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.

UTMAN said:
You deliberately missed out on key factors from your definition like the quality/value of information. Also, you are clearly in contrast to your own definition. Since if character depth would be only "how much information is presented about them" then you would have absolutely ZERO reasons to shit on the anime. Since there are tons of information with Shin and 86, just look at @Silent2000 's post, he listed many, but you obviously have issues with the presented information's quality.

Silent2000 said:



Man she's purposefully ignoring me haha. She's been doing this like forever idk what the hell is her problem about the show, lying just to justify her point is pretty fxxking hilarious.

UTMAN said:
So you are a liar. You said this. Proves that you are dishonest and have bad faith in this debate.

https://imgur.com/qbzWCOh

You said both sentences. Problem is, the two sentences have two different meanings.

"86 is disliked for a reason" -> This means that people who like the show is N, and people who dislike it is N+1. This is a false statement for 86.

While the other one is, for example, people who like the show is 1000000. And there are few people who dislike the show. This is a true statement for 86.

I called you out on the first one.

You deliberately missed out on key factors from your definition like the quality/value of information. Also, you are clearly in contrast to your own definition. Since if character depth would be only "how much information is presented about them" then you would have absolutely ZERO reasons to shit on the anime. Since there are tons of information with Shin and 86, just look at @Silent2000 's post, he listed many, but you obviously have issues with the presented information's quality.

No, I said the QUANTITY is objective. Not the QUALITY. What information means for every person is subjective, how much information is there, is objective.

UTMAN said:
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.

Also, I never claimed that the veteran is right, or has authority over you, but it just simply proves the point once again that you have no understanding of the situation of the characters of this show are going through.

FYI It would still be a legitimate appeal to authority. "Legitimate Appeal to Authority. Legitimate appeals to authority involve testimony from individuals who are truly experts in their fields and are giving advice that is within the realm of their expertise, such as a real estate lawyer giving advice about real estate law, or a physician giving patient medical advice." So a veteran giving his advice or opinion about the depiction of war and soldier characters in a war story would fit into this. + in his post there is not a single word about him suffering from PTSD. IDK where you got this...

FYI 2. So is my Cambridge example. Where you again accused me to Appeal to Authority.

It’s called a hypothetical you smartass, but I would not expect a person who's going into debates with bad faith to understand it.

It does, because every time you watch a movie or any medium or look at a painting or any art you can only experience it through your own lenses which consist of your own cultural/mental/life experiences. Thus making any experience subjective. It doesn’t matter whether the information is there or not if your lenses cannot comprehend it. Because whatever information is there, once you start watching any art, it goes through your own subjective filter first so whatever opinion you going to have on the subject it's already filtered and influenced by your subjectivity. And before you swipe this all point away with accusing it with the "Relativist Fallacy", it doesn't apply here. Since the fallacy applies only to objective facts, or what are alleged to be objective facts, rather than to facts about personal tastes or subjective experiences.

All in all, I’m very sorry that it is too difficult for you to understand a characters motivations/traits because that character doesn’t narrate everything it does to you as if you were 8 years old but I won’t continue to waste time on a person clearly in denial about their lack of understanding when it comes to human experiences about genocide, wars, and the other various hopeless situations these characters are put in, and more importantly about how these experiences affect those having to go through them.

Silent2000 said:



Man she's purposefully ignoring me haha. She's been doing this like forever idk what the hell is her problem about the show, lying just to justify her point is pretty fxxking hilarious.

borderliner said:


I'm simply highlighting the banality of your statements, and you have obliged in amplifying your banality with this statement

Thinking you own the conversation like this is not only banal, it is arrogant, and I think it's your arrogance that is most breathtaking.

I think it is objectively true that the majority of those watching this show and posting in these threads consider Shin to have an established character. You are unable to objectively prove that Shin has not, but you demand that we objectively prove he does. And no, nothing you have brought to the conversation have you been able to demonstrate to be an objective fact. Had you introduced an objective fact you would have been able to reference that externally. But your argument is entirely self referencing.

I've asked before and I'll ask again, which textbook does this (and other statements you've made) come from?
And where in that textbook does it state that only by meeting this criteria can a character be considered to be established?

Of course all of this sound and fury just masks your false narrative that these things can only be judged objectively

Thigh_Tide said:


I said earlier that what you've presented has the same issues as I highlighted in the other user's comment, you've not said anything outside of that.



I have no obligation to answer your questions when you refused to answer mine. You're evidently not willing to participate in this conversation, hence my statement. You have nothing to say in refutation of me, so this conversation ceases to become "whether or not I'm right," but "whether or not you can understand why I'm right."

I've also already discussed the origin of such an outline in the previous thread you mention, so your question is unnecessary as well as idiotic. Your statement "you are unable to objectively prove he has not" is also untrue, as, though you may think that, you've not succeeded in demonstrating why, so your argument comes from assumption.

Again, one more chance, support your statement, and we may continue, else I'll take it you really have no cards to play.

Thigh_Tide said:


Where is the lie? I said both sentences, yes, I never claimed not to, and crucially both sentences are true simultaneously. If you want to talk about "bad faith," refusing to hold an idea in your head from one sentence to the next certainly qualifies.

In the screenshot you linked, you can clearly see my entire point laid out for you. You have, once again, no excuse for not comprehending it.



This makes no sense at all. I don't see where you are getting n and n+1 from, since the statement "86 is disliked for a reason" makes no mention of the quantity of people doing so.



Again, I never disputed it was a minority, I pointed out to you the issue in assuming the minority is of no importance, which you are still doing.




Factoring in the quality of information is precisely what I've been doing. Case in point, demonstrating how what you and the other user presented fails provide any value towards his character. Note, all three of us have the same access to the same information, so my point remains.



You did not:



Either you are incapable of proofreading, or you are lying entirely.



How does it? How does a, let's face it, utterly random person having a different opinion disprove my observations of the work?



Prove the legitimacy of the veteran, then.

You spoke of PTSD in your introduction to the account. You're at fault for presenting it as such if you now admit that's not the content.



I'm assuming this is about you not being able to crank out 10,000 pages. Make more realistic hypotheticals if you don't want to get called out on them.

This is also a good time to point out that you're throwing the term "bad faith" around quite a lot, can you provide evidence from which you infer I am doing so?



Experiences all being subjective? Yes, certainly. But content, no. If something is or isn't in a piece of media, then it'll be there or missing for everyone who watches it, just like I said last comment. And if that element is missing yet necessary, or present yet unwanted, it is a negative, even if there are those who don't experience it as such. Hence, quality is primarily objective.



Now you've come full circle and done exactly what you did at the start of this conversation with it "going over my head" and people who dislike the show being "haters." You are declaring that any position other than your own is occupied by people who "don't understand," or are "in denial," with absolutely no evidence to suggest that being the case other than the fact they disagree with you. If you want to talk about "bad faith," this is it.

