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.

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.

Thigh_Tide said:
The fact that you can't tell what his character is supposed to be from the show itself is rather telling that he doesn't actually have one established.

Thigh_Tide said:
The fact that you can't tell what his character is supposed to be from the show itself is rather telling that he doesn't actually have one established.

UTMAN said:


I can tell what his character is supposed to be, so by your logic he has one established? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The most possible answer is that it went over your head, like for most of the haters of this show.

borderliner said:


The fact that you need a character's traits to be Kamina/Galo level OTT before they register with you is rather telling

Thigh_Tide said:


First, that's a complete bastardisation of what I said. There is no character to convey, and none is, so I can assure you that whatever you think he is "supposed to be" simply isn't the case, because there is nothing presented to you. Either you're attributing your own ideas like bad fanfiction, or you're just too dull to understand what a character is meant to be.

Second, your use of the idea of "haters" is both defensive and pathetic. This show is disliked with good reason, so any attempt on your part to impose some sort of invalidating classification onto those that do so is simply unjustified, as is the assumption you've made to lump me in with such a group.



Both a nonsensical assumption and a childish Straw Man. I never brought up either of those characters, nor claimed the way they act is necessary for characterisation. If you have something to say in opposition to my point, actually address the claim rather than attempting to deflect the subject.

UTMAN said:
Show is sitting at 8.65 and you speaking of being disliked.

The mental gymnastics you playing here is amazing. Also I hope you are familiar with concept of "Burden of proof". You came here, made a claim while giving no proof whatsoever for your claims that Shin has no character and nothing is presented.

Also now you are a Telepath aswell that you know what I'm supposing his character is. Amazing. Get off your high horse.

Thigh_Tide said:


No, you speak of that. Quote, "Like most of the haters of this show," implying "haters," that is to say, people who hate the show, exist.

Additionally, ratings mean nothing. Most of the people praising this show are fanatics who can't think deeper about it for shit, and even if they weren't, that's still an Appeal to Popularity, and hence nonsense.



Fallacy. The burden of proof is on both parties, and I don't see you offering any.

The necessary elements to develop a character with sufficient depth can broadly be summed up into having a prevailing goal that justifies their presence in the narrative and informs the actions they take within it, a consistent philosophy that logically forms from existing and current experiences and choices, and finally having personal changes be impacted by and themselves affecting proceeding events. That's a gross oversimplification, but it should give you enough of an idea what to look for and see is missing.

And, rather simply, nothing of this sort is presented with Shin, in 86. You can confirm this yourself by looking at the bloody thing. Now, your "proof" to say otherwise?



I didn't say I knew that was the case, I said that was one of two possibilities to explain your being mistaken about him. It may well be the other, it may be something else entirely, but either way, from just the text of the work alone he isn't characterised basically at all, so it's obviously an issue on your part.

Thigh_Tide said:


No, you speak of that. Quote, "Like most of the haters of this show," implying "haters," that is to say, people who hate the show, exist.

Additionally, ratings mean nothing. Most of the people praising this show are fanatics who can't think deeper about it for shit, and even if they weren't, that's still an Appeal to Popularity, and hence nonsense.



Fallacy. The burden of proof is on both parties, and I don't see you offering any.

The necessary elements to develop a character with sufficient depth can broadly be summed up into having a prevailing goal that justifies their presence in the narrative and informs the actions they take within it, a consistent philosophy that logically forms from existing and current experiences and choices, and finally having personal changes be impacted by and themselves affecting proceeding events. That's a gross oversimplification, but it should give you enough of an idea what to look for and see is missing.

And, rather simply, nothing of this sort is presented with Shin, in 86. You can confirm this yourself by looking at the bloody thing. Now, your "proof" to say otherwise?



I didn't say I knew that was the case, I said that was one of two possibilities to explain your being mistaken about him. It may well be the other, it may be something else entirely, but either way, from just the text of the work alone he isn't characterised basically at all, so it's obviously an issue on your part.

Thigh_Tide said:


First, that's a complete bastardisation of what I said. There is no character to convey, and none is, so I can assure you that whatever you think he is "supposed to be" simply isn't the case, because there is nothing presented to you. Either you're attributing your own ideas like bad fanfiction, or you're just too dull to understand what a character is meant to be.

Second, your use of the idea of "haters" is both defensive and pathetic. This show is disliked with good reason, so any attempt on your part to impose some sort of invalidating classification onto those that do so is simply unjustified, as is the assumption you've made to lump me in with such a group.



Both a nonsensical assumption and a childish Straw Man. I never brought up either of those characters, nor claimed the way they act is necessary for characterisation. If you have something to say in opposition to my point, actually address the claim rather than attempting to deflect the subject.

UTMAN said:
The fact that haters exist, doesn't mean a show is dislked.

Overally 86 gets great reviews, and even the rating 8 and 9 who are not fanatics are marginally more than all the haters combined.

So the fact that there is a loud minority who dislike some aspect a show because of their personal taste is one thing, I'm not talking about them.

I was talking about poeple who try to be really clever about it, but for some reason I easily could debunk their points by a single screenshots from the anime. Hence went over their head.

There is no fallacy there. The burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim.

You said thet Shin has no character / show doesn't provide one. We are not talking about having a deep personality, but having one at all. I'm not arguing that Shin's character is deep/good/bad etc... idc about that. We are talking about having one. So stop pushing the goalpost by having a "sufficient depth". I'm going to nail you to your claim.

If there is a minor character that's just doing stupid jokes, then that's his character. It's not necessary a good one, but there is one.

So please give me an example that Shin has none. Screenshots from the anime or LN page quotes suffice.

Regarding my proof it doesn't matter at this moment.

You still has not substantiated your claim that Shin has no character / anime doesn't provide one.

After you did, I will give mine.

Or the other possibility,, that it went over your head.

Also he definetely wasn't characterized in the first 3 episode where you dropped it. So the case might be that it didn't go over your head, but you missed it entirely since you haven't watched the Anime.

Neion4ty7 said:
Open your eyes and ears, turn on your brain when watching and you would realize you are wrong, jesus christ.

Next time don't churn out paragraphs just to tell us you are a speedwatcher/smoothbrain/didnt watch. You already did that with your first comment then proceeded to only dig a bigger hole.

borderliner said:
It's also telling that you don't recognise satire, the point being that your "Rather telling" statement is at once pretentious and entirely vacuous.

Who cares what you do and don't bring up, do you think that I should be constrained by your ridiculous parameters!?

You are what you rate, at least have the integrity to stand by your "oh so special" rating system.

