Well?

>>153323846
>would always falls
Stopped reading there

File: 1486756927524.png (541KB, 639x557px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 639x557px

>>153323846
>has anybody gone as far as too even

File: Fiction.png (7KB, 520x110px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 520x110px

>>153323919

>>153324069
>starts complaining

File: [HorribleSubs]-Ore-Monogatari!!---17-[720p].mkv_snapshot_13.21_[2015.07.29_15.41.07].jpg (145KB, 449x537px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 449x537px

>>153323846
People who didn't like an anime will find any small detail to complain about while people who like an anime will find irrelevant things to praise.
It's called projection and nothing new.

>>153324326
>It's called projection
No it isn't. I bet you love to suck cock

File: 1486678825464.jpg (15KB, 290x289px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 290x289px

>>153324218
>the entire sentence structure
Try again, from the start.

>>153323846
Internal realism is a valid criticism even when divorced from standard physical principles

File: 1448893950991.png (17KB, 228x225px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 228x225px

>>153324378
>No it isn't. I bet you love to suck cock
What is the connection here?
Also it's totally projection. They fully believe whatever they criticize/praise is objectively factual and that anyone who contends is wrong.
Complaining about a lack of "realism" is one such stupid argument, though you don't see it much on /a/ since anime has always been a highly unrealistic medium, but a more common, retarded similar complaint is "fight choreography". Usually used in response of someone praising a show's animation.

>>153324651
>demaning

File: Fiction.png (6KB, 520x110px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 520x110px

>>153324668

>>153324569
I don't think you understand what projection is. Projecting is denying something about yourself and "projecting" it onto other people. The joke in my post being that by saying you suck cock I'm implying that I suck cock.

>>153324651
>>153324668
Haha holy shit

Also this idea as been refuted already.
Morrison:
>who pumps the batmobiles tires
>no one it's a fucking comic book
Decent writers:
Oh it's this guy. He also helped design and build it.

Lazy shit cunt writers blown the fuck out. Not everything has to be explained but there's a difference between leaving something that occurs within the story out of the narrative and claiming the narrative can behave in illogical ways because it is ficticious.

Your proposition is bunk and made even less appropriate when one considers the internal consistency, and the many conventions that most ficiticous worlds borrow from our own.

>>153324561
And why is that?

File: 1485428153665.png (47KB, 522x472px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 522x472px

>>153324745

>>153324802
If conventions are established within the story, which they inevitably are. To break conventions without thought to why or how is poor writing. Unless your story takes place in a dream land where no consistent reality exists you have failed to accurately and effectively construct a setting.

>>153324778
Oh, I understand now. I had an inkling but it was too subtle to assume.
Anyway, I was thinking of the mind projection fallacy, rather than the 4chan definition
>someone's subjective judgments are "projected" to be inherent properties of an object, rather than being related to personal perception

>>153324886
>Anyway, I was thinking of the mind projection fallacy
Oh, I hadn't heard of that before. What you're saying makes sense now

>the 4chan definition
It's a real thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection Psychologists need to stop using similar names for shit

>>153324886
>rather than the 4chan definition
Is this bait. Also:
>falacies
What an awful way to live. Most people who spout falacies lack an argumentative ability and their, often mislabled, accusations are their only contribution.
Not him and not saying that's you, though.

>>153325005
>Most people who spout falacies lack an argumentative ability and their, often mislabled, accusations are their only contribution.
I think that is called the fallacy fallacy if you wanted the name for it.

>>153323846
If someone likes something, they like it. If they don't, they don't. Both are valid.

>>153325309
What if someone doesn't like something I like?

>>153325347
They are autistic and you should let them know.

>>153325309
Derived enjoyment is valid but opinions and critisicms aren't always.

File: 1461257996643.jpg (31KB, 466x402px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 466x402px

Is the enjoyment of an anime more derivative of internal projections, rather than the actual quality of the work?

>>153325394
Absolutely, not trying to say criticism isn't valid, I'm incredibly critical and picky with anime. I'm saying that most people don't care, even if valid criticism is brought up, so it's better to just live and let live.

>>153325507
Their is no such thing as quality of the work when it comes to art. Only craft has measurable quality. While there are levels of craft to design, animation and writing ultimately their union is art and as such cannot be comprehensively measured without idiosyncratic interpretation and as you say, projection. Not unlike a painting.

File: 1457962107756.jpg (39KB, 452x526px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 452x526px

>>153325507
Obviously. The quality of a work is based on your own values anyway rather than any objective merit.

>>153325507
Some would say the two are less separate than you imply.

File: 1486531149961.png (222KB, 512x411px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 512x411px

>>153323846
>>153324069
>>153324218
>>153324651
>>153324745

NEW THREAD TOPIC

>Teaching ESL weeaboos how to speak proper English.

Lesson 1:

>>153325914
pls no bully I don't have anyone to practice english with and you guys are my only friends. I'm studying very hard to get to your levels.

>>153323846
I think what OP is trying to say is that it is not valid to criticize the established rules of fictional universes just for being different from the physical laws and socioeconomic standards of reality.

Which I agree with.

A fictional universe only needs to be consistent within the established world. It does not need to follow the rules of the real world.

However, the key here is "CONSISTENT within the rules of its world". If it shows a tendency for people to die from multiple gunshot wounds in this universe, there should not be someone able to just walk away from that without significant cause.

>>153325914
>>Teaching ESL weeaboos how to speak proper English.
>when he only fuck up basic grammar
wew lad

>>153326137
>when he only fuck up basic grammar
I hope this was intentional

>>153326177
Yes, I am OP.

File: 1483822770722.png (70KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 220x220px

>>153326137
>when he only fuck up basic grammar
The entire sentence was completely fucked up. It's meaning was entirely different from what you intended it to be.

>>153326228
No. He just forgot the 'ed' at the end of fucked.

>>153326273
I'm referring to the one in OP.
>to the point where they won't be able to tell the difference between fiction and reality.
Implying the people arguing lose sight of what is real, causing the discussion to fall apart.

>>153323846
Just watch your moeshit anime and stop making threads trying to justify it.

>>153326392
Moeshits are realistic though.

>>153326091
This is the way I see it too.

There's a few ways to write the rules for a fictional world:
External Consistency - consistent with reality
Genre Consistency - consistent with other works of that type (think undead being weak to light, or werewolves being hurt by silver)
Internal Consistency - consistent standalone rules established by the work

Without using any of these, you're making your audience work crazy hard in order to suspend their disbelief. If someone's complaining that a work isn't externally consistent enough, it's because they're grasping for something to ground the story. It means the writer hasn't put enough work in to making any kind of rules a reader can follow.

Though some people are just pedantic assholes.