I never brought up how much I need narrated to me, or my understanding of personal experiences, so you have not only no information, but no right to scapegoat that, and doing so is, like I said right at the start, defensive and pathetic. Make actual points.

MK17_2 said:

Yeah that right there ☝️ 😂 way to go bro. Something as trivial as that has triggered a long ass line of fans. 😂
I wonder if you bothered to watch 86 properly. Paid attention. Finish the season? Ey Nah ey
You can't attack real life traumas like that. Even it's just anime. Ever.
Idk what you're beef is with shin but it sounds petty. We get to watch every bit of what he went through....
There's nothing absurd about him enough to be cause for insult. He's human. Living in a shitty society. I bet you'd be on the other side calling him a pig.

No need to randomly hate out loud on him. It's ridiculous. You can't understand him. No you can't.

Shin is this kickass stoic real life soldier keeping everything and everyone together. And sooooooo much more. It's insanely dope. He's effortlessly attractive I'm sure that bugs you too.

So chill man. If you don't like the dude then aight. Don't bring such insensitive ignorant words that you def don't comprehend, on serious mental health matters here. You'll never get away with it.
Weak minded people Say dumb shit like that.

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.

borderliner said:


I think we've all moved on from the subject of your objective criteria. It's clear that the broad consensus is you failed to prove any of your assertions. This puzzles me because from the degree of certainty you display it seems to me these things must be clearly documented, you should have no problem bringing your proofs forward.

I think the conversation now should be about your abiding hatred for 86 in general and Shin's character specifically.

Since we can probably all agree you do sincerely believe your misguided criteria, perhaps you can explain what it is about failing those criteria that means you'd be compelled to come to these threads with the negative statements you've made about the author, fans in general and other posters specifically.

Silent2000 said:
Okay

86 is disliked for a "good reason" haha most of what I've seen are people complaining about things they didn't pay attention to, is that a good reason? Nobody said the minority is of no importance maybe those trolls...

You saying "disliked" can be generally applied to all shows, so what's the point really that this is a very much loved series and you just can't accept it and cries like a little baby. I mean you can cry anytime you want and im not going to stop you.

I don't care what you think of his character based on your so called made up "definition", fxxk your definition. You're doing this for a long time now i wonder if you have a beef or something because i would really buy that but man you are so pathetic, you just can't let it go do you I def ship you with nimrod hahaha...

Im just gonna quote this guy:



Wew

Thigh_Tide said:
What fact? That the OP is not even asking with your petty reasons

The OP understand the character not 100% that's why he ask for some clarification:

"So yeah I understand that Shin is "cold" but he had a reason to do so, right? Shin hides his feelings and thoughts because he thinks that it is not important and it's just a waste of time or not just anyone can understand him. (I think?)"

And He concludes, "he basically has very low self-esteem to the point where he doesn't care about his own life, making him suicidal."

Why does this individuals also understand Shin's character then in this discussion:

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

>lmao just put yourself in his place, i would have killed myself

....

And the other guys as well... hmmmm

Again fxxk your "definition"

Your point is so far away in this discussion idk whose at "bad faith" it's pretty obvious who really is, I wonder if you even understood what the OP is asking... hahaha

Thigh_Tide said:




You're omitting the part where I remind you that I already elaborated on everything I've said, both in this thread and the previous one. You can't pass off your deliberately ignoring existing information as me never having given any. "Consensus" amounts to nothing when it's a disingenuous interpretation of events.

It's also interesting how now you've changed gears entirely to asking why I'm even here. That, no matter how many times you drop in the word "misguided," (which you still haven't explained why you think is the case), doesn't actually argue against anything I've said, so I simply have no need to say anything further. Way to throw in the towel on this whole conversation.

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.

borderliner said:


You haven't elaborated on anything, you think that making a statement and then referring back to it establishes it as fact.

It doesn't matter how many times you refer back to this



and the other similar statements you've made, that does not make them facts

If you can't establish the factual basis of those statements then everything you've built upon them falls.

You are misguided for exactly the reason I keep repeating, you behave as if you have a foundation of fact to build upon when you have none.

What you call "throwing the towel in" as yet another vain attempt to claim victory, is me trying to move the conversation forward.

You can think you're right while we all think you're wrong, no issues there, that's called agreeing to disagree, but since most of us here are fans of the show it might be interesting to know what it is about this one in particular that's got you so filled up with hatred.

borderliner said:
You haven't elaborated on anything, you think that making a statement and then referring back to it establishes it as fact.

It doesn't matter how many times you refer back to this



and the other similar statements you've made, that does not make them facts

If you can't establish the factual basis of those statements then everything you've built upon them falls.

You are misguided for exactly the reason I keep repeating, you behave as if you have a foundation of fact to build upon when you have none.

What you call "throwing the towel in" as yet another vain attempt to claim victory, is me trying to move the conversation forward.

You can think you're right while we all think you're wrong, no issues there, that's called agreeing to disagree, but since most of us here are fans of the show it might be interesting to know what it is about this one in particular that's got you so filled up with hatred

Thigh_Tide said:


I already have established them. You know I have, you brought up the fact you asked for the same thing the last time we had this discussion, where I did so immediately. And you can also see the necessity of depth proven in my conversation with the other person above, so that's two counts of conclusive evidence. Even if you disagree with what it is I've said within, there's no way you can claim I've not talked about it.



Again, I've already discussed at length the foundation behind my claim, so you have no reason to feel I'm misguided.



The question of "why have you come into this thread to complain about the show" does not refute the statement "Shin has no character." Hence, by choosing to ask it instead, you've thrown in the towel on the previous argument. You're not "moving the conversation forward," you're starting an entirely different one.

If you really wanted to move the conversation forward, you'd demonstrate why you think the criteria I listed are subjective, as you claimed was the case earlier. And I remind you that your believing I haven't proven them to be objective (which itself is a mere lie of yours) is not proof of your own point, as that would be an Appeal to Ignorance.

@tensai95, explain why you believe I haven't read the source. @UserAnonymous117, explain where you perceive a "misunderstanding" in anything I've said. @addie1998, everything you've said is Ad Hominem. If any of you have something to say, at least have the dignity to do so to my face.

Thigh_Tide said:


I already have established them. You know I have, you brought up the fact you asked for the same thing the last time we had this discussion, where I did so immediately. And you can also see the necessity of depth proven in my conversation with the other person above, so that's two counts of conclusive evidence. Even if you disagree with what it is I've said within, there's no way you can claim I've not talked about it.



Again, I've already discussed at length the foundation behind my claim, so you have no reason to feel I'm misguided.



