Oddball wrote:She goes from "I want to help people," to "i want to be rich and help people." I don't see how either is more or less vague than the other.ProfAllister wrote:
More to the point, there is a significant difference. "I want to help people," is the airy, wishy-washy platitude of someone who doesn't know what they want to do with their life. "Really you want to help people? That's overrated. I want to kneecap people and take their money." There's quite a difference between a vague "help others" and "get a job (possibly using connections in a manner that may be less than fair), accumulate a vast fortune, and use your vast fortune to provide funding for major works intended toward the betterment of the community."
How am I supposed to respond to comments like that? How do those comments move the conversation forward? What is gained by their presence? All I see is the insistence that you disagree with me. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with me, but there's really no need to come into a conversation and say "Yeah, I disagree with you. Peace out."It says it, but evidence seems to point elsewhere.Shizune Act 4, 'Infinity' wrote:Shizune is already happy, because if something goes well, there will always be someone else to see it and remember it. That's what makes her happy.
I was saying you seem to be blinded and irrational not because you disagree with me, but because I present evidence and logical chains right in front of you and you do not seem to see them. You do not dispute my logic or try to find countervailing evidence, you just seem to pretend they simply don't exist. I could be missing some important nuance. If so, please inform me.
On the subject of Sociopathy:
Oddball wrote:Do you think Shizune is honest with herself and others and that she's really going to try to change, or do you feel that she's just going to keep being herself and assume everything will work out for her and that the problem is other people?
Your comments seem to imply that you feel she regularly displays 2, 3, 6, and 7. Depending on how willing you are to be flexible, you could even argue for mild manifestations of 1 and 4.DSM-IV wrote:A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:
1: failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2: deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3: impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4: irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5: reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6: consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7: lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
Of course, I've already said that armchair diagnoses like this are really poor form, so, as a counterpoint, let's take the term "sociopath" as it's commonly used (interestingly enough, Urban Dictionary seems to be the best reference for this sort of thing:
Urban Dictionary wrote:A person with antisocial personality disorder. Probably the most widely recognized personality disorder. A sociopath is often well liked because of their charm and high charisma, but they do not usually care about other people. They think mainly of themselves and often blame others for the things that they do. They have a complete disregard for rules and lie constantly. They seldom feel guilt or learn from punishments. Though some sociopaths have become murders, most reveal their sociopathy through less deadly and sensational means.
Urban Dictionary wrote:A sociopath is mainly identified by there being something very wrong with a person's conscious. They either 1) have a conscious with "holes" in it, 2)they don't seem to have one at all or 3) they are able to completely neutralize their sense of conscious into a perspective that they aren't doing anything wrong.
One thing is for sure: Sociopaths only care about themselves and only see themselves as being "real" or truely human. Everybody and everything outside of themselves are twisted in their mind into mere objects to be used to achieve personal fulfillment.
A sociopath oftin believes that they are doing nothing wrong or doing something greatly good, due to their egocentricity and grandiose sense of self-worth. They will cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they please at any expense of anyone in their lives; predators who satisfy their lust for power and control through superficial charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence.
I may be wrong in my interpretation, but I believe that it's possible to see a fair bit of overlap between your description of Shizune and these definitions of sociopath. It could be a failure of communication, but this is what I end up seeing when you talk about her issues.
The whole "revoking your 'talking about Shizune' privileges" thing was a joke. Probably one in poor taste that never should have been made, but no offense was intended. I had been under the impression that you were in on the fact that it was meant playfully, but that appears to not be the case. For that I apologize.
And I do want to discuss things. But there needs to be something to discuss. I may be missing something here. My objection is not that your arguments are so pathetic that they are beneath my notice; I am having trouble seeing you make any arguments at all. I don't want to "win" the debate. I want to discuss the issues, weigh the arguments for and against, and, honestly, get other people to start to think more deeply about the topic at hand (in this or other debates). I give no quarter when analysing someone else's arguments, but I also make every effort to be intellectually honest, and concede a point when appropriate. If I feel there is some information that presents a weakness in my argument, I will even volunteer such weaknesses, as a show of good faith.
In that sense, pushing you to give up on the argument is a loss, and one I sincerely regret. I apologise if I've offended (which I seem to have done), and will try to be less offensive. But in return, I ask that you try to provide evidence for your assertions. Vague statements that there's a counter argument "somewhere" in the text are pretty hard to dispute.
It's actually two things, smushed together. Oddball threw in the comment about not knowing if they were even together at the end, which is why they kind of ran into each other.Xanatos wrote:You seem to be taking "We don't know if they're in a relationship at the end" and twisting it into "We don't know nothing bad ever happens to anyone ever in the future"...
We see change in most of them. We see Emi lower her shields. We see Hanako come out of her shell. We see Rin come to terms with herself. All we see with Shizune is "I'm sure going to try to change, maybe!"
My point is that we don't really see change. We see a turning point. Emi lowering her shields is huge. Hanako coming out of her shell is huge. Rin coming to terms with herself is huge. But Shizune, endlessly driven, endlessly assertive, endlessly competitive, endlessly striving to be the best, admitting she was wrong, that she's made some pretty big mistakes, that everyone else realised it before her, and that she needs to change, isn't huge?
None of these are permanent changes. They can all relapse quite easily. Actions speak louder than words, you might say. After all, Emi said that she was going to let Hisao get close to her, but she also revealed herself to him. Hanako said that she was going to trust Hisao, but she also exposed herself to him, both physically and emotionally. Rin said that everything feels right with the world, but she also did what she could to connect with Hisao without words. Shizune said that she needed to change, but she also admitted fault, admitted defeat, and admitted that she was no better than anyone else.
They're still words, and talk is cheap. But words aren't inherently meaningless. People can lie, they can say things they don't truly mean, and so on and so forth. The same is true, to a lesser extent for actions.
More importantly, though, is the overall theme of the importance of words that occurs throughout her route. The difference between the good end and the bad end is not precipitated by what he does so much as by what he says. Sign language works as a bit of a (clumsy) metaphor here, because Shizune's words are actions. It is stated time and time again that Shizune only says things if she truly means them.
When it comes down to it, though, it is simply unfair to assume that Shizune will have any less follow-through than any of the other girls. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Saying "we have no reason to believe her" has no more weight than its counter: "we have no reason not to believe her." If you can argue why we specifically have reason to not believe her, then I'm more likely to be convinced that you're on to something.