I didn't realise straw men could be assigned a maturity level, will you be gendering my next one ;-)

You exist in the sub 1% margins of this show,

your claims are void,

your opinions are void,

you have nothing to add to the conversation other than ill informed bile.

Thigh_Tide said:


Explain
Why
Justify

Thigh_Tide said:
The fact that you can't tell what his character is supposed to be from the show itself is rather telling that he doesn't actually have one established.

It completely does. That's what the haters are doing to the show, is it not?

Where are you assuming "taste" being relevant from? What you're doing is exactly why I told you off for using the word "haters," you're using specific terms that lessen the validity of those who you disagree with. "The show isn't bad, people who think that just have different taste." "The show isn't bad, people who say it is are just haters." Do you see what I mean? You're looking for excuses, not counterpoints.

Appeal to Popularity. Fallacy. I pointed this out before.

First, there certainly is a fallacy, an Appeal to Ignorance. You're assuming that if no proof exists for my view, yours is correct instead. The fault in your thinking here is that there is no reason why your view should be the "default" one, that without any conflicting argument automatically takes precedence.

Second, you are making the claim that Shin has character. You are required, by your own insistence, to prove it.

Are you seriously asking me to provide a screenshot where something doesn't happen? You do realise a certain difficulty arises there?

I have outlined what is necessary for a character, and I can confirm that Shin does not match such an outline. You may take that description and compare it yourself, or you can take my word for it, but until you do so you cannot truthfully say I haven't provided evidence.

Bold claim. Try it, right now, debunk my points about how Shin lacks character with a few screenshots.

You're splitting hairs. By sufficient depth, I mean deep enough to be actually called a personality, of course.

No it isn't, in fact. You have confirmed, now, that the issue is my second guess, that you're too dull to understand what a character is.

It does, see above.

As I said above, I have done so. I elaborated on what is required. Are you saying you have, in the less than a day since I posted that comment, checked the entirety of the work and found such a thing present?

Why should I go first? If you have something to say, do it now. Withholding evidence doesn't go down too well in court, and I don't see why the same shouldn't apply here.

Explain what evidence you have to suggest this.

I read the book, I've said this before on other threads about this show. My point remains.

borderliner said:


It's nice to see you're back in your comfort zone.

No-one owes you an answer to anything when the best you can bring to the thread is

The necessary elements to develop a character with sufficient depth can broadly be summed up into having a prevailing goal that justifies their presence in the narrative and informs the actions they take within it, a consistent philosophy that logically forms from existing and current experiences and choices, and finally having personal changes be impacted by and themselves affecting proceeding events. That's a gross oversimplification, but it should give you enough of an idea what to look for and see is missing.

tensai95 said:
This thread escalated real quick from 'Spoiler-free description of Shin' into some nonsense argument over whether Shin has character or not lmao. Do it elsewhere.

UTMAN said:


Someone asked for a "Spoiler-free description of Shin's character" and then someone stated that he has no character. I'm just debating /asking her to clarify her statement. We are well within topic. Call a mod if you don't agree.

Sb98 said:
Yeah but you could've ignored them because they are obviously trolls.

UTMAN said:


Someone asked for a "Spoiler-free description of Shin's character" and then someone stated that he has no character. I'm just debating /asking her to clarify her statement. We are well within topic. Call a mod if you don't agree.

tensai95 said:


Personally I don't find it worth debating further if she's actually watched the show. As you put it it's not even about whether Shin has good/bad character and personality etc. but whether he has one or not and anyone who's watched it will know that it's a 'Yes' and then we can best summarize it for the op (I'd love to post the japanese description here but that only lasts for the first cour, without spoilers for part 2 ofc)

Not for the OP I feel

Thigh_Tide said:


And, what do you mean "best I can offer?"

You do owe me an answer. If you are making a statement, and I ask you to justify it

UTMAN said:
No, a "disliked" show is for example "Ex-arm" or "Promised Neverland Season 2". When we speak about something is disliked we speak about something is generally disliked. You did not say that "people who dislike 86 do it with a good reason..." but "86 is disliked with a good reason"

See this is my issue with you. You make unambiguous claims all over the place and then move the goalpost when someone calls you out on it. You can say that I'm arguing about semantics or splitting hair or whatever, but it just shows how pretentious and bad faith you are, because you can't drop a losing point.

Because there are mostly 2 kinds of people there are who dislike a show. Someone doesn't like it, then says it's not his cup of tea then leaves, and there's the "hater" who doesn't like it, makes stupid out of context/nit-picky/vague points or just flat out lies to justify their dislike. And when called out, they act all defensive.

Never said that 86 is good / Shin is good because it is popular/many people love it. I said that there are way more people who like it, than who dislike it, so it cannot be called a disliked show. See my first point. Fix your comprehension skills.

Also quite funny how you accuse me of "lessen the validity of those who you disagree with" using the word "hater" but you calmly called most of the people who like the show "fanatics". Hypocrisy at its finest!

As I said, I will once you are able to justify your claim.

Also, you can. You gave me a nice definition of what you count as a character. Let's say I accept it. (for now, I have issues with your definition though, but we'll cross that bridge when you actually start making points.)

You can start making points/claims based on that. I want you to narrow down what's your issue with Shin, because I cannot work with you if you keep making vague unambiguous claims then when I call you out on it and you start to move the goalpost again.

So to dumb it down for you... Shin doesn't have a goal? Or if he has doesn't act upon it?

You can easily make a claim, it just takes effort, but you try to flip this thing on me.
Your definition is gish galloped and vague. I want you to say me PRECISELY why Shin doesn't have a character.

It's like saying XY is not a good person because a good person is "faithful, honest ...." 10 other points. So others may question your statement, like what doesn't XY check on that list that you made that statement. And then how he doesn't check said traits. Like: "Well he is not honest" "Really, how so?" Well, he cheated on his GF and lied about it"
You can't flip the thing on the other side, by "NO! You make claims on how he makes all these points!"

Once you make claims regarding those points on how he doesn't fulfil your requirements I can start making points on how he may or may not fulfil those.

So once again:
YOU came inside in this topic.YOU made a claim. YOU need to provide the burden of proof. If you make a Shin is a shit character topic, and I go there and make all kinds of claims, then the burden of proof will be on me.ing the goalpost?

I will once you start making sense and tangible points. I'm waiting till then.

Not my fault that you made an undefendable statement and then tried to defend the said statement. I cannot discuss with you anything complex like character depth if you are that bad faith that you cannot back off from an unwinnable argument.

