yes. Thank you. And?

You never established why it holds true. You established how you can apply it to Shin. I did the same thing with the killing definition, so would the same thing apply to that definition as well?

I have never denied the fact that you write or implied that you lie. I said I don’t care that you write. Once again filtering. A person can write fanfictions and can claim that he/she writes. (once again, not saying that you write fanfictions)

A, Just like you omit our questions that why those 3 (goal, philosophy, and change) is necessary.
It is necessary because this is the only outline that delivers a good character.

B, If that’s the case then „Cancer” is a disembodied character with 1 kill, and the MC can decide to „defeat/outsmart” it by conducting himself/herself to the field of ontology in hope of finding a cure for „cancer”, thus defeating said antagonist once and for all. This would obviously not make the MC any better character, since his/her kill count is still 0. It could be a fun revenge story though. Or he could ignore it, and continue to live his miserable empty shitty life

C , Well not according to this definition. According to this definition is empty characters do irrelevant stuff because the only thing that’s relevant is killing. Because that's what gives character. And not necessarily, some SOL has deaths, like a relative of someone’s death, you even gave the "cancer" example. But if you mean SOL-s where literally 0 deaths happen, then yes, they are all the very same mass-produced shit, since my definition doesn’t care about goals, changes and any other unnecessary things, just killings.

A – Look at my previous point.

B – That’s funny, cause that’s exactly what I’m trying to demonstrate/prove to you, that you have no point here. Because everybody can make up shit. By the end of the day, we are both going to have our “own” definitions. You have your own, and I have mine. We both cannot prove the other one wrong, and we are going to talk/argue next to each other away.
This is why a legitimate appeal to authority is important, it gives both parties some ground/basis that they both can work with.
If 2 people were arguing about how long 1m-er is, by showing something with their hand, and they both show different stuff every time they compare it to each other. They could argue and argue and argue over 2 years even, and they still would not get to a consensus. However, they could Appeal to a Legitimate Authority, by walking down to a fucking department/tool store, buying some measuring tape that’s been manufactured by a legitimate company, and checking how long one meter is.

Already proved it to you. Even gave you sources that support my argument.

I already gave more than enough proof and citations that proved that this is not an objective matter.

Or as it, you say ”Proof provided, you refuse to recognise it.”

Let’s say the text says this:

„Little Timmy experienced a wind which was incredibly strong. Strong enough to snap trees. He tried to go against it, but it felt hopeless as the wind pushed him away from the objective he wanted to reach..”

You, a reader from Kansas, someone in the future who was born in space/vacuum and myself read this.
However, we all 4 are going to assume something else.

We assumed that you are from Australia(or Japan), probably have experience with Typhoons/Hurricanes, which can go up to 250km/h

The dude from Kansas might assume a wind that has the strength of a Tornado. Which can reach up to 512 km/h

The guy from the future would have no fucking idea what's a "wind' is, and will not be able to imagine the scene, maybe he could have seen some documentaries, but would not know how it feels to be pushed down by something called "wind"

While myself in central Europe, Hungary, the record wind speed here ever measured was 124 km/h, so my concept of incredibly strong is laughable to you 2.

The text is the same for everyone, but we all 3 are going to associate to something because of our subjective lenses, yes. If the 4 of us, would sit down to a table, and discuss how objectively strong was the wind in the text above, which of us would be right, which of us would be wrong? For both of you guys, my experience would not be considered “incredibly strong”, since you both (could have) experienced winds that are twice or thrice as strong. While the future guy would have no idea about this stuff.

And for you, speaking from experience, referring to Shin’s mental state as “inconsequential sadness”. For you his PTSD/ hearing voices/killing his friends does not justify his mental state. And as I said, when the Veteran read the story, he thinks it’s relatable. You both speaking from your subjective experience. Neither of you is right, and neither of you is wrong since both of you guys are attempting a subjective claim.

Except Human brains are wonderful things and one really nice feature it has, that it tends to forget. Even if Asato Aasato would revisit something she ever wrote, there is no guarantee that she is going to remember what or why she wrote what she wrote 100%. If this would be the case, programmes would always know what their code do they ever wrote, but for some reason, whenever they revisit their old codes, most of the time they have trouble figuring it out.

You mean you tried to disprove/debunk it but failed miserably. All you did is you dipped yourself into Denialism.

Then where is this definition from if it’s not from an external source, and you deny that you made it up?

It’s not an untrue statement. I explicitly stated that the adjectives that you use are Subjective. There is no Appeal to Popularity because I’m not appealing to an Opinion, but on an objective, universally accepted definition by the literary community.

As I already pointed out, your definition is a Subjective claim and I refuse it.
You put subjective attributes to said objective facts.
An objective claim is whether: Shin has a goal or has not a goal.
Subjective claim is: Shin has/has not a good/bad/shit/amazing/interesting/prevailing/fulfilling goal.

“while the one I did make holds true.” I’m really happy for you that it holds true in your little own world.

Oh really, then what about the part, when I gave you his philosophy, and suddenly it was not good enough, since it’s not and individual/unique?

Your middle part is this: „ consistent philosophy that logically forms from existing and current experiences and choices”

I don’t see in your original definition this: „ really, to sum this up concisely, relying on "86 pride" pretty much reduces his individuality, and impairs having a significant philosophy."

You never once said that you want significant or individual, your definition only required that it should be consistent. What’s this if not „morphing”.

Regarding the goal, you never once said that if said character has 2 or more goals, then said goals have to connect with each other. Your only criteria were that they would be „prevailing”, and „justifies his presence”

Also, his first goal, killing his brother is prevailing and justifies his presence in the story.

1. No, you outlined criteria that one MUST tick. The sites just gave outlines, that the character should try to accomplish as good as it can. Two totally different things.

3. As I portrayed in my wind example, it’s entirely true.

4. I asked you several questions regarding your definition, yet you ignored it. Give me a unit of measurement, of being a "deep character". You really can't, that's why it's arbitrary.

2&5

For example https://blog.reedsy.com/round-character/

„Round characters will often feature:
Personalities with multiple facets and depths
Internal conflict
Flaws and Contradiction
Emotional development and discovery”

The site mentions Motivation/Goal, but it doesn’t have to be „prevailing”, or does not have to justify the character's presence in the story.

There is absolutely no mention of „Philosophy”

The site says that the character needs to have flaws, which you did not write into your definition.

Also, the site says that character needs to be „surprising” and „convincing” – Both of them is void in your definition.

Round character does not have to go through a change.

Like everything this site writes is in contrast to what you are stating.

Thigh_Tide said:


Which can be put down to simply being nice about it. Nothing contradicts what I say.

You're admitting outright you "don't care" about me justifying the definition. Hence, your claim I haven't is untrue, since you're ignoring the part where I do, like I said.

No, you haven't. Every citation you've shown has been A) not provably legitimate, and B) either fits with what I say or is provably wrong.

I I already demonstrated how there can be no separation of quantity and quality of information, meaning your point is nonsensical. You claim it is objective, that you cannot deny, so, my point.

II But both the 10 year old and 25 year old are shown exactly the same thing. That information contains only as much "substance" as it presents itself with. The fact that one likes it and one doesn't doesn't make the information "more valuable," they just enjoy what value it already has, because, and I can't stress this enough, how much you "like" a piece of information doesn't equate to its value.

Again, both the assassin and the girl have access to the same piece of information, and that information tells them the same thing. Both are aware that the guy likes blue, the fact that the assassin isn't going to act on that information does not mean he doesn't have it, nor that it says something different to him.