The question of "why have you come into this thread to complain about the show" does not refute the statement "Shin has no character." Hence, by choosing to ask it instead, you've thrown in the towel on the previous argument. You're not "moving the conversation forward," you're starting an entirely different one.

If you really wanted to move the conversation forward, you'd demonstrate why you think the criteria I listed are subjective, as you claimed was the case earlier. And I remind you that your believing I haven't proven them to be objective (which itself is a mere lie of yours) is not proof of your own point, as that would be an Appeal to Ignorance.

@tensai95, explain why you believe I haven't read the source. @UserAnonymous117, explain where you perceive a "misunderstanding" in anything I've said. @addie1998, everything you've said is Ad Hominem. If any of you have something to say, at least have the dignity to do so to my face.

borderliner said:


At no time in any of the threads have you pointed to any external source validating your claims.

You haven't discussed the foundation behind your claims at all, why do you keep pretending you have?

That foundation must be an external source, let's take your claim about a "prevailing goal", point to your source.

addie1998 said:


They actually believe they are right because they filter the facts that they are willing to perceive, isn't this what you were doing right? HAHA guys we found a girl version of nimrod

Thigh_Tide said:


A - Why "must" the foundation be an external source? You've suggested that, justify it.

B - Both times I justified it, it did actually involve an "external source," which only confirms you're deluding yourself. Can you confirm, truthfully, whether or not you have actually read every word I've said in this thread and the last one?

C - I see you've abandoned "moving the conversation forward." You do still have a responsibility to justify your claim, and until you do so you cannot logically prove me wrong, what with the Appeal to Ignorance.

Thigh_Tide said:


A - Why "must" the foundation be an external source? You've suggested that, justify it.

B - Both times I justified it, it did actually involve an "external source," which only confirms you're deluding yourself. Can you confirm, truthfully, whether or not you have actually read every word I've said in this thread and the last one?

C - I see you've abandoned "moving the conversation forward." You do still have a responsibility to justify your claim, and until you do so you cannot logically prove me wrong, what with the Appeal to Ignorance.



Ad Hominem, and justify this statement. Where do you feel I have "filtered" any "fact?"

borderliner said:
]I think you've now fully lost touch with reality... But okay you have your own proof that your criteria are objective fact, I'd love to see that.

And no, you may have alluded to external sources but I've never seen a link or other reference.

Not abandoned, but if you won't give any insight all that is left is speculation, I've already speculated that you have a preference for over the top characters, for example the type who almost literally state their prevailing goals as some kind of catch phrase. I'll also speculate that you have low tolerance for characters who don't fit your world view.

But the prevailing mystery is what you think you achieve by shouting so long and hard about your perception of a character when you clearly recognise others do not (and will not) see that character the same way as you do.

And yes you do filter, you just do it in a way that satisfies your internal narrative

addie1998 said:


Yup that's exactly what people with that kind of disorder would actually say HEHE

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.

borderliner said:
I have not seen that which could constitute a proof in anything you have written, therefore I concluded you must have an external source.

The inference is that this is lifted from some work that outlines what is required in creating a literary character, this is an allusion to an external source. But if this does come from an external source we have no way of knowing how you've manipulated it to meet your needs, so you need to provide a link to the original for validation and context.

If, as you seem to be implying, this statement (and any other you've made along the way) is simply lifted from your imagination then your whole argument is just about what you think makes a good character ergo, it is subjective.

Oh and about that filter of yours, let's see how you apply it to the statements I've just made so you can disingenuously respond to this post like you do most others.

Thigh_Tide said:


You already admitted I did make a proof last comment, you dense bastard. You can try and argue "oh I didn't actually," but ignoring it like you are now will be taken as admission that you let slip I was right.



Now you've shown a few very interesting points about how you're going about this.

First, you have no way to verify what you assume is inferred. I didn't explicitly state it was from an outside source, so the entire idea you've laid out about trying to "check for manipulation" is a complete invention of your own.

Second, you assume it is manipulated, despite having absolutely nothing hinting at that. This puts everything you've said in bad faith.

And finally, let's assume for a moment that you did ensure everything I said did exactly match its original form, as now appears to be the point rather than it being from a place of authority. Since you've long since given up trying to claim he doesn't fit, how do you intend to continue arguing against it after the fact? Or do you not, even?



Again, no way to verify what you assume is implied, which means you thinking that to be the case is in bad faith.

And even if it were "lifted directly from my imagination," why would that make it subjective? No part of what I said references preference, in fact, I specifically point to how it's independent and at times inverse to it.



Recursive argument. That which occurs after you make a claim cannot be considered proof of it, as when you made the claim, you had none by which to conclude it. If you cannot show how your claim is present in what's been said previously, it's simply void.



As I said earlier, you've revealed a lot about how you think this works, and when laid out like I have, it should be obvious how absurd your mindset is. Let's sharpen Occam's Razor for a second - what's more believable, that, A) I somehow rewrote the entire mechanics behind the creation of stories, in a way that never contradicts itself nor keels to my own preferences, solely to make one character appear written awfully, or B) he just is badly written, and your liking him doesn't make the opposite so?

And I remind you again that you still haven't demonstrated anything in support of your view, not evidence of Shin being a good character, not evidence for the outline I gave being incorrect, and especially not for anything involved being subjective. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but you've devoted yourself wholly to an Appeal to Ignorance. It is a logical impossibility for the line of questioning you have chosen to demonstrate anything I said is even close to wrong.

borderliner said:
You are just rambling like an idiot.

I said show us your proof, everyone here already knows you think everything you say is fact.

If you developed a proof yourself quote it, if you borrowed a proof link to it.

Why won't you do that?

Thigh_Tide said:


Ad Hominem. You have no evidence for me "rambling like an idiot," since you've not been able to highlight anything I said as actually idiotic.



I already told you I've justified it within both threads. You yourself already earlier accepted I did, and since you're evidently ignoring that fact, your point collapses, as I said it would last time.



You really need to do something about the echo in here, because it sounds like once again I'm reminding you I already did so. I asked you, a while ago, can you confirm you have read both threads in which we had discussion in their entirety? You did not answer last time, if you do so again, I will take your refusal as confirmation you haven't, which again collapses your argument.

I also notice you claimed last time that what I'd say would apparently prove your claim I'm "filtering facts," yet now you've gone back on that completely. Additionally, I asked a pair of questions last time, for you to provide answers is imperative.

borderliner said:
Should I stick with dense bastard!?

You've told us all lots of things, telling isn't justifying.

Point to my statement that accepts your justification and I'll point out the filtering you apply.

borderliner said:
And no, you may have alluded to external sources but I've never seen a link or other reference.

It's not echoing to bring the conversation back to the core premise which is your claim that "Shin has no character" is an objective fact.

