Lacus Clyne... the Plot Hole Character

[wingdarkness]

Originally Posted by 4tran

Does this look even vaguely like my argument, or is it just a blatant strawman? It doesn't help your position that you tried to reword your original synopsis of my argument to "She's smart and capable because she wound up winning and being so...So apparently she always was (Eventhough there's almost nothing to support this in character progression but the final outcome)" as if that's what you said to begin with.

This is STILL what you arguable believe so what's the difference?? (Yes that's rhetorical)...

Originally Posted by WDness

You're basically telling me whatever winning course her character had taken she would have been capable of this because she's Lacus Clyne

You agreed with this, sheeesh...Obviously you believe she's really intelligent as you've stated countless times (I mean we do have a history of debating stuff so do I have to spell out everything I know about your opinions?)...So is she smart because we have valid evidence of her smarts, or is she smart because in the end she wins and winds up being smart?

My equation:

She's "capable" + She wins = Assume she's really smart

It was just a microcosm on your philosophy of evaluating this character...Which is purely mathematical...Which is why you continue to out-smart yourself...

You believe the ends justify the lack of coherency in the means when it comes to Lacus and everything you say just about supports this...

I know this isn't one of my stronger comebacks, but man you're losing it...I'd very much like the audience members to explain to me what the hell is going here...We need a medium here...I don't think another breakdown of your anal over-analysing will make this debate blossom...I await some other reactions to this somewhat bizarre discussion we are having...Other members if I've gone off the deep end please throw me one of those donut-shaped things...

[4Tran]

Points of order:

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

This is STILL what you arguable believe so what's the difference?? (Yes that's rhetorical)...

The difference is that in debating, what I believe is completely unimportant. What's important is what arguments I make. If my arguments are incongruous with my beliefs, that's my problem, not that of my opponents. It's not your job to read my mind or to assume what I mean to say; it's mine. Therefore, by distorting what my argument was, you're making a strawman attack. And strawmen attacks are akin to dishonesty as far as debating is concerned.

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

You agreed with this, sheeesh...Obviously you believe she's really intelligent as you've stated countless times (I mean we do have a history of debating stuff so do I have to spell out everything I know about your opinions?)...So is she smart because we have valid evidence of her smarts, or is she smart because in the end she wins and winds up being smart?

I do believe that Lacus is intelligent, but it's not for the reasons that you brought up. Furthermore, even this is less important than the fact that I never made the argument that you're claiming I did.

Originally Posted by wingdarkness

It was just a microcosm on your philosophy of evaluating this character...Which is purely mathematical...Which is why you continue to out-smart yourself...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but however you phrase it, I find my approach infinitely superior to starting with a conclusion, and then trying to cherry-pick facts to support that conclusion.

[Kittie Rose]

4Tran, your arguments certainly seem logical, however you have spent the last few pages arguing semantics rather than bolstering your own opinion.

Why, exactly, concisely, do you think Lacus Clyne is not a realistic character?

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Kittie Rose

4Tran, your arguments certainly seem logical, however you have spent the last few pages arguing semantics rather than bolstering your own opinion.

Matters pertaining to strawman attacks aren't semantic. Without first dealing with that kind of issue, there can be no debate.

Originally Posted by Kittie Rose

Why, exactly, concisely, do you think Lacus Clyne is not a realistic character?

You must have me mistaken for someone else; I'm not the one who's got a problem with Lacus.

[Kittie Rose]

I'm confused then; who is attacking how Lacus is written then?

Matters pertaining to strawman attacks aren't semantic.

There are more logical fallacies than just the strawman, and the strawman tends to me the most over and mis-used, and thusly, yes, often becomes a part of semantics.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Kittie Rose

I'm confused then; who is attacking how Lacus is written then?

Right now, it's mostly wingdarkness and Eidolon Sniper.

[Eidolon Sniper]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

How could a rule (not crying => abnormal), which what you used, apply to Lacus and not to the rest of us? Come on, explain that to me.

Get this. I ONLY said that how Lacus coped with the grief as abnormal, I NEVER said that not crying is abnormal, I NEVER said that it makes all people in the world abnormal, or that it makes every person on this thread abnormal, or whatever else. See below.

I never said any of it. Let me repeat, since apparently it didn't catch on the first times. (Yes, plural. I already said it several times.)

I NEVER SAID ANY OF IT.

==>

Then I invite you to broaden your horizons on what human beings are like.

==>

Well, you seem to have a narrow view of what humans are like. I assume you draw that view from your own experience and emotional life. Which would mean that for you to think people are "normal", they have to be close to you.

==>

I never said that, though sometimes, it does look to me as if your vision of humans is skewed by anime.

Oh really never said it?

Never really said it explicitly probably, but hinted. Thank you very much.

Oh. More.

What I said was, based on your definition of normal which is apparently too narrow for Lacus' reaction to loss to fit in it, is that you view of what constitute normal human behavior is narrow.

Also, based on comments on this thread and others (like what you said about "awareness" ( that, to me, basically translates to ESP), or about blushing, that anime colors your view of human behavior as well.

Sorry? I guess as I shouldn't have stated mirror; I should've said pseudo mirror instead. Well anyway, it doesn't matter. If your mirror gets too clouded by emotions or refusal to see beyind what people are actually discussing that is literally relevant to this thread (not the human catalogue of emotions will you), then you would also probably have a skewed perception of what humans and life are in general. So, if animes aren't stories based on these human perceptions, as well as books, movies, and God knows what else, then what would be left for us to actually entertain and inform or whatever it is we want our audience to be?

Yeah. I read it. So you basically refuse to make sweeping statements, but, when it pleases you, you treat your claims about "some people" as applying to the particular character in question without ever giving a reason. As I've explained twice or thrice, it's just wrong.

What? I think I have stated my reasons already, or else you either refuse to see it, refuse to believe it, or refuse to believe that somewhere along the way there also are a couple of people who do not like how Lacus was represented as a character. Also, the human catalogue of emotions (which you dragged into this discussion whereas I was only trying to explain that Lacus' grief period as abnormal) have nothing to do with this thread, and that "some people" do not act like Lacus, Kira, Shinn, Lunamaria, etc., etc., and you didn't see any of what I was trying to say (or probably, refused to see anyway).

I do not make sweeping statements because not all people are like Lacus. Can't you understand that? If you don't, then who between us are having skewed perceptions about the entire human race?

My point was, all characters have some degree of irrealism with them. Lacus isn't really worse than any of them.

She's loads worse. As I also said in one of my earlier posts, even other anime have some semblance of common sense; Destiny is, unfortunately, not one of them. I mean, where else could you have a character who could do ALL those things without getting a slap on the wrist for all the very suspicious things that she had done?

[Anh_Minh]

Try, at least try to get it: when you say "Lacus is abnormal because of A",you are making a sweeping statement. You are saying, in effect, that all people who share the A characteristic with Lacus are abnormal.

And when you're talking about her reaction, or lack thereof, to grief - you include a lot of people who aren't prone to display of emotion either.



As for what I said: yes, if you think Lacus' reaction as abnormal, your vision of humanity is narrow. Sorry to break it to you, but you place a large segment of human population (including me and Nightengale, for example), outside the norm. We're not talking out of Lacus fanboyism or whatever, but from experience of how grief can affect not just people in general, but us personally.

It doesn't mean you're arrogant. It just means exactly what it said, that your vision of humanity is narrow. That you're not aware of how much and how often human personalities differ from what you think of as the norm.


And I said you view is skewed by anime. That's not the same as saying you view the world as anime, but that your worldview is influenced by anime. Let's say you like red. Your tastes will be influenced by that, but it won't mean every piece of clothing you own will be red, or that you'll like any red clothing regardless of cut or other factors.

I'll even concede that "skewed" means "more influenced than it should be". But that's all.


And as for the "catalogue of human emotions", you're the one who tried to talk about how "some people" are different from Lacus. The only logical reason you might want to do that (other than trying to pull a fast one on us) is to try and make an exhaustive catalogue of human behaviors so you could place Lacus' neatly outside of it. As long as all you say is "some people", you say nothing. I could say "some people are different from Eidolon Sniper", I could even provide examples, that wouldn't make you "abnormal".

Did you read my post about logic? Did you understand it? If not, PM me and I'll try to explain it more. Or better yet, show it to a math teacher, and have him explain it to you. It's easier face to face. And with Venn diagrams.


(Also: I wasn't that assertive about it, using expressions like "you seem", or "it looks". But why bother with nuances when you can't catch them?)

[Eidolon Sniper]

Oh, really? Since when did making generalizations include saying things like "some" in my sentences? Or that Lacus is abnormal because she didn't show her grief properly? I said what Lacus DID was abnormal, not that I said, NOT CRYING is abnormal. I DID NOT SAY THAT NOT CRYING IS ABNORMAL. OK? I put all those letters in all caps because you might just fail to see it again. I want this to stop already, because it has already become very ridiculous. Where did you actually see from my posts that I was seeing the entire human world as nothing but what I generally see in Lacus? Stop accusing me of something I am not. I know where reality is, and where reality is not. I do not see my little brother as some sort of random anime nobody, nor do I treat my parents as if they're a pair of caricatures brought to life, or that I hide inside my shell thinking that I am the only person who is real in this whole damned world and that everybody's opinions do not count. If I did, I would dismiss you off as somebody not even worth wasting 0.0000097 seconds of my time because I would rather spend it talking to my Poring plushie as if it's alive and that I suddenly become some sort of sailor fuku wearing soldier of justice waving a stick with a huge pink heart on one end.

