Crescent Pulsar wrote:Okay, that's it. I won't stand bullying
Bullying? Would you LIKE me to BULLY? I guarantee. No such thing has taken place on my word and honor. If I wanted to BULLY, you'd know it. I have a vicious streak in me when I'm rendered upset. As an ex-soldier, and as a person of high moral integrity. I find this offensive.
(As a member of spacebattles, I find you need to grow a thicker hide if my conversation and debating with you has become comparable to BULLYING. Just saying, you'd be in a thorough RAGE by the likes of White Rabbit in one shot. He LOVES personal attacks and has the skills to weave very vicious, hard to counter arguments. Ask Arty, he can tell you how vicious it is over there at times.)
I'm going out of my way here to word my statements nicely, not to make any kind of exceptionally derogitory personal attacks (save for maybe a friendly poke), and not to do things like call people stupid (or much, much worse). So do me a favor and do not call me a bully again. I don't get hostile until I'm acted against as a matter of principle. But I don't believe in half-measures.
from someone who's wrong about their presumption and trying to make the subject's argument revolve around their own idea of how the subject should be approached. And when someone doesn't approach the question the way you want them to, you call it a straw man fallacy, because, obviously, the method of approach is somehow a one-way street through you. Everyone is entitled to use their own methods for discerning what makes Ryoga a despicable character or not; just because someone may have a different method does not mean it invalidates their opinion. In fact, the very fact that it asks for an opinion should make that obvious.
Debating through a constant string of fallacies and il formed arguments does not constitute a 'method'. Supporting one's argument in a debate through a series of exaggerations, inaccuracies, deliberate ignorance of context, and false standards is not a valid argument: PERIOD.
Claiming that people are entitled to use this 'method' is the same as claiming that people are entitled to eating RAT POISON instead of cereal.
Now, they're perfectly welcome to eat their rat poison, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still rat poison, and it's still bad for them.
How our reasoning and opinions are applied to Ryoga hold no bearing on the other characters, for the subject is not about them. It's not that they don't matter, and it's not that they can't be held in contrast or comparison to Ryoga in one's reasoning: it's because the subject focuses on Ryoga. Had the question been "which Ranma 1/2 characters do you think are despicable", then drawing in all of the characters would be a matter of course. It's logical to hold other characters to the same standards that are used on Ryoga, but to force everyone to do so would discriminate those who like or hate certain characters, who are wholly and fully entitled to their feelings and beliefs regardless of whether we agree with them or not. (Basically, it's alright for people to hold different characters to different standards.)
The reasonings and oppinions must be refferenced off the other characters as part of the CONTEXT of the STORY...
If any analysis of Ryoga as a character is to be made with any accuracy, his fellow characters need to be included as a point of refference and contrast to judge him. This is of key importance because he is from a story where he, as well as the rest of the cast, are not comparable to regular humans. Niether physically, or in the legal sense. (The, point I mentioned about all the charges they'd end up with, remember?) The story is suspended in a fictional sense where the consiquences of actions are blatently ignored, and the humans being presented are more than a little SUPER human. The only comparable refference between these characters, is the characters themselves.
And if you're going to try to hold us to your own brand of logic and stipulations for making valid arguments, the least you could do was not contradict yourself. You've argued that Ryoga isn't bad, and yet, now, you say that what he has done is bad. Okay, so how can doing bad things not put him into a position to be seen as a despicable person? And I put it that way because, obviously, the conclusion will be a matter of opinion, and not the word of God that you make your conclusions out to be.
I see you missed the entire point of this section and jumped right ON the fact that what I said about this LITTERAL interpretation was reverse to my oppinion. Not unexpected. But you're attacking thin air here.
What I'm trying to show, is if I am to apply the Written Law Standards, everyone must be judged equally to provide the refferences to compare Ryoga to. I'm trying to point out to you that it is bad practice to hold a double standard because changing the standard changes the very nature of the debate.
The reason that there is a double standard is that this debate started (Or appeared to have started) as an In Context debate. Which implies that he is being judged relevent to the rest of the cast. As soon as those holding the more extreme oppinion of Ryoga started having shaky trouble finalizing their position against my points, they switched from the contextual standard to a litteralist standard in order to uphold the point they were making. In doing that, I was forced to point out that everyone else is equally guilty in such a standard, and that makes any attempt to distinguish Ryoga's moral character completely whacked and makes no sense in light of the OP's seemingly context based question.
As you should be aware now that I've spouted it several times. My oppinion that I am upholding that Ryoga is NOT despicable, is based on my In-Context views of his actions. Not the Letter of the Law views that completely render any comparison, worthless.
My oppinion of Ryoga is that he is, and I quote: "A chivilrous moron with poor decision making skills and deluded justifications for certain actions." This oppinion is based on my examination of his character, within the context of the story. Not a court of law, not compared to my next door neighbor, or myself, but within the context of the story, along side the character of his peers. And this, I stand by.
[sarcasm]I'm sure I've done something "wrong" by addressing this problem[/sarcasm], but I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure it's alright to protect the integrity of the discussion/debate, since it's only when done properly that the people involved can be treated fairly. So it's relevant and, above all, I didn't do any defaming in the process. Speaking of which:
It's only protection of the debate, and fair to the people involved, if it was fair to begin with. A Double Standard by its very nature, is unfair.
Here, you're assuming that we're character bashing, on the presumption that we must (but are not) include the rest of the cast for judgment. So, instead of doing it directly, you're being condescending and calling us childish through dastardly means. That doesn't make it okay, and certainly not right.
Incorrect. You should read the previous statement before that quote. If Ryoga is applied to the same universal standard and judgement as the rest of the cast, based on Letter of the Law treatment. He's guilty as everyone else. Only he's getting singled out here and attacked. That pretty much sounds like character bashing. Intentional or not. Which I supplied here to point out that I'm pretty certain that character bashing was not the intent of the OP's rather honest question.
As I noted that, I assumed that the debate was occuring within context, and that Ryoga would be judged reletive to characters that are to be the frames of refference. Like Shampoo, who is often vicious, petty, and cunning. But sweet when she wants to be. Or Genma, who's a greedy coward... or Kodachi Kuno, for whom, dirty tricks are the entire point of her character. (That and she's totally Batshit Insane. Which makes any attempt by her to be sweet something that sends chills up your spine.) A Trial By Jury, if you will, of his Peers.
If I was wrong in assuming we were going to judge him in-context and fairly, I apologize.
So... Ryoga... I guess the verdict's in. Those judging you have picked your place in history. Are you ready?
"You are a slimy, disgusting, worm ridden, grrreen discharge of a man, aren't you?"
- Arnold J. Rimmer, Red Dwarf
(Arnold Rimmer. Now there's a despicable character if there ever was one. A loathesome piece of filth who's only redeeming quality, is that he died. Twice. Unless of course you consider his paralelle universe self... Ace Rimmer. ... What a guy.)