The thing is the world and myself doesn't revolve around you and your definitions my friend. Personality/character definitions:

"Personality is the characteristic sets of behaviours, cognitions, and emotional patterns that evolve from biological and environmental factors."Corr, Philip J.; Matthews, Gerald (2009). The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

So I might be dull, but your head is so up in your ass that I wonder how you can breathe.

So a character making stupid ass jokes constantly qualifies this. Thus a character. And as I said it's not necessarily a good or a deep one, but it is one nevertheless by definition. If you have an issue with this take it up with Cambridge for all I care.

No it doesn't. See my previous point. We are not talking about my claim why I think Shin has a character, we are talking about YOUR claim why he does not. Stop trying flip this thing on me, because I'm not going to let it happen. Or are you this afraid that you cannot prove your points so you try to bait me talking about my views?

No you haven't. You gave me a vague description but didn't say how Shin doesn't make that definition.

And no, we are working with the first 17 episodes of the anime.

I'm just gonna repeat my point:
YOU came inside in this topic.YOU made a claim. YOU need to provide the burden of proof. If you make a Shin is a shit character topic, and I go there and make all kinds of claims, then the burden of proof will be on me.

I will once you make claims that I can work with. Until you refuse to do this my hands are tied.

That's laughable at best. We are in the 86 anime discussion, not the LN.

Also what book? All 10? Or 1 and you dropped that also on page 3?

Also, the fact that anime has tons of anime-only content/scenes, so it doesn't bother you that it's not a 100% adaptation?

It's like trashing all 3LOTR movies by saying "Well I've read the first book!"

borderliner said:
I didn't say best I can offer, so you probably shouldn't have used quotation marks, and you also misplaced the question mark.

You have never justified your core arguments, so what is the best you can bring?

You simply repeat these two statements in a variety of forms

A character must have certain attributes
Shin does not have these attributes

Thigh_Tide said:




I really don't see what is hard for you to understand. A certain portion of people dislike 86. I am reminding you that they do so with good reason. You seem to think that by continually whining about "well it's only a small amount of people" means that they somehow do not or are less credible in doing so, yet that's in no way the case.

I really don't see what is hard for you to understand. A certain portion of people dislike 86. I am reminding you that they do so with good reason. You seem to think that by continually whining about "well it's only a small amount of people" means that they somehow do not or are less credible in doing so, yet that's in no way the case.

You've not called me out on anything, nor have I ever moved any goalpost. Additionally justify your thought that I am "pretentious" or in "bad faith," as well as explain why you perceive this to be a losing point.

That's just reaffirming what I said, you're making completely ridiculous assumptions to make excuses to justify you ignoring "haters." What "context" is missing, what's too "vague" for you? These are blatantly invented caveats you're adding.

That's both arrogant and ironic, since you clearly don't even know simple terminology:

An appeal to popularity is a fallacious argument which is based on affirming that something is real because the majority thinks so.

You claim that since the majority do not dislike it, it isn't at all ever disliked.

Two things:

First, I never insinuated their views were incorrect solely due to being fanatics.

Second, I immediately pointed out how such a title is of no importance anyway, due to their existence being a fallacious point to consider. Note that you're considering them, but that's besides the point.

I'm noticing more and more you've resorted to making broad insults without actually remembering what's been written already. Grow up, and start paying attention.

Again, I've never moved the goalposts. You're just changing what you want, what you're willing to accept as evidence, anytime I give something you dislike.

What would you consider "narrowed down?" The necessary qualities that form a character are absent from Shin, I don't see how that can be made any simpler.

You have had no less than 3 chances to give your evidence on the matter, yet you have instead refused and bitched about me having to do so first, not to mention ignoring everything I do in fact provide for again not satisfying the nonsensical caveats you keep throwing in.

Now, I suspect that what you're really doing is you have no points of your own, so you're wasting time complaining about mine rather than having to back up your own opinion. If this is not the case, provide proof for your view immediately. If not, I will conclude this suspicion is correct.

There is no excuse for you not upholding this request, as you have continually insisted you are able to.

Snide bullshit. Explain what issues you have with it.

Don't you fucking try to "dumb down," there's no reason this conversation should be done at your level. No, Shin has no "goal" that establishes him in the story, thus making his presence artificial, so to speak.

I already did. I gave you my point in its most immediate, most understandable form right from the beginning.

Again, I already did, and there's nothing stopping you, other than what I suspected above.

False equivalency. I never talked about brief, assorted traits, but continual elements that form the very core of who he is and why he is there.

Yet you replied to me. You came to me, from my perspective. You are not "the thread," you are another view, same as mine.

All bark, no bite. I've made plenty of sense and points. I remind you you are welcome to say "this doesn't make sense, could you elaborate on that?" and things of that regard, yet you haven't. You ahve no interest in me "making sense," you just want an easy out. Again, grow up.

A: This doesn't refute anything I said, it's just a baseless complaint full of buzzwords. That only supports what I said further, since you clearly can't argue against it.

B: What makes you think this is unwinnable? I've had this same argument before, and not to toot my own horn, but came out on top there, so it's evidently possible.

What's especially embarrassing about this is that's pretty much exactly what I said. Seriously, compare the two - I specifically point out how character, or in this case personality, originates from the experiences and environment that they have been through, and how the behaviour they have is in reaction to that. The rest was on them being in a narrative specifically, meaning it doesn't conflict with this.

Nice of you to admit that, but also, that's an Ad Hominem.

A: If what you said was the case, explain what the cognitions and emotional patterns of this "stupid ass joke" character you came up with are, and what biological or environmental factors led them to be that way.

B: That's an Appeal to Authority anyway, so even if it conflicted with my point, it would remain.

As I wrote above, that's the impression you're giving off. If it were the case you had sufficient evidence to prove your point, you could save yourself lots of time and effort by giving it straight away. I have done so, you have not, which even at the most basic level puts my credibility above yours.

How is it vague? It's fairly specific. And again, I did say how Shin doesn't fit, he doesn't have anything in the definition. I mean, do you need me to say it point-by-point, like speaking to a child? having a prevailing goal that justifies their presence in the narrative and the actions they take within it - no, he doesn't have one of those. A consistent philosophy that logically forms from existing and current experiences and choices - no, none of that either, just some inconsequential sadness. Having personal changes be impacted by and themselves affecting proceeding events - doesn't do that either, he just sits along for the ride while the plot happens around him.

That was what the OP of the thread wanted, not a restriction for this conversation. Even so, my point remains, within the first 17, or thereabouts in the book, he fails to show what I outlined.

See above, the same response. There is simply no excuse for refusing the burden of proof unless you have none, which you must now prove otherwise. I am directly throwing down the gauntlet on that matter; "I put it to you, you are lying about being able to support your point." Demonstrate the opposite, if you can.