I brought out your views in which sort of hinted that I was having these delusions. How could you even claim that I have a narrow view of humanity as a whole just because you saw that I wrote that I saw anime as a mirror of life in a sense? Now, even some people are getting on my case because you haven't even bothered to try airing my side of things, you just continued on as if I am the biggest racist/narrow minded bigot on the face of the planet just so because I said that Lacus grief is abnormal, and that you have to say it over and over again everytime I replied that I didn't say anything about not crying being abnormal. That I only see people who do not cry as abnormal. No wonder Nightengale and the others feel like they were singled out for being "abnormal". You must be happy knowing full well that these people are on your side somewhat, but they were probably hoodwinked into believing what you are saying because you just said your side of the story, whereas I was trying to explain that I am not, and you said that I was making a general sweeping statement that Lacus abnormality = all people in the entire universe who do not cry, when in reality, it's not. Would you please take time to read what I post?

Anime is a mirror of life or whatever, but I'd rather that this mirror invites me to think, too. Maybe I'm also a very serious person that is why I like characters who are well developed, who just simply isn't there to be drooled over again and again. 2 D characters without any strong basis on their personality, or whatever, just don't interest me at all. Don't get me wrong. I used to like characters just because the way they looked good appeals to me more than their personalities. Maybe I've matured in my tastes, or whatever state that I'm going through anyway. So that's that.

Where exactly did this can of worms really originate (me seeing Lacus grief = abnormal, so therefore Lacus abnormal = people who do not cry are abnormal)? Can you please take your time out and try figuring out how in the world I became so narrow minded on humanity?

2 D characters in this reply = 2 D ANIME characters, NOT people.
I used to like characters who looked good = ANIME characters; not people.
"Mirror" of life = ANIME, not just because they're for kids (as what my parents all think) but something that keeps me entertained and at the same time INVITES me to THINK (YuYu Hakusho, Hunter X Hunter).

You replied to this:

Then I invite you to broaden your horizons on what human beings are like.

Seriously? You must be thinking along the line that 2 D characters = REAL people. Read it again.

I didn't generalize that Shinn and Fllay = all other people out there. Where did you get this? I said, Shinn and Fllay are part of a group of people who do have no problems expressing their emotions, and it is rather small as compared to the rest of the others.

See, I didn't even generalize that Shinn/Fllay = all people out there.

Your reply to this:

Well, that's sort of the impression I got from your insistence that Lacus absolutely must cry in public.

And you can let go of your grief in many other different ways besides crying. But sometimes there are instances that you get too emotional that you break down even with such a very strong resolve not to. As I said, emotions aren't that easy to control because they are emotions; you could only let go of these emotions in other less distracting ways, but not stop them completely.

I only said that there are some people who do cry. I am not saying that abnormal people don't cry, or that normal people always have it easy expressing their feelings...and even if I'm with somebody special, at least I want him to understand why I'm crying, as in he knows me quite well enough so that it won't be too awkward for me to show him what I felt like; sometimes it's even hard to cry in front of your best friends because you might be worried what they might think, or whatever.

^^^^ this rather should do with that "I insist Lacus must cry in public" post and reply...

Some people != Lacus.

I think there is a problem of logic here. You're making claims on "some people", and tell us it's weird Lacus isn't like that. That would only work if you made claims on "every people".

This is before my reply to 4Tran:

Going by this "some" people business, I was merely trying to get away from being accused as generalizing as far possible, because if I generalize, then that would be a sticky situation to get out of. Only a given set of people exhibit characteristics like Lacus (or probably maybe not one could be like Lacus or maybe one only or whatever), Shinn/Fllay/Kira, Cagalli, Athrun, etc. Or they might happen to have personality hybrids of some sort too. Whatever. The only point with this "some people" business, I'm going to repeat again, is that I do not want to generalize things as they are. Period.

So, every person is abnormal, every person who does not cry is abnormal, every person who is plothole diva is abnormal...but I could hardly think of any plothole dive in real life, or I haven't read about one, or met one. (REAL plothole diva eh.)

Saying "some people" hardly makes the entire sentence generalizing. It just limits Lacus to a small, small group of people who do not cry and also seem as if they get over it really quickly, without any emotional backlash about it even after a few years or so, or never. There might be some people like that, I don't know. There is emotional backlash, I said, even if you do not grieve for that person right away; it might happen several hours later, days, months, years, I don't know. BUT what makes Lacus abnormal is that she hasn't been showing any signs of grief, or even haunted by her grief, after 2 years, whereas her contemporaries all suffered some emotional backlash one time or another, and they were all haunted by it. It's as if the entire thing never happened. Take note that I have said countless of times how I haven't said anything that makes people who do not cry = abnormal.

When you generalize, you say, "ALL people who do not cry are abnormal". It doesn't limit the people you include in this sentence; it encompasses ALL of them. So, if I said anything to that effect, it means that all people who do not cry = abnormal. Saying "some" does not mean that all people who do not cry = abnormal. I said Lacus' methods of grief (not crying/not affected by it for the last 2 years) is abnormal, and what makes it abnormal is the fact as if nothing major happened at all.

No, I'm saying that your standards for normal behavior - if you think the way Lacus dealt with her father's death is abnormal - are rather narrow.

I didn't even see Lacus' personality as a standard to be followed by other characters...where did you get this? But since this is a Lacus thread, then I guess Lacus must be some sort of standard as to where all other characters must be measured...

It's not even narrow by a long shot; it seems as if you're the one who believes that I am making it narrow, or you want to believe that I am making it narrow.

And if I think Lacus is so shallow, that's my opinion, that's what I think of her character. Must only all Lacus diehard fans be the only ones who could post in this thread and gush about the "awesome" that is Lacus Clyne? I do not think so. There is a reason why people do not have the same set of opinions, it is because they are different from each other. A thread like this makes for exchanges as to why other fans feel that way about this character, and why she is a plothole character. It's not as if we come up with points to point out that she is one, you are quick to jump on that random poster and counter their posts with replies that are now bordering on a little more personal side of things and accuse them of things that aren't even hinted at to begin with. Or why we simply have to admit the fact that Lacus is clearly made of "awesome" or else we risk getting bashed for thinking otherwise...

And how do you equate what Lacus is to the general populace? Really? There are a bunch of Lacus clones out there who could at least make your statement somewhat real, perhaps? Lacus is but one part of the human emotional spectrum, to which I don't even think she has a personality at all to begin with, because her personality, as I said, is unreal, because she is just made to have those emotions on a really scripted basis, unlike other characters on the same show who suffer her "one ep after a few eps syndrome" only, and that is saying much.

***Now, no more of this, I am tired of this debate. Please read through EVERYTHING that I have so patiently copied and pasted from the last few pages in order for you to read and think through it if I am equating ALL people who do not cry = abnormal. Also, the people who seem to think the same as well. Thank you very much. I also advice you to not see red when you see Lacus getting, um..."pointlessly bashed", or whatever. Any more posts about me as being the impossibly narrow minded bigot of complete injustice will not be entertained anymore. Or would I answer them. I do not see the point of it on the Lacus thread. Thank you Anh_Minh for completely transforming my image and let others see me in a whole new light.

[4Tran]

I'm going to try to help clear up a few issues here:

Originally Posted by Eidolon Sniper

Oh, really? Since when did making generalizations include saying things like "some" in my sentences? Or that Lacus is abnormal because she didn't show her grief properly? I said what Lacus DID was abnormal, not that I said, NOT CRYING is abnormal. I DID NOT SAY THAT NOT CRYING IS ABNORMAL. OK?

I think that you don't like Lacus, and that you're trying to articulate the reasoning behind that dislike. However, the way that you're doing lends itself easily into misinterpretation. Normally, when you qualify a statement as applying to "some people" of a particular set, you're not generalizing; you're just stating that something applies to a certain group, and specifically not to everyone. However, that's not the way you're coming off - by defining something as "abnormal" because it is different from what "some people", you are making a large generalization. Moreover, by not pointing out anything else to support your argument, it's rather straightforward to interpret it as saying that anything outside of what you refer to as "some people" is supposed to be abnormal.

Originally Posted by Eidolon Sniper

Saying "some people" hardly makes the entire sentence generalizing. It just limits Lacus to a small, small group of people who do not cry and also seem as if they get over it really quickly, without any emotional backlash about it even after a few years or so, or never.

The problem here is that you haven't made any attempt to justify your position. You didn't even try to show why the group of people who don't express their emotions should be considered a small one.

Originally Posted by Eidolon Sniper

When you generalize, you say, "ALL people who do not cry are abnormal". It doesn't limit the people you include in this sentence; it encompasses ALL of them. So, if I said anything to that effect, it means that all people who do not cry = abnormal. Saying "some" does not mean that all people who do not cry = abnormal. I said Lacus' methods of grief (not crying/not affected by it for the last 2 years) is abnormal, and what makes it abnormal is the fact as if nothing major happened at all.