III The author will have had a particular force in mind when writing such a passage, stemming from their own life prior to penning the text. Whoever can correctly identify such a thing will be who is right. This is why knowing information surrounding a work is important. Every work is, after all, the expression of one particular person, meaning no such confusion can arise.

False Equivalency, and you ignore the fact I'm in the process of disproving your definition. By your logic, my success to do so demonstrates how unnecessary "authority" is.

I already explained that. If you make no attempt to do the same, (or, through your faulty perception, better), that will be taken as there being no reason why, which makes your definition false.

Explain then why no SOL follows such a route. Many feature the death of a family member or close friend as an instigator, yet none have the protagonist dedicate themselves to curing Death.

You have several SOL on your list, with varying ratings, If they are "all the same," you would have the same rating for all of them. Therefore, you contradict your own definition.

I never ignored anything, you're simply taking any answer you dislike as non-existent. That something has no unit of measurement does not make it arbitrary. We have no unit of measurement for sickness, or how many memories someone has, for instance.

The events of the narrative of Anger Management, that is to say, Dave Buznik learning to stand up for himself, has no effect on Shankman becoming a Monk. The story does not cause Shankman to change, he does so entirely arbitrarily from it.

Recursive claim, provide evidence for it.

Close, not identical.

Unpredictable - not able to be predicted through current circumstances.
Inconsistent - not in keeping with current circumstances.

Evidently, different.

Again, the fact I don't look for animation doesn't mean I am unable to take it into account when questioning a particular show. There is no inconsistency here.

I explicitly and clearly disproved that objectivity is impossible. You made no attempt to dispute this, which can only mean you register it as truthful.

Except I'm not talking about my experience, I'm talking about content, so your point is false.

Consider the following adaptation of the premises you provide:

I - That which does not require being perceived to exist is metaphysically objective. E.g, an apple, and qualities thereof, the size, the colour, are objective.

II - Subjective is the opposite of objective, same as before.

III - If a concept is objective, any claim made of that concept that does not require the addition of subjective metrics must in turn be itself objective.

And since, as I've said before, the content presented by the show exists irrespective of who watches it, any claim about what is present in said content must in turn be objective. And though you can have the mindset that nothing can be objective due to the world only existing, from a philosophical standpoint, through our species knowing of its existence, that would mean that objective statements such as the provided "Taipei 101 (or now, the Burj Khalifa) is the world's tallest building" would in turn fail to be objective. Therefore, by accepting that the concept of "objective" even exists, the argument that all of reality is subjective cannot be true.

But there isn't "proof" or "strong evidence" of your view being valid. I remind you, you haven't ever once justified nor attempted to justify the legitimacy of anyone you cite. There is no reason to consider what you link meaningful in any sense, particularly when, I remind you, it all either fits with my view or can be disproven.

Any "authority" is inherently false, as "authority" can only be granted by another "authority." A Doctorate is of value because it was given by a decorated University, that University is of value because it is accepted by other Universities and the Government of their country, and so on. Functionally, any "authority" or accolade can be put down to one of four things; being verified by another "authority," being voted in by the public, being historically important and/or essentially declaring itself important. Every single one of these is a fallacy - Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Popularity, Appeal to Tradition, and either an Appeal to Nature or Appeal to the Divine, respectively. Since no "authority" can be implemented without utilising one of these fallacies, all "authority" is illegitimate.

Different terminology, same meaning. No issue.

B - Even in your example of a subjective claim, you present objective adjectives (prevailing, fulfilling), proving yourself wrong.

You'll find everything in the linked article either fits or does not contradict what I wrote. For instance: "Emotional development and discovery," "convincing behaviors and temperaments, and compelling personal motivations," "everything that occupies and energizes them beyond the bounds of the plot," just to pick a few matching excertps or the fact that the importance of depth is reiterated dozens of times throughout the article. Alternatively, portions you misinterpret - characters do not "need" to be surprising, only a certain type benefits from such a direction. It's worth noting I stated what is necessary to be "a" character, irrespective of type, so naturally there are additional components that come into play, like flaws, which I would attest are incredibly important for good characters.

borderliner said:
Another of your filters, applied when you are unable to directly refute what is said.

Why would these articles be nice about something you claim to be objectively true.

Would a science textbook say you might try mixing these chemicals to produce this compound?
If things must be done then no-one skirts around saying they must be done.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

I think it's reasonable to characterize you as being deluded

UTMAN said:
You are doing once again filtering. The citation I used you liked, because it had some minor similarities with what you are doing here you accept that, and anything you don’t like, try to disprove, you fail, and your last resort is to call them not legitimate.

Also according to you, then even the Cambridge example should be irrelevant, then it makes your definition 100% standing on nothing, but you claiming it to be objective fact and trying to apply it to fictional characters.

I

The fact that you demonstrated is irrelevant here. You claimed that I accepted that information quantity and quality are objective, whereas I never did so. I’m still standing by what I said. As you said too “and you ignore the fact I'm in the process of disproving your definition”

II

Value: The value of something such as a quality, attitude, or method is its importance or usefulnesss. If you place a particular value on something, that is the importance or usefulness you think it has.

Just like the 10-year-old little kid might find all that killings less important as the 25-year-old, thus the value for both of them since both of them assert different importance.

In the other example, I was giving example for usefulness, since it’s very useful for the girl, and it’s basically useless for the assassin.

III The author can be anonymous, or long dead, all bibliography being lost, thus not knowing anything about said author or how the work is made. Also, even you could do that, you have no idea whether the author is “, stemming from their own life prior to penning the text” or not, maybe the author talked about someone who survived a pretty strong storm and uses that as the base. Also, who is going to declare who is right in the scenario? The author is not present, just as Asato Asato is not here to judge our discussion here. Also would you say that you know everything About Asato ASato and the making of 86, or any other book/move/etc...'s writer' life before you make "objective" claims about their content?

Also, you imply a very interesting thought line here, If this is the case that “stemming from their own life prior to penning the text”, then would you say that authors can only write about that stems from their own life? So my question is, can someone write a story about let’s say an atomic blast about Hiroshima/Nagasakibut never was present there in Aug 6. and 9 in 1945.

How do you explain for example Sci-Fi stuff, where the writer describes the explosion/force of a weapon that’s not in real life?

Well, you are more than welcomed to try.

Also, why is that a False Equivalency? According to you, your definition is an objective claim, and according to me, mine is just as so. (the character depth requires A,B,C --- and mine for killings.)

Just like the metre, has an objective definition. Both dudes are trying to present their definition to what’s 1M, what’s character depth and they both cannot get to a consensus.

1. Would you be so kind to re-explain or quote it, because I just cannot find/see where you explained it.
My explanation as I said, it’s the case because killing is the only thing that matters in the story, so if a character involves himself with the action of murdering, killing etc. it will give more depth to the character. Also, I really hope you are not planning to start the "why?" game like a 5-year-old.

2. First of all, at this moment of writing MAL, consider 2050 anime as SOL. But that would be Appeal to Authority I guess? But whatever… According to your list, you completed only 436 and dropped 54, on hold for 41 and currently watching 10. If we add all of them up and if I assume all of this is SOL you would have watched/watching/experienced 541 anime, which is not even half of the current amount of MAL anime. So you would have no proof, that no SOL ever did this or not. (assuming you are honest with your list of course.)

Second of all, if there would be 1, and you arguing that no other SOL followed it, you would be Appealing to Popularity since there is no reason to assume that just because 99.99% of SOL animes do not take this route is right, the 00.01% which does is wrong.

