Nope, it wasn't. You said because it was convenient for your argument, thus a faulty syllogism. And my points do have basis, you just won't acknowledge it because it'd mean admitting your entire outlook on life is wrong.

lol. It was hardly convenient for my "argument", the facts I've presented all stand on their own. It was simply a criticism of the shittiness of your argumentation style. You have yet to provide any counterargument to my explanation of the obvious subjective nature of human language. There's no need for me to "bolster" my argument when you already abandoned even trying to respond to it, that statement was obviously aimed at your convenient excuses for avoiding it.

nice projecting there

Boy, I didn't have to go far back to find one.

But that statement was simply accurate, wasn't it?

And it's not like you'll ever admit you're wrong, so is there any real point to this? Even if I convince you you're wrong, you'll still argue for the sake of it.

The only person who's been displaying that sort of behaviour has been you. You'd have to have actually ever presented a basis for your claims before you could conclude I wouldn't concede to a reasonable argument.

No, I have not been using faulty syllogisms, like you have.

Any examples?

I'm not avoiding anything. What I said disproves everything you've said. And I can do it one one line, unlike you. And it's not like you'll ever admit you're wrong, so is there any real point to this? Even if I convince you you're wrong, you'll still argue for the sake of it.

lol, "I'm right because I say I am." You haven't disproven anything except in your deluded little head (and probably not even there, because I can't see any substance in what you're claiming is a "counterproof" at all). Also, nice projecting there. I wonder if that works as a convenient excuse for you to avoid facing up the realization that everything you've tried to prove in this thread has been nothing but a sack of shit.

See.

if the definitions of words can be changed with peoples' interpretation so can the rules of math.

This has gone on long enough, even more so considering you responded a day later. And I'd rather not clutter this thread anymore with your pointless, unchanging argument.

Why don't you stop avoiding the question? Changing the rules of math never diminishes the objectivity of an argument because the fundamental basis of logic is restating the rules you started with in different ways. If you change the rules of math, then the objective truth of a mathematical argument simply changes as well. The special reason why math in particular has this property is that math never makes claims about anything other than itself.

Yes, you can change the rules of math like words' definitions. That doesn't make math any less objective, nor natural language any less subjective. The difference between math and natural language is in what they try to talk about.

Btw, you're the one who spurred this "pointless tangent" by trying to prove an irrelevant side statement of mine "wrong", rather than providing any basis for yourself being "right". If you really want to put an end to this conversation, why don't you just admit you have zero basis for any objective definition of the word "good"?

Not what I did at all, math being subjective does not prove everything is subjective, it just proves you wrong. Again you're trying to argue everything is subjective, because if the definitions of words can be changed with peoples' interpretation so can the rules of math.
Now stop with your empty and needlessly long winded comments . You're not even close to as smart as you think you are.

You haven't even proved that math is subjective, lol. The only provision your link made for the subjectivity of math is the dependence of the humans communicating it on natural language. This doesn't undermine the objectivity of mathematical arguments, merely the chance of long/complicated mathematical arguments actually being as objective as they claim they are.

Also, if you actually read the arguments you bothered to link to you would realize that the only person arguing that math is "subjective" was precisely trying to prove that "everything is subjective". So what your post just now is equivalent to claiming is "everything is subjective" -> "math is subjective" -> "but wait, that doesn't prove that everything is subjective /brainproblems.jpg" lol. Now go ahead and try to explain how you've disproven anything.

P.S.

in absolute logical domains like math.

Wrong again.
There are many variations of math that are subjective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Mathematics/2008_March_17#is_mathematics_subjective.3F

Good job defeating your own point, if that was your intention. Absolute domains such as math and logic manage to achieve "objectivity" by restricting themselves to purely abstract reasonings. Because logical arguments must first assume a set of axioms before they can 'prove' anything, an 'objective' argument can never be more than a tautology equivalent to the original basis/axioms it was built from in the first place. The point is, human reasoning cannot even begin to approach the objectivity except by so completely restricting their domains from the realm of reality, so the idea of anything else (such as your whole "good writing" farce) even remotely managing to represent 'objectivity' is completely laughable.

Also, I find it pretty hilarious that after all that grandstanding you did trying to out-pretentious me with terms like "morphology, linguistics, and first-order logic", you ended up linking an argument for the subjectivity of math dependent on precisely the point I was making, i.e. the inherent subjectivity of natural language. Maybe it's time to stop blindly chasing your ego and actually examine the substance of your arguments? Really, if the purpose of that last post you made was to completely destroy the credibility of any point you've made in this thread up to now, I have congratulate you on achieving that splendidly.

Language is a construct developed to facilitate communication between the limited consciousnesses of humans, so yes, of course the definition of 'objective' (along with all other human values) is subjective. The only 'objective' truths which lie beyond the fragmented deficiencies of language are tautologies found in absolute logical domains like math.

Human language is useful because it relies on the relatedness of the subjective perspectives of its participants, not objectivity. This especially is the case for such fundamentally undefinable concepts as "good". All 'objective' discourse or measurements only gain meaning at the point where they are finally related back to some subjective perspective or value system. By attempting to use the word "good" to cut out the perspectives of other valid participants of the conversation, you fundamentally undermine the usefulness of the construct "good" in the discourse.

effect on me
me

There you go with the personal pronouns again. Why do you think the phrase "bad taste" came to exist in the first place? Even it has no meaning no one would have ever thought of it.

? The phrase "bad taste" has subjective value between a certain set of people, and is used because those people wish to communicate that value. Just because an idea has meaning doesn't mean it's objective.