You have no proof for that, if you did you'd bring it forward here.

Thigh_Tide said:


Point?



No such distinction, justification can only be given by being told. What you really mean is you refuse to recognise any justification that proves you wrong.



Here:



As you can see, you clearly fold and accept that I have in fact alluded to external sources before. You may claim that's not the intent, but it's corroborated by what you ask next, since in order for me to have "not shown a link or reference" as part of alluding to external sources, I must have alluded to them first in order for you to identify they don't come with what you think should accompany them. After all, the opposite idea, that I haven't provided an outside source and then also haven't linked it is nonsensical, since there's nothing to not link. That would be like saying "You didn't do X, and if you had done X you wouldn't have done Y," which of course would be an assumption. Hence, your claim here only works by you first accepting I have referred to external sources.



Which is precisely what I explained right at the start of this thread. It's also incredibly stupid for you to claim you now want to "bring it back" to being about Shin, when earlier you adamantly refused to argue your opinion on the subject when I asked you to.



No, if I had proof for that, I'd have given it days ago, when the conversation was actually about Shin. And, would you look at that, that's precisely what I did. Like I said a few dozen comments ago, your ignorance does not make my absence.

borderliner said:



Did you read any of that back to yourself?

You really are sounding completely deluded now.

Link to your evidence

Thigh_Tide said:


I linked to the evidence you asked for. You claimed you would show how it's "filtering facts," yet now you curiously cannot. You're once again ignoring evidence put right in front of you to perpetuate your own delusion.

If I "sound completely deluded," again, identify an issue in what I've said, that suggests this, else your claim is baseless and hence a mere insult.

And no, you may have alluded to external sources but I've never seen a link or other reference.

borderliner said:
No you haven't, you can't even hold two thoughts in your head without mixing them up.

Link to your evidence that "Shin has no character" is an objective fact.

Your argument that you didn't filter what I said is straight up moronic

You turned this statement into evidence you've done something that you have never done.

Thigh_Tide said:


How? This is pretty much just an Ad Hominem.



I have been arguing that within this thread. What, you need it linked back to you? Here you go, keep reading until you get back down to here. And while you're reading that, you'll come across the external source you think is so necessary, so you get two things at once.



How? Just saying "no it isn't" is the most childish, pathetic thing you've tried yet. How is it not what I explained it is?

borderliner said:


Why is that ad hominem, I'm describing what you just did.

What external source, where's the link?

Like I said, stop dancing around and paste a direct link to your external source that proves Shin has no character

A URL or even an ISBN will do

UTMAN said:


I think she means when I brought up a Cambridge example. XD (Where I was accused of appeal to authority as well by her, kek)

borderliner said:


Why is that ad hominem, I'm describing what you just did.

What external source, where's the link?

Like I said, stop dancing around and paste a direct link to your external source that proves Shin has no character

A URL or even an ISBN will do

Thigh_Tide said:


There is nothing to "dance around." You have ignored the links and quotes that have been presented to you even just today. Until you confirm that you are in fact reading what you're being shown, and explicitly answer all the questions I have asked in regards to it, you simply aren't getting "new" information, as that would be the Fallacy of Cherry-Picking. Do so, and you will find, once again, that I have actually already performed exactly what you wanted already, so the only thing holding you back is your own idiocy.

I'll also point out the terminology "your external source" is incorrect. It being "mine" was never something I confirmed nor denied, meaning that's a question loaded with your own assumption. And I remind you, while on the subject, that your entire motivation behind thinking "external proof" as you desire it is in bad faith and doesn't even contribute to your argument, but of course, you ignored that as well.

Again, you already have all the necessary information you want. If you intend to continue asking for "proof" in deference to this, that will confirm you are disingenuous and deluded.

And I fully expect you to try the route of "oh you didn't link it so i win," but that will only confirm you adamantly refuse to actually read what you're given, thus affirming my not doing so (or at least, your false perception of me not doing so) in the first place. And also, once again, Appeal to Ignorance, you need to comply with my questions else you've dug yourself into a logical hole.

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.

borderliner said:
You simply have no proof to back up your original claim.

If you did you would link to it

"But I provided a link ergo I provided proof" you say

Another example of your delusions, and the way they filter your "truths"

Here's where your link went, where's the proof in that?

UTMAN said:
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh my god I jist can''t ..............................XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
I'M gooing to butt in, because:

@Thigh_Tide

You are missing his point all over the place. He is asking for proof regarding your definition. Where are you getting this definition:

"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.
"

Where, or who is this definition from? Which legitimate literary authority stands behind this definition? @borderliner wants some citation for your definition, until you do that it's just something you came up with, and not a universally accepted objective fact that you trying to make it be.

Thigh_Tide said:


I - I'm aware of what they're asking, which is what I'm reminding them I already did. You should recall, I did the same when speaking to you.

II - Though it does in fact align with their conclusions, it's not necessary for a "legitimate literary authority" to stand behind the statement, particularly when no actual fault can be found in the statement itself. That would be Denying the Antecedent.

III - The statement "until you do that it's just something you came up with, and not a universally accepted objective fact that you trying to make it be" is fallacious, an Appeal to Ignorance. There's no reason why it should be "something I came up with" more than it should be "a universally accepted objective fact." After all, why is the opposite not true, why is it not a "universally accepted objective fact" until they prove it's "something I came up with?"

IV - Objective facts do not need to be "universally accepted." The entire point of a fact is it's true whether you like it or not.

V - I recall you left this discussion. If you intend to interject in it once more, start by answering the questions I last asked to you.

UTMAN said:
1. As both of us have said multiple times, you failed to provide any proof regarding your definition. You have no proof whatsoever that character depth is equal with your. definition. What you are trying to sell as "proof" is you saying how Shin doesn't check your make-believe definition. Which we both don't care about, until you can justify that what you gave us definition is 100% legit.

2. The fact that you don't see any fault, doesn't mean that there is not. Here you are committing your own liked fallacy, the fallacy of ignorance. I've provided multiple holes just in the goal part, that your definition just doesn't cover. Also, the definition 2nd and 3rd points contradict themselves. You want a "constant philosophy" and "changes" with the character. Changes can happen with said character's philosophy, thus it's not constant anymore. Your definition doesn't stand on its leg. You even admitted that you can't clarify it to the level I want, which makes your definition even weaker.

Also it's nice that you also have a "constant philosophy" https://imgur.com/illVmLA
What a freaking joke.

3. Nothing fallacy happens here. This is a definition you made up, not something generally accepted by the literary community. And as I pointed out, your definition is full of holes.

4. That's why they are universally accepted by some authority smartass. Like the definition of Gravity. All physicians agree on its definition. For some reason, I could not find your definition anywhere. Wonder why. If what you say is "The entire point of a fact is it's true " then said fact is universally accepted by some sort of committee of the fact's field.

