This… “Sigh”, this sucked man. What the heck is up with the author? Like, dude, you can manage romance just fine, we were all here for Misha romance.
Well, apart from other ships of course, but we can agree the author did just fine with that romance, right?
The point about him being unmarried, fine. Marrying Ragna would have been a good way out, a lot of time for politics. Honestly, some comeuppance for the shit he had already pulled on the royal family would have been prudent too, with Marquis hivering over him.
And there was a way out. If he became higher ranked than Ragna, then he could have had multiple wives again, right? Of course royal family would have sandbagged that to hell and back… Unless Bjorn and Ragna had by then succeeded in convincing the royal family that The Giant was under control.
This? This provides him NO BENEFITS. No Melbes support. No shield from royal family. No alliance with elves or Karlsteins. Nothing.
This was just a cowardly move by the author. Kicking the can down the road again.
The worst part is, none of us would really care if Amelia, Misha, Erwin, Aynar and miss mage weren't such fun and well-made characters and we didn't want them to be happy.
I mean, on one hand I like how the author is trying to juggle the political ramifications of the marriage, but on the other hand the execution is kinda… shite
I'm giving bro… let's say one more round? The posts until next weekend. It's been a fun ride, and the author usually pulls something slick, so I can hold out for this to turn around into something enjoyable, but… come on, man.
This isn't even about picking waifus, there's way better options to dig out of this hole but he keeps pointing that spade down 😭
I know but at this point I've sunken too much time in this to stop now. Realistically, his issues with women are the only blatant problems with this novel. The pacing can be a bit off some times but that's just nitpicky.
bruh it seems the author is trying everything possible to not give as a romance in the story … i mean its not exactly a must but romance if done right always enrich a story . so either he is afraid to fuck it up or hes not confident of his skill . pretty sad ngl
The author could have just, not.Your know, not written people as attracted to the MC, just straight up fucking omitted it.No the Author chose this path, it’s cringe and he should be mocked for it.
Correct, not including it at all would have been better. I think my prediction about writing himself into a corner was accurate. The author realized too late that the joke became a core part of his character to the point that it was distractingly unrealistic. He realized that no matter what reason he wrote that caused Bjorn to be like this, it wouldn't have justified his behavior. At this point we can learn that Bjorn was assaulted in the butt by his ex and mother at the same time and I still wouldn't care. Author fucked up.
The thing is that there are so many other outs the author could have taken, I don’t think they’ve written themselves into a corner. They just had to not be a maladjusted virgin and do a heart to to hearts with the companions and dialogue the feels out like an adult.I am annoyed that I missed the mark for this Arc, my guess was we’d get character development and evil spirit mask off for bjorn. It seems like we’re just going fullspeed down the cringe highway instead. I am disappointed that i gave the author more credit for been an adult writer than they appeared to be worth. Holding out a small hope the nobles call him on his bullshit and make him face the music tho.Huge props to the translator all the same, I appreciate your work and I hope we’re back on the plot soon…
so at the end bjorn gets married to they doll that represents the witch… which is gonna be like rani in elden ring (a mini versión of the original holding her soul)
I hadn’t even considered that level of depth… imagine if this actually come into play? Might actually be an interesting development after all… though I won’t hold my breath for it
Um…. well then… I figured he’d find a third option, but… did not expect a doll…
I mean in real life, we do have the guy from japan who married an anime doll, and also that bodybuilder who married his bedroom doll… still uh… Bjorn… sanity is chasing you, but you are faster
I get it’s a ploy but… this will have lasting consequences, unless he really intends to never settle down ever. That or he one day gets rid of the marquis and makes a deal with the competition… that might be his only out.
But bruh… a doll… I'm speechless. He never ceases to amaze, lol
This is absolute bull shit. It's disgustingly pathetic. I was right. The author wrote himself into a corner and he knows it. This is gayer than if he just said he wanted to marry men.
It’s not even funny anymore. I'm not exaggerating when I say this is the worst execution of the bad with women trope that plagues Asian manga/novels. Are Koreans seriously this pathetically bad with women that the author had to jump through so many hoops to make Bjorn forever alone so he's relatable to these losers?
Please, let's keep hearing from you Bjorn defenders. Tell me how this is actually a 4-d chess move by the author and how he's subverting expectations. Please tell me how this is peak writing. Let me hear your delusions and out yourselves as bigger losers than the author
honestly, all he had to do to escape would be to say that he's already secretly in a relationship with one of the girls, then he could say they are already pregnant, what could they possibly say against that.say that before the marriage talk gets even brought up, barbarian style, just announce it rudely
yea as a aynar enjoyer i would of loved for that to happen but the problem is bjorn will continue to get stronger and if hes not married to someone who gives them some type of control there going to kill him for sure
buddy, i dont think anyone is thinking this was the best option. you need to calm down though, this was a bad choice by the author, but you instantly resorted to calling people delusional, when no one is defending this. previous chapters made sense. This is just odd and a weird and out of no where choice. But you cant keep claiming youre logical as you instantly call people delusional and losers for something they arent even doing, cause no one is defending this. The doll thing is weird.
I've been pointing out how something like this was going to happen since before the time skip. You and I had an argument about how this trope was worn out ages ago and I even said the author wrote himself into a corner. While the doll wasn't exactly predictable, the shitty writing in order to keep the trope alive was. I told you guys bjorn's women troubles were stupid after a certain point and I was right. All of you refused to point out the shitty writing then, and because of complacency while devouring shit, the author will keep shoveling more of it. You guys need to stop being delusional about when the author does a bad job and rationalizing his terrible choices. Admit it. The trope was overdone back then and it doesn't even matter why he has commitment issues. It's inexcusable at this point. Frankly it was inexcusable when I pointed it out the first time.
Why is your live so insufferable? No one in this comment sections likes what the author did here and you still find a way to direct your anger issues onto some imaginary people. If you hate it that much, stop reading and stop spreading all that negativity. Or atleats stay neutral and go after the bad writing and not towards none existing people. Drink a tea and calm down big boi
Why are your opinions so thoughtless and void of reason? I’m pointing out the people that have been excusing his bogus commitment issues since before the Disqus purge. Ashlen specifically rationalized it like this in chapter 589:
Its almost like Bjorn has always been shown as Stoic, and what trait is insanely common in stoic people? Not talking about their emotions! Or Showing them! He has always held his emotions close, and is an extremely logical person, even as that logic is emotional sometimes still.
Boy that aged terribly! Ignore the blatant contradiction of her stating that his ‘logic is sometimes emotional’ (lol) as she doesn’t like to make sense. How about you? You acknowledge that it’s bad writing now but was it 100 chapters ago? How about 200? When was his bs fear of intimacy no longer “good writing” and just a bad joke that dragged out too long?
If you hate it that much, stop reading and stop spreading all that negativity.
People like you are the reason stories go to shit. You dismiss any valid criticism of something you like instead of taking it constructively. This is one of my favorite light novels of all time, which is why it’s important to point out shitty writing as soon as you see it. If enough people are vocal about it, it can change the authors style for the better and improve the story or at least future stories. Martin, you are poison to good media. You eagerly clap your hands together like a mindless seal while ignoring the author’s terrible choices, then act surprised when it concludes in even more shit. You, and fans like you, are a rot that need to be made an example of. Your opinions are thoughtless, unhelpful and destructive to art. You are an enemy of art.
I think it’s worth noting that the actual novel is like 200chapters deeper than our translation currently is.Our commentary here is like 3 years to late and in the wrong language.Big props to our translater hen here, but going off at someone here for not been vocal enough is weird energy. They probably really like the novel too.There is hopefully light at the end of the cringe. If there isn’t then your take, while justified, is a bit misplaced here.
It's more about having the gall to attack those that give criticism to things they like, especially when their only pushback is to tone police. Attacking a person instead of the ideas warrants a bigger response. If you can't handle the pushback then don't dish it out. Even though I pushed back, everything I said was reasonable and valid. I fully stand by what I said and he (or anyone else) is more than welcome to voice out their disagreement. I doubt he will as it requires thinking out an opinion which isn't his strong suit.
I think where we disagree is that I don’t think that’s a valuable use of time or that logical to begin with. If I wanted to change someone’s opinion, i wouldn’t go about it by personally attacking them.Putting someone on the defensive is just going to make them double down and defend their position and allow for them to dismiss me and my viewpoints without addressing them because “i’m a meanie"If you want to change someone’s opinion the conversation can’t break down. If you’re instead seeking to silence or censor disagreeing voices then yeah, collapsing the conversation so you’re the only voice is the way to go.What do you want from Ashlan in your interactions?
from what he’s told me. He wants me to conform to his style of logic and argument, and use zero emotion and only pure logic(his version also), and use very specific wording, and even when he says he understands what i mean, repeats what he thinks i mean, and its wrong, he gets angry and insists he is right when i have tried to re explain. He doesnt accept anything unless it conforms to his own logic.
I disagree. You're right that it's an awful way of changing minds but that isn't my aim anymore. I always start with a goal of having a good faith discussion about disagreements, but when they show to act in bad faith then the goal needs to change to deconstructing their world view and arguments. I don't do this until they take the argument personally and attack me instead of the argument. Both Martin and Ashlen are guilty of this. Now the goal is ridicule and shaming of their frameworks. The how is that others will see and recognize what to watch out for as people like them are used to taking control of discussions with speaks to emotion instead of standing on the merits of their arguments. It's why they can't engage with the arguments and instead fall back to redefining terms or arbitrary appeals. If you tell then you dgaf about their feelings they have no cogent responses.You want to know what I want from Ashlen? How about she explicitly say how she can be wrong. That’s it. I do so all the time. Show me something I say that’s contradictory or inconsistent. Show me a descriptive replacement for a descriptive argument that I make that is valid. Better yet, have her point to a single objective standard that doesn’t rely on whatever her vibe is at the time. I do so with the same standard I hold her to and everyone else too as well. Logic and it’s laws. A=A. The law of non-contradiction. Excluded middle. Please have her point to a single objective metric.
okay buddy. youre entitled to your thoughts, I don’t agree with you, I have made that clear. I also have made it clear that I dont think i can change your mind, and also that i wont have mine changed by you. So youre admitting to now just shit talking for the sake of being an asshole. we dont have to agree on the novel. I’ve made that clear multiple times in multiple comment chains. You freely admit to investing time into trying to tear down people just enjoying things. You freely admit you are infuriated by me thinking differently than you. And you freely expose yourself for the toxic individual you are.Get Therapy. you clearly need someone to vent these emotions you are holding so close to your chest about myself and Martin. If two people on the internet are actively making you rage this hard, thats Not Healthy
Again, refusing to engage with a single argument and only validate your feelings. More personal attacks lol. How can you ever be wrong or falsified? That just doesn’t exist in your world does it? You’re not used to being called out for your emotional manipulation and having your opinions stand on merit. Keep pretending like you don’t notice when I ask you to show how you can ever be wrong. You just prove my point more.
Get Therapy. you clearly need someone to vent these emotions you are holding so close to your chest about myself and Martin. If two people on the internet are actively making you rage this hard, thats Not Healthy
Literally every interaction we’ve had has been in response to you. You project your own rage in my comments because it’s unfathomable to you for someone to not be ruled by their emotions. I clearly live in your head rent free and it pisses you off.
Thanks for the information.If I were Ashlen or Martin I wouldn't choose to engage with you at all because you’ve just told me you believe theyve burnt your goodwill you’re purely going to act in bad faith from this point onwards.Please do some introspection and decide internally what is more valuable to you. Been objectively correct about something as minor as an enjoyable piece of fiction or continued engagement with people, that you disagree with, but share a common interest with. I know you haven’t asked me and I know you’ve said you don’t care about random internet peoples opinions, but I think it would be sad if you kept burning bridges and spending your time attempting to tear down people’s world views or logical processes instead of discussing the shared interest.Apologies for all the edits, I can’t spell for shit today.
That's not what bad faith is. I continue to show how to falsify my arguments. I'm curious can you demonstrate how they can? That's a serious question because they always refuse to and anyone acting in good faith should be able to. I suspect you won't be able to. I wonder why that is.
I don’t know her argument well enough to go to bat for it. If anything I agree with you that this is poor writing and wasn’t foreshadowed enough to make it not come out of left field.By bad faith I mean that you stated you’ve stopped engaging with the subject been discussed and are instead spending the effort to decomstruct their views.I am replying to this thing you said, please correct me if i’ve misunderstood.
I always start with a goal of having a good faith discussion about disagreements, but when they show to act in bad faith then the goal needs to change to deconstructing their world view and arguments.
You state when you percieve bad faith you will respond in kind. The only question I have really is, was there ever an agreement that you would have a clinical debate with agreed terms? If not then the expectation for ashlen to act in that framework is beginning with bad faith. Imagine you and I had a discussion, I think it’s a casual discussion, you think It’s a debate, I arguably lose the second I state an opinion or theory I can’t factually back up, because I am not operating in the same constraints you were, if I retract that opinion / theory and rework it, is that me acting in bad faith? Should I be expected to acknowledge I lost a debate I wasn’t aware I was engaged in?Once again I don’t know the specifics of your disagreements with Martin and Ashlen, but is it not possible they merely changed their opinions and views as they got more information?Could their perspective not have changed as time passed?This ties back to what ashlen is saying and what I think is happening. Ashlen is discussing with speculation for fun, using colloquial definitions, you’re seeking a clinical debate and having a mismatch. You’re then starting personal attacks and asking someone to submit to a point they contest was ever in discussion, is that good faith or a fair thing to demand?
It’s ironic that you're calling or the only person in the exchange that is still acting in good faith. I still clarify how to falsify my points. If you perceive personal attacks from my end is that retaliatory? Could that maybe be a good reason to do that given the fact that both of their comments avoid engaging in my points and simply attacking me. Please quote my personal attacks. There's no way you'd be able to post something without also giving reasoning for why what I'm saying is accurate even if you perceive it as an attack. Unlike them.I'm still acting in good faith as I beg them to ground their arguments into any objective standard. I even help them to get their by clarifying my terms and metrics for arguments. I even ask for clarification on their own positions and they ignore it. I even point the exact places they need to refine their arguments for them to make sense. How is that not good faith still?I'm curious, even if you don't know their arguments can you at least tell me if any of their arguments have to make sense or even be valid? More importantly, do they have to follow the laws of logic like literally everything else in reality or are they just magical beings that can never be wrong? Do they have to follow any rules at all? If not then how the hell can anyone ever have any kind of meaningful discussion with them? Please explain that.
>Quote my Personal AttacksSince i’m lazy, just from this page.
Please, let's keep hearing from you Bjorn defenders. Tell me how this is actually a 4-d chess move by the author and how he's subverting expectations. Please tell me how this is peak writing. Let me hear your delusions and out yourselves as bigger losers than the author
You are an enemy of art.
You, and fans like you, are a rot that need to be made an example of
Martin, you are poison to good media.
People like you are the reason stories go to shit.
I see nothing constructive here, the last batch of quotes are from a bigger paragraph i’ve already replied to by saying its not logically sound since the main story is 200 chapters ahead of this. None of this was provoked either since the consensus here is “we all agree this chapter was shit" why did you need to say these things?The definitions you and ashlen have regarding argument validity is different. You are seeking a formal argument, they don’t seem able or willing to provide one. This frankly isn’t a forum where one is required and neither of you have agreed on what constitutes an argument as you are applying different proof systems.>Do they have to follow the laws of logic like everything else in reality.We have already established they are formally illogical, however since not every winning argument is a purely logical one dismissing emotional arguments as “always losing” is illogical and should be dismissed unless there are constraints that demand pure logic. A conversation is not one of those events.Edit: Your elected officials are probably not the best choices from an objectively logical perspective. If they’re not the best choice why are they in that role? I’m sure you can think of other social events and important worldwide decisions that were political decisions not cold logic decisions. Hard logic is not the sole dictator or “right-ness" outside of physics.