Aha, you've made a major slip up. You're continuing your spiel of "oh well you haven't made points," but what this quote is in reference to, "Or the other possibility,, that it went over your head // Explain what evidence you have to suggest this." is an assumption not borne in my supposed failure to present points. You've basically tried to defend an argument that had nothing to do with me, with the claim that I haven't done what you think I need to for you to make the argument yet.

In addition to that being plain fucking idiotic, you've basically exposed the fact that your continually crying about "not giving points" is at best random and at worst just plain false.

Same work, same story, same character.

All 10, but, frankly, why would it matter? If I hadn't read the whole thing, that wouldn't automatically make me wrong, so this entire line of argument would be for nought either way.

A: Evidently not the case, that's you running ahead with assumptions again.

B: False equivalency. We're discussing a character, not an entire production. To alter your analogy, that would be like discussing Boromir specifically.

having a prevailing goal that justifies their presence in the narrative and the actions they take within it - no, he doesn't have one of those.

UTMAN said:
You never said that, you said that 86 is disliked. If this is what you meant then speak clearly next time.

You did not? You said Shin has no character. Then suddenly it's not deep enough to be called a character. At first, you were arguing about him not having at all, then now it's not deep enough.

Then you were saying 86 is disliked, then you changed it a "certain portion of people dislike". These are all moving goalposts.

I explicitly called you out on vague arguments. X doesn't have character, because a character means this definition, and said definition has 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.... points. Then you said that "X" does not meet said definition. How should I know that which points you think of? All of them? Or your issues have with 3 and 6.

I never said that. Quote me where I said this. All I said is that there are more people who like the show, who disliked it. That's all. You can prove me wrong if you can.

Show is sitting at 8.65 and you speaking of being disliked.

The fact that haters exist, doesn't mean a show is dislked.

1. You did: " fanatics who can't think deeper about it for shit"

I'm not changing anything. I'm taking what you write and reacting to it, then in your next post you try to clarify and say I'm just "splitting hairs"

I had to fucking dumb it down for you because this is the 4th post and now you finally made a fucking claim that I can work with. I can't do shit with claims like X that doesn't fulfil Y. And Y has 6 other points.

It was just an example, to make you see what I want from you. You made a definition. I wanted you to make claim from that definition. Not just threw at me said definition.

Doesn't change the fact that you made a statement regarding Shin first not me.

I FUCKING DID THAT IN MY 3RD POST. I repeatedly ASKED you to NARROW it down for me, because I don't know what Shin doesn't make in your definition.

No, we are not arguing about the same thing anymore. Your initial point was not having a character at all, now we are arguing about having sufficient depth.

No, this definition does not have "goals" in it. And this is the said issue with your definition I was talking about, but I will clarify it in a point down in this comment, so we don't argue on 10 different statements.

It's heavily context dependant. If a character makes stupid jokes in for example inappropriate times, he can be an insensitive jerk and making jokes can come from this. Or let's say a friend of his having a time, and him making jokes is a way to cheer him up. Or said character is under a lot of stress/depression and this is his way of coping with his problems. I can go on, but I guess you can get what I meant.

FINALLY! This is what I wanted, yes. That you specify that you think Shin doesn't have a goal, or something. THANK YOU.

And? Different medium. You can convey information from a book that you can't in a movie/series and vice-versa. Also, there can be differences. Just like LN Kirito is not = with anime Kirito, since the Anime cut most of his inner monologue.
The same thing is here, 86 has a lot of narration/explanation on what X character thinks which is not happening in the Anime. The anime conveys this information with body language or symbolism. Although LN Shin is more in line with his anime counterpart than Kirito.

Okay. I do believe that Shin in the first volume/part 1 has a prevailing goal. His prevailing goal would be freeing/killing his Shephard brother Rei. That's why he went to the war. The moment Rei died and became a Shephard, Shin immediately signed up to become a soldier.

Also, the narrative is that the Legion at the Eastern front is commanded by a Shephard, who is Shin's brother. Both of them wants to find each other and deal with the other. So his goal justifies his presence in the narrative.

The next thing is Shin has a secondary goal as well. Maybe calling it a goal is far-fetched. Let's call it a duty. Being a "Reaper" for the 86. He is the one who finishes the others who die in battle and carries their nametags. This is so deeply entrenched in him that after the Railgun attacked them in ep7. He went back to the battlefield trying to salvage something off from his 4 deceased comrade's Juggernaut to make a nametag. This duty is also symbolised in his "gun", which was used to finish off dying people. Which is taken away when he arrived in the Federacy. Also, this is so his duty that he refuses for anyone to do this.[1] This is emphasised beautifully how deeply this is entrenched in his mind when he hallucinates Kaie and wants to reap her, but can't since he doesn't have the gun anymore.[2]

[1]
https://imgur.com/aGxwnm4
https://imgur.com/pKzCDeT

[2]
https://imgur.com/bPM3JmV
https://imgur.com/nNhqXtY

And regarding the goal, I don't believe it's a necessary requirement, since there are characters without goals, and evidently their "goal" is to find a goal. Obviously, it's not that simple like in One Piece that "I'm going to be a Pirate King!" / "'I'm going to find a goal!" But by depicting continuous struggles in the characters life with behaviours that make sense for that character. This can be said the same thing for Shin. After he fulfils his goal, killing his brother, his mental state and behaviours start to degrade. You can see massive Survivors guilt, and suicidal tendencies, also his battle frenzy attitude worsens. So it's obvious that him not having any goal, or purpose/someone to fight for in volumes 2 and 3 has an effect on him.

borderliner said:
]Did you just make an appeal to [un]popularity !!??

Well, a certain portion of people dislike Senki Zesshou Symphogear, and it is a bigger portion than the ones who dislike 86

It's also the case the Senki Zesshou Symphogear displays a classic bell curve in its ratings which is a reasonable indicator that the data isn't being skewed.

In the case of 86 the ratings tail off to the 2/10 rating then rise for the 1/10 this is classic rating manipulation behaviour

So, please do explain why the 8.5% of those who rated Senki Zesshou Symphogear bad to appalling are wrong, but the 1.7% who rated 86 thus are right

So you're now chastising me for you making simplistic assumptions about what I said? And this coming from Mr. "fix your comprehension skills." Nothing about what I said was in any way hard to understand, you just had to actually read what I put down.

Again, I didn't. I said that 86 is disliked, you assumed I was talking about the majority, when I previously made it clear I don't employ such fallacy.

Depth is what defines character. That's like saying "You said that a sea is not an ocean, then suddenly it's not big enough to be called an ocean."