5. I answer/interject whenever and whatever I like. All your points come down to this faulty definition. That both borderliner and myself reject.

Thigh_Tide said:


Again, for the third or fourth time, you ignoring what I've written doesn't mean I didn't do it. Like I said, if I did have some, I'd have given it earlier, and you can in fact scroll back up and see me do precisely that. Yet, you do not, you instead look the other way and hope for something different this time. Cherry-Picking.



That's not what I "say," that's a Straw Man. You wanted a link, you got a link. The fact you feel it doesn't prove anything is another matter, and an opinion that you are obligated to justify.



You're once again just saying "oh look you did something that proves that you do this thing i said," but you haven't explained how that is the case. So far you're just claiming you meant something else whenever you say something you regret, or making Straw Men whenever I point you wrong, like you did just now.

How is this supposed to be "filtering facts?" I'd venture you really mean "facts that are true but @borderliner doesn't like," which again is Cherry-Picking.



You asked for a proof that Shin has no character. That's the point where I explain why Shin has no character.

If it were not proof, you could try and identify an issue with it, but you already tried that and it buried you in the hole of fallacy and delusion you're in now. You're welcome to try again with a clean slate if you've thought up new, slightly better arguments, but as presented currently you can't claim it's not proof simply because you disagree with it.

And I remind you once more I asked several questions previously. If you shan't answer any of them, the expected answer to each will be concluded, which disproves every last part of your claim.

Thigh_Tide said:


Except I absolutely did, though. Do you not remember? I pointed out how your own source aligns with what I presented. You cannot deny this.



First, that's not what the fallacy of Ignorance is. That would be a statement of the form "X is true because it isn't proven false," or vice versa.

Second, I have gone through this thread again and compiled everything you've actually said against my point. These amount to only two things - that you think depth is irrelevant for a character, which as I refer to above, I disproved through your own evidence, and that you think depth is subjective, which I too demonstrated wasn't the case. As you can see, nothing remains in absolute opposition to it. This brings me onto a question I asked the other one, who ignored it - if we assumed for a moment that there was an "authority" you recognise that corroborated what I said, would you have anything to say against it? If you "reject" the definition, as you say later, would you cease to do so upon a big name being attached?

Third, consistent, not constant. Learn to read. It specifically says "forming from existing and current experiences and choices," namely, those that cause personal changes, as written immediately afterward. No contradiction.



Once again you demonstrate you are unable to keep two sentences in your tiny little mind at once. It clearly says that's what I look for, not that I can't recognise its quality or lack of. God, you're an utter idiot.



You are ignoring the content of what I said. Read my third point again, and answer the question presented.

And you have no way to confirm I did in fact "make it up," so that's an assumption in bad faith.



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?

Once more, thinking that the two must always come together is Denying the Antecedent. The fact you can't find "my" definition, (which, let's face it, is obviously brief and biased research, and hence meaningless), doesn't mean it's automatically wrong, nor even suggests any sort of mistruth.



What I've said to you comprises various counterarguments to your point and justifications of my own. If you ignore it, then what I've said stands, and what I've said demonstrates how you're wrong. Sure, you can "reject" the definition, but I've presented it and why it works, so your doing so is just plain incredulity that means nothing. Which, wouldn't you know it, is yet another fallacy. You're going through all of them at this rate.

Until you address to what I said previously, if you ever do at all, there's no reason it should be taken as anything other than conclusive final words instilling my point as right. You may pretend otherwise to feel better, but that doesn't make your point claw back up to being even slightly valid.

borderliner said:
Ignoring all the meaningless waffle you fill your posts with is not cherry-picking.

A list is not a proof

The issue with it is that it is just a list that you tacked the word necessary on to.

What you need to prove is that these things are necessary. To do that you need to show that in all circumstances all elements in your list must apply

UTMAN said:
1. First of all you accused me of appealing of authority, rejecting the whole thing. Secondly, the Cambridge example does not involve any "goals" to have.

""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."

Please tell me where in this the goal, or consistent philosophy or any of you said. This is you filtering, just as @borderliner said. It has nothing to do with your definition, and I even said it so at the time when I cited it.

2.My friend, then explain me this

"...particularly when no actual fault can be found in the statement itself." - this is defacto appeal to ignorance, just because you don't see fault in it, it doesn't mean that there is none.

Also, you never disproved anything, or I never said that character depth is irrelevant. You could not even comprehend my sentence regarding the quality and quantity.

2.a if you had to make this clarification regarding your definition" just proves my point that it's incomplete.

Also, there are characters that don't have consistent philosophy like the Joker or Deadpool.

And for your theory, regarding if you could provide an authority. Depends if your example is legitimate or not. I'm not necessarily looking for a "big name", like if you would give me a famous author like J.K Rowling or someone famous like Will Smith, I wouldn't accept the definition. (even if they were proving me right). For the record I would fine with a textbook called "How to write characters for dummies (UTMAN and borderlines) 101", just a well-established university or some sort of well renowned literary paper publicised it. I would accept said definition.

Also, your definition flat out rejects static characters.

According to you, Albus Dumbledore doesn't have any character/depth. Or Monkey D. Luffy (or any shounen protag for that matter) either.

Even though the latter accumulated like 50 goals, have a consistent philosophy, but he remains the same character. Even though he fulfills the first 2 criteria he would not fill the 3rd.

Any static character fails to completely fulfil your 3rd criteria. There are characters that have no goals in their life, like Akaky Akakievich from Overcoat by Nikolai Gogol. He is the very definition of being pushed around and just goes with the flow. Like your definition Thanoses most of the characters in any literary work.

2.b. That's an ad-hominem, and you said that "animation is completely unimportant" yet went on shitting on an anime where you didn't like the animation. If you were honest, you would have not mentioned it on that topic and stuck with the writing issues. Also if we take both of your sentences in your bio, then it's just making the case worse for you. Cause any issues you find in an anime should be only in regard of writing: Plot/characters.

If the case is that "It clearly says that's what I look for, not that I can't recognise its quality or lack of" It should not matter for you whether the animation, directing, music quality is there or not there, since you are looking for "good writing".

3. Since you are refusing to give any sort of evidence that you did not make it up, and you were so instant to say to me that "I'm withholding evidence" in our previous talk, it just shows how disingenuous a person you are. If you can prove it that you did not make up, here's your chance. Any other answer and I'll consider that this definition is the result of your imagination.(this includes calling back to the Cambridge example since the two definitions have nothing to do with each other.)

4. Prove what you say is objective facts.
Well here is your chance to show the world where is that definition from.
It doesn't matter what you think. You (and neither are we) are not or part of a legitimate authority of the literary circle that can make definitions, and claim that those are objectively true. If you are, please prove it, if you can, then I'm going to shut up. I'm going to take the definition of an academic literary paper on what's a character depth over yours any day.