Firstly, those statements were provoked as i was referring to both main and ashlen which they both responded to without even having to name them. This implies they knew I was talking about them as they recognized it which means they understand they've been defending this. We've already had a history of taking about this exact point before which they made personal. Most importantly, i have reasons for those statements. They're accurate which I've already stated is what I value most. I get specific about why I said those things so if you disagree feel free to explain.
you are applying different proof systems.
Only one of us is basing the system on something real and falsifiable though right? The other breaks fundamental laws of reality. So only one of those systems is actually valid though right? Descriptively speaking.
however since not every winning argument is a purely logical one dismissing emotional arguments as “always losing” is illogical
Emotional arguments aren't always wrong but illogical ones inherent are based solely on definition. Things have to make sense in order for them to make sense right? If something breaks the laws of logic, which are tautological, then it doesn't make sense. This also must be true. Then if an argument or opinion doesn't make sense, then it can't possibly be true right? This is why logic is a great standard to appeal to. So if you don't actually think they need to appeal to logic as a standard (even though everything everywhere always does) what standard does govern them? Is there one that you can conceive of that doesn't make them infallible?This is actually the closest you've been to being bad faith as there's only one possible answer you can say here that keeps you good faith.
Your elected officials are probably not the best choices from an objectively logical perspective.
You can't claim this without asserting what's “good” for everyone what. Obviously, it's “good” for those that voted for them and still believe it's good right?
Edit: Your answer for why it was provoked makes sense, I acknowledge that I am likely incorrect in saying it wasn’t unless ashlen/martin chime in with their view.>Only one of us is basing on something realIs the foundation of “I do not like this and i’m not sure why" invalid in your world view?>Things have to make sense for them to make senseIf you are speaking in physics or another objectively observable and reproducible event, yes 100%. Opinions about the standards of writing and feelings however? Absolutely not, most definitely subjective in matter.>Don’t think they need to appeal to logicCorrect, I don’t think an appeal to logic is required for a discussion, commentary on a topic or hobby in general, because the goal could potentially just be the act of enjoyment and shared emotional experience the medium elicits. It does not have to be a clinical book study unless discussed right?I don’t think they’re infallible, I don’t think anyone is infallible, I think that’s an incredibly stressful thing to want to adhere to 100% of the time. Why do you need them to fall or “lose" apologies if i’m out of hand here, but you seem a tad fixated on having your correctness acknowledged?>Good for those that voted for themIf they understood what they were voting for yes. But there is the 3rd case of neither option been good for voter since you make the assumption there was ever a “good" choice presented to them.
Just wanna say. Thank you Kittens. for trying to engage with him, and for helping point out all the things that Chris does to manipulate people in conversation. It once again showcases to me how he will never engage with good faith, and how he seems to view myself and others as scum and horrid people. I honestly very much appreciate your efforts in this conversation. I will also admit that im not perfect, and that i also make mistakes, as much as chris likes to deny and say i cant. I can be wrong. Like you mentioned, I did get gaslit and baited into engaging with Chris before, i can and will admit that, which is just part of being human. I still disagree with him fully, but I also know that for him, any mention of emotions is a sign of weakness, and he will likely take this as some confirmation of his own bias. I also appreciate your insights into my own philosophies and thoughts. We may not agree on every topic, but I appreciate the respect you have shown immensely, and the time you took to engage with his mess.
The sad thing is he is acting in good faith, his definition of good faith. Which doesn’t exclude inflammatory behaviour. Chris would be at peace in a shitstorm of abuse so long as everyone is following his framework of logical prescriptivism. That frankly doesn't sound like a good time to me, so i’m out.Some unrequested advice, The best thing you can do for yourself, and frankly for him is to not engage. Learn when to lose an argument, learn when an argument stops been worth having. Value your mental health more. I don’t know your value system, but he has stated he prioritises been objectively correct over human decency. The lesson he won’t learn until it happens is that his behaviour is socially unacceptable and if carried into all areas of his life is likely to leave him unemployable, friendless and alone. I cant even say he doesnt consider that to be a non-desireable situation as it doesnt conflict with any of his stated values.Take care of yourself, please remember this is a haha funni webnovel not a serious forum for discussion. I low-key forgot that yesterday myself.
oh for sure. i try to rarely engage with him anymore, its not worth it, like you said. sometimes though, its easy to get caught up in it all. I need to leave well enough alone when it comes to people like him. Honestly, I feel pity for him.Take care of yourself as well
Is the foundation of “I do not like this and i’m not sure why" invalid in your world view?
No that’s perfectly valid as it breaks no laws of logic. Saying this requires a little humility which is why they never ever say this. This statement doesn’t try to justify why the view is correct but they aren’t capable of doing this. They always justify their opinions based on only their own arbitrary standards. That’s where the inconsistencies start flooding and when laws of logic are broken.
If you are speaking in physics or another objectively observable and reproducible event, yes 100%. Opinions about the standards of writing and feelings however? Absolutely not, most definitely subjective in matter.
This is where there’s a huge disconnect. So the statement, “things have to make sense for things to make sense is” is tautological as it’s essentially A=A. It’s the law of identity. It’s always true no matter what, in any setting or hypothetical. If you can’t accept this then nothing makes sense anywhere at any time. Discussion doesn’t exist let alone matter. That’s why your example of “I do not like this and i’m not sure why" still makes sense and is valid. So even subjective opinions still have to make sense from a logical perspective. Words have to mean what they mean for instance otherwise opinions would be gibberish right? So the moment a law of logic is broken, the thing that broke it is gibberish and doesn’t make sense.
Correct, I don’t think an appeal to logic is required for a discussion, commentary on a topic or hobby in general, because the goal could potentially just be the act of enjoyment and shared emotional experience the medium elicits. It does not have to be a clinical book study unless discussed right?
As I already established all things even subjective or hypothetical things appeal to logic (as in can’t break the laws of logic) but even if that’s the case they have to appeal to a standard outside of their own whims or they’re definitionally infallible. How else could they ever be wrong?
Why do you need them to fall or “lose" apologies if i’m out of hand here, but you seem a tad fixated on having your correctness acknowledged?
I need them to make sense which is why I point out what makes their statements gibberish. I truly don’t care about being acknowledged at all as I can point to an objective standard outside the opinions of others. A standard that governs literally everything in existence whether it’s understood or not. If anything I welcome and enjoy being wrong as it helps me refine my thinking process better. It’s why I enjoy having discussions like this in the first place. If people can acknowledge where their arguments fail, then they can refine it themselves and potentially make it better or realize that what they were saying just doesn’t make sense and pivot. I don’t understand how you don’t see the value in having things make sense in a discussion. That’s literally a requirement for having a discussion in the first place.
I will also admit that im not perfect, and that i also make mistakes, as much as chris likes to deny and say i cant. I can be wrong. Like you mentioned, I did get gaslit and baited into engaging with Chris before, i can and will admit that, which is just part of being human.
I just saw she replied to your comment and this is so mindblowing. As you know I’ve been begging for her to point out how to falsify her own arguments or even admit how her arguments can be wrong and her response is to point out that the way she’s wrong is to even engage with me in the first place!? 🤣🤣 Bro wtf even is that? That is literally the most narcissistic thing I’ve seen in the comment section. She is literally incapable of admitting her arguments or opinions can be wrong.😂 Don’t gloss over this Kittens. Please tell me that isn’t completely nutso. Seriously, please tell me how her arguments can ever possibly be wrong lol. She can’t help but paint herself as a victim. Even though I’ve pointed out multiple times that idgaf about her, she says I hate her without pointing to the arguments she makes that I point out don’t make sense. Seriously, if you only respond to a single thing then let it be whether or not you acknowledge this about Ashlen. She’s a complete solipsist, I think that’s pretty undeniable now.
>Justify things based on their own arbitrary standardsDo you like, not talk to average people? 90%+ people function this way, they apply their own subjective and flawed logic to a situation and get “their answer" I already spoke to this earlier when I referred to kittens logic, chris’ logic, bjorns logic etc. This unfortunately is still how informal conversations work, people will state stuff they believe for reasons they believe and the entire foundation may be fucked but that doesn’t mean that when they said that thing they didn’t think that thing couldn’t be true.Regarding the commentary on ashlen here, I believe we read her words in 2 different ways. I read it as an acknowledgement of been fallible and not much else. Could you explain how you drew the conclusions you drew? I feel like you are making some logical leaps that are unjustified here and I agree with her assessments that you are selectively interpreting her words to fit your paradigm.To elucidate my logic and interpretation:You state “her response is to point out she was wrong to even engage with me in the first place"She did not state that here, she agreed with me that when she engaged with you she was not in a mentally okay space to do so. This is fundamentally different. It is stating “Mentally i was not okay when i spoke with you, that was a mistake" vs “Speaking to you was a mistake” the subject is different, she’s accepting blame and owning the issue not pushing it onto you. You put words in her mouth and reject her admission of error.
Incapable of admitting she is wrong
She just did, you just quoted her doing so. Why don’t you accept that statement?Afterwards from that foundation, which I consider logically erroneous, you attack her character by calling her a narcissist, which is inflammatory and unnecessary. What does that label add to our discussion?You then have the gall to victim blame her, you don’t like her painting herself as the victim, why do you continue to malign her? Why must you villainize her?
she says I hate her
If I called you a solipsist narcissist who is completely nutso, would you not assume I disliked or even hated you? To speak directly, you are abusive and empathy-less in your interactions. You are needlessly rude and inflammatory. You are not someone i care to interact with further on this subject.
This unfortunately is still how informal conversations work, people will state stuff they believe for reasons they believe and the entire foundation may be fucked but that doesn’t mean that when they said that thing they didn’t think that thing couldn’t be true.
That's not the point I'm making. I'm not going after her conclusions at all, which is what you keep getting hung up on. I'm saying that what she is saying, even before she gets to a conclusion, doesn't make sense. It's gibberish. I used this example with blue earlier and I'll use it here.
So, “I like this novel,” is an opinion. Nothing to argue because it's not an argument. No reason is given or needed, that's why it's an opinion. It literally can't be wrong or incorrect. Saying, “I like this novel because______,” has now turned that opinion into an argument. Now it’s not just what you think, it’s why you think it, offered for others to accept. Once they start stacking reasons under it, you’ve got something to test, deconstruct, or dismantle. This is all I'm doing.Before you can even discuss it though, the argument needs to make sense. “I like this novel because rocket ships taste good on pizza,” is gibberish because it doesn't make sense. There's no discussion possible until it makes sense. So when I point out, “That doesn't make sense,” what would you think if they responded with, “That's bad faith! Why are you manipulating people!? You hate me and think I'm horrid and scum!” Honestly, how is discussion possible there?So, breaking the Laws of Logic immediately makes anything nonsense. Definitionally. Pointing that out to give a person a chance to refine their statement or argument isn't bad faith or a personal attack. It's literally a way to try to engage in discussion.
This is the absolute best way I can explain my position. Frankly at this point there's no room to misinterpret what I'm sayimg without doing so intentionally. Now let's tackle what I meant with ashlen and if literally 100% of my accusations area accurate.If she isn't infallible, which you claim she isn't, then how can she ever be wrong? Keyword is how. It's super easy for me to be wrong. If any of my arguments are contradictions or inconsistent then I'm wrong. If anything I say every breaks the laws of logic, I’m not just definitely 100% wrong but I'm also saying nonsense. What about Ashlen? You already alluded she doesn't necessarily have to adhere to the laws of logic somehow, but let's just ignore that impossibility and grant it. Okay then, how can she ever be wrong or falaified? She never says this. You've never said this. If either of you refuse to explicitly state this, that's 100% bad faith. You've made a framework where it's impossible to be wrong. That's completely and utterly narcissistic. Your essentially truth itself with that framework. How does her saying, “Mentally i was not okay when i spoke with you, that was a mistake,” falsify any of her arguments? Is she admitting all of her arguments were wrong because she was mentally unprepared? What is she admitting to exactly? That doesn't take any of the points I made about pointing out she was speaking nonsense.Now I'm really curious about you. What would it take for you to be wrong kittens? For you to just say, “oh yeah, you're right.” Is that even possible? If not, that's bad faith. Congratulations, you're both God. Impossible to be wrong. So to be clear, if you choose to respond, which I don't think you will because you can't at this point without admitting you were wrong or doubling down and admitting you or her can’t be wrong, then make sure to use the word falsify to keep you honest. How can either of you at this point ever be falsified? At this point, if you can do that, I'll completely concede and I'll apologize to both of you. I suspect you can't, and you won't though.
If she isn't infallible, which you claim she isn't, then how can she ever be wrong?
I’m going to remove some double negatives here so it’s a less confusing sentence.
If she is fallible, which you claim she isn’t, then how can she ever be wrong.
You are experiencing a literacy problem. This is not one of my claims. Please point to where I ever claimed she is infallible?I specifically claim the exact opposite, she is fallible.My evidence for that claim is she, as a primary source, admits on this page, in this thread that she is fallible. Furthermore, we are human, show me one completely infallible human!?Your premise here is now either objectively bad faith since youre misrepresenting me or a literacy error.You’re attributing a claim I never made to me and asking for irresponsible speculation, since this is a discussion, sure i’ll speculate.You’re asking “how", as in the process by which she can be proved wrong, I would state any logical coherant proof with evidence would suffice to disprove her position or at least force a reposition on the topic. I would also assert that it wouldn’t actually require a high-grade of proof either unless we were debating a core value or identity characteristic at which point we run into the mess that is value-conflict where I may never ever be able to convince her she is wrong because she may simply choose to reject my arguments to protect her sense of self.Where we branch, you and I, is that I think this is “fine" and you will demand she clarify her rejection so you can continue attempting to falsify her position. You also won’t accept “it’s how I feel” as a valid proof because it’s an unfalsifiable position, I however, will.What I believe you’re actually asking however is “What would it take for Ashlen to acknowledge or stateshe is incorrect” and that’s a fun sociology question and the only reason i’m bothering to reply.I think if her and i were to have a discussion about something minor we werent invested too much in, like a webnovel, and a disagreement arose, and i came back with quotes to disprove her from earlier chapters, while not insulting her or attacking her character, it is reasonable for her to acknowledge an error or reposition her working theory because she would feel comfortable to do so and I provided sufficient proof to disprove or show that the idea was unlikely.If I however treated her like you do, and attacked her character, misquoted her and misrepresented her positions and she felt animosity towards me, the author themselves could literally slide into our DMs, and say “Actually Kittens is right on this point" and there wouldnt be a 100% chance she'd show me the respect of admitting it, because thats just how humans work and in her world view, I simply didn’t deserve the respect of her acknowledging the error to me. The difficulty of obtaining an admission would only increase the more invested she is in the topic, eg core value-conflict problem and the worse our interpersonal relationship.I am not her, I do not know her well, I could be mischaracterising her, take it with a grain of salt but I believe i’ve described the average human condition well enough above.Tldr: Neither of you seem to respect the other, why would she show you the courtesy of admitting an error?