And third of all, even if all SOL not did this, then let me quote you:

„But again, objective facts are true even when not universally accepted. Did Earth not revolve around the Sun before Galileo's Heliocentric model was accepted? Did Gravity, as you point to, not exist before Newton's Law of Universal Attraction became common knowledge?”

Just because no SOL ever accepted the universal fact that killing is the most important aspect of a story/character, that does not mean the fact does not exist.

And lastly, mostly because they are written by hack shitty writers who have no idea about or reject said definitions and don’t write their story that way, thus it’s shit.

3. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, that’s cute. You are trying to do exactly what others try to do to you, looking the list of the other person and trying to make a conclusion about it. Is this some sort of last resort tactic want to be?

You have no idea what, how and when I scored those anime. (Heck, even I don't remember when i watched 90% of them)
For example, I watched Clannad 10+ years ago, I don’t even remember what’s in it. You have no idea what kind of philosophy/mental state I had when I watched those, maybe some SOL would be rated differently should I watch them now. You have no idea about my scoring system since you don’t know what’s my 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 means. Also, I don’t count my dropped anime, I have a few, like Aikatsu.
You also don’t know if my scores are influenced by animation, music, direction, voice acting and many other aspects other than Characters/Story. So a SOL might not have any killing in it, thus shit character/story, but I enjoyed let’s say the OST in it, or the animation or whatever and it bumped the score up. So an anime that has basically shitty stories and characters (Nagi No Asukara) can score higher than for example Ex-arm for me since the latter might have really nice characters, but everything about it is just terrible while Nagi No Asukara kind of entertained me with its view and OST. You also don’t know whether I include my enjoyment value of the anime. Also, I did not know that I can’t enjoy something I really dislike. It’s called a Guilty Pleasure.

You just mentioned two arbitrary definitions... Every illness has stages, like the very “cancer” you mentioned, also there are indicators like how much virus is in the bloodstream, but that cannot be observed entirely just give some probability by multiplying the observed blood amount, which according to you would be a fallacy, appeal to probability.

Also “sickness” is kind of different for anyone too. Someone dies in Covid19, someone just has a mild fever. Both are sick but on different levels. Also If I catch a cold I might not feel anything, even though I’m sick, but someone who has no immune system can get pretty sick from it too. Somebody can be very sick, having 38-9 C degrees of fever, and someone can be deadly sick if it’s over 40 degrees. Or maybe someone is sick, but the person has no symptoms yet. Like, even you could be sick right now, you just don’t know it yet.

Also, let’s take blood pressure. Like if someone has 218/163, probably every sane person would agree that someone should be treated. How about someone with 142/90? According to European guidelines, (once again Appeal to Authority to you) hypertension starts at 140/90 . But in the US it starts at 130/80. Is he ill? Should we start treating him?

What about diabetes/blood sugar. Blood sugars also range widely, especially after we eat. So medical experts (once again Appeal to Authority according to you) kinda had to establish an arbitrary threshold

Also what about illnesses that are just laboratory numbers. For example, let’s say chronic kidney disease main defining feature is a serum creatinine above an arbitrary number. This number picked does not take into account that kidney function slowly deteriorates with normal aging. Almost half of older adults are thus labelled as having chronic kidney disease even though most of them will never have any symptoms from their kidneys in their lifetime nor benefit from any treatment.

Regarding memories, please give me the objective non-arbitrary number of how many memory you have. If it’s not arbitrary you should be able to give me exactly how much you have. Also by the time you finished counting, that number will increase since you will make memories while counting continuously.

Once again, the story does not have to cause the change, it just has to happen throughout the course of a story. I’m not saying that Arnie Shankman is the main character, he is a minor/side character/flat character Dynamic characters can be Round and Flat, Main/Side/Minor.
But since you said that a Dynamic character is deeper than a Static, would you also stand by the following that a Dynamic minor character would be deeper than a Static Main character, just because one changes the other one don’t?
Are you deliberately trying to avoid the question?

You went from „entirely different words” to them being „close, but different”. I consider that an achievement.

“Inconsistent - not in keeping with current circumstances.”
Except when they are keeping with their current circumstances. That’s why it’s Inconsistent.

For example:

aaaaaaaaaaaabaaaaaaaaaaaaabaaabaaaaaaaaa

And whenever someone is inconsistent, it’s pretty difficult to predict when they going to act inconsistently, making them unpredictable.

Why would you take something into account that you deem „completely irrelevant”?

1. Except for the taste of the apple, the feel of the apple, Also how do you know that I am seeing what you see, how do you know that the red you see is the same red as I do. Maybe I am seeing a colour that would be yellow, but since everybody else calls it red, I call it red. And for the colour yellow, I see the colour red, but since everybody else calls them yellow, I call it yellow too. But in „reality” these two colours are changed up for me?

Regarding the Kalifa, it could still be provable.

Let’s say there is 3 person. And there are 2 buildings that exist in their world, where they need to decide which one is taller.

All 3 of them have a different subjective units of measurement.
Person A, sees/experiences 1M as 0.1 M
Person B, sees/experiences 1M as 2M
Person C, sees/experiences 1M as 100M

The two buildings let's say in reality with real-life M are 10 and 20 M tall.

Person A goes there, takes the measurement Building 1 will be 1M for him, and Building 2 will be 2M
Person B goes there, and Building 1 will be 20M tall for him, and Building 2 will be 40M tall,
Person C goes there, and Building 1 will be 100M tall for him, and Building 2 will be 200 M.

All 3 of them will have different heights and answers for the two-building, but you know what will be common? For all three, even though have waaaay off numbers, all 3 will be able to agree that Building 2 is taller than 1, and you know what’s more funny? All 3 will agree that’s it’s twice as tall.

Here, debunked your debunking.

Why would I bother trying to justify the legitimacy of authority to someone who clearly doesn’t consider any authority legitimate?

And as I said Legitimate Authority exist. Since The Professor gets his PhD from a legitimate Authority a University, said University gets its authority, from other legitimate authorities, universities. Also to become a university they need to submit your curriculum which is reviewed by the accrediting agency that’s legitimate authority. in the US said Accreditation, for example, involves non-governmental entities accrediting organizations like the Higher Learning Commission. So they are not getting their Authority from Popularity, In which you need to be an expert, thus having a legitimate authority to decide regarding a university getting an authority or not. This proves that all university has a legitimate source for their authorities, thus they can provide legitimate authority to professors with PhD or other experts, thus what they say can be used as strong evidence.

Also, what you wrote up there, that according to you that "all authority" is illegitimate. What you are implying here is hardcore denialism, and just let's go with this for a few moments. So if you or your child would get sick, would you not go to a doctor to check out yourself or her since the doctor is an "illegitimate" authority. so whatever the doctor says is just meaningless, since the doctor could be just as wrong about the illness as you? Or would you self-diagnose yourself, but even if you did that, how would you do that? From what medical book? It was written by doctors with "illegitimate" authority, so you cannot use that either.

Then you said that the government is an "illegitimate" authority as well, since they got to power from "Appealing to Popularity", so that means you don't consider the government in your country a legitimate form of government? Like this is what you are suggesting here... this is kinda dangerous line of thought if you ask me.

I really hope you see, from where we began, we reached a point where we don’t really agree on a single English word meaning.

Criterion is a standard by which something can be judged on.
Outline – is just a description, and said something does not need to check everything.

Prove that they are objective adjectives.