5. And we are constantly demonstrating that how you are wrong over and over again.

The fact that you are unable to cite anything so far, shows how you have either absolutely no idea what you are talking about or you are just disingenuous. By this logic:
"Character depth is equal to how much sentient or non-sentient creature is killed by the said character"
Shin totally meets this definition, so he is a super deep character. Here I represented it too how it works for Shin.

You are angsty because you created a make-believe definition and you have zero ways to prove that definition is right, you can't cite anything, if you could, you would have done so already. It would be so easy to shut me or @borderliner up, just by linking to a legitimate external source. We've been arguing for weeks now, and fore some mysterious reason, you still have not done this. The fact that you refuse to do so is telling.

Since you like to throw this "objective fact/claim" around:
"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. A subjective claim, on the other hand, is not a factual matter; it is an expression of belief, opinion, or personal preference. A subjective claim cannot be proved right or wrong by any generally accepted criteria.
An objective claim may be true or false; just because something is objective does not mean it is true. The following are objective claims because they concern factual matters, that is, matters that can be verified as true or false:

Taipei 101 is the world's tallest building.
Five plus four equals ten.
There are nine planets in our solar system.

Now, the first statement of fact is true (as of this writing); the other two are false. It is possible to verify the height of buildings and determine that Taipei 101 tops them all. It is possible to devise an experiment to demonstrate that five plus four does not equal ten or to use established criteria to determine whether Pluto is a planet."

"In contrast to objective claims, subjective claims cannot be proved true or false by any generally accepted criteria. Subjective claims often express opinions, preferences, values, feelings, and judgments. Even though they may involve facts, they do not make factual (provable) claims, and therefore they are, in a sense, neither true nor false in the same way an objective claim is true or false. They are outside the realm of what is verifiable. For example, consider the following subjective claims:

Trout tastes better than catfish.
Touching a spider is scary.
Venus Williams is the greatest athlete of this decade.
Hamsters make the best pets.

While we know that it is a fact that people eat fish, that spiders can be touched, that Venus Williams is an athlete, and that people befriend hamsters, all of the above are value claims that cannot be proved true or false by any widely accepted criteria. We can just as easily make the following counter-claims:

Catfish is much tastier than trout.
Touching a spider is fascinating.
Lance Armstrong is the best athlete ever.
Everyone should have a cat."

Citation: Butte College (Once again, legitimate appeal to authority)

I would like you to pay REALLY good attention to this part: " Subjective claims often express opinions, preferences, values, feelings, and judgments."
Since we already argued about Information having value.

"(Premise 1) All my experiences are metaphysically subjective (i.e., no one else has my unique experiences; all my experiences are from my unique point of view).

(Premise 2) "Subjective" is the opposite of "objective". If X is subjective, it can't be objective, and vice-versa.

(Premise 3) If my experiences are metaphysically subjective, then by Premise 2, any statements I make about my experiences must be epistemologically subjective — they are "merely" my beliefs, or my opinions. By Premise 2, nothing metaphysically subjective can suddenly acquire the prestige of "objectivity". For any X, if X is subjective, X stays subjective.

(Conclusion) But — hang on to your seats, now, this is the big "insight" — Premises 1 and 3 are true of everyone! Whoever you are (Mother Teresa, Einstein, Charles Manson, Hitler, Neo, Trinity, etc.), you have access only to your experiences ("your reality") and no one else's, and whatever you say, it's just your opinion ("your truth"). We simply can't be objective. There is no Objective Reality or Objective Truth. Reality and truth differ for everyone, and always will." by Sandra LaFave Professor at West Valley College

So basically nothing you said so far are some objective facts.

Thigh_Tide said:


What I'm noticing that both you and @borderliner (this part applies to you also) appear to be doing is fishing.

Notice how this conversation has progressed, you've begun by assuming subjectivity in bad faith, then attempted to try and claim Shin meets the criteria, then that you don't understand said criteria, and then that unless some bigwig says it's correct it isn't (a Fallacy, of course). It's plainly obvious that the core of your disagreement with me is that you like 86 and can't handle that it might be bad, so you're continually changing your arguments in the hopes that at some point there will be a flaw that'll let you ignore me. But as you've both abandoned making your own arguments to the opposite, there is no logical way you can do so. My point? Smarten up. Put some ideas forward. Simply explaining to you why I'm right against your incredulity is getting old, for all of us.

No, I didn't "reject the whole thing." That's not how fallacies work. A fallacy is an incorrect argument formed from faulty logic, not one that cannot contain any truthful content. For instance, take the statement, "France is in Europe because my friend John says so." France is in Europe, but not because John said so. In that same way, though I agree with what Cambridge says on the matter, them being Cambridge does not add any weight to what they said, and presenting it as such is invalid.

I already pointed out earlier how that's relevant to media specifically, and elaborated later on the necessity of it. You are retreading old ground.

Except that was never a proof of it being correct, but rather evidence of you Denying the Antecedent. Read the sentence again, carefully.

I disproved it. If you think otherwise, you're welcome to go back and continue arguing against it, but like I said in my fifth point, until you do so you cannot pretend it hasn't been shot down.

You said quality. I quoted and highlighted it for you, and you ignored it. You can even verify it for yourself, go to the first page of the thread and Ctrl+F the word quantity. It shows up for the first time when you claim you said it earlier, which, obviously, is impossible if true.

Between iterations, of course not, different authors, different societal sensibilities, etc, but within individual stories, the good ones at least, they've got consistency with the events they're in.

Now that's very interesting. So you're saying you're willing to switch on a whim? That as soon as an organisation of repute puts their seal of approval on it, no change to the actual text, you feel it becomes truthful? What about your complaints with it, subjectivity and depth and all that? Are those your real objections?

Absolutely not. It simply notes that Static Characters have lesser depth than Dynamic Characters. No "rejection."

Again, it doesn't, you simply fail to realise the purpose of Static Characters. Take someone like The Man with No Name, or Sherlock Holmes, these characters are vessels through which the audience experiences a story they're not actually involved in. Do they lack a significant portion of depth, becoming self-flanderisations? Certainly. Are they necessary for their stories? Also certainly.

Additionally, you don't seem to recall Overcoat very well. Akaky is the driving force behind the entirety of it, and changes across the course of the novella

Like I said, the fact that I don't look for good animation, that watching a badly animated show doesn't take away from me enjoying it, that I'm not interested in things that are praised primarily due to their visuals, doesn't mean I can't critique it when I want to. For instance, when I buy a new car, I'm not interested in the top speed, but I know that bigger numbers are better.