While these aren't your exact words, the gist to be gathered from your argument is precisely that. You haven't tried to explain the support for your conclusion beyond painting all sorts of people with the broad brush of "abnormal". And it's the painting of other people by insinuation that's getting Anh_Minh riled up - a rather understandable reaction, I might add.

You'd strengthen your position much more if you dropped your current line of argument (Lacus is abnormal because some people don't act the way she does), and brought in real evidence to support your points. It'd also go a long way in making your actual position more clear.

[Anh_Minh]

Spoiler:

First I want to than 4Tran for clearing up the misunderstanding. I did, indeed, think that all those explanations about how "some people" act were there to support Sniper's claim that Lacus' reactions were abnormal. Now that I see that it's not the case, it all makes much more sense.

One question, though, Sniper: why did you talk about "some people" at all, then? Why the non sequitur?


Second (I put it at the top for more visibility), when I talk of "not crying", it's a shortcut for Lacus' reaction in general. Or rather, for the lack of visible reaction that you so decry. I thought it went without saying, but apparently I was wrong.

Originally Posted by Eidolon Sniper

Oh, really? Since when did making generalizations include saying things like "some" in my sentences?

"Some" isn't a magic word that'll protect you from overgeneralizing. But I guess I should give up on making you understand that.

But if, indeed, you made no logic link between what "some" people do and what constitutes abnormality, for Lacus or anyone else, then I guess that you didn't overgeneralize. Question: can you understand where I come from, foolishly assuming you were arguing your case?

Or that Lacus is abnormal because she didn't show her grief properly? I said what Lacus DID was abnormal, not that I said, NOT CRYING is abnormal.

Wait. What did she do that was abnormal? I was pretty sure you were talking about how she took the news of her father's death. Oh, and that random bit about how fast she fell in love with Kira.

I DID NOT SAY THAT NOT CRYING IS ABNORMAL. OK? I put all those letters in all caps because you might just fail to see it again. I want this to stop already, because it has already become very ridiculous. Where did you actually see from my posts that I was seeing the entire human world as nothing but what I generally see in Lacus?

Better English would help you not be misunderstood. Take this last sentence, for example: "[...]I was seeing the entire human world as nothing but what I generally see in Lacus". I have really no idea of what you mean. I can't even make a guess.

Stop accusing me of something I am not. I know where reality is, and where reality is not. I do not see my little brother as some sort of random anime nobody, nor do I treat my parents as if they're a pair of caricatures brought to life,

I didn't say otherwise. Though I suppose I did imply that you've watched too much anime.

or that I hide inside my shell thinking that I am the only person who is real in this whole damned world and that everybody's opinions do not count.

Yeah, hm, I didn't say that at all.

If I did, I would dismiss you off as somebody not even worth wasting 0.0000097 seconds of my time because I would rather spend it talking to my Poring plushie as if it's alive and that I suddenly become some sort of sailor fuku wearing soldier of justice waving a stick with a huge pink heart on one end.

I brought out your views in which sort of hinted that I was having these delusions.

Do you mean you've put words in my mouth? Well, I'll concede that point.

How could you even claim that I have a narrow view of humanity as a whole just because you saw that I wrote that I saw anime as a mirror of life in a sense?

It's not the mirror of life comment. It's the fact you see Lacus' reaction as somehow far outside the norm of human behavior.

I reminded you of your claim of seeing the anime as a mirror of life, and of your desire to think, because you dismissed out of hand the quote I used. You said it was irrelevant because the CE's anime.

Now, even some people are getting on my case because you haven't even bothered to try airing my side of things, you just continued on as if I am the biggest racist/narrow minded bigot on the face of the planet just so because I said that Lacus grief is abnormal, and that you have to say it over and over again everytime I replied that I didn't say anything about not crying being abnormal. That I only see people who do not cry as abnormal. No wonder Nightengale and the others feel like they were singled out for being "abnormal". You must be happy knowing full well that these people are on your side somewhat, but they were probably hoodwinked into believing what you are saying because you just said your side of the story, whereas I was trying to explain that I am not, and you said that I was making a general sweeping statement that Lacus abnormality = all people in the entire universe who do not cry, when in reality, it's not.

I trust that Nightengale, 4Tran, and Silverdirt did as I did to form an opinion of your stance and arguments: they read your posts.

You see, it's not my role to "air your side". It's yours. I have my hands full explaining my side. For that matter, I'm not even sure I even understand yours anymore. I am not your PR director.

Would you please take time to read what I post?

I do. I also make an effort to understand it, explain precisely where I disagree and why, and try to give you every chance to clarify your position and bolster your opinion whith actual arguments. But I can't do it for you.

Where exactly did this can of worms really originate (me seeing Lacus grief = abnormal, so therefore Lacus abnormal = people who do not cry are abnormal)?

Not so much people who don't cry, but people who react much like Lacus did.

As I've told you, I have in common with Lacus that I've also lost my father. You know the difference between me and her? I cried less than she did.

Can you please take your time out and try figuring out how in the world I became so narrow minded on humanity?

I've said it more times than I care to count. Lacus' reaction is normal. To see it as outlandish means you've got a narrow view of what humans are like.

2 D characters in this reply = 2 D ANIME characters, NOT people.
I used to like characters who looked good = ANIME characters; not people.
"Mirror" of life = ANIME, not just because they're for kids (as what my parents all think) but something that keeps me entertained and at the same time INVITES me to THINK (YuYu Hakusho, Hunter X Hunter).

YYH and HxH? Those are your examples of thought provoking animes?

You replied to this:



Seriously? You must be thinking along the line that 2 D characters = REAL people. Read it again.

What do you mean? That I'm the one who's confused about anime and reality? That I think you think... something?

See, I didn't even generalize that Shinn/Fllay = all people out there.

Granted, you didn't do it in so many words. But I did infer from your posts that you thought their reactions to loss was normal, whereas Lacus' was not.

Your reply to this:

^^^^ this rather should do with that "I insist Lacus must cry in public" post and reply...

I read that as "Some people show their emotions in ways other than crying, but sometimes they've still got to cry" and assumed you implied "and Lacus is weird for not doing so on the spot when she heard of her father's death."

What were those alternatives to crying you mentioned? Screaming, kicking?... How unladylike.

To me, that meant that you'd be unsatisfied with, say, a closed face, a tightening around the eyes, and never anything more.

So, what exactly did you mean?

This is before my reply to 4Tran:



So, every person is abnormal, every person who does not cry is abnormal, every person who is plothole diva is abnormal...but I could hardly think of any plothole dive in real life, or I haven't read about one, or met one. (REAL plothole diva eh.)

Another instance where I'll content myself with requesting a clarification of your position.

Saying "some people" hardly makes the entire sentence generalizing.

Stricto sensu, no - as I said myself, saying "some" makes the sentence useless for judging the normality of Lacus' behavior.

However, the implications were clear, even if you didn't mean them.

It just limits Lacus to a small, small group of people

OK, now you're generalizing. It's that "small, small group" comment, in case you're wondering why I say that.

who do not cry and also seem as if they get over it really quickly, without any emotional backlash about it even after a few years or so, or never.

Exactly what do you mean by "emotional backlash"? Try and be clear.

There might be some people like that, I don't know. There is emotional backlash, I said, even if you do not grieve for that person right away; it might happen several hours later, days, months, years, I don't know. BUT what makes Lacus abnormal is that she hasn't been showing any signs of grief, or even haunted by her grief, after 2 years, whereas her contemporaries all suffered some emotional backlash one time or another, and they were all haunted by it. It's as if the entire thing never happened.

As I've tried to tell you, while Lacus is at the non-demonstrative end of the spectrum, I don't think she's that unusual. I'm like her. Nightengale too. I have little doubt she dealt with her loss in the two years that passed between the time it occured and the start of GSD. I'll go out on a limb and hazard to say she did it with a quiet dignity, and in private. Maybe Kira was witness to some of it, but maybe he wasn't.

What kind of "backlash" do you want? I'd hazard a guess, but you'd accuse me of misrepresenting you again.

Take note that I have said countless of times how I haven't said anything that makes people who do not cry = abnormal.

When you generalize, you say, "ALL people who do not cry are abnormal". It doesn't limit the people you include in this sentence; it encompasses ALL of them. So, if I said anything to that effect, it means that all people who do not cry = abnormal. Saying "some" does not mean that all people who do not cry = abnormal.

No, but if you say "Lacus is abnormal because X", even if X="she's different from some people" and therefore includes a "some", it's the same as saying that all of those who are different from the "some people" you talk about are abnormal.

I said Lacus' methods of grief (not crying/not affected by it for the last 2 years) is abnormal, and what makes it abnormal is the fact as if nothing major happened at all.

You think that, just because something major happened, there must be some major display of emotion? (And that it must happen on camera, but let's forget about that...)

You're wrong. I don't know any other way to tell you, but you're wrong. Just because something terrible happened, it doesn't mean you must make a big show of it, ever.

I didn't even see Lacus' personality as a standard to be followed by other characters...where did you get this? But since this is a Lacus thread, then I guess Lacus must be some sort of standard as to where all other characters must be measured...