I pointed out three main points, and confirmed he failed on all. That was clear from my first comment.

Here:

And here:

For instance.

Their not thinking deeper is what aids them being fanatics, not the other way around.

A: You made the first statement of this one-to-one conversation

B: You're still ignoring the fact there's no reason one should go first, both sides should present at the earliest opportunity (as I did).

The "claim I finally made" is the exact same thing I said 3 comments ago, so you've only proven you can't read properly.

I don't know how many times I can say this before it clicks, but I did in fact make a claim right after I presented the definition. That you disagree with it and wanted it in another format, is the issue.

You didn't say what you found issue with, just that you wanted "a proper point." It's like trying to adjust a dress for someone who refuses to tell you what size they are.

Again, I can't stress enough that what's happened here is me having to reorganise "Shin does not do A, B and C" into "Shin does not do A, Shin does not do B, and Shin does not do C."

But that's no longer "just cracking jokes." You should be starting to see what I mean, by trying to make this character you came up with fit the Cambridge definition of personality, you're adding, wait for it, depth. QED.

The issue is not conveying information, but having information to convey in the first place.

There's quite a lot I have to say in rebuttal to this, but if I do that we'll likely get caught up in arguing over this one point rather than all three. You said you'd go through them one by one, so, if you would, it'd be best for you to give all three at once so as we actually get around to the other two. After all, you saw how long it took me to coax this one part out of you.

Thigh_Tide said:


I really don't see what is hard for you to understand. A certain portion of people dislike 86. I am reminding you that they do so with good reason. You seem to think that by continually whining about "well it's only a small amount of people" means that they somehow do not or are less credible in doing so, yet that's in no way the case.



Because SZS is a good show and 86 isn't.

And because, as I have already made clear, whether or not someone is right or wrong is entirely irrelevant to whether they are in a small or large group.

Like, just consider, what effect does the size of a view have on the show itself? If SZS went from 8.5% to 8.6% low ratings, or if 86 went down to 1.6%, would that actually change the content of either show? Does anything about it become different, because the average opinion, nay, a random number tangentially representing it, does?

Thigh_Tide said:


All 10, but, frankly, why would it matter? If I hadn't read the whole thing, that wouldn't automatically make me wrong, so this entire line of argument would be for nought either way.

-Pokong- said:


It's so easy to catch a liar lol, don't you think so @UTMAN ?

It turns out that of the volumes released, only the first 8 have been translated. The last one was just released on the Japanese market on June 10 this year. I imagine that this little girl has an extensive knowledge of Japanese, for sure...

UTMAN said:


I assumed she is Japanese. She replies to me when it's 10-12 am here, so it would mean it's 16-18 there. Although I did not want to make a claim that she did not read all 10, since I don't have any proof for that. Although I wish I made a trap, where I put some incorrect number like did you read all 13? xD

-Pokong- said:


Haha, I think she's Australian because of the use of 'realise' instead of 'realize'. Either way, buying and reading all the volumes of a work that you despise so much, just to win a discussion on MAL, seems quite irrational to me LOL

-Pokong- said:


Haha, I think she's Australian because of the use of 'realise' instead of 'realize'. Either way, buying and reading all the volumes of a work that you despise so much, just to win a discussion on MAL, seems quite irrational to me LOL

UTMAN said:
As I already said, I can only work with what you write down, since I'm not a mind reader.
IF you don't want people to assume what you mean then write what you mean. If you mean that some people dislike 86, then write that. We are debating not writing haikus, so you don't need to be cryptic.

False equivalence. An ocean/sea can objectively be defined whether it has the size or not. Character depth is subjective as it depends from person to person.

You never said he failed on all, you just said that he doesn't match the definition. You are talking with me, and I repeatedly said that it was not clear what you meant. Also, see my 3rd point after this below.

I never said that because 86 is popular, and 8.65 it doesn't have anyone who dislikes it. Heck, I even admitted that there are haters.

You made the opening statement... "The fact that you can't tell what his character is supposed to be from the show itself is rather telling that he doesn't actually have one established." - Which I reacted to. Then you
made a second statement + a definition + and you made a claim
"There is no character to convey, and none is, so I can assure you that whatever you think he is "supposed to be" simply isn't the case, because there is nothing presented to you. Either you're attributing your own ideas like bad fanfiction, or you're just too dull to understand what a character is meant to be."

Excuse me if I ask you to provide me with more information regarding your claim before I can make a counterclaim to your claim, so we won't argue over unnecessary things.

That's a gross oversimplification. You didn't say it like this... You said "Shin does not have X. In order to have X, one has to have A1 that leads to A2 which leads to A3, them B1 that derives from B2 and B3, and finally C1 which is impacted by C2 and C3" - Shin doesn't do this. Then left it in front of me.

If you read back, you just gave me a definition and said Shin doesn't make said definition. You didn't say that what properties he doesn't make. Also, there are things in the definition which are vague, like "prevailing goal" - what do you mean by this? Does shin have a goal, but it's not prevailing? Or is it prevailing but cannot be called a goal? Or he has a goal and it is prevailing too as well but it still doesn't justify his presence in the narrative?

There are many more holes and grey parts like thos in your other claims as well, where I have no freaking idea what you mean. And since you keep accusing me that I assume what you think, don't you think it's unfair of you that you are bashing me for not making claims until I make sure that you clarify your points, so I don't assume wrongly what you mean by those points? And I told you many times that your claims are vague, asked multiple times for you to specify your claim, and narrow it down.

You kinda did clarify by giving me specific issues and elaborating your point by...

...I don't consider that a proper claim on it's own because you did not elaborate on how in what way he does not meet the definition.

Yes, but you said you need Sufficient depth, not just "depth". Also I gave that definition since you attacked my view on someone having a character to show you what I consider having a character. Since we both clearly work with different definitions. Like "being disliked..."

Okay. I do believe that Shin in the first volume/part 1 has a prevailing goal. His prevailing goal would be freeing/killing his Shephard brother Rei. That's why he went to the war. The moment Rei died and became a Shephard, Shin immediately signed up to become a soldier.

Also, the narrative is that the Legion at the Eastern front is commanded by a Shephard, who is Shin's brother. Both of them wants to find each other and deal with the other. So his goal justifies his presence in the narrative.

The next thing is Shin has a secondary goal as well. Maybe calling it a goal is far-fetched. Let's call it a duty. Being a "Reaper" for the 86. He is the one who finishes the others who die in battle and carries their nametags. This is so deeply entrenched in him that after the Railgun attacked them in ep7. He went back to the battlefield trying to salvage something off from his 4 deceased comrade's Juggernaut to make a nametag. This duty is also symbolised in his "gun", which was used to finish off dying people. Which is taken away when he arrived in the Federacy. Also, this is so his duty that he refuses for anyone to do this. This is emphasised beautifully how deeply this is entrenched in his mind when he hallucinates Kaie and wants to reap her, but can't since he doesn't have the gun anymore.