How does her saying, “Mentally i was not okay when i spoke with you, that was a mistake,” falsify any of her arguments? Is she admitting all of her arguments were wrong because she was mentally unprepared? What is she admitting to exactly?
If i got you completely shitfaced on alcohol and drugs and then pulled you into a hard logic discussion where you made some poor arguments i debunked, should I expect you to acknowledge you are incorrect and your views are wrong on that subject matter? Could your opinions actually change in that scenario? Is that discussion even valid?I interpret her comment there as dismissing the entire discussion as invalid and owning the fact she is at fault (failed/fallible!!) to provide her best arguments. I wouldnt say “arguments were wrong” that’s binary, I would say “incomplete and poorly presented".As she did not provide her best, I don’t expect her viewpoint to change, I don’t expect her to acknowledge you as correct. If we were on good terms and I cared about the the result of the discussion I might ask if she wants to have it again when she’s feeling better.
What would it take for you to be wrong kittens?
Not much, i’ve already acknowledged I made an error earlier saying your tirade was unprovoked, your case for why it was provoked seemed sound to me.If ashlen comes in here and says “I disagree with your assessment of me in your speculation above" i’d acknowledge an error with no further proof required, because I don’t need hard proof on that subject matter. If she clarified that would be nice and as she is the primary source on herself i’d accept her statements as fact.Lastly, i’ll acknowledge I was wrong earlier when I said I was done replying to you on this. Good bait you lay there, I’ll ammend that error now.
If she isn't infallible, which you claim she isn't, then how can she ever be wrong?
Sorry, I just noticed that, and all the other mistakes I made in that post. I use swype on my phone so I sometimes make typos like that. This is how it should read:
If she isn't infallible, which you claim she is, then how can she ever be wrong?
My evidence for that claim is she, as a primary source, admits on this page, in this thread that she is fallible. Furthermore, we are human, show me one completely infallible human!?
That’s easy. Any relativist ever, which I suspect she is. When you believe in a framework that doesn’t believe in objective truth, and is purely arbitrary, You are by definition infallible. All of her arguments demonstrate this framework. If you disagree point to a single point she’s ever made about anything that doesn’t require her personal interpretation. Even religious people have something to point to that can prove them wrong within their own framework. She can only point to her own reflection. So she’s self referential which means she’s insulates herself against falsification. That’s bad. That’s why I believe I accurately accused her of having a narcissistic position. If I’m wrong please demonstrate this.
I would state any logical coherant proof with evidence would suffice to disprove her position or at least force a reposition on the topic.
Uh-oh. I detect a contradiction here for the first time. Doesn’t get more logical than the laws of logic right? 😬 It’s also inconsistent as you or her get to determine what constitutes “any logical coherant proof” without explicitly stating what that is before hand. This is especially true since you said she didn’t need to abide by contradictions or inconsistencies.
You also won’t accept “it’s how I feel” as a valid proof because it’s an unfalsifiable position, I however, will.
No that’s actually wrong. I do accept that as it’s completely valid and logically consistent. I said this before but that’s an opinion that isn’t arguable. It’s not an argument. It’s like challenging the ocean to a fist fight. Even if it kills you it’s not because it accepted your challenge, it just did it because it exists. Just like opinions, they just exist. She doesn’t do that though. She’s making arguments. I’ll paraphrase myself again because I don’t think you acknowledged this the first time. So whether she’s aware of it or not, by giving reasons to claim, belief or preference, she’s just made an argument. Now it’s not just what you think it’s why you think it, offered for others to accept. Once she starts stacking reasons under it, you’ve got something to test, deconstruct, or dismantle.
What I believe you’re actually asking however is “What would it take for Ashlen to acknowledge or stateshe is incorrect” and that’s a fun sociology question and the only reason i’m bothering to reply.
No, that’s not exactly what I’m asking. How can she or her arguments ever be falsified. This is very specific and I’ll explain why the distinction matters. To falsify an argument means to show that at least one of its parts (premises, logic, or conclusion) fails, so the argument no longer holds. It doesn’t always mean proving the conclusion false, it means proving the reasoning invalid or unsound. This is extremely important because it creates a standard that she herself agrees to adhere to. An objective standard that doesn’t rely on any arbitrary measures. It nails her down to something she can’t avoid. She’ll either meet the standard or she won’t. If she doesn’t, that means she’s wrong regardless of her mood, victimhood, comfort, or how “irrelevant” the topic is you’re discussing . She (and to a certain degree you) doesn’t want that. You both value comfort over truth, which isn’t inherently bad or anything it’s actually still perfectly logical, but you need the humility to actually admit that. She doesn’t want to outright admit it as she also wants what she says to be right. That’s why she argued. Once she admits it she can’t actually make any arguments or justifications for why she’s right.
The difficulty of obtaining an admission would only increase the more invested she is in the topic, eg core value-conflict problem and the worse our interpersonal relationship.
Which is why it’s important for her to set a standard that anyone can refer too regardless of whether or not she wants to admit a mistake. That’s why she refuses to do so.
If i got you completely shitfaced on alcohol and drugs and then pulled you into a hard logic discussion where you made some poor arguments i debunked, should I expect you to acknowledge you are incorrect and your views are wrong on that subject matter? Could your opinions actually change in that scenario? Is that discussion even valid?
I actually do think you’re speaking out of turn here because she’s never even hinted at her arguments being “debunked.” Quite the opposite actually. You’re making an assertion that I don’t think she believes. If you’re right and that is what she’s saying then there’s nothing more to discuss. You’re also saying she is admitting she was incorrect at the same time though as that’s why the discussion isn’t valid. Isn’t that your interpretation of what she said? She wasn’t in a right state of mind and couldn’t make valid arguments?
I wouldnt say “arguments were wrong” that’s binary, I would say “incomplete and poorly presented".
That’s the law of excluded middle. Something is either true or not true (A or not A.) This leads to the next point.
Not much, i’ve already acknowledged I made an error earlier saying your tirade was unprovoked, your case for why it was provoked seemed sound to me.
Yeah, but how were you wrong though? You said it was sound but that means you must follow the laws of logic and you just didn’t with the law of excluded middle. This is why it’s important for you to explicitly state how you can be wrong. Again, for me, point to a contradiction or inconsistency of mine. Automatically wrong, regardless of how oppressed I am or drunk I am or what harm might befall me. Now you. Do those same limits exist for you? If not then “sound” means something different to you and you need to define exactly how you can be wrong so we’re both on the same page. I know it’s not something most people ever think about but it’s useful for any thinker to understand. It’s a standard that anyone (even you) can reference later to see if you’ve actually made a mistake. Then do the same for Ashlen.
I didn't see this paragraph so I'll redoing separately
The only question I have really is, was there ever an agreement that you would have a clinical debate with agreed terms? If not then the expectation for ashlen to act in that framework is beginning with bad faith.
No, and I would never expect that. Logic isn't a framework btw it's a tautology. Our universe follows the laws of physics, all universes follow the laws of logic, even hypothetical ones. This means any opinion or statement must also follow those laws in order to make sense. It's why I clarify every argument I make or press for clarification where they possibly don't make sense.
Imagine you and I had a discussion, I think it’s a casual discussion, you think It’s a debate, I arguably lose the second I state an opinion or theory I can’t factually back up, because I am not operating in the same constraints you were, if I retract that opinion / theory and rework it, is that me acting in bad faith?
That's not what I do though is it? I don't ask them to back anything up with facts, I simply ask them to make sense. If you retract something, that's already admitting you were wrong or being open to the possibility of being wrong which they can't. They can't even describe how they can even be wrong in the first place. I don't think you can either btw, because they literally can't. My holding completely arbitrary positions they've made themselves infallible.
Should I be expected to acknowledge I lost a debate I wasn’t aware I was engaged in?
No, but you should be expected to admit when your position doesn't make any sense. Or that you can even be wrong in the first place. This isn't even debate it's common sense.Deconstructing an argument isn't bad faith btw, it's basically just pointing out when something is wrong without offering a replacement. For instance you can point out that 80+27=-2 is wrong without offering a solution by saying it can't be -2 because both numbers were positive. If you humiliate the people that were dicks to you that posited that solution as a byproduct, that's just a bonus. Truth is always the objective regardless of how it makes people feel.
I might be misunderstanding, but I took Ash's statement (re: humans being contradictory) to mean that a person can believe one thing and do/feel another. Like how Bjorn believes himself to be a logical person, but often acts emotionally; he thinks he’s handling his problems, when he might just be running away; he might see himself as the good guy, but is just as flawed as some of his enemies. Some might argue that this is quintessential to the human experience.I also want to share some fair and honest feedback: I really do appreciate your contribution to the diversity of opinions and positions in our community discussions, though I find your commentary sometimes carries a tone that feels more combative than collaborative. It can give the impression that alternative viewpoints aren't being considered, even when they’re made in good faith. That can (and has) unintentionally alienate(d) others who might otherwise be open to your perspective, and there are many here who share some, if not all of your positions. Framing your points with a more open tone might allow others to meet you in dialogue, rather than feeling like they’re entering a debate.That being said, I think it’s safe to say, your dissapointment with the path this storyline has taken is shared with the room, so let’s revel in that disappointment together rather than divided, yeah?
Framing your points with a more open tone might allow others to meet you in dialogue, rather than feeling like they’re entering a debate.
If their arguments are purely based off of their own identities and subjective life experiences then doesn’t that mean any attack to those positions would also be an attack on their identities and experiences? That’s why I always try to get them to ground their positions to something that doesn’t rely on their mood or feelings. How can anyone deconstruct their arguments without hurting the ego’s that they themselves attach to their positions? They argue by holding themselves hostage instead of letting their arguments stand on the merits. That’s definitionally bad faith as it means they don’t care about reaching the truth if it involves hearing something that makes them uncomfortable.
If their arguments are purely based off of their own identities and subjective life experiences then doesn’t that mean any attack to those positions would also be an attack on their identities and experiences?
I think you’ve been reading too much Sun Tzu, and applying it in all the wrong areas
That’s why I always try to get them to ground their positions to something that doesn’t rely on their mood or feelings. How can anyone deconstruct their arguments without hurting the ego’s that they themselves attach to their positions?
Why? This is a valid place for community members to share their ideas, thoughts, and feelings about this novel. Just because you might not think so doesn’t mean it isn’t.Also, your effort to “ground” people is unsolicited. Why take this approach? I’m asking honestly. Why must be an absolute right position or a wrong position – we are not the author, nor did we write the story. How we feel and what we think help us explore things not spelled out in the story and can make it fun to engage together. Lets get back to that, yeah?Also this story is not cooked, there still are many story points yet uncovered. We have the bid for construction that Bjorn will be competing with dwarves for. We have the labyrinth closing, and a possible plot from Noark to compensate. There’s also that tiny hint that Auril Gavis was the one who tampered with Bifron, and perhaps he could reopen the labyrinth. There’s Baek Ho outside the walls (unless he already came back inside). There’s still room for more lore building too. Let’s get back to chatting about all these things
I think you’ve been reading too much Sun Tzu, and applying it in all the wrong areas
It's a shame that Ashlen herself continues to show evidence that helps my case. This is her responding to Kittens:
It once again showcases to me how he will never engage with good faith, and how he seems to view myself and others as scum and horrid people.
I've never said this and always attack her arguments. She takes that as a personal attack. She never ever brings up the reasons I disagree with her arguments because she know they can't stand on their merits. Instead she immediately holds herself hostage by playing the victim instead of engaging with the discussion in hopes that she doesn't need to defend her arguments anymore. How is possible to have a discussion like that?
I will also admit that im not perfect, and that i also make mistakes, as much as chris likes to deny and say i cant. I can be wrong. Like you mentioned, I did get gaslit and baited into engaging with Chris before, i can and will admit that, which is just part of being human.
As you know, I've been begging her (or anyone for that matter) to tell me how any of her arguments can ever even possibly be wrong. A simple falsification of her arguments. Anyone that is good faith can do this. Her response is that she's wrong for even engaging in the first place. From her view, she is literally freaking infallible Blue. She doesn't need to make sense, nor follow any standard at all which makes her impossible to ever be wrong. How is that not the most narcissistic thing a person can say dude!? That's freaking crazy town.
Why? This is a valid place for community members to share their ideas, thoughts, and feelings about this novel. Just because you might not think so doesn’t mean it isn’t.Also, your effort to “ground” people is unsolicited. Why take this approach? I’m asking honestly. Why must be an absolute right position or a wrong position
I discussed this with kittens as they also thought the same thing. So, “I like this novel,” is an opinion. Nothing to argue because it's not an argument. No reason is given or needed, that's why it's an opinion. It literally can't be wrong or incorrect. Saying, “I like this novel because______,” has now turned that opinion into an argument. Now it’s not just what you think, it’s why you think it, offered for others to accept. Once they start stacking reasons under it, you’ve got something to test, deconstruct, or dismantle. This is all I'm doing.Before you can even discuss it though, the argument needs to make sense. “I like this novel because rocket ships taste good on pizza,” is gibberish because it doesn't make sense. There's no discussion possible until it makes sense. So when I point out, “That doesn't make sense,” what would you think if they responded with, “That's bad faith! Why are you manipulating people!? You hate me and think I'm horrid and scum!” Honestly, how is discussion possible there? So, breaking the Laws of Logic immediately makes anything nonsense. Definitionally. Pointing that out to give a person a chance to refine their statement or argument isn't bad faith or a personal attack. It's literally a way to try to engage in discussion.Do you at least understand why I do what I do now? Or makes sense right?
To be really honest, if someone said to me “I like this novel because rocket ships taste good on pizza”, I’d probably either say something like “ok boo, you do you”, or “I’ve never tried rocket ships, but that flavor palette sounds like it really takes off”. Is that silly of me? Probably, but I’m rather silly to begin with. Plus, we’re in a community where we share ideas and thoughts and reactions, so to me that’s perfectly fine. I think when we lose sight of this, it can take away from that communal nature and creates a space where someone must be right and someone must be wrong. I get that sounds rather kumbaya, but this is the comment section for one of our fav novels after all, not a presidential debate.We’ve also shifted far from the original topics which led us all down this chain. You’ve made known your feelings towards common harem tropes, bjorn's idiosyncrasies, and the author's trajectory, and you’ve received both support in those thoughts and differences of opinion. I, myself, have been in both of those camps. Ash also provided her perspective, but your discourse with her has devolved into contention since then. I understand feeling the urge to dissect what you perceive to be other's inconsistencies, however in the spirit of realizing that this is not going anywhere, I sincerely urge you to miss that bus, take a page from Elsa and let it go.Let’s get back to chatting about what we love to talk about, rather that attacking each other (or each other’s positions).
you fundamentally misunderstood the point of what i said then and what that sentence means. It means that humans are contradictory creatures. Yes, he based his thought process in his own personal logic, But bjorn’s logic Relies on facts beyond just physical, They also rely on emotional facts, cause people are emotional creatures. And to Bjorn, that IS logic, even if some others may not think the same. To state that to be emotional and logical is a contradiction is outright false. The two coexist in every single person.As for engaging with you, you fundamentally misconstrue things intentionally, to paint yourself in a perfect light to yourself, and affirm your own thoughts, you shame others for disagreeing with you, and call people losers and idiots before they even engage with you. You’re unpleasant to communicate with, you’re brash, angry, and aggressive, and actively chose to escalate conflicts that do not need to. You are the cause of all these instances. I know you will disagree with me. And i know you will think everything im saying is flawed and wrong, but thats fine. You can live as you like, but dont be surprised when you find yourself pushing others away. I don’t see a point in engaging with someone who actively choses to take my points the incorrect way, even when they are explained, and you Do know what i mean. Especially when said person shits on everyone else.But i will also not sit here and let you take my points out of context as a means for you to shame myself and others. I do think that up to now there has been good writing, and that if this chapter was handled in a number of other ways, it Could have still BEEN good, but it was mishandled, the author fumbled here. This chapter is not good writing. But that doesnt mean that suddenly all the previous chapters become bad to me. Bjorn honestly should have taken everything that he’s struggled with in romance up to now, which has been well written in my opinion, and if the author had made him contend with it here, that would have been good. This was an ideal moment to make him deal with trauma from earth, as he has to politically contend with this, and the setup was there for a number of routes to be taken. The author Did not Do that. Literally No One here in the comments has defended this chapter. this chapter was bad. You are just saying that they are supporting it through some inane mental gymnastics. I know I cant change your mind, and that you will remain as you are. One chapter being bad does not mean the previous chapters become bad writing. You may think im somehow agreeing with you also, but im not. I think you have a black and white outlook and have no accounting for nuance, and truly Cant even see the subtleties of everything I and others say.So. Enjoy your life. I hope you learn to have patience, appreciate nuance, and not talk shit before others even do or say anything
You know what's neat? You just continue to prove my in inferences correct I made about you in chapter 589. Let's take the entire context of your first paragraph:
you fundamentally misunderstood the point of what i said then and what that sentence means. It means that humans are contradictory creatures.