Other way around. I think you're trying to push a standard on Lacus, and disapproving of her because she doesn't fit.

What I'm saying is, your standard is unreasonable. You can't expect everyone to follow it, be it IRL or in anime.

It's not even narrow by a long shot; it seems as if you're the one who believes that I am making it narrow, or you want to believe that I am making it narrow.

You may not be the best judge of that.

And I'm sorry to break it to you, but, at least on the subject of how people react to grief, you've expressed some very narrow-minded views. Or at least I thought you had. If, indeed, there was no logical link between you description of "some people" and your criticism of Lacus, then I just plain have no idea what you were expressing.

And if I think Lacus is so shallow, that's my opinion, that's what I think of her character. Must only all Lacus diehard fans be the only ones who could post in this thread and gush about the "awesome" that is Lacus Clyne? I do not think so. There is a reason why people do not have the same set of opinions, it is because they are different from each other. A thread like this makes for exchanges as to why other fans feel that way about this character, and why she is a plothole character. It's not as if we come up with points to point out that she is one, you are quick to jump on that random poster and counter their posts with replies that are now bordering on a little more personal side of things and accuse them of things that aren't even hinted at to begin with. Or why we simply have to admit the fact that Lacus is clearly made of "awesome" or else we risk getting bashed for thinking otherwise...

You can have any opinion you want, for whatever reason you want. But if you voice your opinion, and give arguments for it, and I think those arguments are wrong, illogical or factually false, then I reserve the right to say so, and expose my reasons on why I dislike your arguments.

And how do you equate what Lacus is to the general populace? Really? There are a bunch of Lacus clones out there who could at least make your statement somewhat real, perhaps?

If you mean the pink hair, no. But if you mean the way she took the news of her father's death, I do think there's non-negligible part of the human population which would have reacted similarly.

Lacus is but one part of the human emotional spectrum, to which I don't even think she has a personality at all to begin with, because her personality, as I said, is unreal, because she is just made to have those emotions on a really scripted basis, unlike other characters on the same show who suffer her "one ep after a few eps syndrome" only, and that is saying much.

Every character's emotions are scripted. But I do think Lacus' emotions, and the way she shows them, are consistent with a personality I wouldn't be surprised at seeing in a real person.

I also think that suffering for a short while is much, much more realistic than spending years doing nothing but moping and/or nursing your resentment.

***Now, no more of this, I am tired of this debate. Please read through EVERYTHING that I have so patiently copied and pasted from the last few pages in order for you to read and think through it if I am equating ALL people who do not cry = abnormal.

I did read. And I did think about your posts. As always. May I ask you to return the curtesy and not only read, but actually try to understand mine?

Also, the people who seem to think the same as well. Thank you very much. I also advice you to not see red when you see Lacus getting, um..."pointlessly bashed", or whatever. Any more posts about me as being the impossibly narrow minded bigot of complete injustice will not be entertained anymore.

Oh, quit trying to play the victim. We haven't used any ad hominem. Someone on "your" side can't say the same. And if anyone got flammed because of misrepresentation, it's me, and because of your posts.

Or would I answer them. I do not see the point of it on the Lacus thread. Thank you Anh_Minh for completely transforming my image and let others see me in a whole new light.

I didn't do anything. Anyone wants to form an opinion of you, he only has to read your posts, same as I did. I deny any responsibility for what you write.

[Eidolon Sniper]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I'm going to try to help clear up a few issues here:

I think that you don't like Lacus, and that you're trying to articulate the reasoning behind that dislike. However, the way that you're doing lends itself easily into misinterpretation. Normally, when you qualify a statement as applying to "some people" of a particular set, you're not generalizing; you're just stating that something applies to a certain group, and specifically not to everyone. However, that's not the way you're coming off - by defining something as "abnormal" because it is different from what "some people", you are making a large generalization. Moreover, by not pointing out anything else to support your argument, it's rather straightforward to interpret it as saying that anything outside of what you refer to as "some people" is supposed to be abnormal.

I don't know. I think I have already did that. Or I think you haven't been reading what I wrote...before this mess of human emotional spectrum has been oh so conveniently dragged into this thread...

As I also clearly stated, SOME is SOME, not ALL. I said what Lacus did was ABNORMAL, never to the effect that beyond this, everybody is abnormal.

Some people who do not cry =/= abnormality. Please point me to the posts wherein I even hinted this, or even suggested this, because clearly, I wasn't even trying to make out that it is such.

I only said some people do not act like Lacus, that with all the bells and whistles of being Lacus (the grief thing). Lacus did not cry and did not even show anything that showed her that she was at LEAST grieving for her father, in the last 2 years, where all the other characters have shown that they were also feeling that way (grieving, crying, or whatever); that is what I meant by "some people do not act like Lacus". Or would you rather have me say that those people I said in that statement also didn't show any grief after losing somebody after 2 years or so? The argument is Lacus wasn't showing any signs of grief and continued exhibiting so until the end of Destiny; whereas, I also stated that some people also take time to grieve, not just right away, it may take months, years, etc, heck, even in the last 2 years they musthave some sort of grief attack or something. Cagalli was haunted by her father's death and so led to her own confusion into trying to uphold what she thinks is her father's ideals; have we even seen Lacus do something to that effect? NO.

So, if those same people exhibited Lacus characteristics (not showing any sort of emotion after 2 years and still looks as if nothing major happened and that life should go on and so on and so forth and not even think about the lost loved one) then that "some people" is clearly Lacus to some effect. Take note that the Lacus thing is not this "not crying" business, her indifference to it (her father's loss) and continuing on as if nothing major really happened accounts for this. People tend to not be aggrieved by their loss, I KNOW that, but at least they think of them in some way in one way or another.

The problem here is that you haven't made any attempt to justify your position. You didn't even try to show why the group of people who don't express their emotions should be considered a small one.

It is because I was only referring to Lacus' grief. I also stated countless of times that there are people who do not cry too and that it is not abnormal. Or have you failed to read this as well? Please, PLEASE take time to read another person's posts before you add more fuel into the fire.

While these aren't your exact words, the gist to be gathered from your argument is precisely that. You haven't tried to explain the support for your conclusion beyond painting all sorts of people with the broad brush of "abnormal". And it's the painting of other people by insinuation that's getting Anh_Minh riled up - a rather understandable reaction, I might add.

Honestly, I don't have any idea how this even became like this. I just simply said that what Lacus did was abnormal (how she reacted to her grief is abnormal), then I simply allowed myself to be dragged into this human emotional catalogue in order to explain myself in EVERY SINGLE POST I made after that that I didn't even say anything of the sort that people who do not cry = abnormal. Anh_Minh just kinda took off from there, and I was stupid enough to be dragged into it (yes, I am now calling myself stupid) because it would only make things more complicated, and now everybody is on my case for "stating" that people who do not cry = abnormal.

You'd strengthen your position much more if you dropped your current line of argument (Lacus is abnormal because some people don't act the way she does), and brought in real evidence to support your points. It'd also go a long way in making your actual position more clear.

I don't know, I think I've already exhausted everything in this thread, and still some people do not get it, making things complicated when in reality they aren't. I provided examples into why Lacus grief is abnormal, against her own costars, even against the background of real life as well. There is evidence, LOTS of it, but then again you simply either choose not to see it, or just continue off from the red light "Lacus is abnormal" and obliterate everything that I said right after that statement.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I didn't do anything. Anyone wants to form an opinion of you, he only has to read your posts, same as I did. I deny any responsibility for what you write.

And seriously, I will to them everything what you seemed to infer from what I wrote. From simply saying that what Lacus did is abnormal, it suddenly became into a full fledged war between, as you said, simple English and not too simple English.

It just limits Lacus to a small, small group of people who do not cry and also seem as if they get over it really quickly, without any emotional backlash about it even after a few years or so, or never

Thank you for omitting the last part of the sentence.

Now, every person who would read that

It just limits Lacus to a small, small group of people

would probably get the idea that I was generalizing. I, of course would certainly react to that the same way that you did, that the genius who wrote that statement is generalizing and it's not really, REALLY true at all.

Emotional backlash = crying, going emo on other people who they claim do not understand, kicking, screaming, or whatever suits the person's current state of mind into HOW he should channel his sadness or grief. He might even write a depressing story about it for all I care, but it's still a way of coping with the grief. I think I already explained this "emotional backlash" thing some posts before. Or I guess you forgot to read it or see it.

I am not in any way responsible for the way that you write either; it's just a gross misunderstanding on what I was trying to say which only started with a simple "Lacus is abnormal because so and so" and you took off from there, dragging the entire human emotional catalogue into my case. If there are other people who do not think I was being just and fair and berate me for it, fine, and if they don't, then fine as well. I wouldn't hold them to it. I would just simply explain myself and if they do not want it, or do not care to understand it or whatever, OK. I tried to understand all your posts even before replying, I always take time out to understand and read everybody's posts before making a comment, and I do not easily see red when somebody attacks my own favorite character without giving justification into why they hate him or her. Ao, if I say Lacus makes no sense whatsoever and that I have some examples to do point out that she indeed in my opinion makes no sense, then that is it, and if you have reason to believe that she is otherwise, then kindly reply in a more respectful manner not saying

Then I invite you to broaden your horizons on what human beings are like.

after I wrote that anime is mirror for me piece.