And regarding the goal, I don't believe it's a necessary requirement, since there are characters without goals, and evidently their "goal" is to find a goal. Obviously, it's not that simple like in One Piece that "I'm going to be a Pirate King!" / "'I'm going to find a goal!" But by depicting continuous struggles in the characters life with behaviours that make sense for that character. This can be said the same thing for Shin. After he fulfils his goal, killing his brother, his mental state and behaviours start to degrade. You can see massive Survivors guilt, and suicidal tendencies, also his battle frenzy attitude worsens. So it's obvious that him not having any goal, or purpose/someone to fight for in volumes 2 and 3 has an effect on him.

"A consistent philosophy that logically forms from existing and current experiences and choices -

There is one major philosophy that Shin and the 86 employ. One is called "86 pride" in the story. They refuse to be similar to the republic even for like a second. Which is consistent alongside the story. They don't let Legion through so the Republic falls, because then they would be no better than them. They don't attack/bully Republic soldiers when they easily could defeat them when they are around. When they get saved by the Federacy, they refuse to sit behind the walls and enjoy a peaceful life, since then they would do exactly the same as the republic. This is consistent throughout the story.

Having personal changes be impacted by and themselves affecting proceeding events

I don't believe that Shin has personal changes that drastic in the first 17 episodes, since he starts off as a rather Static Chaacter, but he himself affects proceeding events:

Shin never told any major leader about his powers, yet in the Federacy he took the risk and action and woke the whole base up.
Then he voluntarily went back to the frontline after being saved by Giad.

So you can see he took an action and affected proceeding events here. And cannot be accused that he just sits along the ride.

Also few personal changes you can discover with Shin is that with the introduction of Frederica -
- He takes up an "older brother" role for her, which is a reverse situation where he and his brother were
- In volume 2-3 he starts to think what to do after the war, even though he fails to find purpose there, yet.

borderliner said:
Ratings are a measure of people's opinions about a show, what nonsense are you spouting about them affecting content? If 9 people rate a show 9 it's rating is 9, if another person comes along and rates it 1 the overall rating is 8.2 no-one changed their opinion, how did the show content change? Were you trying to strengthen your stupid preceding statement by closing with an even more idiotic one!?

I doesn't matter how much you rail against the show's ratings, the objective fact remains that far more people rate this show highly than you can explain other than by alluding to their stupidity. I'm sure the opposite applies with your favourite shows, where you will dismiss those who dislike the show.

All you're really saying is "my opinions and those similar to mine matter, those of others don't" and you justify this by morphing your opinions into objective facts such as what constitutes a character.

You've done quite well in tricking posters into arguing based on your criteria while at the same time being more than happy to avoid any responses meeting them.

But you've never demonstrated they are anything other than subjective.

Thigh_Tide said:




That was my point exactly. A show's content is independent from its average rating, and since the quality of a show is based on its content, the rating doesn't affect the show. It's really simple to understand, I don't see what's hard for you.



It is a fact that most people rated the show highly. It's not a fact that those ratings they've given are correct.

Those with wrong, and, yes, stupid opinions are those that are opposite to what the actual quality of the show is. With bad shows, that'd be high ratings, with good shows, low.



Another Straw Man, I never brought up my opinions being correct. It's a fact that under basic examination, such as what goes into making a character, 86 fails, and that'd be true even if my opinion of the show was positive.



I've not done that. You can see above I've not avoided anything, I've always given arguments when questioned.



You've not demonstrated that they are subjective in the first place. Until you do so, you're making an Argument from Ignorance.

borderliner said:
If no sane person would think that a show's content changes as its ratings do why would you bring it up?

Like I said, it's easy to see you're trying to negate the value of a show's rating by proposing an idiotic scenario.

But show ratings do have value, they are a good indicator of a show's quality, put simply if a show has a rating above eight is more likely to be good than if it has a rating below six.

Now, since you are claiming that in fact so many of MAL's members are wrong and stupid you'd better bring some solid evidence for that.

It's not a fact that 86 fails under basic examination, you've proven neither that the criteria of your basic examination are valid nor that 86 fails those criteria.

You've simply asserted these things but provided no evidence that they must be true, which is why bringing up your opinions is not a strawman, we are talking about your opinions.

You will not allow any poster to talk about goals without dismissing or redefining them thus you avoid any response meeting your criteria

Saying I consider your criteria subjective is not an argument from ignorance, the burden of proof is with you

You introduced the criteria and asserted they are objective, you need to prove they are objective.

Why haven't you been able to bring that proof forward?

Thigh_Tide said:


How is the burden of proof with me? You presented the statement "your criteria are subjective," you are required to prove that statement. I'm not even involved until you can justify it.

I'll say to you the same thing I said to the other user: Considering you're trying to worm your way out of the burden of proof, I put it to you that you have none. I formally challenge you to present a proof for your point. Not doing so will be taken as admission of the statement being unprovable.

I wrote exactly what I meant, perfectly clearly. Whichever way you go about it, you have no excuse, you must admit that your confusion only arises from you making the assumption that the way you mean to talk about things extends to everyone.

I presented you with two instances very you clearly opposed the very idea of it being disliked, which you have not refuted. You are just denying what is plainly shown to you.

No it isn't, justify your statement. The depth of a character comes from how much information is presented about them, and this is constant for all readers of the work. Hence, not subjective.

Also note that bringing in subjectivity is fallacious, since you're insinuating an argument that cannot be fairly comprehended by both parties, i.e, "to me this is true even if it isn't to you."

Like a lot of points in this conversation, this all comes down to using one particular word - "prevailing." Keep that mind, for a moment.

Now, you've actually done most of my work for me, by listing both a long-term idea, looking for his brother, and a short-term one, being the "reaper." The former should, ordinarily, reflect the main driving force that motivates the choices they make and actions they perform in the latter, while the latter acts as means to communicate and corroborate the former. In other words, the page-to-page, episode-to-episode behaviour of a character must be composed so as to contribute to and explain to the viewer their intent whilst in the story.

Here is where Shin falls apart entirely - these two ideas, in the examples you have provided, have no relation whatsoever. Him as the "reaper" is completely disconnected from him looking for his brother; the long-term is never established, and the short-term is directionless. Even if he was characterise him correctly through the other two points, the person we'd see presented to us through his actions, wouldn't be the person the work wants to set up and be of significance to his own plot.