Nope. Totally understand what you meant and what you said is already impossible. Humans are not contradictory creatures, because contradictions are impossible Ashlen. Hence the Law of Non-Contradiction. Logical laws have no exceptions as they're tautological. The moment you perceive something as a contradiction, you're just wrong bruh, and the explanation must be something else. You can see why basing an argument on a contradiction is a bad start huh?
Yes, he based his thought process in his own personal logic, But bjorn’s logic Relies on facts beyond just physical, They also rely on emotional facts, cause people are emotional creatures. And to Bjorn, that IS logic, even if some others may not think the same. To state that to be emotional and logical is a contradiction is outright false. The two coexist in every single person.
Lol. Redefining terms is an integral part to how you form arguments isn't it? Just like with starting from an arbitrary position. You’re not capable of ever appealing to something objective? There's logic and then there's non-logic. It doesn't matter what bjorn's personal logic means just like it doesn't matter what mine is or yours is, because they don't exist. There's only objective logic, that can't be misinterpreted as it has set laws that govern it. In every single different universe and form of existence, logic is the same. Same laws and everything. That’s why it’s really great to appeal to it like I do Ashlen, because it’s not based on the mood that I’m currently in and anyone can use the same standard. Mind-blowing I know. Facts also can’t be emotional Ashlen. To you they are because your feelings trump literally everything else. Let’s see how excruciatingly rigorous the research has to be to find discover such profane insights.
Google: Can logic be emotional? No, logic does not include emotionGoogle: Can facts be emotional? No, facts are not emotional
Oh boy that was hard! It’s funny you accuse me of misconstruing things when that’s literally the base of all your arguments. You start by arbitrarily redefining words just to take away any possible appeal to objectivity. I don’t shame anyone that disagrees with me, only those that think like you. That put their own emotional beliefs above scrutiny and purposely avoid using objective standards. Blue is a perfect example of someone I don’t shame or disrespect because while he may disagree with me he’s nothing like you. He doesn’t just assume his position is right because he feels that way and doesn’t avoid engaging with my actual arguments instead of resorting to personal attacks.
And i know you will think everything im saying is flawed and wrong, but thats fine. You can live as you like, but dont be surprised when you find yourself pushing others away.
That was also a point I made in ch 589. You care more about validation than finding the truth. I dgaf about random people’s opinions about me on the internet because I use logic as the structure for all of my arguments. If you guys can’t engage there then who cares what you fools think? I’ve told you plenty of times how to meet me logically. Point out any contradictions, inconsistencies or offer alternative descriptive ‘is’ claims. I’ve done so several times with your arguments. Contradictions being the best way to dismantle arguments as they’re fundamentally impossible and therefore stupid to base an argument on.
This chapter is not good writing
You sure? I thought he was just being stoic? 🤣 Why isn’t he still being stoic now if that’s totally within his character that you say was good writing. At least you finally set a limit for when good writing turned into bad writing at chapter 645. No one could have seen this terrible conclusion coming huh? 😂 I mean of course not because if they could then that would mean you might have just been a teensy weensy bit wrong before and that’s impossible right? 🤣🤣Your guys’ problem is that because you base all of your arguments on emotions and arbitrariness, it’s actually impossible for you guys to not take attacks to you positions personally. You don’t appeal to anything objective so your positions are in essence you yourselves. Forget what I said about people like you guys being poison to art. You guys are poison to reasoning and thought. The fact that you guys have the power to vote should terrify people.
I don’t have the full backstory here. But I believe Ashlan's point in this response is that humans act illogically and contradictory. It is true that emotions aren’t strictly “objective logic" but people use them in their daily decision making (logic) all the time.Humans are emotional, humans are logical, humans are hopefully ethical. A human will make a horribly illogical decisions out of hunger, addiction, depression, ethics or other strong “want" etc, this doesn’t contradict anything that is a fair summation of the human condition.Ex It is illogical for humans to smoke cigarettes, there is no positive benefit other than a percieved social group where membership is now a detrimental affiliation not a positive one.It is illogical to spend resources on the disabled they can be allocated more effectively elsewhere, yet we do it out of ethics, empathy and human attachment.It is illogical to do many things humans do every day because our action processing isn’t robotic logic, it is a complex structure of our personal internal logical systems, values, held ethical views and frankly, what our current mood is and if wee hungry or not. Judges will award harsher sentences if they haven’t eaten before court. That’s illogical.If you believe contradictions can’t exist and everything must operate logically, the work of art we're reading would not exist as creating it and reading it is not an optimal and logical use of time. Isn’t it great humans aren’t rigid machines?In terms of this novel, nah this trope is bad, this is a particularly terrible take on it aswell and imo it’s always bad writing / a cultural trope that misses.Bjorn acts both coldly logical at times (executing the human when he met our bear hunter friend) and incredibly emotional (waste the last potion on dealkie even after been told it won’t work) which is good writing because it shows the dichotomy of the human condition.Speculation and over-reading into bjorn's personality aside, purely from what the author has given us, he has no reason to be this much of an incel.1. He had a relationship with hyunbeol before2. His interactions with her during midnight club actually show him as the dominant figure in that dynamic so there’s a pretty low chance any physical abuse from her to him occurred.3. He was willing to sleep with misha – meaning historically he wasn’t already put off from relationships at this point in the story.4. He was hurt when misha left him – low-key his fault for lying about himself to her and I don’t think how we’ve been advised this went was anywhere near sufficient enough to swear off relationships or develop a trauma.The author has written 2 different bjorn's for relationships. We have bjorn the socially well adjusted but conservative who understood standing out gets him labelled as a evil spirit, who wanted a mono relationship with misha to the extent he used another barbarian to cover for him. And we have the current cringe where he seems to not give a fuck about his evil spirit cover been blown by making completely out of universe choices for a barbarian. Author has potentially self-inserted to the extent they've forgotten bjorn needs to roleplay a barbarian still.My opinion frankly is the writing quality and planning fell off a cliff around when we entered basement B1. Still too emotionally invested to drop the novel tho, which is yet another illogical decision made by a human.
and thats okay! i dont mind being disagreed with amicably! Chris is just never amicable. I also dont mind making mistakes in predictions myself, ive been wrong before and its okay
This is kind of funny as her responses to this very comment prove my point. Let’s clarify what it means to be illogical. In debate, that simply means anything that violates the Laws of Logic. Pretty simple and straight forward. She breaks all 3. Law of identity (A=A.) Thing is thing. She constantly redefines words to fit whatever she needs at the time. She just did this with her explanation. Logic can sometimes be emotional. When she realized that made no sense, she changed it to Bjorn’s logic. Law of Non-Contradiction (A can’t also be not A.) She broke this by stating that logic can sometimes be emotional. That is impossible. Non-logic can be emotional, but who cares no one is arguing that. You’re trying to generously bridge her nonsense by making the distinction that humans can be illogical because of their emotions because you intuitively understand that it’s a contradiction. Ashlen clearly stated the opposite because she doesn’t care. She feels a certain way and that’s all that matters. Law of Excluded Middle(Either A or not A.) This is the biggest offender here. She never want’s to ground this law because it completely destroys her world view. She purposely tries to muddy the water by never stating objective standards. You can’t have arbitrary beliefs and follow this law. Either something is or it isn’t, but sometimes she doesn’t like how that makes her feel so she ignores that.These laws are tautological meaning all realities crumble if they’re not always true. None of the examples you used are actually illogical as cases can be made for those points that don’t break these laws. They may be cold or even evil but they’re not illogical.
the backstory is mostly that Chris hates me and my opinions
LOL. Even her response is self serving. It can’t possibly be that her arguments are just bad. It can’t possibly be that she could just be wrong. It can’t possibly be that I just attack her positions that fail under even a modicum of scrutiny. It’s that I hate her and her opinions. This is because it’s impossible to deconstruct her arguments without her taking it personally because she is her arguments. Her arguments are her feelings and experiences. They are her identity because she can’t ground them on anything objective. It’s narcissistic and gross. Seriously, how can she ever be falsified? If her feelings change? Like wtf?
I think Ashlen used “logic” as in the verb or process not the empirical definition of scientific logic. Such as “bjorn's logic” is a clarification just like “kitten's logic" or “chris's logic” would be. I don’t think you were using the same definition of the word. I don’t think she was aware you were operating with classical logic definitions.If ashlan is indeed using “logic" as to mean “the process something uses to reach a decision” then she is correct, humans and characters will use emotion in that process. This is tangential to the subject matter where I think we all agree the doll thing is bad and un-needed. But as per next chapter we do learn that “bjorn's decision making process" aka “bjorns logic” did have an explanation for it. Kitten's logic considers it atrocious, poor reasoning and cringe, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a conclusion the character drew.I personally can’t work out how the character arrived at this idea from what the author has given me, which means i would consider it bad writing.Becuase “kitten's logic” dictates that when I can’t understand why a character has made a choice they’ve made, especially if it's out of character or goes against one of their core goals, it’s an indicator for bad writing.In this case, bjorn not getting engaged puts him at risk of his cover been blown as an evil spirit, puts his lineage at risk and keeps unwanted eyes and attention on him. Logically he should have been married or at least spawned a kid 500 chapters ago because in universe that is what barbarians do. His dad got murked on floor 1, bjorn was a floor 4 explorer ie super successful, 500 chapters ago. The author has told us everyone between i think it was floor 3 and floor 6 are especially desirable for partners. Bro was there 500 chapters ago.I can’t speak to whether the character based comments for ashlen are correct because I haven’t interacted enough with them. You aren’t wrong that distilling it and dismissing it like that is a but rude. But compared to how you address them it’s like water under a bridge from my view.
Which would immediately make ‘logic’ arbitrary right? So adding a qualifier before it makes it meaningless. Then if you take into account the context of me grounding everything in objective standards then that pivot is either: A) intentional to obfuscate the actual argument or B) unintentional and just wrong or doesn't fit. Based on our history I go with A. I always point everyone to both exchanges we had in chapter 589. She inadvertently admits to acting in bad faith when she blatantly admits to not using logic anymore. There is no clearer example of bad faith as once that's admitted then you're no longer interested in finding the truth or changing your mind.She's not stupid. There's a reason why she always refuses to state how she can be falsified or proven wrong. She doesn't care about being right she only wants to validate her feelings.Seriously, read our exchanges on 589. My inferences about her are spot freaking on.
I rarely have an informal discussion with another human where we both don’t hold arbitrary logic processes as not everyone is required to operate in absolute certainties at all times.So for context yes, in ashlen's logic, logic is arbitrary, my logic, their logic, your logic, bjorns logic, all different and will all approach and solve the same problem differently.I contest that makes it meaningless, it changes the meaning for sure, but since we’re not doing formal maths and applying logic to test an absolute proof, it matters less, right?I went and skimmed most of your interaction in 589.My view on that discussion is Ashlen unfortunately got gaslit into oversharing and then entered a discussion I don’t think they were mentally prepared for.Based on the viewpoints you’ve expoused in that discussion I don’t think you’re the nicest person to be around or have a discussion with. You will eagerly chose a hard logical stance and reject any and all ethical or social accommodations because you see them as contradictory while this is a great approach for STEM and applied science this is horrid for socials.Why do you feel the need to apply hard logic to a social scenario and require everyone else to work in your imposed framework?I agree with Ashlen that you are rejecting the reality that is marginalised groups exist, are heavily biased against, and until that bias is addressed your radical equality of “everyone and every idea can be ridiculed and mocked" does significantly more societal harm than good by further marginalising and leading to increased violence towards these groups.Edit:You’re not incorrect in your assessment that they react emotionally, I personally just don’t think that’s a problem and in the context of that discussion and how it originated, absolutely makes sense as to why they were that way.
Should I be expected to acknowledge I lost a debate I wasn’t aware I was engaged in?
It matters less in nuance but not if you're making a direct appeal to in in an argument. Then it really does matter as the argument becomes unfalsifiable nonsense.
Why do you feel the need to apply hard logic to a social scenario and require everyone else to work in your imposed framework?
Because I would rather my thoughts make sense than not? Also not a framework, it's a tautology. This is actually really important for you to understand my reasoning.
Based on the viewpoints you’ve expoused in that discussion I don’t think you’re the nicest person to be around or have a discussion with.
Nice according to whom? That's the problem, I don't value any arbitrary metrics. I'll even concede and say you're right but why should I care if that doesn't matter to me. I ground my thought and opinions on something real. While you can say that I'm not nice, you can't say that I'm wrong and I value that over people's opinions of me.
“everyone and every idea can be ridiculed and mocked" does significantly more societal harm than good by further marginalising and leading to increased violence towards these groups.
Again, according to whom and why should I believe them? This is an objective claim that you'll never be able to prove. This actually is a framework called utilitarianism that you're merely assuming is true (its not btw.) I won't bother deconstructing it competely but it's essentially an arbitrary framework that inevitably leads to complete genocide of opposing thought. That's the only way to make it not arbitrary anymore. While it can be classified as foolish or can't be labeled as stupid as it's not technically impossible. Ashlen is clearly a post-modernist which is rooted in relativism. Those frameworks are both foolish and stupid. They both deny objective truth exists which is in and of itself a truth claim. Which makes it's central claim a contradiction. It's why she can't ever admit to being wrong because for her it's not possible. You're clearly logic based even if you don't know it. You haven't broken any laws as you intuitively understand not to. You're only inconsistencies are based off of arbitrary beliefs but you actually acknowledge them unlike ashlen. This means you admit to choosing comfort over truth which is still a logical choice as you make the distinction. Ashlen doesn't. Her comfort is the truth.Seriously, be honest. You admitted she's emotional already but don't you think that's the reason why she can't admit when she's wrong. Or that she can even be wrong? If not why doesn't that matter to you if you're genuinely interested in good faith exchanges like you claim?