A fulfilling meal might be different for someone who weighs 180kg and for someone who weighs 45kg.
A prevailing goal might be different for a Feminist woman, who wants to build a carrier, and for a woman in for example Arabia, where her prevailing goal is to get married and have 8 kids at least.

Once again, filtering.
You want goals that justify, that binds the character to the story/plot. The said source says:
,"everything that occupies and energizes them beyond the bounds of the plot,"
So basically there can/should be goals that are not relevant to the plot. Thus making Shin’s secondary goal as a reaper justified since it has nothing to do with the primary story of the first book, killing his brother Rei.

You never “Both of these I already explained in detail how they fail to be prevailing nor justifying.” You just concluded that his two goals are not connected, because you wanted both of the goals to justify his presence in the story.

Also, once again, I can’t emphasize enough, these are just general points that a character can have, and not some 100% criteria like you want it to be, that if they fail they immediately “don’t have any character”. And this is just one example where you are trying to misrepresent the entire article... just as borderlines said: "Another of your filters, applied when you are unable to directly refute what is said."

That's untrue in several ways. First, it's not filtering to verify presented information against existing information, such that either corroborates or disproves it. Second, you claim I have failed to disprove those that are false, yet you have not established me to have done so, other than you just want me to be wrong. And finally, I never made "calling them not legitimate" my last resort. Every single time you presented a so-called legitimate source, I questioned it immediately.

You are misunderstanding fallacies again. The statement "A is not true because B" is not the same as "A is not true." I already covered this two comments ago.

That is the very purpose of media research and analysis. You're answering your own question, again.

Refer to what I said earlier - you abandoned the previous line of argument, which can only be taken as accepting the conclusions given by it.

A false equivalency has shown up. In your examples, the information has a different "use" for the girl and assassin, but exactly the same "use," that is, to understand the text, for the 10-year old and 25-year old. Hence, your point falls apart, information presented in a piece of media is the same for everyone.

That's not what I said. I talked about the context behind adjectives, not concrete concepts and storylines.

Have you ever read any Sci-Fi? Any such things are always likened to a real-world equivalent. This only corroborates my point.

The difference is that yours is intentionally made up to be wrong, making your point of "oh well look we both have objective points" a fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. That would be as though I brought in an intentionally wrong source to prove all your sources are also wrong. Hence, a false equivalency.

I already touched on the necessity of depth and each component thereof in this comment.

You seem averse to answering why. It's not a child's game, it's an integral question. Why? I know the answer is of course "I made it up on the spot," and that in itself disproves it unless you present an actual justification.

You are dodging the question. Why has no SOL done this?

Not even close to what I said. I never referred to either as being right or wrong, you said that is what you perceive as an expected SOL plot. And again, dodging the question.

Again, my point was never about acceptance, but about evidence. If it's never been done, how do you know it'd be good if it was?

Poetic that you should say so on a thread about 86. Regardless, that's a No True Scotsman fallacy.

I assumed you'd say that. What about me then? You know I look for writing, why do I have SOLs rated differently to each other? I think you'll find there's no way you can lead forward without arbitrarily assuming I'm automatically wrong, which would again be a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Not how that fallacy works, and you prove yourself wrong by immediately giving a definition of what you feel is arbitrary.

The point is, it's still a thing that exists and can be seen to be either present or not. So, your point is proven wrong.

Again, not how that fallacy works. The fact that "authority" is non-existent does not mean anything they say is wrong, again, "A is not true because B" does not equate to "A is not true."

Yet, a threshold exists. Meaning although there can be no consistent unit of measurement, it's still not an arbitrary concept to gauge.

I really don't see how many times I can say this before it gets old, but that's exactly my point. It's a thing, yet you cannot give a single measure of it, proving you wrong.

Do you even know what arbitrary means? I do not have "arbitrary" memories, neither do you, neither does anyone else. And again, you prove my point.

Not at all, you simply never brought up minor characters until this point. Minor characters of any sort have less depth than main characters, regardless of type. Your point, then?

That is genuinely idiotic. What point do you think you're trying to make? If something isn't inconsistent "right now," that doesn't mean they're not inconsistent. That's like saying you don't breathe because you're not inhaling or exhaling right now, or you never sleep because you're currently awake.

Modal fallacy. You can be unpredictable because of being inconsistent, but that doesn't mean everyone who is unpredictable is inconsistent.

You're missing the point. Not an apple, then, a tasteless, colourless cube, any physical object will do.

Not in the slightest. Units of measurement are not "subjective," each person perceives them in the same way. If you measure things in half-metres, everyone else will see you measure in half-metres, if you pass your half-metre tape measure to someone else they'll be able to measure in half-metres. The distance itself does not change. The buildings, like you said, can all be found to be bigger or smaller than each other, because the building is the same size for each of them. That doesn't matter if they measure it in metres, inches, cubits, lightyears, whatever, the height of the building is perfectly objective. And for this reason, reality cannot be subjective, else that'd be utterly impossible.

You've demonstrated the issue exactly. Why is the Higher Learning Commission, or any of the experts within, an authority? Who made them "experts?" Other authorities. Whichever way you go about it, whichever organisation you try to investigate, you will eventually hit a fallacy.

Once more, you completely fail to realise the implications of non-authority. "A is not true because B" isn't "A is not true." The doctor's knowledge is not automatically meaningless, them being a "doctor" specifically is. If you had a neighbour, who had as much medical knowledge as the doctor, just not the piece of paper from med school, they'd be just as capable of diagnosing you. Alternatively you could have a doctor say something entirely non-medical, and that wouldn't be automatically right because they're a doctor. After all, in the past, "doctors" used to think that illnesses were caused by ghosts and curses, is that true because they were recognised as an authority in their day?

What the fuck sort of bootlicker are you? Every government is, was and always will be shit, that's why we have revolutions.

Still adheres to my point.

Prevailing - Present throughout a duration. Not subjective, it either is or isn't there.
Consistent - In keeping with current circumstances. Not subjective, again, it either is or isn't.
Logically - In accordance with established information. Not subjective, it's either based on what's presented or isn't.

What? I never claimed every character had the same goal or anything like that. We're talking about adjectives, which even in your example have the same meaning.

That's not at all what that means. A goal that occupies them "beyond the plot" means that it controls their actions even outside of what we see, namely, justifying their presence prior to the narrative, as I said was necessary. Having a goal entirely unrelated to the plot is entirely different since that contradicts this first point.

Like I said to them, In this scenario, I don't need to refute anything, the point in question agrees with what I'm saying. There is nothing to filter, nor any way how to.

UTMAN said:


Tbh I would not want to imagine a what-if situation like that. Imagine us arguing over some other trivial stuff... It would be a pretty short relationship. xD

UTMAN said:
That’s the filtering, the citations you believe that corroborates, you never even once questioned its authority, but the one that goes against, and disproves yours, you immediately do.

Also, I just did in my previous post, yet you ignore it now and say I never established it.

Doesn’t disprove the fact that you „killed” the authority under your definition.

Once again, dodging the question, because it would be emberraassing for you to answer it. As I said, the writer is anonymus. So tell me which one of the 4 of us is right. And how would we decide objectievly that one of us is right or wrong.

What do you smoke? I’m still arguing in favour of information value/quality being subjective. Never accepted it, nor abandoned it.

And no, the information for both of the cases is different usefulness for all 4 of them, thus all 4 have different values. If the value would be objective, they would all agree on its importance/usefulness. You are totally making things up.