What's happening is you're finally getting onto an actual case of subjectivity. My opinion is I don't care how TDIAD looks, the fact is that it looks bad. And unlike you, I don't think that my opinion applies to everyone.

Until you establish why me making it up is the "default" instead of it being from an authority, which I remind you is otherwise a fallacy, your ultimatum cannot apply.

I'm also not "withholding" any evidence. I never confirmed nor denied either answer, because it simply doesn't matter who said it, it matters what it says. I mean, let's just consider for a moment, if I did come up with it all by myself, why would that make it wrong?

First of all, giving the name of who came up with it doesn't prove it. What proves it is examination of the use and impact such a definition has on the literary sphere, which is what I already did and you cowardly ran away from.

Second, definitions are not "made," authorities do decide on what words mean and claim they are objectively true. They study existing words, their uses, to identify this, not make them up.

Third, you're making an Appeal to Poverty. You have no right to ignore me because you feel I'm not "academic" enough to listen to. And said Poverty is but another assumption in bad faith. You've read my profile, you know I write, what makes me less important than someone else who does the same but is attached to some college or other?

Citation does not mean instantly correct. To demonstrate, I will prove how your completely made up definition is wrong, without asking for citation:

Why is "Character depth is equal to how much sentient or non-sentient creature is killed by the said character?" Using this metric would mean that any series with no deaths would have no characters whatsoever, or that character could be attributed to non-sentient forces such as natural disasters.

Again, I've already demonstrated it to be true, and it being cited from either me or someone else would not affect the content, nor, by extension, the truth present within. Hence, your continual asking for "external proof" is floundering. I don't need to and won't fall prey to such fallacy.

You've also made more assumptions here, again in bad faith.

A - I don't have much to say here, since there's nothing really that strikes against my point, but I would note that I never claimed that objective = automatically correct. You're conflating the fact that I'm considering the show objectively and that I'm correct, but the two are not one and the same. You're performing a Modal Fallacy.

B - And for posterity, prove the legitimacy, like I asked you earlier. Just saying it is doesn't make it so.

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.

What I'm noticing that both you and @borderliner (this part applies to you also) appear to be doing is fishing. Notice how this conversation has progressed, you've begun by assuming subjectivity in bad faith, then attempted to try and claim Shin meets the criteria, then that you don't understand said criteria, and then that unless some bigwig says it's correct it isn't (a Fallacy, of course). It's plainly obvious that the core of your disagreement with me is that you like 86 and can't handle that it might be bad, so you're continually changing your arguments in the hopes that at some point there will be a flaw that'll let you ignore me. But as you've both abandoned making your own arguments to the opposite, there is no logical way you can do so. My point? Smarten up. Put some ideas forward. Simply explaining to you why I'm right against your incredulity is getting old, for all of us.

borderliner said:
How are we fishing?

Without proof of objectivity you are being subjective no bad faith required

From the very start we've said that we see goals and motivations in Shin that make his character compelling
From the very start we've said that we see his place in the narrative and how he shapes the story and it shapes him

No-one has backed away from those statements it's just pointless debating them with you because you've demonstrated that you not only wish to mandate your criteria but also sit in judgement of what meets those criteria.

What do you even mean by using the term bigwig? It's reasonable to assume if these criteria are mandatory and well understood in the literary community you'd be able to surface plenty of references to them.

Since you can't provide any links here's what some others say about it ( I just googled compelling characters )

https://www.dailywritingtips.com/creating-compelling-characters/
https://www.ian-irvine.com/for-writers/article-3-create-great-characters/
https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-create-and-interpret-characters-in-fiction-and-film
https://www.writersdigest.com/improve-my-writing/hooked-on-a-feeling
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/creative_writing/characters_and_fiction_writing/writing_compelling_characters.html

From that last url above here's what Kurt Vonnegut advises us to consider

“Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.”

How about you pay attention to someone who knew what they were talking about

UTMAN said:
Even if this is true, that only justifies 33% or one-third of your definition, where you speaking about personality. You have absolutely no proof that the parts of the narrative are required for you, and you have no external source/or anything that's equal to it, to back it up.

I've read. You are saying that your definition is objectively true, because you cannot find faults or any evidence against it. You are basically saying God exists, because you don't find any evidence against his/her existence. Basic Appeal to ignorance. Or maybe you want to say that your definition is not true? So which one is it?

You actually have not. You said that I admitted that information is objective. Where I never said that.

I need to set it apart for you to come it across?

"OBJECTIVE HAS QUALITY AND VALUE, WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE AS IT GETS"

I even gave you a fucking obvious example, for like 10000. pages of a character killing other characters mindlessly.
Objectively it has a 10.000 page of QUANTITY
Subjectively, every person experiences the story differently, thus that 10000. information has different QUALITY for every person who reads it.
Both are needed, but it's so arbitrary that you cannot make any objective claims from it.
If a character has 23 QUANTITY of information, but only you consider 4 among it a QUALITY one, or there a character has 30 QUANTITY of information, but now he has only 3 information you consider it a QUALITY one. Which one is deeper? Where is the line? How much information counts as deep character? Also, how can you possibly know that in that 23 or 30 -information in both characters others will not consider more or less as valuable ones?

No, not even in the same individual stories. That's their core, that they are unpredictable. They don't have any consistency that the reader or the MC can count on.

Not really, once again you are trying to filter here. IF there is a legitimate authority behind your definition, it would mean that someone, who studied this for years and years, and truly an expert in the field probably has more insight on the matter than I do. Which I'm willing to admit, not like you.

You just shit on 3 characters not having characters/personalities at all, even though they partially complete your definition.

I also reject this notion, since if there could be a static character with multiple layers of personality and goals, but doesn't change throughout the story, but a dynamic character who is just for example a "bully" and later on changes into a Buddhist Monk. Would you say so that the bully is deeper than the static character in this case? (I can even gave an example for the bully: Arnie Shankman from Anger Management (2003))

Just as Albus Dumbledore or Monkey D. Luffy are necessary for their stories, yet you called them bad characters.

Akaky doesn't change, that's why he dies by the end. He lived someone who never stands up for himself, and he dies because he can not stand up for himself. He remains the same in the story.

That would mean that you are indeed taking the speed of the car into account.

"My opinion is I don't care how TDIAD looks, the fact is that it looks bad. And unlike you, I don't think that my opinion applies to everyone." This is funny... you think it looks bad, and try once again to make it into a "fact" thus, implying that anybody who says TDIAD looks okay or good is wrong. You are exactly trying to force your opinion on others.

Thank, you so according to my previous point, this is a definition you made up.

It's important, as I said you are not a legitimate authority to make up definitions in the field. That's it.

Appeal to poverty a fallacy is an "informal fallacy of thinking a conclusion is correct solely because the speaker is poor, or it is incorrect because the speaker is rich" Never said that you are wrong because you are penniless. Wtf.