>Again, according to whom and why should I believe them? This is an objective claim that you'll never be able to prove.Let me propose an experiment to test the hypothesis then.Fly to a Muslim majority nation, act as a heterosexual for a day and and take notes of how people treat you, the following day hint you have homosexual tendencies, say “my husband back home” or “i’m meeting my boyfriend later"Take notes of any attitude changes towards you, whether your money is still considered acceptable fiat there and the quality of food and drink you recieve.Feel free to repeat this as many times as needed in different areas to get a sufficient baseline and rule out outliers.For the second experiment, fly to a Christian majority nation or state and do the same ezcept identify as a different protected class, such as religion so Muslim or Hindu would work. Repeat the same note taking as above.After the experiment please answer whether you think sexual identity and religion are topics that are fairly listed as protected classes?Im not sure how you’d personally conduct an experiment for the other classes in the US list without it been obvious.
If we go by what “fair” means then that's objective not by definition however that doesn't attribute any moral weight to it which is what I think your point is. “Fair” is a morally neutral word, it just means treated equally. No moral weight applied. Fair is a descriptive claim not prescriptive which makes it objective not arbitrary. If we use nuance a bit to expand it to have a moral weight, then all that would prove is my own subjective opinion though not an objective one. To Muslims it would likely be great right? If they eventually outnumber everyone it would descriptively be morally good right? This is why arbitrary definitions don't work. You need an objective standard to apply to regardless of popularity. So using the objective definitive of “fair” here instead, would make it descriptively unfair. This is an example of is vs ought btw. Once you have your is claim you need to bridge it to why everyone ought follow your conclusion. So if you're making a moral ought claim, ground it to something objective that's not a human construct. This is advanced philosophy and I don't think you want to go there
Replace my colloquial use of “are fairly” with “should be" then please re-dress the hypothetical experiment as you’ve sidestepped the point.The point is that is a falsifiable claim unlike what you claim, it is testable unlike what you claim, there are multiple accounts and stories of horrific things happening to marginalised individuals globally if you cared to look. Are they all lying?The point is not “add moral weight and isn’t it better for one group once you apply demographics" the point is “marginalised classes exist" what they are made up of will depend on the majorities biases and established prejudices. If you seek equality is it not best to prevent those biases and prejudices been used to exclude those views? If you agree, how best would you do that?To be blunt, do you honestly believe that you will be treated exactly the same as a homosexual chinese male athiest and an Arabian heterosexual male muslim in a random Pakistani village?Do you think that political alignment, race, sex, religion, sexual preference and gender identity are not a valid list of charactistics groups of people use to define out groups and otherwise apply prejudice towards when making decisions? Do you think the fact humans still have this tribalism is a problem?Edit: Simpler example, do you think a muslim women and a muslim male will have equality in a muslim nation?
Right this is the point I was making. All this does is give an example of what my opinion is on the subject (subjective) instead of tying it to something that anyone can appeal to outside of a human construct (objective.)
To be blunt, do you honestly believe that you will be treated exactly the same as a homosexual chinese male athiest and an Arabian heterosexual male muslim in a random Pakistani village?
This isn’t about what I believe to be true, they are definitionally not being treated equally. That’s the ‘is’ claim, the descriptive (objective) claim. The moment you say they ‘ought’ be treated equally, you are bridging your ‘is’ claim to a subjective ‘ought’ claim. This means you’re adding moral weight as an entailment to your ‘is’ claim. Why ‘ought’ Muslims treat them the same? Just because you or I say so? Why would they care about that? They have something outside of a human construct that they can point to that dictates their moral ‘oughts’ through divine decree. If all Muslims disappeared tomorrow, new Muslims would be born with the same principles as long as they can refer to the same exact source of their moral values or the Qur’an (objective.) Why would our opinions change that when it’s subjective based solely on our human minds (arbitrary?) This is true for all religions btw. They have an advantage when it comes to moral ought claims unless you’re willing to make an objective moral claim which you can only do if you kill anyone that even slightly disagrees with your moral oughts, which is the only way for secularists to do that. The only thing we can objectively appeal to are tautologies like logic and math, but you can’t derive morality from those. Which leads to…
the point is “marginalised classes exist" what they are made up of will depend on the majorities biases and established prejudices. If you seek equality is it not best to prevent those biases and prejudices been used to exclude those views? If you agree, how best would you do that?
Objectively, they exist but all that means is there are groups that aren’t treated equally, it doesn’t mean that equality should even be seeked out in the first place. Obviously, the people doing the marginalizing don’t believe so, what reason do you think they ought be treated equally? Is it based on something objective or arbitrary because theirs is based on something objective. If you don’t bridge your ought to an objective is, you automatically lose when you match up a prescription (that’s not bridged) with a description. That’s just how logic works. This is what I was pointing out with Ashlen. I pointed out that descriptively, making fun of everyone was equal but most importantly consistent without being arbitrary. No moral claims or ‘oughts’ were made by me. I knew she based all of her arguments on arbitrary standards based on the other exchange we had in the same chapter about Bjorn acting like a biznitch. So I was just calling her out on her inconsistencies, which she ultimately proved me correct.
Simpler example, do you think a muslim women and a muslim male will have equality in a muslim nation?
So, no they’re not equal descriptively, however, muslim’s have an objective justification for why they ‘ought’ not be equal which makes their justification no longer arbitrary and logical. Good luck countering that without relying on an arbitrary standard.
Sorry, I missed this and it’s tangential enough for me not to think i’m breaking my commitment to drop the other subject because religion.
They have something outside of a human construct that they can point to that dictates their moral ‘oughts’ through divine decree.
This is true for all religions btw. They have an advantage when it comes to moral ought claims unless you’re willing to make an objective moral claim which you can only do if you kill anyone that even slightly disagrees with your moral oughts, which is the only way for secularists to do that.
Is it based on something objective or arbitrary because theirs is based on something objective.
Actually lmao, your bias is showing.
“People named Chris are objectively wrong in everything they say and do”4 Kittens
People should never be mean to one another, been mean is the worst sin.7 Kittens
These revelations will be questioned and denied by the one called Chris, he will believe them to be fabrications and falsehoods used to make a point in a webnovel discussion.21 Cattagedden
The hand of each god, abrahamic and other, took the wheel and wrote those sentences through me, alas the rest of the book was lost in a great disaster, (I accidentally refreshed the page), but i assure you it was definitely there. The above text is clearly outside of a human construct and most definitely a divine decree.I now point to it as objective indisputable truth for the basis of any future arguments that by your own admission cannot be argued against by any construct of a human mind because that is all arbitrary and lessor than my divinely dictated text.Is this lunacy? Discuss.
Why should they be treated equally
Why should they not be?I may have misunderstood you while skimming 589, is pursuit of equality not one of your values? I thought that was our common ground here.
The above text is clearly outside of a human construct and most definitely a divine decree.
Yes that's actually exactly how it works lol. You've grounded your beliefs, as narrow as they are, into something that will remain after your dead. That's objective, however it doesn’t mean itis objectively true. It also means you're no longer making a secular argument. You can't appeal to any divine authority definitionally. The second problem is that no one has to accept your appeal to authority, just like you don't have to accept Muslim’s appeal to their authority. That leaves you with neither being able to argue or discuss anything really. No convincing can be had until both reach an authority that can be appealed to. That's why logic is a great authority to appeal to! Both religious and secular frameworks rely on it for anything to make sense. Hence why logic isn’t a framework btw. You keep mislabeling it as one. It's a tautology, just like the math as a system. If you don't actually know what that means then look it up as it will help you bridge my arguments with my intent.
I may have misunderstood you while skimming 589, is pursuit of equality not one of your values? I thought that was our common ground here.
I rarely make prescriptive statements at all. I made none with Ashlen because it's not my place to tell her what she ought to do or think. I never presume other’s to have the same belief system as me or expect them to adhere to it. I simply make descriptive statements and point out when she says something that doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to debate (win even if I’m wrong,) I’m trying to have a discussion (understand/explore ideas.) I don’t know if it’s obvious to you but I’m really good at debate. Like top tier. It’s why I don’t seek it here. I gain nothing by “winning” as I can honestly take any position against you guys and still win. It’s why I avoid any sort of rhetoric to manipulate an “audience.” Why I’m flexible with allowing you guys to refine your arguments (which you don’t really take advantage of) and why I’m so insistent on falsifiability. In debate, you defend a position even if it’s weak. In discussion you expose weakness openly to get closer to truth.So I’m not saying equality “ought” be sought out, I’m saying that it’s the only consistent standard of measurement that isn’t arbitrary. It doesn’t change meaning based on the person where “marginalization” does. Just like the example about about religion, you need to anchor the standard to something you both accept before a discussion is even possible. That’s all I’m doing.
Yes that's actually exactly how it works lol. You've grounded your beliefs, as narrow as they are, into something that will remain after your dead.
That is an incredibly poor standard, every single piece of written material ever, including fantasy, fits that description. Would you like to better refine your language?
That's why logic is a great authority to appeal to! Both religious and secular frameworks rely on it for anything to make sense.
I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that religion relies on or even operates with logic.Religion cannot definitively prove the existence of the deity or deities it requires for its divine decrees.All religions depend on a special pleading of “im the only correct one, ignore the others"It is no more objective than any other work of recorded fiction or history written down by a human. All “ought” statements based in religion have no more value than ought statements presented by man, because that is all they effectively are.Religion operates on an unfalsifiable presupposition of “the exact divine being I believe in, with the exact characteristics I assign to them really exists” it is inherently based in faith, which is fundamentally illogical as it is a belief without proof.
So I’m not saying equality “ought” be sought out, I’m saying that it’s the only consistent standard of measurement that isn’t arbitrary.It doesn’t change meaning based on the person where “marginalization” does.
“Marginalised” is a state indicating where someone is not equal, that a bias exists towards them, that they lack freedoms someone whom is not marginalised has.A person who is marginalised is not equal. If you state that equality is the only consistent non arbitrary scale to measure with then you should agree that on that scale a marginalised person measures less.If you are refraining from making an ought statement you’re merely saying “equality can be used to measure things" and making no actionable statement thus expressing no opinion for conversation. You have no held stance to debate!?If your stance is about the scale of equality itself been non arbitrary and not dependant on the individual I would argue you are wrong.The scale needs values to measure, the values are placed on it by groups or people. It measures arbitrary things, it cannot escape this fact. The answers it provides are arbitrary. Measuring say, wage equality, on the scale may show in one organisation it is perfectly equal between genders, at a country level the scale could weigh different, globally the scale could weight different once more. Is this not presenting arbitrary results based on the arbitrary criteria people select to weigh?
No, because every single piece of written material isn’t divine decree. Most of it is a human construct. You’re really struggling with definitions here so I’ll make sure to be as exact as I can to clarify. Human construct (social construct)- Exists only because humans made it.Objective standard (objectivity)- Exists independent of human belief, culture, or inventionObjective truth (truth)- A fact or reality that holds independently of perception, belief, or agreementLogical- reasoning that doesn’t violate the foundational laws of thought (logic)Equality- the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunitiesYou sometimes use logic as a synonym for reasoning but that doesn’t really apply as that’s not the point I’m making and what you’re trying to contend with. So no, not all written material fits the description. It’s also important to note that you keep conflating objectivity with truth. They’re not the same thing. So all religion’s including the one you made up, make a claim to objectivity through the form of divine word. Something that is outside of a human construct. Humans aren’t making the claim and therefore can’t make changes to it. They can only make new discoveries from within the standard set in their own system. You don’t have to believe in their standard and it doesn’t mean they’re right or what they’re saying is true. It means they have a way to falsify themselves within their own system. So no one can claim, “our religion says everyone should give me all of their money!” They’d just point to the bible and say, “no it doesn’t.” However, if their God comes down from the heavens and say’s, “no actually I’m going to add that,” then that still meets their objective standard. It means humans can’t make changes to it only their own standard can (their god.) I’m giving you a free meta-physics lesson so I hope you appreciate it lol. Truth isn’t bound by any system at all. It precedes literally everything and is necessary to exist in all possible worlds and hypotheticals. For instance assume “nothing” exists. Everything just ends. It has to be true that nothing exists right? Which means truth still exists. So “nothing” is impossible as truth will always remain. This means truth is beyond human comprehension as we’re bound by whatever systems that bind us. We can only assume to know what is true. I’ll use math as an example. All math already exists. Humans didn’t create it, we merely discover it. At some point we’ll have to assume that we know all math right? But that’s all we can do is assume, because we can be proven wrong by discovering a new formula. This is an issue that every secular debater or thinker runs into eventually. The best we can hope for is knowing what isn’t true. That’s what the scientific method is based off of.
I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that religion relies on or even operates with logic.
Okay demonstrate it then. You’ll be the first person in history to be able to do it if you can manage. What laws do they break? Law of identity: God is God. Seems pretty compliant. Law of Non-Contradiction: Can God also not be God? Law of Excluded Middle: Is it true or false that God exists? They say yes. So far no laws broken and totally compliant with logic.
Religion operates on an unfalsifiable presupposition of “the exact divine being I believe in, with the exact characteristics I assign to them really exists” it is inherently based in faith, which is fundamentally illogical as it is a belief without proof.
Seems you’re new to metaphysics. Nothing in metaphysics is empirically falsifiable. Only logically falsifiable. This isn’t controversial or an opinion of mine it’s the standard of metaphysics.
“Marginalised” is a state indicating where someone is not equal, that a bias exists towards them, that they lack freedoms someone whom is not marginalised has.
This is what I mean, there are already problems with this definition as it’s not what it means in the dictionary. So think of equality like this. The world martial arts tournament in Dragon Ball. No weight, gender, or age classes. Pure equality baby! You can be 10 years old going up against a 350 pound man made of pure muscle. That’s equal. Adding bias (regardless of the reason) definitionally makes it not equal anymore in an arbitrary way based on how you define bias or discrimination. For instance descriptively, discrimination doesn’t have any moral weight. It’s not inherently good or bad to have weight classes or age brackets right? So because you’re adding moral weight to a descriptive claim (at least I’m assuming you’re saying being marginalized is bad or ought not happen) you’re smuggling in a prescription without bridging it. This is ‘is’ vs ‘ought’ or Hume’s Law.
If you are refraining from making an ought statement you’re merely saying “equality can be used to measure things" and making no actionable statement thus expressing no opinion for conversation. You have no held stance to debate!?
No I’m describing the definition of the word lol. Saying that its a standard that can immediately be invalidated as soon as something is treated differently for any reason. That’s why it’s a good anchor that doesn’t rely on a person’s whim. I’m repeating myself again here so I don’t think you’re fully understanding my positions before you move on, but that’s how deconstruction works. I’m merely pointing out gibberish when I see it to give a chance to refine a position to something that makes sense. For instance, this is gibberish, “aposdifne;lijaf;oseifje.” How can I respond to that? It doesn’t make sense. So pointing out, “hey that doesn’t make sense” doesn’t require me to offer an opinion about anything nor is it a personal attack even if it’s taken that way. In debate this is true as well. Depending on the topic you can enter with a completely “neutral” position and focus on deconstructing the argument if you go in knowing it’s based on a faulty foundation. I want to point out the practical reason for not doing so now as we’re close to reaching 100 comments on this chapter where most of it is me just clarifying positions I’ve already made. I repeated myself multiple times in the reply already for instance. I’m also required to explain Hume’s Law and the laws of logic which are foundational to debate and thought. If we have to comment this much on something as simple as descriptive vs prescriptive, are you ready for 1000 more comments when I complicate it further by offering positions? Honestly, Blue was right, this has veered off into a meta conversation about the original post and is more of an explanation of philosophy and metaphysics. This is going off into way too many tangents. All of this just to get you to set any standard at all that can falsify you or her arguments. I have to assume it's intentional now. Seriously, just be like me and say exactly how to falsify you guys. Or say you won't or don't know how.