What is „objective value”? What does that even mean? How can be „value” be objective?
Everybody should „value” it? Or everyone has a reason to „value” it? Value is not inherent to things.

You said you make claims on the content, or the girl and a 25-year-old. But that alone does not mean anything. The information generated when you read the text, which is a subjective interpretation. Thus you cannot be objective about it. interpretation of that information is contingent on your knowledge of the language, the culture. Words do not inherently contain information unless you know the rules that apply to words. Outside of that, the interpretation becomes subjective.

And if you disagree with this: Please tell me what's in this text:

https://imgur.com/EiB5Ifu

If you are right, this text should say/mean the exact same thing to you as me.

You are missing the point. Describe the nuclear explosion with adjectives, where you have never experienced it. Or saying the laser beam burnt like fire, when you never got burned. Could an author do these?

Also, how would the audience know what the writer's intent is?

How do you know mine is intentionally made-up to be „wrong”?

Also thank you for admitting that yours is made up.

Yours is unintentionally made up to be wrong?

Well according to this comment, you only explored how you think Shin does not fulfil the criteria. You never explain,

WHY a character needs a goal. Why it must be prevailing? Why it must justify its presence in the story.
WHY a character needs a consistent philosophy that yada yada
WHY, a character needs to change, and be affected and affect the events.

Your only explanation is this:

„Depth is what defines character”

So I assume, according to your definition these 3 points iare what gives „depth”.

If I'm wrong, please give me an actual quote, and not just show me one of your wall of text...

I already explained mine. Killing what gives character depth. Thus character.
You could ask, why is that it's the Killing is the only thing that gives character depth, but that would mean you would need to give me a detailed explanation of why a character needs all 3. And this would lead to a
series of „why?” questions, like if you were explaining it to your 4-year-old niece, and whatever you say to her, she is going to ask „why?”.

Well, that would be asking, why isn’t a horror doing happy and joyful stuff, full of rainbows and skittles. They would not be a Horror.
You answered your question. They would have stopped being a SOL then. Like for example FMAB. Death claims the brother's mother, and they go and try to find the sorcerer’s stone to defeat death and bring their mother back.

Also then please answer this:
- Why are there literary works where the characters have 0 goals? (plastic nee san, pop team epic)

- Why are there literary works where the character doesn't have a consistent philosophy. (Deadpool, Joker - both are unstable mentally since they are insane)

- Why are there literary works where the character doesn't change? (Monkey D. Luffy)

This can be said for you as well. If characters must have all those three things, why are we seeing characters that don’t do that?

A: A CHARACTER MUST HAVE THIS AND THIS AND THIS.
B: Yeah, but Luffy is a character and he doesn’t have this
A: Because he is a shit/shallow character!

What I’m saying:

A: A STORY/CHARACTER must have killings in it.
B: Yeah, but SOL doesn’t really have this.
A: Because SOL-s are shit/shallow animes.

I have no idea why you rate SOL-s differently. SOL-s have multiple characters, maybe the more character the show nails, the higher it gets on your list? Also writing includes plot, which is entirely dependant whether how many plot elements you deem valuable. IDK what you are trying to get here, this does not prove that mine/your definition is wrong, it’s just we are consistent about it.

If I had to rate any SOL-s depending on the story/characters alone(where are 0 deaths), they would get 1 as well.
And I can send this question right back at you: Why do you think I rate all SOL-s Story/characters as a 1?

Honestly I have 4 possibilities why that's the case. As a theory, let's say you are right. And Character Depth is indeed objective and all that shit. This would mean that there should be one truth regarding Character Depth, right? Which means the definition you say, and the definition I say, are either right or wrong. Now... every objective claim a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. For factual matters there exist widely recognized criteria and methods to determine whether a claim is true or false.

Now possibility A: There is an objective truth, I am wrong, and you are right. Thus I am wrong in scoring every SOL 1, and you are right in scoring them differently because of their writing. If we stick with the Taipei building, it would mean, that you say it's the highest building in the world, and I am saying it's not, it's the Eifel Tower. We would easily be able to prove whether which one of us is right/correct, by measuring every building with a measuring tape, and you would be right. So there should/could be a method that does the same with our "character depth" statements true. SInce without it, and saying I'm wrong you would commit the very same Scottsman fallacy.

Now Possibility B, Same as A. But I am right, and you are wrong. But same here, without that method I would still just commit the fallacy as you would.

Now there is Possibility C. There is an objective truth, but we are both wrong, and stupid. You saying the Empire State Building is the tallest, and I still say that it's the Eifel Tower. However same as A and B we could still do the method, by measuring every building that exists, and finding out we are both wrong, and it's the Burj Khalifa which is the tallest.

And there is Possibility D, Our claims are, not Objective claims at all, but Subjective claims, since "character depth" could mean different from person to person, and we are just wasting each other precious time, because we are both kinda correct in our own way, thus having this argument unnecessarily.

I have no idea which one could it be. How about you?

I just explained why „sickness” is arbitrary. Yet you ignored everything. Would someone with a BP of 142/90 considered sick? If sickness is not arbitrary, you should be able to tell me yes or no.

Once again, memories you have also arbitrary. That’s why we forget them, also sometimes we forgot some details about them. If memories would not be arbitrary, then the case of two people remembering something differently were not the case.

Well, I brought up Arnie Shankman, and you started arguing that I think he is some sort of MC or something.

You said dynamic character is always deeper than static. Then this would mean that according to you a Dynamic MINOR character would be deeper than a static MAIN. So would you agree with the notion that a Dynamic character is not always deeper than a Static character?

Also what about a Static Main character vs a Dynamic main character, but the change for the dynamic character is not justifiable/good/convincing so basically does not change in a way that’s acceptable.

What if that someone was consistent 1 hour ago? Right now is inconsistent, and will be consistent again 1 hour later? Then 1 hour later he still is consistent, but after that, he becomes inconsistent again. That would make that someone pretty unpredictable about when he is consistent and when he is inconsistent, however doesn’t change the fact that overall he is inconsistent. But that would make him predictable, except you have no idea if he ever going to be not-inconsistent ever again, which makes him unpredictable.

What do you mean? Someone who is unpredictable means he doesn’t have a consistent behaviour/mentality/ performance that you can predict which makes that attribute of his inconsistent.

You are dodging the question. How do you know that I also see a colourless, tasteless anything? It might have colour for me, and taste something, but everybody else convinced me that it’s tasteless/colourless and I just roll with it, but if someone could remove this veil from me, I would say differently.

And this is why it’s a false equivalence. Just because „measurement units” are objective does not mean that information, value, or anything else should be objective as well.

Once again, you fail to see my point. Where did that neighbour get his „medical knowledge”? How do you know what he says is true, and it’s not the doctor who is true.

Obviously let’s stay with good faith, and don’t assume that the doctor saying is bullshit. Also, I’m not saying „non-medical, and that wouldn't be automatically” you go to the doctor to ask his opinion about non-medical stuff, like electricity, because I agree it would be a false authority. You go to the doctor with your illness for advice.

You have 0! idea what’s wrong with you. You can either go to your uncle Joe, who says something and then you could go to a doctor who also says something. The two things contradict themselves. You have no idea which one is right, and they both explained your case pretty well based on the symptoms you show at that moment. You have no idea whether you will develop any more in a few hours later. Who do you believe? Whoever is right? How do you know which one is right? The one who presents his evidence in a better way, which you either understand or not since I doubt you understand medical jargon

Ad-hominem.