This is also a good opportunity to note that what you gave as justification for his presence is incorrect. You've given why he's in the military, not why he's in the story, which is a different matter entirely. In this scenario, justification for his presence would be justification for him being the "reaper," since that is the role he fulfils for much of the work, but since that, as said, conflicts with his supposed goal, well, that's just another narrative disconnect.

And then you've got the fact that by your own admission, he ends up directionless fairly early into the series, which is really just my claim of him having no goal fulfilled to a T. Particularly in that area if the story, you can see exactly what I've said about how he is merely pushed around to fit rather than having any agency of his own.

To put it all as simply as possible, Shin's actions betray what his intent is supposed to be, and even then said intent becomes of no importance rather quickly. The little that is established about him is in direct deference to what should be heavily intertwined plot points, preventing him from having any clear, communicated and especially consistent goals in the story.

This, on the other hand, is far easier to rebuke. Two points need raising: one, you're saying that you think Shin's philosophy is just to do what the rest of his group is doing? And two, what of it forming based on current and previous experiences?

Like I said just above, the ideas that should form him don't fit together. Shin being guided by and lumped in with the 86, (which I note also corroborates my point below about him not having agency), takes away from him being set up as the deuteragonist. He's quite literally leeching of the rest of the cast for a mindset, rather than having one truly his own.

Note I'm not saying that he needs to go against the rest of the 86, but a certain amount of detraction, especially in situations that would otherwise be of importance, e.g, looking for his brother, were that a consistent goal in the first place, is expected. That's typically what sets apart a main character from a disposable extra, they've opportunity to be themselves. This also links back to what I said about justifying his presence, as proper characters are reinforced in that only them can affect their story in such a way.

Or, really, to sum this up concisely, relying on "86 pride" pretty much reduces his individuality, and impairs having a significant philosophy.

I'd also point out this corroborates what I said above about his disconnect between goal and action, being prideful of an 86 is potentially relevant for being the "reaper," yet not elsewhere. Hence, not quite consistent.

You correctly point out that he is a Static Character, there's not really more that needs to be said about that. Note also that this period before you feel he changes is the only point where he has what you found to be a goal, meaning even assuming all your points were correct, he'd only ever be an incomplete character.

The situations you identify as where he affects the story are tenuous at best. I mean, he does do those things, but it's not as though he does so in order to shift the plot entirely in the direction he alone wants it go, (in no small part due to the issues of inconsistency and conformity mentioned above), those are just events he's involved in.

The last two, well, the former can't really be chalked up to any actual change, just a given responsibility, and the latter doesn't stick outside of the scenes where he muses over it, so it goes out the window entirely.

I'm seeing another set of these points listed above by another user, and while I don't really wish to expand this conversation to any more people, they're virtually identical to what you've given, so the responses I gave here apply to what they brought up also.

Thigh_Tide said:
The fact that you can't tell what his character is supposed to be from the show itself is rather telling that he doesn't actually have one established.

UTMAN said:
You meant „There are certain people who dislike 86” and you wrote „86 is disliked for a reason”. You did not write what you meant. Period.

I absolutely reject your definition. It’s an utter oversimplification of the definition just to fit your narrative. It is impossible to see a character’s depth trough an objective lense.

While character depth indeed has to do with how much information is presented, and it is indeed true that it is Objective, but information has quality and value. Which is as subjective as it gets.

I could write 10.000 pages of a random solider, mindlessly killing people in 1000 different ways and living in hell behind enemy lines. Having PTSD and all kinds of fucked up trauma.

Objectively it’s a 10.000 pages worth of information… however its quality can be questionable. Someone, for example a 13 year old teen girl who is into ponies and never was in war, never lost a single person in their life yet, might find it astonishingly stupid, while it could resonate quite well with a someone who was in Vietnam for example.

And you know what’s funny? You even fell into this. Since you defined Shin’s mental condition and PTSD, where he hears the voices of the dead 24/7 as” just some inconsequential sadness”. So his struggle didn’t resonate with you at all. But for let’s say a US war veteran who had plenty of life-death scenarios found Shin’s struggle quite real and deep:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EightySix/comments/q6nk29/86_through_the_eyes_of_a_combat_vet/

So Character Depth is subjective.

First of all within a plot there are multiple narratives, not just a one. So one of the main plotlines in Shin trying to kill his brother Rei, and the other one is Lena’s relationship with Shin and the other 86.

His long-term goal is the main driving force of his brother storyline, while the short-one, being a reaper, being the leader of Spearhead the main driving force for the storyline with Lena. The two goals don’t have to supplement each other directly, since they both have their own role within the story. But they do it indirectly. I will elaborate this on a bit later.

Shin’s in the story is justified, since he is the one who’s brother leads the Legion and the MC-s fight against. This justifies his role in the first main plot, and he is the one Lena connects with and builds a bond first and helps her to do the same with the rest of his mates. These both main storyline basically has its own climax in ep 9, with the main battle with the Shepherd Rei, where we have the climax of Shin vs Rei and Lena gaining the full respect of Spearhead.:

Shin finally has a showdown with Rei / Lena gains the full trust of the other 4 surviving 86-er. For example Kurena (who was the most antagonistic/distrustful towards her) trusts Lena’s judgement with hitting Rei with the mortars and aids Lena in aiming said mortars.

So basically the two main plotlines are:
A. Shin and Spearhead fighting against the Legion who is commanded by Rei
B. Lena becomes commander for Spearhead, and tries to earn their trust/respect and help them reach goal A.

The two cannot exist without the other. Shin needs to survive the Legion attacks long enough for him to be able to get to Rei with more than enough surviving soldiers who help him in the fight, in which Lena can help, but that cannot happen until there is no 100% trust between the two parties.

You said I gave you a reason why he is in the military, not the story. But the story is about defeating Shin’s brother… It’s de facto his presence in the storyline is justified since he is a relative of the main antagonist who threatens Lena and Shin himself.

I would agree with you more if the Shepherd would be a random intelligent AI who wants to murder, because then Shin would not have A in the picture, thus you would be right. But that’s not the case at all. In order to Shin being able to achieve point A, Lena needs to achieve point B. So Shin helps Lena reach objective B while Lena helps Shin to achieve objective A. So in the end both objective supports each other.

Regarding your last point, in part 1 he is never pushed around to fit. He has his long-term goal to finish the Shepherd. Until he does that, he does everything in his power to do that. He easily could have dodge the fight with his brother forces and let that through and go his “final destination”, instead he started a fight. It’s clear that his main goal was a driving force for him.