Careful, he’s trying to do it again, he wants to draw you in. His bait is strong! Like you told me, Sometimes taking a step back and seeing that its bait and backing off is better, but up to you in the end
I’ll take a stab and guess that he’s going to say the doll represents someone he loved and lost. And that he swore on his honor as a warrior to love no one else.
Could have been done without the doll. Would have been infinitely less cringe without the doll even if it is this.There’s literally nothing redeemable in this Arc so far. It would be more interesting if he became engaged to Ragna and we had a political Arc / had some evil spirit risk with his proximity to hyunbeol.Literally anything other than the absolute cringey shitshow we’ve been subjected to this Arc would be better.Author could have eunich'd the MC, the labyrinth is dangerous after all, and it would be less of a cop-out than this.If he does do what you’re suggesting, the fake person better be a real dead person the promise could have been made to, because if he’s going to bullshit a bunch of nobels, they’re definitely going to fact check his shit.Edit: Logically speaking this won't fly, he’s banged misha so any “I won’t fuck around because true love” oath is an overt lie and should out him pretty immediately as an evil spirit. Like they could just pivot to “okay, just make a kid with ragna, don’t have to marry her barbarians are poly anyway right?” and he’d have absolutely nothing.This perma-virgin shit literally does not fly in universe for a barbarian. Horrid writing.
I actually think it’s worse than this – he said he’s not attracted to women or men, meaning his heart (and whatever else) is filled by this doll. Man, those who know Bjorn well are going to have a field day with this
yea… I have no idea how this is going to turn out. But the Author has been surprisingly intelligent when it came to twists, turns, and plotlines… so it can’t be as bad as we are imagining.
Unlock with Patreon
this has got to be one of the worst chapter of any LN I have read…
This… “Sigh”, this sucked man. What the heck is up with the author? Like, dude, you can manage romance just fine, we were all here for Misha romance.
Well, apart from other ships of course, but we can agree the author did just fine with that romance, right?
The point about him being unmarried, fine. Marrying Ragna would have been a good way out, a lot of time for politics. Honestly, some comeuppance for the shit he had already pulled on the royal family would have been prudent too, with Marquis hivering over him.
And there was a way out. If he became higher ranked than Ragna, then he could have had multiple wives again, right? Of course royal family would have sandbagged that to hell and back… Unless Bjorn and Ragna had by then succeeded in convincing the royal family that The Giant was under control.
This? This provides him NO BENEFITS. No Melbes support. No shield from royal family. No alliance with elves or Karlsteins. Nothing.
This was just a cowardly move by the author. Kicking the can down the road again.
The worst part is, none of us would really care if Amelia, Misha, Erwin, Aynar and miss mage weren't such fun and well-made characters and we didn't want them to be happy.
I mean, on one hand I like how the author is trying to juggle the political ramifications of the marriage, but on the other hand the execution is kinda… shite
It would be honestly more believable if Bjorn married his SSS-Legendary indestructible shield.
This manga is getting gay. I might have to go back to reading Sakamoto days if this doesn't stop soon.
I'm giving bro… let's say one more round? The posts until next weekend. It's been a fun ride, and the author usually pulls something slick, so I can hold out for this to turn around into something enjoyable, but… come on, man.
This isn't even about picking waifus, there's way better options to dig out of this hole but he keeps pointing that spade down 😭
….I really like this story. I read it as soon as I can, I support it financially, I enjoy conversing with y'all about the plot and our suspicions.
This?
This is D- tier “I’m passing you so I don't have to see your face again” level shit
This Arc is shit.
Author confirmed virgin.
bruh it seems the author is trying everything possible to not give as a romance in the story … i mean its not exactly a must but romance if done right always enrich a story . so either he is afraid to fuck it up or hes not confident of his skill . pretty sad ngl
so at the end bjorn gets married to they doll that represents the witch… which is gonna be like rani in elden ring (a mini versión of the original holding her soul)
What nonsensical plot contrivance is this!?
The story is boring when they aren’t in the labyrinth. If they aren’t opening it, then it’s gonna suck for a while.
I would’ve preferred an outcome where he was forced to marry one of the girls or the countess. This just buys time for the relationship plot.
Um…. well then… I figured he’d find a third option, but… did not expect a doll…
I mean in real life, we do have the guy from japan who married an anime doll, and also that bodybuilder who married his bedroom doll… still uh… Bjorn… sanity is chasing you, but you are faster
I get it’s a ploy but… this will have lasting consequences, unless he really intends to never settle down ever. That or he one day gets rid of the marquis and makes a deal with the competition… that might be his only out.
But bruh… a doll… I'm speechless. He never ceases to amaze, lol
Ah yes, the old bodypillow technique, used since ancient times
ill always give the benefit of the doubt to anything i didnt expect that could make sense but lmao i wonder how this plays out
This is absolute bull shit. It's disgustingly pathetic. I was right. The author wrote himself into a corner and he knows it. This is gayer than if he just said he wanted to marry men.
It’s not even funny anymore. I'm not exaggerating when I say this is the worst execution of the bad with women trope that plagues Asian manga/novels. Are Koreans seriously this pathetically bad with women that the author had to jump through so many hoops to make Bjorn forever alone so he's relatable to these losers?
Please, let's keep hearing from you Bjorn defenders. Tell me how this is actually a 4-d chess move by the author and how he's subverting expectations. Please tell me how this is peak writing. Let me hear your delusions and out yourselves as bigger losers than the author
Why are your opinions so thoughtless and void of reason? I’m pointing out the people that have been excusing his bogus commitment issues since before the Disqus purge. Ashlen specifically rationalized it like this in chapter 589:
Boy that aged terribly! Ignore the blatant contradiction of her stating that his ‘logic is sometimes emotional’ (lol) as she doesn’t like to make sense. How about you? You acknowledge that it’s bad writing now but was it 100 chapters ago? How about 200? When was his bs fear of intimacy no longer “good writing” and just a bad joke that dragged out too long?
People like you are the reason stories go to shit. You dismiss any valid criticism of something you like instead of taking it constructively. This is one of my favorite light novels of all time, which is why it’s important to point out shitty writing as soon as you see it. If enough people are vocal about it, it can change the authors style for the better and improve the story or at least future stories. Martin, you are poison to good media. You eagerly clap your hands together like a mindless seal while ignoring the author’s terrible choices, then act surprised when it concludes in even more shit. You, and fans like you, are a rot that need to be made an example of. Your opinions are thoughtless, unhelpful and destructive to art. You are an enemy of art.
Again, refusing to engage with a single argument and only validate your feelings. More personal attacks lol. How can you ever be wrong or falsified? That just doesn’t exist in your world does it? You’re not used to being called out for your emotional manipulation and having your opinions stand on merit. Keep pretending like you don’t notice when I ask you to show how you can ever be wrong. You just prove my point more.
Literally every interaction we’ve had has been in response to you. You project your own rage in my comments because it’s unfathomable to you for someone to not be ruled by their emotions. I clearly live in your head rent free and it pisses you off.
I don’t know her argument well enough to go to bat for it. If anything I agree with you that this is poor writing and wasn’t foreshadowed enough to make it not come out of left field.By bad faith I mean that you stated you’ve stopped engaging with the subject been discussed and are instead spending the effort to decomstruct their views.I am replying to this thing you said, please correct me if i’ve misunderstood.
You state when you percieve bad faith you will respond in kind. The only question I have really is, was there ever an agreement that you would have a clinical debate with agreed terms? If not then the expectation for ashlen to act in that framework is beginning with bad faith. Imagine you and I had a discussion, I think it’s a casual discussion, you think It’s a debate, I arguably lose the second I state an opinion or theory I can’t factually back up, because I am not operating in the same constraints you were, if I retract that opinion / theory and rework it, is that me acting in bad faith? Should I be expected to acknowledge I lost a debate I wasn’t aware I was engaged in?Once again I don’t know the specifics of your disagreements with Martin and Ashlen, but is it not possible they merely changed their opinions and views as they got more information?Could their perspective not have changed as time passed?This ties back to what ashlen is saying and what I think is happening. Ashlen is discussing with speculation for fun, using colloquial definitions, you’re seeking a clinical debate and having a mismatch. You’re then starting personal attacks and asking someone to submit to a point they contest was ever in discussion, is that good faith or a fair thing to demand?
>Quote my Personal AttacksSince i’m lazy, just from this page.
I see nothing constructive here, the last batch of quotes are from a bigger paragraph i’ve already replied to by saying its not logically sound since the main story is 200 chapters ahead of this. None of this was provoked either since the consensus here is “we all agree this chapter was shit" why did you need to say these things?The definitions you and ashlen have regarding argument validity is different. You are seeking a formal argument, they don’t seem able or willing to provide one. This frankly isn’t a forum where one is required and neither of you have agreed on what constitutes an argument as you are applying different proof systems.>Do they have to follow the laws of logic like everything else in reality.We have already established they are formally illogical, however since not every winning argument is a purely logical one dismissing emotional arguments as “always losing” is illogical and should be dismissed unless there are constraints that demand pure logic. A conversation is not one of those events.Edit: Your elected officials are probably not the best choices from an objectively logical perspective. If they’re not the best choice why are they in that role? I’m sure you can think of other social events and important worldwide decisions that were political decisions not cold logic decisions. Hard logic is not the sole dictator or “right-ness" outside of physics.
Firstly, those statements were provoked as i was referring to both main and ashlen which they both responded to without even having to name them. This implies they knew I was talking about them as they recognized it which means they understand they've been defending this. We've already had a history of taking about this exact point before which they made personal. Most importantly, i have reasons for those statements. They're accurate which I've already stated is what I value most. I get specific about why I said those things so if you disagree feel free to explain.
Only one of us is basing the system on something real and falsifiable though right? The other breaks fundamental laws of reality. So only one of those systems is actually valid though right? Descriptively speaking.
Emotional arguments aren't always wrong but illogical ones inherent are based solely on definition. Things have to make sense in order for them to make sense right? If something breaks the laws of logic, which are tautological, then it doesn't make sense. This also must be true. Then if an argument or opinion doesn't make sense, then it can't possibly be true right? This is why logic is a great standard to appeal to. So if you don't actually think they need to appeal to logic as a standard (even though everything everywhere always does) what standard does govern them? Is there one that you can conceive of that doesn't make them infallible?This is actually the closest you've been to being bad faith as there's only one possible answer you can say here that keeps you good faith.
You can't claim this without asserting what's “good” for everyone what. Obviously, it's “good” for those that voted for them and still believe it's good right?
No that’s perfectly valid as it breaks no laws of logic. Saying this requires a little humility which is why they never ever say this. This statement doesn’t try to justify why the view is correct but they aren’t capable of doing this. They always justify their opinions based on only their own arbitrary standards. That’s where the inconsistencies start flooding and when laws of logic are broken.
This is where there’s a huge disconnect. So the statement, “things have to make sense for things to make sense is” is tautological as it’s essentially A=A. It’s the law of identity. It’s always true no matter what, in any setting or hypothetical. If you can’t accept this then nothing makes sense anywhere at any time. Discussion doesn’t exist let alone matter. That’s why your example of “I do not like this and i’m not sure why" still makes sense and is valid. So even subjective opinions still have to make sense from a logical perspective. Words have to mean what they mean for instance otherwise opinions would be gibberish right? So the moment a law of logic is broken, the thing that broke it is gibberish and doesn’t make sense.
As I already established all things even subjective or hypothetical things appeal to logic (as in can’t break the laws of logic) but even if that’s the case they have to appeal to a standard outside of their own whims or they’re definitionally infallible. How else could they ever be wrong?
I need them to make sense which is why I point out what makes their statements gibberish. I truly don’t care about being acknowledged at all as I can point to an objective standard outside the opinions of others. A standard that governs literally everything in existence whether it’s understood or not. If anything I welcome and enjoy being wrong as it helps me refine my thinking process better. It’s why I enjoy having discussions like this in the first place. If people can acknowledge where their arguments fail, then they can refine it themselves and potentially make it better or realize that what they were saying just doesn’t make sense and pivot. I don’t understand how you don’t see the value in having things make sense in a discussion. That’s literally a requirement for having a discussion in the first place.
I just saw she replied to your comment and this is so mindblowing. As you know I’ve been begging for her to point out how to falsify her own arguments or even admit how her arguments can be wrong and her response is to point out that the way she’s wrong is to even engage with me in the first place!? 🤣🤣 Bro wtf even is that? That is literally the most narcissistic thing I’ve seen in the comment section. She is literally incapable of admitting her arguments or opinions can be wrong.😂 Don’t gloss over this Kittens. Please tell me that isn’t completely nutso. Seriously, please tell me how her arguments can ever possibly be wrong lol. She can’t help but paint herself as a victim. Even though I’ve pointed out multiple times that idgaf about her, she says I hate her without pointing to the arguments she makes that I point out don’t make sense. Seriously, if you only respond to a single thing then let it be whether or not you acknowledge this about Ashlen. She’s a complete solipsist, I think that’s pretty undeniable now.
>Justify things based on their own arbitrary standardsDo you like, not talk to average people? 90%+ people function this way, they apply their own subjective and flawed logic to a situation and get “their answer" I already spoke to this earlier when I referred to kittens logic, chris’ logic, bjorns logic etc. This unfortunately is still how informal conversations work, people will state stuff they believe for reasons they believe and the entire foundation may be fucked but that doesn’t mean that when they said that thing they didn’t think that thing couldn’t be true.Regarding the commentary on ashlen here, I believe we read her words in 2 different ways. I read it as an acknowledgement of been fallible and not much else. Could you explain how you drew the conclusions you drew? I feel like you are making some logical leaps that are unjustified here and I agree with her assessments that you are selectively interpreting her words to fit your paradigm.To elucidate my logic and interpretation:You state “her response is to point out she was wrong to even engage with me in the first place"She did not state that here, she agreed with me that when she engaged with you she was not in a mentally okay space to do so. This is fundamentally different. It is stating “Mentally i was not okay when i spoke with you, that was a mistake" vs “Speaking to you was a mistake” the subject is different, she’s accepting blame and owning the issue not pushing it onto you. You put words in her mouth and reject her admission of error.
She just did, you just quoted her doing so. Why don’t you accept that statement?Afterwards from that foundation, which I consider logically erroneous, you attack her character by calling her a narcissist, which is inflammatory and unnecessary. What does that label add to our discussion?You then have the gall to victim blame her, you don’t like her painting herself as the victim, why do you continue to malign her? Why must you villainize her?
If I called you a solipsist narcissist who is completely nutso, would you not assume I disliked or even hated you? To speak directly, you are abusive and empathy-less in your interactions. You are needlessly rude and inflammatory. You are not someone i care to interact with further on this subject.
That's not the point I'm making. I'm not going after her conclusions at all, which is what you keep getting hung up on. I'm saying that what she is saying, even before she gets to a conclusion, doesn't make sense. It's gibberish. I used this example with blue earlier and I'll use it here.