[kiramuro]

Well whoever Lacus might be she is one thing for sure. A very polarizing and controversial character. For a simple pop princess she sure make a lot of people claw out their innards when they hear her name being mentioned. I swear she must be only gundam character can be in the top ten in both the best hero and the best villian categories.

[4Tran]

Eidolon Sniper, you still don't get it. If you think that this -

Originally Posted by Eidolon Sniper

I only said some people do not act like Lacus, that with all the bells and whistles of being Lacus (the grief thing). Lacus did not cry and did not even show anything that showed her that she was at LEAST grieving for her father, in the last 2 years, where all the other characters have shown that they were also feeling that way (grieving, crying, or whatever)

is somehow abnormal, then the onus is upon you to prove it. If you cannot, then your argument is null and void. There's no need to dwell on the crying thing, because no one seems to be particularly hung up over it.

Originally Posted by Eidolon Sniper

The argument is Lacus wasn't showing any signs of grief and continued exhibiting so until the end of Destiny; whereas, I also stated that some people also take time to grieve, not just right away

Nobody has said that it's unusual for people to show grief, so what's the point of this line of argument?

Originally Posted by Eidolon Sniper

It is because I was only referring to Lacus' grief. I also stated countless of times that there are people who do not cry too and that it is not abnormal. Or have you failed to read this as well? Please, PLEASE take time to read another person's posts before you add more fuel into the fire.

Please read my post again, and count the number of times I said anything about crying before complaining that I haven't been paying attention to your posts.

Originally Posted by Eidolon Sniper

I don't know, I think I've already exhausted everything in this thread, and still some people do not get it, making things complicated when in reality they aren't. I provided examples into why Lacus grief is abnormal, against her own costars, even against the background of real life as well. There is evidence, LOTS of it, but then again you simply either choose not to see it, or just continue off from the red light "Lacus is abnormal" and obliterate everything that I said right after that statement.

You can't use the actions of fictional characters to discuss whether or not a particular depiction is realistic. You will have to use real life examples. Statistics in particular would be nice.

Originally Posted by kiramuro

Well whoever Lacus might be she is one thing for sure. A very polarizing and controversial character. For a simple pop princess she sure make a lot of people claw out their innards when they hear her name being mentioned. I swear she must be only gundam character can be in the top ten in both the best hero and the best villian categories.

And favorite and least favorite categories.

[Eidolon Sniper]

So can we get back on the thread already? ._.

[Anh_Minh]

Spoiler:

Wow. You really don't read my posts, do you?

Originally Posted by Eidolon Sniper

I don't know. I think I have already did that. Or I think you haven't been reading what I wrote...before this mess of human emotional spectrum has been oh so conveniently dragged into this thread...

As I also clearly stated, SOME is SOME, not ALL. I said what Lacus did was ABNORMAL, never to the effect that beyond this, everybody is abnormal.

GET THIS: if you say that Lacus is abnormal, then you say that all those who are like Lacus are abnormal. If you'd said "Lacus is abnormal because her eyes are blue", then you'd have called every blue-eyed person on earth "abnormal".

Here, you accuse her of abnormality because of the way she deals with grief. That means you make the same accusation to all the ones who react in a similar way. Which includes me.

Some people who do not cry =/= abnormality. Please point me to the posts wherein I even hinted this, or even suggested this, because clearly, I wasn't even trying to make out that it is such.

What do you mean by "do not cry"? If it's literally "don't shed tears", then no, I suppose you haven't made precisely that claim.

However, if like me you mean "do not cry" as "react like Lacus did", then yes, you've made it.

I only said some people do not act like Lacus, that with all the bells and whistles of being Lacus (the grief thing). Lacus did not cry and did not even show anything that showed her that she was at LEAST grieving for her father, in the last 2 years, where all the other characters have shown that they were also feeling that way (grieving, crying, or whatever); that is what I meant by "some people do not act like Lacus". Or would you rather have me say that those people I said in that statement also didn't show any grief after losing somebody after 2 years or so? The argument is Lacus wasn't showing any signs of grief and continued exhibiting so until the end of Destiny; whereas, I also stated that some people also take time to grieve, not just right away, it may take months, years, etc, heck, even in the last 2 years they musthave some sort of grief attack or something. Cagalli was haunted by her father's death and so led to her own confusion into trying to uphold what she thinks is her father's ideals; have we even seen Lacus do something to that effect? NO.

So all this time, you said "some people", but meant "some characters"?

You accuse Lacus of abnormality because she's different from other fictional characters, even though she's like RL people? Do you see how wrong that line of reasoning is?

So, if those same people exhibited Lacus characteristics (not showing any sort of emotion after 2 years and still looks as if nothing major happened and that life should go on and so on and so forth and not even think about the lost loved one) then that "some people" is clearly Lacus to some effect.

Exactly what I'm trying to tell you. I'm "Lacus to some effect", since I didn't display much emotion at my father's death. Countless others are like that. And you've called us all abnormal.

Take note that the Lacus thing is not this "not crying" business, her indifference to it (her father's loss) and continuing on as if nothing major really happened accounts for this. People tend to not be aggrieved by their loss, I KNOW that, but at least they think of them in some way in one way or another.

Lacus isn't indifferent, she just doesn't wear a damn sign reading "My dad's dead and I miss him". People who lose a parent get over it, they don't spend the rest of their lives visibly mourning.

It is because I was only referring to Lacus' grief. I also stated countless of times that there are people who do not cry too and that it is not abnormal. Or have you failed to read this as well? Please, PLEASE take time to read another person's posts before you add more fuel into the fire.

So what are you trying to say? That when Lacus doesn't cry, it's abnormal, but when other people don't cry, it's normal? Do you think such a statement can be taken seriously?

Or that when Lacus doesn't cry, it's abnormal, but when other people don't cry, but instead scream, kick, or go emo, it's normal?

Well, guess what? I didn't cry, didn't scream, didn't kick, and didn't go emo. Am I normal or abnormal?

Honestly, I don't have any idea how this even became like this. I just simply said that what Lacus did was abnormal

And then you gave reasons, and they were all wrong.

(how she reacted to her grief is abnormal), then I simply allowed myself to be dragged into this human emotional catalogue in order to explain myself in EVERY SINGLE POST I made after that that I didn't even say anything of the sort that people who do not cry = abnormal.

But you did, even though you don't seem to realize it. And are in denial about it.

Anh_Minh just kinda took off from there, and I was stupid enough to be dragged into it (yes, I am now calling myself stupid) because it would only make things more complicated, and now everybody is on my case for "stating" that people who do not cry = abnormal.

AS I SAID: "do not cry" was a shortcut for "react like Lacus, not displaying much grief, especially tears, in public, not screaming, not kicking and the like".

And you did say that people like Lacus were abnormal, whether you realize it or not.

I don't know, I think I've already exhausted everything in this thread, and still some people do not get it, making things complicated when in reality they aren't. I provided examples into why Lacus grief is abnormal, against her own costars, even against the background of real life as well.

Lacus is different from her costars? I'll concede that, but it's a worthless argument.

Lacus is abnormal in her grief by RL standards? I don't accept that premise, for the reasons I've stated many times.

There is evidence, LOTS of it,

Then how about you trot it out?

but then again you simply either choose not to see it, or just continue off from the red light "Lacus is abnormal" and obliterate everything that I said right after that statement.

You haven't given a single piece of evidence to support your statement. As 4Tran and I have told you, what you've said doesn't do one thing toward proving that Lacus is abnormal.

And seriously, I will to them everything what you seemed to infer from what I wrote. From simply saying that what Lacus did is abnormal, it suddenly became into a full fledged war between, as you said, simple English and not too simple English.

I didn't say anything about simple or not simple English. I spoke of good English, as in, for starters, grammatically correct. And generally making sense.

If there is a divide between what you mean to say and what you actually write, it's not my fault. It's yours. If you want to use simple English, be my guest. Indeed, it might be better for you to stay within the boundaries of your competence with that language.

Thank you for omitting the last part of the sentence.

I didn't omit it, I quoted it just after. I wasn't relevant to my point anyway.

OK, now you're generalizing. It's that "small, small group" comment, in case you're wondering why I say that.

Now, every person who would read that



would probably get the idea that I was generalizing. I, of course would certainly react to that the same way that you did, that the genius who wrote that statement is generalizing and it's not really, REALLY true at all.

It is a generalization, whether you can see it or not.

Emotional backlash = crying, going emo on other people who they claim do not understand, kicking, screaming, or whatever suits the person's current state of mind into HOW he should channel his sadness or grief. He might even write a depressing story about it for all I care, but it's still a way of coping with the grief. I think I already explained this "emotional backlash" thing some posts before. Or I guess you forgot to read it or see it.

That's what I thought you meant, but I didn't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth. And guess what? People don't have to do that. As I've already written, I didn't.

I am not in any way responsible for the way that you write either; it's just a gross misunderstanding on what I was trying to say

It's not my fault if what you mean and what you write are so different.

which only started with a simple "Lacus is abnormal because so and so"

Yes, and I contest that the so and so are good reasons to call her abnormal.

and you took off from there, dragging the entire human emotional catalogue into my case.