You customized a definition and tried to apply it to Shin.

In my first post, I already said that I have issues with your said definition, where you accused me of "singe bullshit".

As I already told you, I reject this definition, until you can prove that it's from someone we can trust.

You are not a person like that. Once you can give us a definition that all 3 of us can accept we can try to fit Shin into said definition.

I don’t care that you write. I’m an astronaut. We can write anything in that bio.

That means nothing It would just mean that a character who never killed someone is less deep than someone, or something killed more. Also, it would be that a tornado is deeper than any character in an SOL anime. Yes. natural disasters or phenomenons are considered characters, like for example, the "death" in Final Destination, or the “world end” in 2012. They are antagonists for the story, who the MC-s have to defeat/outsmart. I don't see any wrong in this definition. Also series with no deaths have characters, but they would have 0 characteristics, they would be carton copies since their kill ratio is 0. So basically they are full of shit and shallow characters. What's about it?

Once again, doesn’t matter what you say and try to work with that definiton, until you can’t prove that what definition you use is legit. I proved my killing example how it works so, by your logic is that an objective fact aswell?

You are continuously saying that character depth is an objective fact, while it is not.

There is even an example sentence about judging a person “Venus Williams is the greatest athlete of this decade.”

This could easily be replaced with „Shin Nouzen is the greatest character of this decade” or it’s negative, which you stand by, that Shin is a shit character. You are trying to sell this notion as some sort of objective fact, which is not.

You don't talk about your experience, you are talking from your experience. You read/watched 86, and experienced it. You are speaking from that experience, you are making claims from that experience for the content.

Except for the building, we can have objective methods of looking at then analysing something, like a unit of measurement. A meter is the same for you as it’s for me.

All you proved is that completely missed this:

“If a concept is an 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.”

Doesn’t matter, since you watch it with your own subjective lense. You cannot fathom what’s present in the show 100%, nobody can. It’s fallacious to assume that you can.

What’s Shin’s character is shrouded by your(or mine or everyone’s) own judgemental cloud, as to how we experience said character.
That’s an objective fact that Shin is present in the story, but what aspects of his personality matters is different for everyone.
Some people consider him a Kirito clone, some don’t. Some relate to him because of his PTSD, you don’t. You just said it’s unimportant sadness and nothing much.

“(Conclusion) But — hang on to your seats, now, this is the big "insight" — Premises 1 and 3 are true of everyone! Whoever you are (Mother Teresa, Einstein, Charles Manson, Hitler, Neo, Trinity, etc.), you have access only to your experiences ("your reality") and no one else's, and whatever you say, it's just your opinion ("your truth"). We simply can't be objective. There is no Objective Reality or Objective Truth. Reality and truth differ for everyone, and always will." by Sandra LaFave Professor at West Valley College”

You don’t have access to the Objective truth in 86, Shin’s character or for anything for that matter. This debunks everything you said so far.

Legitimate appeal to authority is not a fallacy once again my friend.

it’s plainly obvious that you made up a definition,

and you have no proof that in order to have a deep character,

the character must have: (I'm going to strip any adjective from the definition since adjectives are subjective: "Adjectives have long been recognized by students of language and literature as indicators of subjectivity."Robert Rittman*, Nina Wacholder, and Paul Kantor
Rutgers University, 4 Huntington St., New Brunswick, NJ 08903. )

A, Have goals
B, have philosophy
C, have personal changes

You tried to show that Shin doesn’t meet said definitions, which we showed that he does
He has a goal – killing his brother, later on, he wants to show Lena the Ocean and be with Lena / start a family with her
He has a consistent philosophy – 86 pride, but then you attacked it that it’s not individual, but reduced it as „pack mentality”. When you never applied said adjective in your original definition ever. And even if you were true, there is no proof that a deep character must have more than a „pack mentality” as philosophy. (Once again look at the Overcoat, Akaky also doesn’t have any individual unique philosophy.)
He has personal changes – Book 1 – Doesn’t have/ want a long goal, plan after he finishes the army, By book 5 – he evolves into someone who longs a long goal and finds one, Lena.
And you can requote this, it won’t matter, since Shin even fulfils all 3 of your criteria. You can argue whether Shin’s goal is good/bad/prevealing etc, whether his philosophy matters or not, consistent enough or not, or his changes sufficient enough or whatever. The moment you start involving adjectives in your definition you stopped being an objective person. Objectively he has all 3. For you subjectively these traits which he has are not good enough. Because when you read the story you did not experience said things as such. Which makes all your points subjective, not objective. (FYI I am aware that there are some adjectives that are objective, like colours: Red, Green etc, but you are not using these kinds of adjectives, you are using "bad" "shit" etc... So basically observation adjectives such as real, perfect, best, interesting, beautiful or cheapest can indicate value or talk about subjective measures. )

I and @Silent2000 have proved multiple times that he fulfils all 3 of your criteria, which you deny because you are nit-picking and trying to morph said definition so he cannot fulfil it (you even demonstrated this in our previous talk), which you have no proof once again that all 3 is required other than just you claiming that you have.

FYI, in the past week where I did not write to you, I conducted a large amount of my time where I searched your definition or anything that’s something that has to do what you are trying to accomplish here, or what makes a character deep. I found NOTHING that supports your take on this. This is why you are so reluctant to cite anything. I found a lot of other stuff though, character types like Static/Dynamic, Round/Flat (important note: Flat is not equal to Static and Dynamic is not equal to Round), and even in these character types, there is no such thing as what you say. Even Albus Dumbledore who you just shit on is considered a „Round/Static” character. And even in these character types, there are no requirements, but rather outlines on what the character needs to have in order to be one. While you trying to box everything into the said definition.
Claims regarding characters and art are not objective since there is no factual matter in said field.
You cannot pull an arbitrary line and say, okay everybody who is only this deep are shallow, but who are more deep are considered deep characters. Even in your “definition” this shit is true. What’s a deep character? Who fulfils are 3? Or what about who only fulfils 2 out 3, or 1 / 3. Or it fulfils 1, fails 1 and completes one half. Like when’s a character reach your “sufficient” depth? Your take on this whole thing is absurd. At least my definition can have some factual objective unit of measure.
“Character depth is equal to how much sentient or non-sentient creature is killed by the said character?” The number is 42. Anybody who kills more than 42 is considered a super deep character, and anybody who is under 42 is shallow. Anybody with 0 is a badly written character.
I cannot show you any more clearly, that how your take on this whole thing is just wrong.

Thigh_Tide said:




Pretty much everything here corroborates what I said. You've just proved my point for me, in your eyes at least.



That's literally the first thing I said was necessary for a character. You are honestly the most imperceptive moron I have ever met on this site.