No, it does not. You presented 9 points that you want all 9 accomplished, otherwise, it’s a shit character. The source does say that every point a character needs to fulfil. You trying to convey a totally different meaning.

You are committing the fallacy of definition.
Prevailing can mean predominant, superior, effectual
consistent can mean constant, the same, unchanging and all other stuff.
logically: it can me relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic

Adjectives have different meanings and you have no idea who reads them associated with the same meaning you are trying to invoke.

Never accused with the same. I’m talking about adjectives, that something can be “good “ for someone and “bad” for someone else. Just as Prevailing and fulfilling.

When the text says “Shin wants to kill the brother”

It could be Prevailing/bad/good etc for me, but not for you. This is why it is subjective.

If everything would be objective, like objectively good, objectively deep, objectively consistent, objectively fulfilling, if everything is objective, THen we would not have this argument here, everybody would agree about everything and move on.

When you read these adjectives and put them behind a noun, all people would objectively think about the same thing. The same thing about the definition, if that would be the case, everyone would agree with it, but for some reason, others and you ask what's their take on a "deep character" you would get varying answers why is that? Because they are wrong? That would be a No-Real-Scottsman fallacy.

How can you assume, that "prevailing goal" means the same for every single person on the Earth? And if everybody else thinks differently, then they are just wrong?

Once again, filtering it’s not "beyond the plot", it’s "beyond the bounds of the plot" So that means, a character can do shit irrelevant to the plot. If you explore the character’s presence prior to the narrative etc you are BOUNDING him to the plot, and here, it says to do stuff BEYOND THE BOUNDS of it.

Borderliner and I demonstrated multiple times that it’s not agreeing with you. The fact that you claim that it does, just because you saw similar buzzword in it, like "goal" and "motivation" etc, but thinking it's the same usage, is just pure denial.

tensai95 said:
Are you guys still trying to convince a person who takes a statement of uncertainty and somehow treats it like it's a proven fact that he's delusional. He is in all likelihood never going to get his eyes checked especially when someone can make a quick analysis post like

https://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1970683&show=100#msg65016590

Damn

YuliaUkiyo said:


To be fair, those are usually the best (most intense) types of relationships, despite their brevity.

After reading this thread, I'm totally invested in this pairing now.

I questioned the authority of every statement you presented, even those that fit mine since my whole point was that "authority" amounts to nothing, and can just as easily be true as it can be false.

Yes, actually, the one who presents his evidence in a better way would fit, because what matters is is the evidence, not whether it was Joe or the Doctor saying it. You're also avoiding my question, who gave the Higher Learning Commission their authority?

I didn't quite catch that, maybe if you took the boot out of your mouth, governor-lover.

Meaning what, exactly?

If the writer is anonymous, and there exists no information about where and when they come from, (which is impossible but let's suppose it isn't for now), then nobody would know who is right. However, not knowing does not mean everyone is right. like I said earlier, the author will have had something specific in mind when creating the piece, and the fact that's now been lost to time does not give everyone permission to make up what they want it to be.

But your reasoning for that being the case is faulty, I've demonstrated that.

A - That's utter nonsense. You agree the height of the Taipei 101 is objective, yes? That's useful to someone trying to climb it, not to someone on the other side of the world. Would you say the height is now subjective?

B - Like I said, they don't have "the same usefulness." The 10-year-old and 25-year-old are performing the same task and need the same information.

Information is defined as "a fact provided about something or someone." Any one piece of information presents a certain, unchanging, objective amount of data on a subject. That "amount" of information given can be considered value, and hence, is inherent to the information.

I'll bring in the Taipei 101 again. The height is 508 metres. Now, are we each "subjectively" interpreting a different number from reading that? After all, we can never really find out the height, only our "subjective experience" of reading the height.

This is actually a perfect example of my earlier point. No, I don't speak the language in this image, I'm not in a position to understand it. Does that mean that there isn't anything being said? That there's no information being passed along, between the figures? The meaning is, objectively, the same for whoever reads it, the question is if they can read it. My not knowing this language doesn't take away from it, it doesn't mean that language doesn't exist.

Yes, because every author knows what fire is. Have you never heard of research? We know what nuclear explosions do to the human body, we look this up and create the best analogies for it. That's the fucking job.

Like I said, that's the purpose of media analysis.

Because you told me it was. You presented it with "oh well I could say something silly like this." What, were you being serious, you think killing equates to depth?

I never admitted anything, you're failing to read again. "Mine" is not made up, I'm saying so now so you have it in writing.

Obviously not, learn to read.

I explicitly said "for a character to have sufficient depth," it's downright embarrassing that you can't remember something that simple.

Mad idea: read the fucking text. You can't just refuse anything too difficult for you.

Except I have explained why each part is necessary, so you have no excuse. The same question. No matter how many times you try to insinuate it's childish, you're responsible to answer it.

You have never presented a refutation of me refuting each source, you just made the blanket claim I was denying it.

Mad idea: read the fucking text. You can't just refuse anything too difficult for you.

Aha, so you admit it's an impossibility for the genre to exist under the constraints you set up. QED, your "definition" does not work.

You forget I had you first confirm you feel SOLs are character-oriented. Hence, any speculation for additional reasons falls flat.

Pop Team Epic, to pick an example, is an irreverent comedy (or at least supposed to be). Nobody is claiming the two leads are deep, fleshed-out characters.


I already covered how they're unpredictable but not inconsistent. You are being ignorant.


Again, I already covered that. What, you think because you didn't like the last answer, asking the same thing again will get you a different one?

A - False Equivalency. One is a concrete question of an individual "character," the other is a hypothetical question posed against an entire genre. There exists a way to exclude Luffy, through information about him and his source, but not for SOL as a whole.

B - You declared both, so, no, the same cannot "be said of me."

Refer again to how I pointed out your definition of being intentionally false does not put it on equal footing to "mine." There is no need to consider possibilities B through D, nor any fallacy within A.

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim." You are misusing the word, and hence failing to see my point. Someone can be sick or well, someone can remeber a lot or a little, neither of these distinctions are measurable but are distinctions nonetheless.

Again, you didn't bring up minor characters before. You're making a Syllogistic Fallacy.

You can't "accept" or "refuse" change. If a character changes, they change. If you don't like the change, they still changed.

But then he's not predictable. You cannot predict that he will not switch consistency later. You've again contradicted your own point in the same paragraph.

What do you mean? Someone who is unpredictable means he doesn’t have a consistent behaviour/mentality/ performance that you can predict which makes that attribute of his inconsistent.

If I showed a blue bag to someone with achromatopsia, they would see it as a shade of grey. Does that make the bag grey? The same applies here.

Why not? If something is objective, and you can measure something with that objective basis, that would imply an objective value returned from the object

You're just confirming that it says the same thing I do. What's your point?

The context of the statement elaborates on the meaning. You're performing the Fallacy of Personal Incredulity, assuming your error is that of everyone's.

For both, a fulfilling meal is that which fills them. Hence, the adjective has the same meaning, so your point is meaningless.

But it does mean the same thing for everyone. That's how words work, you can't just decide "well today cow means tree and tree means fire extinguisher" because that's what you subjectively think those words should be.

This is again you not understanding what basic words mean. A character acting outside the bounds of the plot means acting in areas that are not portrayed, where they are able to "roam free" of the themes of the work. It does not mean they can ignore the story outright, nor do something unrelated within the plot. Keep that last point in mind, by your misunderstanding of the term, you still have no explanation for Shin failing to follow his so-called goal for the bulk of the story.