I've already explained why I did that. Did you read?

To sum up, with the line of argument you were using, citing how "some people" react, you'd have needed you exhaustively list all the possible reactions before saying that Lacus is abnormal.

If there are other people who do not think I was being just and fair and berate me for it, fine, and if they don't, then fine as well. I wouldn't hold them to it. I would just simply explain myself and if they do not want it, or do not care to understand it or whatever, OK.

Your reasons are bad reasons, and I don't see why I should refrain from pointing it out.

I tried to understand all your posts even before replying, I always take time out to understand and read everybody's posts before making a comment, and I do not easily see red when somebody attacks my own favorite character without giving justification into why they hate him or her. Ao, if I say Lacus makes no sense whatsoever and that I have some examples to do point out that she indeed in my opinion makes no sense, then that is it, and if you have reason to believe that she is otherwise, then kindly reply in a more respectful manner not saying



after I wrote that anime is mirror for me piece.

You'd just called me and countless others abnormal. That's as respectful as you're going to get.

[Eidolon Sniper]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Wow. You really don't read my posts, do you?



GET THIS: if you say that Lacus is abnormal, then you say that all those who are like Lacus are abnormal. If you'd said "Lacus is abnormal because her eyes are blue", then you'd have called every blue-eyed person on earth "abnormal".

NO I did not say that all people who do not cry are ABNORMAL. I said people like Lacus who did not cry and miraculously heal from her grief in less than 0.0000087 seconds and aren't prone to grief attacks after that (it just simply stopped, no grief for the rest of her life apparently) is abnormal. But are there people out there who are like Lacus? I exhibit Lacus tendencies to a degree, but only UP TO THE PART wherein I also DO NOT SHOW MY GRIEF after losing a loved one, BUT I ACTUALLY CRIED ABOUT THAT LOVED ONE SEVERAL YEARS AFTER. I bet you exhibited this tendency too. You probably grieved about him or her, and think of him or her some time; LACUS DID NOT EXHIBIT ANY OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS (getting haunted, confused, or whatever), she just simply stopped right after that crying scene.

Here, you accuse her of abnormality because of the way she deals with grief. That means you make the same accusation to all the ones who react in a similar way. Which includes me.

Did you suffer grief attacks after your loved one died, even after the fact that you didn't grieve over them for a long period of time? If that is the case, then you are not Lacus, and you are not abnormal. I reacted like Lacus (not crying) when my grandfather died, but I suddenly succumbed to a grief attack several years after, and I think of him often. So I am abnormal?

What do you mean by "do not cry"? If it's literally "don't shed tears", then no, I suppose you haven't made precisely that claim.

However, if like me you mean "do not cry" as "react like Lacus did", then yes, you've made it.

Sigh.

React like Lacus. Geez.

So all this time, you said "some people", but meant "some characters"?

You accuse Lacus of abnormality because she's different from other fictional characters, even though she's like RL people? Do you see how wrong that line of reasoning is?

No, do not twist what I am saying again.

I made RL and character examples, but apparently was lost in translation.

Exactly what I'm trying to tell you. I'm "Lacus to some effect", since I didn't display much emotion at my father's death. Countless others are like that. And you've called us all abnormal.

NO I did not. I didn't cry when my grandfather died, it also makes me abnormal? I didn't cry when my grandmother died, it also makes me abnormal? I didn't cry when my other grandmother died, it makes me abnormal?

You are making it look wrong, not me. What I only said is that how Lacus didn't cry and has any sort of emotional backlash about it (REACT) is abnormal. You are generalizing by stating that I said all people who do not cry = abnormal. No, no, no. I said the "some people" thing because I have no idea if there are lots of people who exhibit Lacus characteristics (which may or may not include how she reacted to her grief); probably those people with Lacus characteristics (HOW she REACTED) are only infinitesimal, while others with some Lacus characteristics to a degree (not openly showing their grief) are part of another group entirely. I said countless of times that not crying is NOT abnormal. So, the people who tend to display Lacus characteristics to a degree (not showing their emotions openly) aren't abnormal; it's those people who react EXACTLY like Lacus (if there are, I have no idea if there are) and how Lacus reacted is abnormal.

Lacus isn't indifferent, she just doesn't wear a damn sign reading "My dad's dead and I miss him". People who lose a parent get over it, they don't spend the rest of their lives visibly mourning.

I didn't spend the rest of my days mouring over the death of my grandparents, too. But emotions, as I said again somewhere in my posts, are hardly, and cannot be controlled, we just let them off in a lot of ways BESIDES crying. Have you seriously thought that by crying alone = the only way to let go of your sadness or grief?

So what are you trying to say? That when Lacus doesn't cry, it's abnormal, but when other people don't cry, it's normal? Do you think such a statement can be taken seriously?

Or that when Lacus doesn't cry, it's abnormal, but when other people don't cry, but instead scream, kick, or go emo, it's normal?

HOW Lacus REACTED is abnormal.

Well, guess what? I didn't cry, didn't scream, didn't kick, and didn't go emo. Am I normal or abnormal?

Well you probably wrote off your grief in a poem, or you spent it watching movies, or whatever else you might do in order for you to forget the pain and sadness; I did not limit it to those open display of emotions only. Now, this would be another start of another war.

And then you gave reasons, and they were all wrong.

And what makes you say that all my reasons are all wrong? Who gave you the right to say that all my reasoning is wrong? I did not even think of saying something to that effect even if I am bursting with total frustration or whatever writing this post. Is this an opinion thread which could only air the reasons of Lacus fans only as "right" to the other fans who think the same, and simply state that what other fans think (those who do not like Lacus) are "wrong"?

These are opinions, and opinions aren't really right or wrong. Those reasons came from my opinions that Lacus is a plothole character. You are the one mixing all those random human emotional whatnots in, not me. I simply stated that how Lacus coped with her grief is abnormal, and you start off by replying that I should broaden my horizons on how I should see humanity. So that makes sense: your reasons for Lacus is "right" (and all the plotholes she has) and how I think Lacus is abnormal because of the plotholes and the way she reacted to her grief is SOOOO totally wrong.

Maybe you just want to believe that all my reasons are wrong.

Now, I believe that you blaming me for calling you ALL abnormal is wrong.

But you did, even though you don't seem to realize it. And are in denial about it.

I am not in denial. You are the one who started this fiasco, not me. You are the one saying that I said not crying is abnormal, not me. The post was all about Lacus, and then you pull this debate out from thin air? The only thing that I really did wrong is letting myself get dragged into this. You are making up that statement that I said "people who do not cry = abnormal". The "some people" thing is because I am not omnipotent to know what the entire human race is like as they are different from each other and that they are unique and so therefore could not be equated to one group only.

AS I SAID: "do not cry" was a shortcut for "react like Lacus, not displaying much grief, especially tears, in public, not screaming, not kicking and the like".

And you did say that people like Lacus were abnormal, whether you realize it or not.

Lacus as in Lacus Clyne reaction to her grief, not just by NOT crying? Can't you understand that?

Lacus is different from her costars? I'll concede that, but it's a worthless argument.

Lacus is abnormal in her grief by RL standards? I don't accept that premise, for the reasons I've stated many times.

See my post above.

You haven't given a single piece of evidence to support your statement. As 4Tran and I have told you, what you've said doesn't do one thing toward proving that Lacus is abnormal.

Come on, she didn't even show any emotion right after her father died OH SO quickly, and that she didn't seem to be haunted by it for the last 2 years, not even have flashbacks of some sort wherein she remembered her father doing something, or seeing something that reminded her of her father (flashback); it was just stopped after she cried about her loss to Kira, as in IT TOTALLY STOPPED. You call this normal? At least people who do not cry right away or show their grief right away succumb to grief attacks, are haunted by it. It didn't totally stop for them, every now and then they would probably remember about a lost loved one and miss them. Lacus didn't. Is that normal?

If there is a divide between what you mean to say and what you actually write, it's not my fault. It's yours. If you want to use simple English, be my guest. Indeed, it might be better for you to stay within the boundaries of your competence with that language.

So you're saying that I should rather stay within what you deem to be my own competence in the English language? For a foreigner like me (and that English is not my first language), it is rather insulting. I do not think too highly of my competence in the English language, but suffice to say, I know enough English to be able to understand simple English. But I take time in order to know more English, and as such, I try to write English without any wrong grammar usage. I try reading dictionaries even in order to enrich my poor command of the English language. So don't even try saying something like that in the line of a debate wherein the command of English is not even discussed about. Or is it because you would rather use this in order to counter what I generally said about Lacus reaction as abnormal?

I didn't omit it, I quoted it just after. I wasn't relevant to my point anyway.

Saying that I was generalizing? How many people do you know REACT like Lacus? As in EXACTLY react like Lacus? Do off with the not crying part, because I said (and you still seem to think what I wrote "some people not crying = abnormal") and you said it is not abnormal; concentrate on how she dealt with her grief (as it all totally stopped for her; no periods of grief attacks whatsoever).

That's what I thought you meant, but I didn't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth. And guess what? People don't have to do that. As I've already written, I didn't.

