[arkhangelsk]

Originally Posted by Keroko

The difference between those two is that 'less then 5%' was never contradicted. We see tons of below AAA mages in the anime, but the amount of AAA and higher can be counted on your hands, which only supports this.

Actually, from what is being shown in the anime, if they said that there were fewer than 5 AAA or better mages (not "percent") until Nanoha and Co joined in, it'll probably be a better fit to what we've actually seen. I mean, who did we actually see except for our heroines. We have Chrono (1), Zest was still alive back then (2), Lindy was probably (though not explicitly stated) at least that (so 3 maybe). That leaves one. That one didn't even show up for StrikerS as the capital was held hostage...!

Unless the TSAB mage population was horribly small, it sure as heck doesn't look like 5%. Yet no one ever even tries a tsukkomi down this route. It is always the impressment part. Funny, hmm?

Conscription, however, was never suported by the anime, nor any of the other sources, and continously disproven by all the characters who are bing given a choice. Yes, you can say 'but those characters had high-ranking people guarding them!' but if anyone can apparenty ignore that rule by choice without any repircussions, does that rule exist at all?

Rather than go into-depth, I'll point out that the voluntary nature says that the rule was never tested. Your argument is like saying that the Soviets don't have conscription by pointing to several close friends signing up for a Higher Command School (VKU). Or maybe the pro-government press as evidence of freedom of speech.

Also, if a rule is bent due to powerful people, it does not mean the rule does not exist. It means that the system is corrupt.

Furthermore, the anime, manga and soundstages does everything to depict the TSAB as the friendly neighborhood watch rather then the big evil military that kidnaps kids for their army. Point in this case being the currently debated High Council, if the TSAB really doesn't want to bother looking nice, why do they have to hide their lower humanitarian research?

If I go along with this intent argument, consider this. The little blurb we're fighting over right now is right in the novel by the author. Thus, it is very clearly part of the author's intent of what goes into the TSAB. There are several possible reasons for this, including:
1) The author did not intend for the TSAB to be as white as you think it is.
2) The author did not believe that this impressment stuff blackens the TSAB (and certainly, there are ways to calculate this as a net positive).

Which by the way shows one of the greatest problems with "premise / intent" rather than observational analysis. What almost always happens is that the debater's own premises and intents are projected onto the author's. You assume that the author intended to show the TSAB as goody-goody, when in fact the author's definition of goody may be a bit different from your own, never mind whether he really intended to show them as goody-goody.

I have no problem accepting information from any of the three conanical sources, however the Novel has already shown to be directly contradicting all three, so everything it states should be taken with a grain of salt. If the information it states is not directly contradicted, then we can safely incorporate it. If what it states is directly contradicted, then the novel, which has already shown itself to be out of line, is the source that will be seen as non-canon.

Quite frankly, in comparison to the 5% stuff (which can barely hold when they weren't trying to save their capital...) there are hardly any problems.

Here's the question. You've apparently agreed that we should at least incorporate as much of the novel data as we can. If some character said this in the anime, will you reject it on the account it is "directly contradicted", or will you work with it?

If you will work with it, that means it is not "directly contradicted" in your book, in which case you have to consider your real reasons for considering it a "direct contradiction". But if it is not a direct contradiction, then you have to incorporate it and work with it.