This is exactly the same as earlier, where you failed to notice I had given my case for Shin having no character. You assume that if something does not match the exact wording you expect, it is wrong. This is obviously idiotic. Need I remind you, you admitted you know little about the arts, and take it on faith? How can you truthfully say I'm "filtering" or "denying" anything, when not once have you been able to demonstrate how without exposing your own errors, like above?

Once again... ad-homein

Also, they get their legitimacy by having credibility by having expert people on their chairs. Also, governments get legitimate authority by having legitimate elections, thus any authority it gives is legitimate.

Regarding the revolutions, they certainly made everything better for everyone... oh wait

As I said, you have no idea what’s wrong with you, and you don’t have the jargon, thus you cannot interpret either of the evidence.

But sure, I’m still going to the doctor. You can go to Uncle Joe. just for the reason, a doctor has the "authority" to prescribe medicines and give treatment while Uncle joe has don't have the paper, so he cannot. :(

Meaning that you killed any legitimacy of what’s was left in the begin with from your definition, meaning your definition stands on nothing.

Thank you for proving me right, once again. An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. For factual matters there exist widely recognized criteria and methods to determine whether a claim is true or false.

So that means if you cannot decide who is right, who is wrong it’s no longer an objective claim.

Once again:
The………fact………..that……….demonstrated………whether……….you……….are…….right………or…….wrong……..it………….does……..not……….matter………I………have………never………admitted………..it………

A. Sigh…….. but it’s not so hard. Because it is a FACTUAL matter. You have a METHOD to check it. Like Meter, or being the tallest yes, but for example „ Taipei 101 is very high” is suddenly is subjective, since, for example, someone who climbed a mount Everest will say, that fuck that, it’s not that high. Mount Everest is high. But someone who drives Airplanes at an altitude of 10.000 m, will say fuck that, that’s very high.

Literary works do not. If they did, they would be in textbooks, and a book would be universally recognized as being bad/good. Everybody on the Earth says that Taipei 101 is the tallest, but for some fucking reason opinions on ANY literary works whether it’s a piece of art, book, TV series, Movie is for some fucking reason divided.? Because there is no one truth regarding, factual matter to decide whether in that field is good or not, because everybody interprets them DIFFERENTLY, based on their culture, language, education. mindset, mood, experience, gender and like 10.000 other factors. If you are unable to get this, I’m really sorry.

You don’t have access to all the information. And as I said you generate the information for yourself through interpretation, and interpretation is different from person to person.

You are mixing apples with orange. Because this is an objective observation. I never was talking about that. Look at my previous example or the wind example.

If my wind example instead of „incredibly strong wind” I’ve would have written „incredibly strong wind with gales of 184km/h” then that’s an objective observation once again. But if you remove that factual component, and just write „incredibly strong wind” all you have is your freaking imagination.
This can be demonstrated with building/height too… „The height of Tower of Babilon was abnormally high”. We have no idea what’s „abnormally high”, we can just try to associate with our past experiences, thus every person reading it will think of something different. . If you are unable to get this, I’m really sorry, I can’t really help you anymore.

Even if they can read it, the joke can go over their head (it’s a joke), some people might not understand the joke, even if they could read it, thus they would have no idea that’s a joke, there might be people who understand it and call it a „good joke” or a „bad joke” also not everybody has the same literacy because some people have degrees, some people only have elementary. An objective claim is that this is a joke, or any observation, that the person says X, that person says Y. But to say that this is a funny/good/bad joke, is entirely subjective because there is no method to prove that this joke is good, bad or anything.

Once again, people will associate with different things. Someone who was burnt lightly will associate a totally different thing than someone who has had first-degree burns.

But I can give you another example, a book about giving birth and a description to how it feels. As a man, I will never be able to make objective claims about it, since I never going to be able to experience it. I can associate it with kicking in the groin, but that’s it.

And what’s your point? Media Analysis is subjective as well since you are interpreting the text, thus the moment you start to read it, the quality aspect of the text is just your opinion on the matter.

I said, „by your logic”. Don’t quote me if you cannot, but you cannot even quote yourself…so I should’ve expected it. Yeah I’m deadly, serious, (see the pun? haha) Obviously, I played a devil's advocate. I played someone who is deadly serious about it.

Well since any source we found, your definition was void, and you still refuse to show where you got it. It’s safe to assume that you made that up.

Kinda uncalled for, since I asked nicely for you to re-explain it/quote it.

This is the comment you linked:

https://imgur.com/a/cwX96qn

There is not a single word where you give a detailed explanation on each criterion about why a character needs all the 9 things you said.
Can't you just quote, like any normal person who is having a debate in good faith?

Since you did not explain, or quote correctly, I conclude you have no idea why those 9 elements are required. Case closed.

I know you trying REAL hard, to disprove the definition, but alas, you missed the jackpot again.

Your SOL does not exist according to my definition. Like there are SOL anime, as a sub-genre for example Kyoukai no Kanata, where it totally exists. Pure SOL-s exist too, but they are focusing on the non-important aspects of character traits/goals. Also why should the killing definition be bounded by „genres” that you use? That’s nonsense.

No, you are totally misinterpreting the Equivalency. But again what should I expect. You found something that you can attack, focused on that and then proceeded to dodge everything I asked. Luffy, Joker etc. are just an example.
it’s 3 hypothetical questions against an entire collection of characters.
- without any goals
- without any consistent philosophy/personality
- without any change

I’m asking why are there static main characters who don’t change, why are there main characters without goals, why are there main characters with inconsistent/unpredictable personality traits.

Regarding me being ignorant, well, you could not even understand that Unpredictable and inconsistent are SYNONYMS. You could not even understand my example.
If someone has an inconsistent personality, it makes their personality unpredictable. At any moment they can try to kill you, or they can just leave you alone. An inconsistent person, more often than not, is unpredictable in their mood and actions.

Until you cannot prove that my definition is false, it’s totally on an equal footing to „yours”.
I can just as easily apply it to fictional characters as you. And until now you have found zero illogicality in, even though you tried your best. And I give you this, you will never be. Because when you do, the very same illogical stuff is going to be in yours too. That’s why you don’t want to answer the „why” question.

Why does a „prevailing goal” is needed by a character?”---- Because it gives sufficient depth.
Really? Why does it give sufficient depth? And should we follow this line, you would hit a wall, because you would either have to say, that that’s what you find compelling, or people, in general, finds compelling. While the first one is straight admission that you made a subjective claim, while the second one is a fallacy to popularity. And even if it wasn’t, I would still ask, why people would say that „prevailing goals” gives a compelling character. You would have to say that people have goals in life, thus they can relate better with characters. When I would ask you: really? How about people who have no goals, and their daily life is just sleeping, eating, working, eating and sleeping again and have absolutely no ambition, because they are either content or depressed? And I could have led this conversation to both of your points, about „consistent philosophy” --- people are emotional, and most people everything but not consistent, and there are stubborn people who don’t reject every form of change. Eventually, you would hit a really harsh wall and have to admit, that your definition is just as bullshit/wrong as you think mine is right now.

Once again, committing the fallacy of definition. Arbitrary has a lot of other meanings. For example:

- Based on individual discretion or judgment; not based on any objective distinction, perhaps even made at random.
- Determined by an independent arbiter.

„; not based on any objective distinction” – just for you :)

Someone can be sick or well – You failed to say whether the BP 142/90 dude is sick or not.

You cherry-pick definition meanings just to suit your narrative.

I brought up Albus Dumbledore who is not a major character.