So you probably did off with your grief through another way. I didn't limit it all to that. I write when I feel sad, angry, and I totally forgot what I did when my grandfather died. Oh, probably that school project was when realization hit me that he was really gone counts. Well anyway, there are lots of ways to forget that you're angry, sad, etc. All those depressive emotions or what have you. So there.

Yes, and I contest that the so and so are good reasons to call her abnormal.

HUH? I think you've contradicted yourself in here. So Lacus is "abnormal" (this is the one replacing "so and so") is a good reason?

To sum up, with the line of argument you were using, citing how "some people" react, you'd have needed you exhaustively list all the possible reactions before saying that Lacus is abnormal.

There are generally 8 billion + people on the face of this planet, and every single one of them is unique. So listing all their personalities + hybrid personalities would probably take a LONG time (that's just for listing it) and an even longer time grouping this personality type with another, but I guess that's how psychology classes help a little in order to solve the problem (putting people into their respective personality places), but still, it's quite hard, and not all theories are necessarily correct; there is and always will be deviants and exceptions to the rule. And to be able to say that people who do not cry = abnormal is just totally wrong, because they have their reasons and that their adaptation to their grief or whatever offers a million possibilities into how they react. So Lacus reaction (grief totally stopping after showing some emotion) could be part of this equation, but probably, only a small part of it. So I only took this one small part (how Lacus reacted and if there are people who are like her in every sense of the word) and thatis my basis as to why it is abnormal against the VERY wide spectrum of personalities. If you could at least say that there are people (examples) like Lacus (EXACTLY like Lacus) then I invite you to post him or her and say with absolute conviction that it is not abnormal at all (to be like Lacus). I would say that there aren't people like Lacus, and if there were, it's a VERY small percentage against what we deem as normal behavior. And exactly that, what is normal to you wouldn't be normal for me; it is just so because we are completely different from each other. It's probably this reason WHY we can't seem to agree on the definition on what is normal. So for me, a person who grieves for a short time and it totally stops without suffering from any grief attacks in the long run (or for the rest of their life) is abnormal. What do you deem as normal and what is abnormal?

You'd just called me and countless others abnormal. That's as respectful as you're going to get.

No, YOU said that. And before that, I simply couldn't recall anything to the effect that I was calling people who do not cry = abnormal.

[Anh_Minh]

Spoiler:

Looks like I've got to resort to big fonts again. I've been explaining this for two or three posts: My use of "not crying", in the context of this thread, is a shortcut for Lacus' reactions.

Originally Posted by Eidolon Sniper

NO I did not say that all people who do not cry are ABNORMAL.

"Not cry", as I've explained several times a post for several posts, means here "react like Lacus". And you have, indeed, said that people who react like Lacus are abnormal.

I said people like Lacus who did not cry and miraculously heal from her grief in less than 0.0000087 seconds and aren't prone to grief attacks after that (it just simply stopped, no grief for the rest of her life apparently) is abnormal. But are there people out there who are like Lacus? I exhibit Lacus tendencies to a degree, but only UP TO THE PART wherein I also DO NOT SHOW MY GRIEF after losing a loved one, BUT I ACTUALLY CRIED ABOUT THAT LOVED ONE SEVERAL YEARS AFTER. I bet you exhibited this tendency too. You probably grieved about him or her, and think of him or her some time; LACUS DID NOT EXHIBIT ANY OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS (getting haunted, confused, or whatever), she just simply stopped right after that crying scene.

She didn't heal from her grief, she just didn't let her grief show. Those are two very different things. Though I'm starting to wonder if you can catch the nuance. And as I've said, I didn't show my grief any more than she did.

Did you suffer grief attacks after your loved one died, even after the fact that you didn't grieve over them for a long period of time? If that is the case, then you are not Lacus, and you are not abnormal.

If by "grief attack", you mean a sudden, overwhelming surge of emotion, then, nope. Sure, I'd think about him and miss him once in a while, but not so emotionally that it'd show. As, I assume, it is for Lacus. So, am I abnormal?

I reacted like Lacus (not crying) when my grandfather died, but I suddenly succumbed to a grief attack several years after, and I think of him often. So I am abnormal?

You tell me. We're discussing your views.

In mine, whether you're like Lacus or like Cagalli, it's all good.

And I don't think describing "not crying" as "reacted like Lacus" is a good idea, considering the misunderstandings we've had over those terms.

Sigh.

React like Lacus. Geez.

Then you've made precisely the claim I said you had.

No, do not twist what I am saying again.

It's not my fault if everything you say is so ambiguous. But so far, I have tried to adress what you said, and made provisions for different intepretations of your posts.

I made RL and character examples, but apparently was lost in translation.

Some RL people being different from Lacus doesn't equate to Lacus being abnormal, as I've tried, time and again, to explain to you. I've provided a RL example of someone who reacted like her. So has Nightengale. What have you done?

NO I did not. I didn't cry when my grandfather died, it also makes me abnormal? I didn't cry when my grandmother died, it also makes me abnormal? I didn't cry when my other grandmother died, it makes me abnormal?

Again, we are discussing your views, so it's up to you.

Also, you're the one trying to reduce the matter to "not crying", when I've said all along it was about reacting like Lacus.

You are making it look wrong, not me. What I only said is that how Lacus didn't cry and has any sort of emotional backlash about it (REACT) is abnormal. You are generalizing by stating that I said all people who do not cry = abnormal.

No, you're the one trying to make me accuse you of saying that. You admitted yourself you thought reacting like Lacus did was abnormal. That's the part I disagree with. It's always been.

No, no, no. I said the "some people" thing because I have no idea if there are lots of people who exhibit Lacus characteristics (which may or may not include how she reacted to her grief); probably those people with Lacus characteristics (HOW she REACTED) are only infinitesimal, while others with some Lacus characteristics to a degree (not openly showing their grief) are part of another group entirely. I said countless of times that not crying is NOT abnormal. So, the people who tend to display Lacus characteristics to a degree (not showing their emotions openly) aren't abnormal; it's those people who react EXACTLY like Lacus (if there are, I have no idea if there are) and how Lacus reacted is abnormal.

Well, I'd say "there is me", but I didn't need a shoulder to cry on. At any point. So I guess I'm even farther from normal than Lacus.

I didn't spend the rest of my days mouring over the death of my grandparents, too. But emotions, as I said again somewhere in my posts, are hardly, and cannot be controlled, we just let them off in a lot of ways BESIDES crying.

Emotions cannot be controlled, but the ways in which we display them can. We don't have to display them at all. You can even train yourself to smile whenever you're sad.

Have you seriously thought that by crying alone = the only way to let go of your sadness or grief?

No, but it seems like you think emotions have to displayed in some spectacular way. Crying. Screaming. Writing poetry. I disagree with that.

HOW Lacus REACTED is abnormal.

I'm still waiting for an actual argument supporting that view.

Let's recap on what you've said:
- some other characters react differently from her.
- some RL people react differently from her.
- it is so. Grief must affect people in some way Eidolon Sniper's described!
None of those are actual arguments.

Well you probably wrote off your grief in a poem, or you spent it watching movies, or whatever else you might do in order for you to forget the pain and sadness;

I didn't do any of that. I went on with my life, same as Lacus.

By the way, what makes you so sure she hasn't done any of those things?

I did not limit it to those open display of emotions only. Now, this would be another start of another war.

You're trying to backpedal. But fine. So, how do you know Lacus didn't experience any emotion if you accept that emotions don't have to be displayed?

And any act as big as "writing poetry" is an open display, though it can easily be misinterpreted.

And what makes you say that all my reasons are all wrong? Who gave you the right to say that all my reasoning is wrong?

Same person that gave you the right to say you're right and I'm wrong. And that Lacus' emotions are badly written and unrealistic.

However, when you say it's abnormal to not show your grief (or not have grief attacks, or write poetry, or whatever you're going to come up with next), well, I do have some empirical that it's false: my own life.

I did not even think of saying something to that effect even if I am bursting with total frustration or whatever writing this post. Is this an opinion thread which could only air the reasons of Lacus fans only as "right" to the other fans who think the same, and simply state that what other fans think (those who do not like Lacus) are "wrong"?

You can air whatever opinion for all I care. But if you're going to pretend you have reasons for your opinions, and trot out those reasons, then I don't see why I shouldn't discuss the validity of those reasons.

If you said "I hate Lacus because the Earth is flat", I'd have every right to
- ask what the flatness of the Earth has to do with Lacus,
- point out that the Earth isn't flat.
It's the same thing here.

If all you want to say is "I hate Lacus", then that's just an opinion and there is nothing to discuss.

These are opinions, and opinions aren't really right or wrong.

Debatable.

And if you truly believed that, why do you try to justify yourself, however clumsily?

Those reasons came from my opinions that Lacus is a plothole character. You are the one mixing all those random human emotional whatnots in, not me.

You're saying Lacus is unrealistic on the grounds that humans are all, or almost all, emotionally different from her. I'm pointing out that it's a wrong assumption.