This is the absolute best way I can explain my position. Frankly at this point there's no room to misinterpret what I'm sayimg without doing so intentionally. Now let's tackle what I meant with ashlen and if literally 100% of my accusations area accurate.If she isn't infallible, which you claim she isn't, then how can she ever be wrong? Keyword is how. It's super easy for me to be wrong. If any of my arguments are contradictions or inconsistent then I'm wrong. If anything I say every breaks the laws of logic, I’m not just definitely 100% wrong but I'm also saying nonsense. What about Ashlen? You already alluded she doesn't necessarily have to adhere to the laws of logic somehow, but let's just ignore that impossibility and grant it. Okay then, how can she ever be wrong or falaified? She never says this. You've never said this. If either of you refuse to explicitly state this, that's 100% bad faith. You've made a framework where it's impossible to be wrong. That's completely and utterly narcissistic. Your essentially truth itself with that framework. How does her saying, “Mentally i was not okay when i spoke with you, that was a mistake,” falsify any of her arguments? Is she admitting all of her arguments were wrong because she was mentally unprepared? What is she admitting to exactly? That doesn't take any of the points I made about pointing out she was speaking nonsense.Now I'm really curious about you. What would it take for you to be wrong kittens? For you to just say, “oh yeah, you're right.” Is that even possible? If not, that's bad faith. Congratulations, you're both God. Impossible to be wrong. So to be clear, if you choose to respond, which I don't think you will because you can't at this point without admitting you were wrong or doubling down and admitting you or her can’t be wrong, then make sure to use the word falsify to keep you honest. How can either of you at this point ever be falsified? At this point, if you can do that, I'll completely concede and I'll apologize to both of you. I suspect you can't, and you won't though.
I’m going to remove some double negatives here so it’s a less confusing sentence.
You are experiencing a literacy problem. This is not one of my claims. Please point to where I ever claimed she is infallible?I specifically claim the exact opposite, she is fallible.My evidence for that claim is she, as a primary source, admits on this page, in this thread that she is fallible. Furthermore, we are human, show me one completely infallible human!?Your premise here is now either objectively bad faith since youre misrepresenting me or a literacy error.You’re attributing a claim I never made to me and asking for irresponsible speculation, since this is a discussion, sure i’ll speculate.You’re asking “how", as in the process by which she can be proved wrong, I would state any logical coherant proof with evidence would suffice to disprove her position or at least force a reposition on the topic. I would also assert that it wouldn’t actually require a high-grade of proof either unless we were debating a core value or identity characteristic at which point we run into the mess that is value-conflict where I may never ever be able to convince her she is wrong because she may simply choose to reject my arguments to protect her sense of self.Where we branch, you and I, is that I think this is “fine" and you will demand she clarify her rejection so you can continue attempting to falsify her position. You also won’t accept “it’s how I feel” as a valid proof because it’s an unfalsifiable position, I however, will.What I believe you’re actually asking however is “What would it take for Ashlen to acknowledge or state she is incorrect” and that’s a fun sociology question and the only reason i’m bothering to reply.I think if her and i were to have a discussion about something minor we werent invested too much in, like a webnovel, and a disagreement arose, and i came back with quotes to disprove her from earlier chapters, while not insulting her or attacking her character, it is reasonable for her to acknowledge an error or reposition her working theory because she would feel comfortable to do so and I provided sufficient proof to disprove or show that the idea was unlikely.If I however treated her like you do, and attacked her character, misquoted her and misrepresented her positions and she felt animosity towards me, the author themselves could literally slide into our DMs, and say “Actually Kittens is right on this point" and there wouldnt be a 100% chance she'd show me the respect of admitting it, because thats just how humans work and in her world view, I simply didn’t deserve the respect of her acknowledging the error to me. The difficulty of obtaining an admission would only increase the more invested she is in the topic, eg core value-conflict problem and the worse our interpersonal relationship.I am not her, I do not know her well, I could be mischaracterising her, take it with a grain of salt but I believe i’ve described the average human condition well enough above.Tldr: Neither of you seem to respect the other, why would she show you the courtesy of admitting an error?
If i got you completely shitfaced on alcohol and drugs and then pulled you into a hard logic discussion where you made some poor arguments i debunked, should I expect you to acknowledge you are incorrect and your views are wrong on that subject matter? Could your opinions actually change in that scenario? Is that discussion even valid?I interpret her comment there as dismissing the entire discussion as invalid and owning the fact she is at fault (failed/fallible!!) to provide her best arguments. I wouldnt say “arguments were wrong” that’s binary, I would say “incomplete and poorly presented".As she did not provide her best, I don’t expect her viewpoint to change, I don’t expect her to acknowledge you as correct. If we were on good terms and I cared about the the result of the discussion I might ask if she wants to have it again when she’s feeling better.
Not much, i’ve already acknowledged I made an error earlier saying your tirade was unprovoked, your case for why it was provoked seemed sound to me.If ashlen comes in here and says “I disagree with your assessment of me in your speculation above" i’d acknowledge an error with no further proof required, because I don’t need hard proof on that subject matter. If she clarified that would be nice and as she is the primary source on herself i’d accept her statements as fact.Lastly, i’ll acknowledge I was wrong earlier when I said I was done replying to you on this. Good bait you lay there, I’ll ammend that error now.
Sorry, I just noticed that, and all the other mistakes I made in that post. I use swype on my phone so I sometimes make typos like that. This is how it should read:
That’s easy. Any relativist ever, which I suspect she is. When you believe in a framework that doesn’t believe in objective truth, and is purely arbitrary, You are by definition infallible. All of her arguments demonstrate this framework. If you disagree point to a single point she’s ever made about anything that doesn’t require her personal interpretation. Even religious people have something to point to that can prove them wrong within their own framework. She can only point to her own reflection. So she’s self referential which means she’s insulates herself against falsification. That’s bad. That’s why I believe I accurately accused her of having a narcissistic position. If I’m wrong please demonstrate this.
Uh-oh. I detect a contradiction here for the first time. Doesn’t get more logical than the laws of logic right? 😬 It’s also inconsistent as you or her get to determine what constitutes “any logical coherant proof” without explicitly stating what that is before hand. This is especially true since you said she didn’t need to abide by contradictions or inconsistencies.
No that’s actually wrong. I do accept that as it’s completely valid and logically consistent. I said this before but that’s an opinion that isn’t arguable. It’s not an argument. It’s like challenging the ocean to a fist fight. Even if it kills you it’s not because it accepted your challenge, it just did it because it exists. Just like opinions, they just exist. She doesn’t do that though. She’s making arguments. I’ll paraphrase myself again because I don’t think you acknowledged this the first time. So whether she’s aware of it or not, by giving reasons to claim, belief or preference, she’s just made an argument. Now it’s not just what you think it’s why you think it, offered for others to accept. Once she starts stacking reasons under it, you’ve got something to test, deconstruct, or dismantle.
No, that’s not exactly what I’m asking. How can she or her arguments ever be falsified. This is very specific and I’ll explain why the distinction matters. To falsify an argument means to show that at least one of its parts (premises, logic, or conclusion) fails, so the argument no longer holds. It doesn’t always mean proving the conclusion false, it means proving the reasoning invalid or unsound. This is extremely important because it creates a standard that she herself agrees to adhere to. An objective standard that doesn’t rely on any arbitrary measures. It nails her down to something she can’t avoid. She’ll either meet the standard or she won’t. If she doesn’t, that means she’s wrong regardless of her mood, victimhood, comfort, or how “irrelevant” the topic is you’re discussing . She (and to a certain degree you) doesn’t want that. You both value comfort over truth, which isn’t inherently bad or anything it’s actually still perfectly logical, but you need the humility to actually admit that. She doesn’t want to outright admit it as she also wants what she says to be right. That’s why she argued. Once she admits it she can’t actually make any arguments or justifications for why she’s right.
Which is why it’s important for her to set a standard that anyone can refer too regardless of whether or not she wants to admit a mistake. That’s why she refuses to do so.
I actually do think you’re speaking out of turn here because she’s never even hinted at her arguments being “debunked.” Quite the opposite actually. You’re making an assertion that I don’t think she believes. If you’re right and that is what she’s saying then there’s nothing more to discuss. You’re also saying she is admitting she was incorrect at the same time though as that’s why the discussion isn’t valid. Isn’t that your interpretation of what she said? She wasn’t in a right state of mind and couldn’t make valid arguments?
That’s the law of excluded middle. Something is either true or not true (A or not A.) This leads to the next point.
Yeah, but how were you wrong though? You said it was sound but that means you must follow the laws of logic and you just didn’t with the law of excluded middle. This is why it’s important for you to explicitly state how you can be wrong. Again, for me, point to a contradiction or inconsistency of mine. Automatically wrong, regardless of how oppressed I am or drunk I am or what harm might befall me. Now you. Do those same limits exist for you? If not then “sound” means something different to you and you need to define exactly how you can be wrong so we’re both on the same page. I know it’s not something most people ever think about but it’s useful for any thinker to understand. It’s a standard that anyone (even you) can reference later to see if you’ve actually made a mistake. Then do the same for Ashlen.
I didn't see this paragraph so I'll redoing separately
No, and I would never expect that. Logic isn't a framework btw it's a tautology. Our universe follows the laws of physics, all universes follow the laws of logic, even hypothetical ones. This means any opinion or statement must also follow those laws in order to make sense. It's why I clarify every argument I make or press for clarification where they possibly don't make sense.
That's not what I do though is it? I don't ask them to back anything up with facts, I simply ask them to make sense. If you retract something, that's already admitting you were wrong or being open to the possibility of being wrong which they can't. They can't even describe how they can even be wrong in the first place. I don't think you can either btw, because they literally can't. My holding completely arbitrary positions they've made themselves infallible.
No, but you should be expected to admit when your position doesn't make any sense. Or that you can even be wrong in the first place. This isn't even debate it's common sense.Deconstructing an argument isn't bad faith btw, it's basically just pointing out when something is wrong without offering a replacement. For instance you can point out that 80+27=-2 is wrong without offering a solution by saying it can't be -2 because both numbers were positive. If you humiliate the people that were dicks to you that posited that solution as a byproduct, that's just a bonus. Truth is always the objective regardless of how it makes people feel.
If their arguments are purely based off of their own identities and subjective life experiences then doesn’t that mean any attack to those positions would also be an attack on their identities and experiences? That’s why I always try to get them to ground their positions to something that doesn’t rely on their mood or feelings. How can anyone deconstruct their arguments without hurting the ego’s that they themselves attach to their positions? They argue by holding themselves hostage instead of letting their arguments stand on the merits. That’s definitionally bad faith as it means they don’t care about reaching the truth if it involves hearing something that makes them uncomfortable.
I think you’ve been reading too much Sun Tzu, and applying it in all the wrong areas
Why? This is a valid place for community members to share their ideas, thoughts, and feelings about this novel. Just because you might not think so doesn’t mean it isn’t.Also, your effort to “ground” people is unsolicited. Why take this approach? I’m asking honestly. Why must be an absolute right position or a wrong position – we are not the author, nor did we write the story. How we feel and what we think help us explore things not spelled out in the story and can make it fun to engage together. Lets get back to that, yeah?Also this story is not cooked, there still are many story points yet uncovered. We have the bid for construction that Bjorn will be competing with dwarves for. We have the labyrinth closing, and a possible plot from Noark to compensate. There’s also that tiny hint that Auril Gavis was the one who tampered with Bifron, and perhaps he could reopen the labyrinth. There’s Baek Ho outside the walls (unless he already came back inside). There’s still room for more lore building too. Let’s get back to chatting about all these things
It's a shame that Ashlen herself continues to show evidence that helps my case. This is her responding to Kittens:
I've never said this and always attack her arguments. She takes that as a personal attack. She never ever brings up the reasons I disagree with her arguments because she know they can't stand on their merits. Instead she immediately holds herself hostage by playing the victim instead of engaging with the discussion in hopes that she doesn't need to defend her arguments anymore. How is possible to have a discussion like that?
As you know, I've been begging her (or anyone for that matter) to tell me how any of her arguments can ever even possibly be wrong. A simple falsification of her arguments. Anyone that is good faith can do this. Her response is that she's wrong for even engaging in the first place. From her view, she is literally freaking infallible Blue. She doesn't need to make sense, nor follow any standard at all which makes her impossible to ever be wrong. How is that not the most narcissistic thing a person can say dude!? That's freaking crazy town.
I discussed this with kittens as they also thought the same thing. So, “I like this novel,” is an opinion. Nothing to argue because it's not an argument. No reason is given or needed, that's why it's an opinion. It literally can't be wrong or incorrect. Saying, “I like this novel because______,” has now turned that opinion into an argument. Now it’s not just what you think, it’s why you think it, offered for others to accept. Once they start stacking reasons under it, you’ve got something to test, deconstruct, or dismantle. This is all I'm doing.Before you can even discuss it though, the argument needs to make sense. “I like this novel because rocket ships taste good on pizza,” is gibberish because it doesn't make sense. There's no discussion possible until it makes sense. So when I point out, “That doesn't make sense,” what would you think if they responded with, “That's bad faith! Why are you manipulating people!? You hate me and think I'm horrid and scum!” Honestly, how is discussion possible there? So, breaking the Laws of Logic immediately makes anything nonsense. Definitionally. Pointing that out to give a person a chance to refine their statement or argument isn't bad faith or a personal attack. It's literally a way to try to engage in discussion.Do you at least understand why I do what I do now? Or makes sense right?
You know what's neat? You just continue to prove my in inferences correct I made about you in chapter 589. Let's take the entire context of your first paragraph:
Nope. Totally understand what you meant and what you said is already impossible. Humans are not contradictory creatures, because contradictions are impossible Ashlen. Hence the Law of Non-Contradiction. Logical laws have no exceptions as they're tautological. The moment you perceive something as a contradiction, you're just wrong bruh, and the explanation must be something else. You can see why basing an argument on a contradiction is a bad start huh?
Lol. Redefining terms is an integral part to how you form arguments isn't it? Just like with starting from an arbitrary position. You’re not capable of ever appealing to something objective? There's logic and then there's non-logic. It doesn't matter what bjorn's personal logic means just like it doesn't matter what mine is or yours is, because they don't exist. There's only objective logic, that can't be misinterpreted as it has set laws that govern it. In every single different universe and form of existence, logic is the same. Same laws and everything. That’s why it’s really great to appeal to it like I do Ashlen, because it’s not based on the mood that I’m currently in and anyone can use the same standard. Mind-blowing I know. Facts also can’t be emotional Ashlen. To you they are because your feelings trump literally everything else. Let’s see how excruciatingly rigorous the research has to be to find discover such profane insights.
Oh boy that was hard! It’s funny you accuse me of misconstruing things when that’s literally the base of all your arguments. You start by arbitrarily redefining words just to take away any possible appeal to objectivity. I don’t shame anyone that disagrees with me, only those that think like you. That put their own emotional beliefs above scrutiny and purposely avoid using objective standards. Blue is a perfect example of someone I don’t shame or disrespect because while he may disagree with me he’s nothing like you. He doesn’t just assume his position is right because he feels that way and doesn’t avoid engaging with my actual arguments instead of resorting to personal attacks.
That was also a point I made in ch 589. You care more about validation than finding the truth. I dgaf about random people’s opinions about me on the internet because I use logic as the structure for all of my arguments. If you guys can’t engage there then who cares what you fools think? I’ve told you plenty of times how to meet me logically. Point out any contradictions, inconsistencies or offer alternative descriptive ‘is’ claims. I’ve done so several times with your arguments. Contradictions being the best way to dismantle arguments as they’re fundamentally impossible and therefore stupid to base an argument on.