… xD Are you deliberately dodging questions? I put down even „objective” (according to you) adjectives like convincing. I conclude that you don’t know the answer to the question.

“But then he's not predictable.” – my point exactly. You will have no idea whether an inconsistent person will act consistently or inconsistently, thus making him unpredictable. Which was my point in the begin with. You kind got mixed in there.

I can give you another example, maybe that will help:

A football/rugby/soccer/Ice hockey… fuck it a sports team’s form is inconsistent: (W:Win, D: Draw, L: Lose)-----W/D/W/W/L/D/W/L/D/L/L/D/W/D/L – which makes them pretty unpredictable whether they are going to win or lose or draw their next game. Thus anything that’s inconsistent is unpredictable.

Fair point. I’ll give you that. But I said Joker/Deadpool have an inconsistent personality/philosophy/temperament etc. which makes them pretty unpredictable, not the other way around.

I’m not talking about illness. I’m talking about a reality, where I would see colours differently. When you look at blue. You see blue. But let’s say, as a hypothetical/theory, that I would see your red. BUT since, everybody else calls the red I see, blue since I was a little, I say that it’s blue.
There is no way to find out whether we see the colours as the same, or differently. It’s called Inverted Spectrum theory.

Because value is not inherent to things. Like for example let’s take an example of a wool coat and a diamond necklace

For example, let's say you have one wool coat and the weather is extremely cold outside. You will want to wear that coat to keep you from freezing. At that moment, the wool coat might be worth more to you than a diamond necklace.
If, on the other hand, the temperature is warm, the value you place on that coat will decline. In effect, the value of the coat is based on your desire and need for it, as is the value you placed on it, not any inherent value of the coat.

Or let’s stick with the diamond necklace vs a cheap 1$ necklace.
You got the latter one as the last gift of your deceased mother/lover who you loved more than anything etc.
For you (hopefully) the 1$ necklace will be more valuable than any diamond necklace. But that’s only for you. Since giving the two items to anybody, they would chose the diamond necklace.

Never said I can’t imagine, thus it’s not true… I said adjectives have different meanings, not just that one you cherry-picked.

Once again, missing the point, but they would still think of different objects. The 150kg a hamburger, and the 45 is a fruit. They read the same, context same, they picture two entirely different food.

No, subjectivity means that when you read a word everyone is going to associate something different:
Tree: Someone will think of a palm tree, someone an oak, someone a pine, someone a Christmas, someone maple.

Fire extinguisher same: Everybody is going to associate to a fire extinguisher of a different kind:
https://firesystems.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/JLP_1055.jpg

This can be true for the words chair, dos, cat, horse, car etc.

„I drove a car” – someone will picture me in a red sedan, someone in a grey hummer, or in fiat or whatever.

And if you put adjectives into the list, you will make things worse. Because then people associate different things to different adjectives. A „really fast car” can mean different for a kid, to a guy who drives in motorsport.

And this is what's "wrong" with your definition.
When you use words like Character needs "prevailing goal"
People will associate to different things by "prevailing goal". You want a "prevailing goal" that justifies the character in the story, because according to you that gives him sufficient depth. Some people will think Shin's goal prevailing enough, some don't. Which is fine, but for me, a character with no goal can be just as deep, if the absence of goal is shown in the character's mental state.

Consistent philosophy/personality, once again people will assume different things by "consistent". Also, real-life people are not consistent. We are emotional, rash and all kinds of that. Even you and I while we had this reasonable conversation lost their temper and made ad-homein attacks, which questions our consistency. People are not robots that they have to act consistently all the time. For example, if someone has not a consistent personality that can be a nice flaw to have.

And finally, sure change is nice, especially if it's done nicely it can always bring something new to a character to spice things up, but if everything is nice like your character is really fleshed out in its goals and personality, you don't really need a dynamic character level changes all the time. It can make your character look idiotic that they change all the time if they change their core every arc. A round character changes, but slowly and not necessarily their core values but some minor aspects of their character.

Okay, look at the full sentence:

So try to envision detailed backstories and imagine everything that occupies and energizes them beyond the bounds of the plot.

Detailed backstory: is what you saying: acting in areas that are not portrayed, where they are able to "roam free" of the themes of the work”
And the source encourages them to imagine EVERYTHING that occupies and energizes them beyond the bounds of the plot.
You are putting words into my mouth. Never said that they can ignore their main plot, but they should have additional goals/motivations irrelevant to the main plot. Minor stuff. Like, let’s stick with an SOL character. Let’s say SOL-character wants to get to the best university but he is stupid as fuck, and that’s the main plot, that he wants to be smarter. He should have other goals than “getting into uni” like helping a friend/relative in need, maybe doing some exercises by going to the gym, stuff that won’t really help him achieve the “university”. Or have a hobby that’s once again is totally won’t help him getting achieve his goal. So the character is more fleshed out.
Or let’s take another example, a hero who is also a student. His main goal is to defeat some supervillain, but he has goals to do well in school, irrelevant to his main plot, since doing well in school won’t help him defeat his foe.

This is important so the viewer won’t see a one-dimensional character that only cares about his main goal and nobody/nothing else. Like any fucking normal person.

You assume that if something does not match the exact wording you expect – says the person who called me out several times for not using the word she expected, even though they are synonyms: Constant/consistent, unpredictable/inconsistent.

And now that I finished, and noticed that I’ve been writing this shit for like hours now, I realised that we are both are wasting our time here. Like you and I are disagreeing on basically on everything, and probably never going to see eye to eye. I think I’m done here, you’ll probably think that you totally destroyed me with logic and facts, while I will think the same about you. Also probably you will write the last comment, just to write I “throw the towel in”, and to “claim victory”, anyway it won’t really matter. In my eyes, your take on Shin is just your own opinion, not some objective fact that you want to make here because as I demonstrated with my definition you will never be able to prove that my definition is wrong since If any fault is there, it will be in yours as well. Obviously, you will deny this too, but you cannot absolutely prove why those 9 criteria are the one that gives depth since you will reach a point where you will have to admit that that’s what people generally want in a character or that's what you want from a compelling, which would be an appeal to popularity/ or straight denying the objectivity in the definition you gave. Which once again you will never admit. I think I’ve said my piece about everything, and it just feels that we've been repeating the same points over and over and as a friend said when I showed him this conversation: “It feels you both go up on a mountain, climb down the other side, then you start to climb back up, just to finish at the very beginning where you two started…” which is true. You said your piece, but I respectfully disagree that you can make claims that a character is deep/shallow/badly written/well written or any other stuff objectively, since every other person values traits, goals, personalities, events, plots, stories differently based on their bias, value and interpretation on any work.
Wish you the best.

Edit: Since you were a good sport, I translate you the joke/image I linkedaybe the joke can be transmitted even though I have to explain it):

What do you think about adoption?

Well I am all for it, but my wife is against it.

I don't want to give birth like an animal you jerk, i want to give birth.

The joke is a wordplay on the word "Ellene".
It has 2 meanings.
One is to be against it
The second one, in Hungarian we have a word for animals giving birth, which is "ellik", It is quite rude to say it to a person. (for humans we use 'szülni') And in Hungarian when we use a verb we put affixes after them to refer to the number, persom, case etc. So ellene - means she wants to give birth. (like an animal)

Thigh_Tide said:


I don't know if you're not aware, but that post seems to be being ironic. "Shin being the puddle" means nothing.



I would recommend you fuck off. I don't consent to whatever fantasy you're working through.

addie1998 said:


Ehh someone is angry haha