I simply stated that how Lacus coped with her grief is abnormal, and you start off by replying that I should broaden my horizons on how I should see humanity. So that makes sense: your reasons for Lacus is "right" (and all the plotholes she has) and how I think Lacus is abnormal because of the plotholes and the way she reacted to her grief is SOOOO totally wrong.

We're discussing her reaction to grief. If you want to talk about something else, you'll have to be more explicit.

And yes, if you think Lacus' way to deal with grief is oh so unrealistic, then I suggest, once again, that you broaden your view on RL reactions to grief.

Maybe you just want to believe that all my reasons are wrong.

It's not a matter of what I want. I've explained precisely why I think your reasons are wrong. How about you address my points?

Now, I believe that you blaming me for calling you ALL abnormal is wrong.

You all who? If it's "you all who react to grief like Lacus" (which is what I meant by 'we'), then you did call us all abnormal. If you want to retract that statement, you have three choices:
- admit that Lacus is normal,
- or find some other reason to call her abnormal,
- or admit you don't really have a reason worth mentioning in a rational debate.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You'll have to pick one.

I am not in denial. You are the one who started this fiasco, not me. You are the one saying that I said not crying is abnormal, not me.

I've already said what I meant by "not crying". I thought it was obvious it meant "reacting like Lacus". And you did say that reacting like she did was abnormal.

The post was all about Lacus, and then you pull this debate out from thin air?

Yes, because this debate is about Lacus' realism. Of course she has to be compared to RL people, and I don't accept your view of RL people, who have to have "grief attacks" or whatever. And by "grief attacks", I mean "whatever you said people will definitely have when faced with loss".

The only thing that I really did wrong is letting myself get dragged into this. You are making up that statement that I said "people who do not cry = abnormal".

Quizz: What did I mean by"Not cry" ?

The "some people" thing is because I am not omnipotent to know what the entire human race is like as they are different from each other and that they are unique and so therefore could not be equated to one group only.

It also make the rest of what you say irrelevant to Lacus' normality.

Lacus as in Lacus Clyne reaction to her grief, not just by NOT crying? Can't you understand that?

That's precisely what I wrote. What's your problem?

See my post above.

See my post above.

Come on, she didn't even show any emotion right after her father died OH SO quickly, and that she didn't seem to be haunted by it for the last 2 years, not even have flashbacks of some sort wherein she remembered her father doing something, or seeing something that reminded her of her father (flashback); it was just stopped after she cried about her loss to Kira, as in IT TOTALLY STOPPED. You call this normal?

Yes. I told you, I'm like that too. Except for the crying part, which I don't do.

At least people who do not cry right away or show their grief right away succumb to grief attacks, are haunted by it.

I don't, and I'm not.

It didn't totally stop for them, every now and then they would probably remember about a lost loved one and miss them. Lacus didn't.

And you know that... how? It just never shows on camera. That's not the same.

Is that normal?

I disagree with your assumptions of Lacus' inner life.

So you're saying that I should rather stay within what you deem to be my own competence in the English language? For a foreigner like me (and that English is not my first language), it is rather insulting.

I'm also a foreigner whose first language isn't English.

I do not think too highly of my competence in the English language, but suffice to say, I know enough English to be able to understand simple English. But I take time in order to know more English, and as such, I try to write English without any wrong grammar usage. I try reading dictionaries even in order to enrich my poor command of the English language. So don't even try saying something like that in the line of a debate wherein the command of English is not even discussed about.

Oh, your English is pretty good. But it doesn't keep you from writing stuff that makes absolutely no sense once in a while, or stuff we have to make some guesswork on, and crying afterward that I somehow twisted it or purposely pretended not to understand it.

You want to avoid that? Reread your posts and ask yourself if they make sense from a grammatical point of view, and if they really say what you meant to express.

Or is it because you would rather use this in order to counter what I generally said about Lacus reaction as abnormal?

I say it because I'd rather not waste my time trying to guess what you meant and wasting more time arguing when I guess wrong.

Saying that I was generalizing?

Yes. When you paint her like a tiny minority, you make the generalisation that the immense majority of people are different from her.

How many people do you know REACT like Lacus? As in EXACTLY react like Lacus? Do off with the not crying part, because I said (and you still seem to think what I wrote "some people not crying = abnormal")

I've already explained what I meant by "not crying". And I've stopped using it for several posts. How about you let go of that strawman?

and you said it is not abnormal; concentrate on how she dealt with her grief (as it all totally stopped for her; no periods of grief attacks whatsoever).

Well, I've not seen that many people's reactions to the news that their father'd died, but I know how I took it. And as I said, it's pretty close to Lacus'. Nightengale indicated similar experiences.

In fact, it's the crybaby drama queens like Flay I have no experience with.

So you probably did off with your grief through another way. I didn't limit it all to that. I write when I feel sad, angry, and I totally forgot what I did when my grandfather died.

Good for you, but I don't. I don't do anything in particular. And it doesn't really show in any way.

Oh, probably that school project was when realization hit me that he was really gone counts. Well anyway, there are lots of ways to forget that you're angry, sad, etc. All those depressive emotions or what have you. So there.

There are. Including doing nothing out of the ordinary. Or getting on with your work. Like Lacus.

HUH? I think you've contradicted yourself in here. So Lacus is "abnormal" (this is the one replacing "so and so") is a good reason?

I thought the "so and so" meant Lacus reacted like she did to the news of her father's death.

If it means "Lacus is "abnormal"", then your original phrase

Originally Posted by Eidolon Sniper

"Lacus is abnormal because so and so"

becomes:

"Lacus is abnormal because Lacus is abnormal".

Circular logic.

There are generally 8 billion + people on the face of this planet, and every single one of them is unique.

I'm not the one who picked that line of reasoning, you are.

So listing all their personalities + hybrid personalities would probably take a LONG time (that's just for listing it) and an even longer time grouping this personality type with another, but I guess that's how psychology classes help a little in order to solve the problem (putting people into their respective personality places), but still, it's quite hard, and not all theories are necessarily correct; there is and always will be deviants and exceptions to the rule. And to be able to say that people who do not cry = abnormal is just totally wrong, because they have their reasons and that their adaptation to their grief or whatever offers a million possibilities into how they react. So Lacus reaction (grief totally stopping after showing some emotion) could be part of this equation, but probably, only a small part of it. So I only took this one small part (how Lacus reacted and if there are people who are like her in every sense of the word) and thatis my basis as to why it is abnormal against the VERY wide spectrum of personalities.

What you said is that Lacus is different from some people. While true, that statement is useless.

If you could at least say that there are people (examples) like Lacus (EXACTLY like Lacus) then I invite you to post him or her and say with absolute conviction that it is not abnormal at all (to be like Lacus).

I did. Me. Well, maybe not EXACTLY, but close enough. And generally speaking, I don't think restraint is that unusual a quality.

I would say that there aren't people like Lacus, and if there were, it's a VERY small percentage against what we deem as normal behavior.

Against what you deem as normal behavior. And we're back to your narrow view of humanity.

And exactly that, what is normal to you wouldn't be normal for me; it is just so because we are completely different from each other. It's probably this reason WHY we can't seem to agree on the definition on what is normal. So for me, a person who grieves for a short time and it totally stops without suffering from any grief attacks in the long run (or for the rest of their life) is abnormal. What do you deem as normal and what is abnormal?

To me, not showing grief and not suffering from long term effects is normal. So is crying a lot when it happens, at the burial, and even at various times when you happen to be reminded.

Which is why I think my vision of humanity's broader than yours.

No, YOU said that. And before that, I simply couldn't recall anything to the effect that I was calling people who do not cry = abnormal.

As I said, I react like Lacus. So you called me abnormal.

[Neku]

..Wow.. this is getting emotional and wall of text'ed. I'm gonna have to save this for heavy reading.

..so I read some parts.

Originally Posted by Snipy

BUT what makes Lacus abnormal is that she hasn't been showing any signs of grief, or even haunted by her grief, after 2 years, whereas her contemporaries all suffered some emotional backlash one time or another, and they were all haunted by it.

...So? Just because she's eccentric doesn't make her abnormal, and by your logic, if someone is like Lacus, then that someone is abnormal. I don't see Anh Minh or 4Tran accusing you of anything. I believe they're trying to tell you what you were saying; what they made out from your post.

Even if you would say that you never stated not crying is abnormal, that isn't the case anymore. You're already applying that if someone acts like Lacus, s/he is abnormal. Simple as that.

Aih.. your post is too long.. and there're tons to read. I'll go through them tomorrow or next week.. when holiday commences :lol:

[JagdPanther]

Wow. I'm not gonna lie.... This is a fabulous thread. I'm glad there are other people who have issues like this with GS/D.

Definitely have to agree with the original poster on many points about Lacus being a bit... Too good. Love the Mary Sue connection and...

This is pure gold:

Originally Posted by Bleed Kaga

Lacus Clyne = Game Shark

Kira without Game Shark
ep34 : anti-ship-sword in the chest

Kira with Game Shark
ep23 : owned everyone
ep28 : saviored
ep42 : cool moves
ep50 : flawless victory

Athrun without Game Shark
ep28 : saviored
ep38 : anti-ship-sword in the chest

Athrun with Game Shark
ep43 : victory
ep50 : flawless victory

I LOVE that.

Hoo-ah!