You sure? I thought he was just being stoic? 🤣 Why isn’t he still being stoic now if that’s totally within his character that you say was good writing. At least you finally set a limit for when good writing turned into bad writing at chapter 645. No one could have seen this terrible conclusion coming huh? 😂 I mean of course not because if they could then that would mean you might have just been a teensy weensy bit wrong before and that’s impossible right? 🤣🤣Your guys’ problem is that because you base all of your arguments on emotions and arbitrariness, it’s actually impossible for you guys to not take attacks to you positions personally. You don’t appeal to anything objective so your positions are in essence you yourselves. Forget what I said about people like you guys being poison to art. You guys are poison to reasoning and thought. The fact that you guys have the power to vote should terrify people.
This is kind of funny as her responses to this very comment prove my point. Let’s clarify what it means to be illogical. In debate, that simply means anything that violates the Laws of Logic. Pretty simple and straight forward. She breaks all 3. Law of identity (A=A.) Thing is thing. She constantly redefines words to fit whatever she needs at the time. She just did this with her explanation. Logic can sometimes be emotional. When she realized that made no sense, she changed it to Bjorn’s logic. Law of Non-Contradiction (A can’t also be not A.) She broke this by stating that logic can sometimes be emotional. That is impossible. Non-logic can be emotional, but who cares no one is arguing that. You’re trying to generously bridge her nonsense by making the distinction that humans can be illogical because of their emotions because you intuitively understand that it’s a contradiction. Ashlen clearly stated the opposite because she doesn’t care. She feels a certain way and that’s all that matters. Law of Excluded Middle(Either A or not A.) This is the biggest offender here. She never want’s to ground this law because it completely destroys her world view. She purposely tries to muddy the water by never stating objective standards. You can’t have arbitrary beliefs and follow this law. Either something is or it isn’t, but sometimes she doesn’t like how that makes her feel so she ignores that.These laws are tautological meaning all realities crumble if they’re not always true. None of the examples you used are actually illogical as cases can be made for those points that don’t break these laws. They may be cold or even evil but they’re not illogical.
LOL. Even her response is self serving. It can’t possibly be that her arguments are just bad. It can’t possibly be that she could just be wrong. It can’t possibly be that I just attack her positions that fail under even a modicum of scrutiny. It’s that I hate her and her opinions. This is because it’s impossible to deconstruct her arguments without her taking it personally because she is her arguments. Her arguments are her feelings and experiences. They are her identity because she can’t ground them on anything objective. It’s narcissistic and gross. Seriously, how can she ever be falsified? If her feelings change? Like wtf?
It matters less in nuance but not if you're making a direct appeal to in in an argument. Then it really does matter as the argument becomes unfalsifiable nonsense.
Because I would rather my thoughts make sense than not? Also not a framework, it's a tautology. This is actually really important for you to understand my reasoning.
Nice according to whom? That's the problem, I don't value any arbitrary metrics. I'll even concede and say you're right but why should I care if that doesn't matter to me. I ground my thought and opinions on something real. While you can say that I'm not nice, you can't say that I'm wrong and I value that over people's opinions of me.
Again, according to whom and why should I believe them? This is an objective claim that you'll never be able to prove. This actually is a framework called utilitarianism that you're merely assuming is true (its not btw.) I won't bother deconstructing it competely but it's essentially an arbitrary framework that inevitably leads to complete genocide of opposing thought. That's the only way to make it not arbitrary anymore. While it can be classified as foolish or can't be labeled as stupid as it's not technically impossible. Ashlen is clearly a post-modernist which is rooted in relativism. Those frameworks are both foolish and stupid. They both deny objective truth exists which is in and of itself a truth claim. Which makes it's central claim a contradiction. It's why she can't ever admit to being wrong because for her it's not possible. You're clearly logic based even if you don't know it. You haven't broken any laws as you intuitively understand not to. You're only inconsistencies are based off of arbitrary beliefs but you actually acknowledge them unlike ashlen. This means you admit to choosing comfort over truth which is still a logical choice as you make the distinction. Ashlen doesn't. Her comfort is the truth.Seriously, be honest. You admitted she's emotional already but don't you think that's the reason why she can't admit when she's wrong. Or that she can even be wrong? If not why doesn't that matter to you if you're genuinely interested in good faith exchanges like you claim?
Right this is the point I was making. All this does is give an example of what my opinion is on the subject (subjective) instead of tying it to something that anyone can appeal to outside of a human construct (objective.)
This isn’t about what I believe to be true, they are definitionally not being treated equally. That’s the ‘is’ claim, the descriptive (objective) claim. The moment you say they ‘ought’ be treated equally, you are bridging your ‘is’ claim to a subjective ‘ought’ claim. This means you’re adding moral weight as an entailment to your ‘is’ claim. Why ‘ought’ Muslims treat them the same? Just because you or I say so? Why would they care about that? They have something outside of a human construct that they can point to that dictates their moral ‘oughts’ through divine decree. If all Muslims disappeared tomorrow, new Muslims would be born with the same principles as long as they can refer to the same exact source of their moral values or the Qur’an (objective.) Why would our opinions change that when it’s subjective based solely on our human minds (arbitrary?) This is true for all religions btw. They have an advantage when it comes to moral ought claims unless you’re willing to make an objective moral claim which you can only do if you kill anyone that even slightly disagrees with your moral oughts, which is the only way for secularists to do that. The only thing we can objectively appeal to are tautologies like logic and math, but you can’t derive morality from those. Which leads to…
Objectively, they exist but all that means is there are groups that aren’t treated equally, it doesn’t mean that equality should even be seeked out in the first place. Obviously, the people doing the marginalizing don’t believe so, what reason do you think they ought be treated equally? Is it based on something objective or arbitrary because theirs is based on something objective. If you don’t bridge your ought to an objective is, you automatically lose when you match up a prescription (that’s not bridged) with a description. That’s just how logic works. This is what I was pointing out with Ashlen. I pointed out that descriptively, making fun of everyone was equal but most importantly consistent without being arbitrary. No moral claims or ‘oughts’ were made by me. I knew she based all of her arguments on arbitrary standards based on the other exchange we had in the same chapter about Bjorn acting like a biznitch. So I was just calling her out on her inconsistencies, which she ultimately proved me correct.
So, no they’re not equal descriptively, however, muslim’s have an objective justification for why they ‘ought’ not be equal which makes their justification no longer arbitrary and logical. Good luck countering that without relying on an arbitrary standard.
Sorry, I missed this and it’s tangential enough for me not to think i’m breaking my commitment to drop the other subject because religion.
Actually lmao, your bias is showing.
The hand of each god, abrahamic and other, took the wheel and wrote those sentences through me, alas the rest of the book was lost in a great disaster, (I accidentally refreshed the page), but i assure you it was definitely there. The above text is clearly outside of a human construct and most definitely a divine decree.I now point to it as objective indisputable truth for the basis of any future arguments that by your own admission cannot be argued against by any construct of a human mind because that is all arbitrary and lessor than my divinely dictated text.Is this lunacy? Discuss.
Why should they not be?I may have misunderstood you while skimming 589, is pursuit of equality not one of your values? I thought that was our common ground here.
Yes that's actually exactly how it works lol. You've grounded your beliefs, as narrow as they are, into something that will remain after your dead. That's objective, however it doesn’t mean it is objectively true. It also means you're no longer making a secular argument. You can't appeal to any divine authority definitionally. The second problem is that no one has to accept your appeal to authority, just like you don't have to accept Muslim’s appeal to their authority. That leaves you with neither being able to argue or discuss anything really. No convincing can be had until both reach an authority that can be appealed to. That's why logic is a great authority to appeal to! Both religious and secular frameworks rely on it for anything to make sense. Hence why logic isn’t a framework btw. You keep mislabeling it as one. It's a tautology, just like the math as a system. If you don't actually know what that means then look it up as it will help you bridge my arguments with my intent.
I rarely make prescriptive statements at all. I made none with Ashlen because it's not my place to tell her what she ought to do or think. I never presume other’s to have the same belief system as me or expect them to adhere to it. I simply make descriptive statements and point out when she says something that doesn't make sense. I'm not trying to debate (win even if I’m wrong,) I’m trying to have a discussion (understand/explore ideas.) I don’t know if it’s obvious to you but I’m really good at debate. Like top tier. It’s why I don’t seek it here. I gain nothing by “winning” as I can honestly take any position against you guys and still win. It’s why I avoid any sort of rhetoric to manipulate an “audience.” Why I’m flexible with allowing you guys to refine your arguments (which you don’t really take advantage of) and why I’m so insistent on falsifiability. In debate, you defend a position even if it’s weak. In discussion you expose weakness openly to get closer to truth.So I’m not saying equality “ought” be sought out, I’m saying that it’s the only consistent standard of measurement that isn’t arbitrary. It doesn’t change meaning based on the person where “marginalization” does. Just like the example about about religion, you need to anchor the standard to something you both accept before a discussion is even possible. That’s all I’m doing.
That is an incredibly poor standard, every single piece of written material ever, including fantasy, fits that description. Would you like to better refine your language?
I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that religion relies on or even operates with logic.Religion cannot definitively prove the existence of the deity or deities it requires for its divine decrees.All religions depend on a special pleading of “im the only correct one, ignore the others"It is no more objective than any other work of recorded fiction or history written down by a human. All “ought” statements based in religion have no more value than ought statements presented by man, because that is all they effectively are.Religion operates on an unfalsifiable presupposition of “the exact divine being I believe in, with the exact characteristics I assign to them really exists” it is inherently based in faith, which is fundamentally illogical as it is a belief without proof.
“Marginalised” is a state indicating where someone is not equal, that a bias exists towards them, that they lack freedoms someone whom is not marginalised has.A person who is marginalised is not equal. If you state that equality is the only consistent non arbitrary scale to measure with then you should agree that on that scale a marginalised person measures less.If you are refraining from making an ought statement you’re merely saying “equality can be used to measure things" and making no actionable statement thus expressing no opinion for conversation. You have no held stance to debate!?If your stance is about the scale of equality itself been non arbitrary and not dependant on the individual I would argue you are wrong.The scale needs values to measure, the values are placed on it by groups or people. It measures arbitrary things, it cannot escape this fact. The answers it provides are arbitrary. Measuring say, wage equality, on the scale may show in one organisation it is perfectly equal between genders, at a country level the scale could weigh different, globally the scale could weight different once more. Is this not presenting arbitrary results based on the arbitrary criteria people select to weigh?
No, because every single piece of written material isn’t divine decree. Most of it is a human construct. You’re really struggling with definitions here so I’ll make sure to be as exact as I can to clarify. Human construct (social construct)- Exists only because humans made it.Objective standard (objectivity)- Exists independent of human belief, culture, or inventionObjective truth (truth)- A fact or reality that holds independently of perception, belief, or agreementLogical- reasoning that doesn’t violate the foundational laws of thought (logic)Equality- the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunitiesYou sometimes use logic as a synonym for reasoning but that doesn’t really apply as that’s not the point I’m making and what you’re trying to contend with. So no, not all written material fits the description. It’s also important to note that you keep conflating objectivity with truth. They’re not the same thing. So all religion’s including the one you made up, make a claim to objectivity through the form of divine word. Something that is outside of a human construct. Humans aren’t making the claim and therefore can’t make changes to it. They can only make new discoveries from within the standard set in their own system. You don’t have to believe in their standard and it doesn’t mean they’re right or what they’re saying is true. It means they have a way to falsify themselves within their own system. So no one can claim, “our religion says everyone should give me all of their money!” They’d just point to the bible and say, “no it doesn’t.” However, if their God comes down from the heavens and say’s, “no actually I’m going to add that,” then that still meets their objective standard. It means humans can’t make changes to it only their own standard can (their god.) I’m giving you a free meta-physics lesson so I hope you appreciate it lol. Truth isn’t bound by any system at all. It precedes literally everything and is necessary to exist in all possible worlds and hypotheticals. For instance assume “nothing” exists. Everything just ends. It has to be true that nothing exists right? Which means truth still exists. So “nothing” is impossible as truth will always remain. This means truth is beyond human comprehension as we’re bound by whatever systems that bind us. We can only assume to know what is true. I’ll use math as an example. All math already exists. Humans didn’t create it, we merely discover it. At some point we’ll have to assume that we know all math right? But that’s all we can do is assume, because we can be proven wrong by discovering a new formula. This is an issue that every secular debater or thinker runs into eventually. The best we can hope for is knowing what isn’t true. That’s what the scientific method is based off of.
Okay demonstrate it then. You’ll be the first person in history to be able to do it if you can manage. What laws do they break? Law of identity: God is God. Seems pretty compliant. Law of Non-Contradiction: Can God also not be God? Law of Excluded Middle: Is it true or false that God exists? They say yes. So far no laws broken and totally compliant with logic.
Seems you’re new to metaphysics. Nothing in metaphysics is empirically falsifiable. Only logically falsifiable. This isn’t controversial or an opinion of mine it’s the standard of metaphysics.
This is what I mean, there are already problems with this definition as it’s not what it means in the dictionary. So think of equality like this. The world martial arts tournament in Dragon Ball. No weight, gender, or age classes. Pure equality baby! You can be 10 years old going up against a 350 pound man made of pure muscle. That’s equal. Adding bias (regardless of the reason) definitionally makes it not equal anymore in an arbitrary way based on how you define bias or discrimination. For instance descriptively, discrimination doesn’t have any moral weight. It’s not inherently good or bad to have weight classes or age brackets right? So because you’re adding moral weight to a descriptive claim (at least I’m assuming you’re saying being marginalized is bad or ought not happen) you’re smuggling in a prescription without bridging it. This is ‘is’ vs ‘ought’ or Hume’s Law.
No I’m describing the definition of the word lol. Saying that its a standard that can immediately be invalidated as soon as something is treated differently for any reason. That’s why it’s a good anchor that doesn’t rely on a person’s whim. I’m repeating myself again here so I don’t think you’re fully understanding my positions before you move on, but that’s how deconstruction works. I’m merely pointing out gibberish when I see it to give a chance to refine a position to something that makes sense. For instance, this is gibberish, “aposdifne;lijaf;oseifje.” How can I respond to that? It doesn’t make sense. So pointing out, “hey that doesn’t make sense” doesn’t require me to offer an opinion about anything nor is it a personal attack even if it’s taken that way. In debate this is true as well. Depending on the topic you can enter with a completely “neutral” position and focus on deconstructing the argument if you go in knowing it’s based on a faulty foundation. I want to point out the practical reason for not doing so now as we’re close to reaching 100 comments on this chapter where most of it is me just clarifying positions I’ve already made. I repeated myself multiple times in the reply already for instance. I’m also required to explain Hume’s Law and the laws of logic which are foundational to debate and thought. If we have to comment this much on something as simple as descriptive vs prescriptive, are you ready for 1000 more comments when I complicate it further by offering positions? Honestly, Blue was right, this has veered off into a meta conversation about the original post and is more of an explanation of philosophy and metaphysics. This is going off into way too many tangents. All of this just to get you to set any standard at all that can falsify you or her arguments. I have to assume it's intentional now. Seriously, just be like me and say exactly how to falsify you guys. Or say you won't or don't know how.
I’ll take a stab and guess that he’s going to say the doll represents someone he loved and lost. And that he swore on his honor as a warrior to love no one else.
he should’ve took out his shield
It’s a bold strategy cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for em…
yea… I have no idea how this is going to turn out. But the Author has been surprisingly intelligent when it came to twists, turns, and plotlines… so it can’t be as bad as we are imagining.