After his main goal was done, he became a character without a long term goal. And as I said it in my previous post, there is nothing wrong with a character that’s suddenly feel lost and purposeless. IF said character reflects said purposelessness realistically. Which Shin does. When someone loses his purpose they usually go into depression, become suicidal, loses themselves, instead of making choices just gets pushed around as you said etc. All which Shin realistically follows.
Excepting a broken character, who lost more friends, treated as a sub-human being, being glad for every survived day, hearing the voices of the dead 25/7, and in a way that experiencing a friction of that made Lena throw up multiple times, made several Handlers quit their job. And they experienced it with in a very mild manner, since Shin had his Para-raid frequency set to low. There was example where he increased it a little bit, the handler shot himself in the head with a Shotgun. Now Shin gets this with a 100%.... so basically so many unfortunate / fucked up event happened to him than most of the people on the world, to have long term goals is unfair. Also this state only lasts for volume 2 and 3. So his purpose is to find a purpose is also achieved.

No, they are doing what mostly he is doing. He is the leader of the group. Obviously it’s a group mentality in some sense. That doesn’t reduce the fact that he has one. Also he is not leaching. The members of the Spearhead mutually agreed on their phisolophy and why they act the way they do.

Also he acts as a scale/guide for other 86 who might have difficulties walking the path of previously agreed mind-set. When Theo lashed on Lena, he is the one who talked sense into him that it was not right to act like that towards Lena. He is the one who keeps the group together and acts as a bridge between Lena and the other 86. When Lena got rejected, he is the one who tried to connect the two parties together. So it’s evident that he is the one who embraces this “86 pride” in the most perfect way.
Raiden – didn’t like Lena at all for preaching and mocked her
Theo – Lashed out on Lena
Kurena – Has a deep prejudice towards her because she is being an Alba
Anju – She is maybe the only other 86 who doesn’t showed any ill will towards Lena. But she had similar thoughts about her as Raiden.
His philosophy is also represented as being the „Reaper” since he is the one in the group who bears the burden of carrying the deceased. As I showed he doesn’t let anyone doing this job.
The reaper is parallel with the role of being the leader, and especially in part 1 of 86 the 2 roles correspond with each other, since he is the one leading them into battle, and he is the one who carries them should they fall after the battle.

Voluntarily going to the army instead of letting it happen via drafting or just accepting what happens to him is in direct opposition with each other.

Being silent and secretive regarding his powers and finally going to his CO and flat out admitting it is quite also a direct signs of changes.

The Frederica example was mentioned by me, to show you that change started to happen within Shin, as she has some effects on him, but changes in people won’t happen overnight.

In part 1, he has no long term goal other than killing his brother. And it’s not just he doesn’t have one, he doesn’t want one. Which is the most important part of it.

Similarly, he has a memory loss. He doesn’t remember his parents, Anette and his old life back in SM. And once again, it’s not just he doesn’t remember. He doesn’t want to. He finds this useless information that doesn’t help him with the battle.

In part 1 he is always directing the plot.

In part 1, he constantly acts so the plot goes in his way.  For him to defeat Rei
In part 2, he doesn’t have a long-term goal  So he is more passive in a way

borderliner said:
How is the burden of proof with me? You presented this statement first in the thread.

"The fact that you can't tell what his character is supposed to be from the show itself is rather telling that he doesn't actually have one established."

you are required to prove that statement. I'm not even involved until you can justify it.

I'll say to you the same thing you said to the other user: Considering you're trying to worm your way out of the burden of proof, I put it to you that you have none. I formally challenge you to present a proof for your point. Not doing so will be taken as admission of the statement being unprovable.

The necessary elements to develop a character with sufficient depth can broadly be summed up into having a prevailing goal that justifies their presence in the narrative and informs the actions they take within it, a consistent philosophy that logically forms from existing and current experiences and choices, and finally having personal changes be impacted by and themselves affecting proceeding events. That's a gross oversimplification, but it should give you enough of an idea what to look for and see is missing. And, rather simply, nothing of this sort is presented with Shin, in 86.

No, "86 is disliked for a reason" is what I meant. That there are certain people who dislike it is what you said earlier, I remind you, which I wasn't disputing.

Also note you've confirmed beyond doubt that you just attribute whatever the hell you want to what you read, rather than actually paying attention.

Explain what is oversimplified, and why it is impossible.

There is no reason why "quality and value" should be subjective, especially when you already admit that information is objective. Any conclusion drawn from objective information must, by nature, be objective, otherwise it isn't drawn from said objective information.

Two fallacies in one - an Appeal to Authority, and an Anecdotal Fallacy. There is absolutely no reason why the author of that post should have greater weight when speaking of the subject. If anything, I would make the case that they are unfit to, what with, unfortunately, not being in full position of their mental faculties, having PTSD of their own.

There's a clear error in your thinking. Assuming that your "10,000 pages," which I sincerely doubt you're capable of, were a completely accurate rendition of PTSD, the fact that the 13-year old girl is unable to fathom its content does not take away from it. She cannot appreciate the work for reasons of her own, but since nothing about the text itself is changed by her reading it, you cannot possibly claim it, as an object, is in any way subjective.

In that same way, the issues I point out about 86 are present regardless of whether you have a positive or negative interpretation of the work. You enjoy the show, either through intentionally ignoring the issues, missing them entirely, or not understanding why they are issues in the first place, but your obliviousness does not actively remove them as you watch.

Thigh_Tide said:


First of all, just copying everything I say is childish and means nothing. Especially when half of what you say simply does not apply, since you couldn't even be bothered to adjust it to fit me.

Second, I already pointed out to the other user, as I directed you to previously, that the burden of proof is with both parties, and even if it weren't, from my perspective, you came to me first. You have no excuse.

Third, I already explained at length, through 10 increasingly long comments, why he has no character. Here it is again, if you're unaware:



If you have something to raise in dissent to that, you're entitled to, but you cannot claim I have not presented it.

Finally, you did not uphold the request I made, which gives the conclusion that you have no evidence to justify your claim. With nothing to argue in your favour, your point is false, and your presence in this argument as a whole has finished. If you wish to return to it, provide justification for your claim.

Anything else, absence entirely, or, worse, just blindly copying what I say again will be taken as confirmation you concede this discussion.

Anything else, absence entirely, or, worse, just blindly copying what I say again will be taken as confirmation you concede this discussion.

The necessary elements to develop a character with sufficient depth can broadly be summed up into having a prevailing goal that justifies their presence in the narrative and informs the actions they take within it, a consistent philosophy that logically forms from existing and current experiences and choices, and finally having personal changes be impacted by and themselves affecting proceeding events.