Which is to say, objectively there really is no difference between historical "masterpieces" and doodles on a napkin.

I'm sorry, but this is bar none the dumbest thing I've read in the past week. There are many art techniques that can objectively measure; brush stroke, object orientation, color deviation/blurring, perspective, ect ect. The list goes on for a while.

As I mentioned before, although many objective metrics to measure art by exists, there is no objective basis for determining why (or which of) those metrics matter. In the first place, there is no point in objectively evaluating any work if that evaluation cannot be used to predict the (subjective) responses of other people.

You've also got a pretty clueless conception of objectivity if you cannot see the meaning behind the statement that historical masterpieces are objectively equal to doodles on a napkin. Your concept of 'objectivity' is taking a fundamentally human perspective regarding artistic quality. If, say, you were a rock, or a bird, the difference between human masterpieces or doodles would have absolutely no meaning to you. However, from an objective perspective, there is zero difference in value between your perspective or that of a rock or a bird's. Having managed to misuse the term 'objective' so blatantly makes you no better than the "abusers of language" you were previously talking about.

Well, you'd be wrong, and you're already in the wrong mind set. personal opinion has nothing to do with it.

people associate with a phrase like "good writing" is something subjective and emotional.

The idea is, if the 'objective' standards associated with good writing don't have any effect on me emotionally, then why should I care about it? Why should anybody care about it? Fundamentally, the only value an evaluation of the "goodness" of a piece of writing has is in its predictive quality towards favourable responses from other people, as communication. As the "quality" of a piece of work only has meaning towards the (subjective) individuals experiencing it, that quality is fundamentally subjective (and in fact, holds no meaning if it is not subjective on some level).

There is, people have just endlessly blurred the line between what they like and what is good. There have always been predefined standards as to what qualifies well written.

I'll acknowledge your use of "always" as an exaggeration ;P. If you really claim that there are such standards, then the question is who defined them and why they matter, particularly in claiming exclusive domain over such universal terms as "good".

The problem with your stance is that if everything is objective you'd have to put the doodle I make on a napkin while I'm waiting at a restaurant on the same level as historical masterpieces because it can also appeal to a certain crowd of people.

The implicit position you've assumed that "historical" masterpieces have particular value is already a subjective judgement. While I might feel an equal gap between the quality of a doodle on a napkin and things which I would consider good writing, canonicity is really one of the least predictors of "good writing" by my perspective.

Which is to say, objectively there really is no difference between historical "masterpieces" and doodles on a napkin. Because objectivity is not bound to any individual (or more particularly, even (implicitly) a human) perspective. The only reason why such a comparison would bother you is that you're clinging to this very concept of "objectivity". In fact, I for one have absolutely no problem valuing works I prefer over some random doodle on a napkin, and communicating so to others. The reason is simply that I can often assume that the values of a person I am speaking to will be closer to mine than that of someone who will value doodles on napkins. Essentially, I make use of the expected relationality between my perspective and the person I am speaking with. However, in the end this does nothing to change the fact that the values which I wish to communicate are subjective.

Which ultimately comes down to the issue: your evaluations of Citrus might be subjective, but they are just as valid as anybody else's. Certainly it is not even inaccurate to say that many people probably do share your perspective that Citrus has bad writing. It is not like it is impossible for you to have communicated your values in a relatable way. However, the question is, what did you plan/wish to achieve with your communication? What do you wish to affect by stating your perspective? Because the result was, by attempting to place your opinion in such a way in a realm beyond its subjective value as shared by other posters, not only did you stifle the productive possibilities of discussion, your own position also became that much more unfeasible.

last edited at Feb 1, 2014 3:15AM

That's because it is. There is a very large difference between "like" and "good", most people don't understand that. Quality (a.k.a. good) is objective, while "like" (or enjoyment value) is subjective. Citrus' story is bad, that's a fact. But that does not mean people can't like it.

I know how to judge a story based on it's merits alone, and Citrus does not hold up. You are also confusing "slow development" with "bad development". Citrus so far has been like a strong of one shots with characters that look and act similar. No conflict or event lasts more than a chapter, and said event or conflict is always brought up at the end of the previous chapter. e.g. Mei's dad shows up at the end of the last chapters and is gone by the end of this one.

Personally, I wouldn't say that something like 'consistency/duration of overarching conflict' has all that much to do with what defines "good writing" (or in fact, I don't think I would necessarily even agree that Citrus lacks it), but the main point I want to get at is that the idea of "good writing" is even objective (or has a strict definition) in the first place.

The thing is, while I agree that a qualifier like "good" has some objective connotations (and also agree that, by any definition, Citrus is pretty unlikely to fall under most people's conception of "good writing" anyway; that's different from saying Citrus has "bad writing", however), I feel that ultimately the perception of "good writing" is a subjective matter.

In fact, I think the fundamental experience people associate with a phrase like "good writing" is something subjective and emotional. "Good writing" is simply writing which surpasses people's expectations, often transcending original prejudices, and "forces" a reader/viewer to acknowledge the quality of a work beyond their intentions. In fact, I think the idea of 'objectively' evaluating a piece of writing by certain predefined metrics or qualities is something totally unnatural to the act of reading, possessing no inherent point, and probably a myth made up by pompous people. Except in the case of evaluating a work by the metric of "appeal" or marketability (something ultimately still dependent on one's subjective conception of what 'appeals' to others), I think the "quality" or "goodness" of a piece of work is always directly related to the reader's emotional response.

I would say that the experience of being "forced" to acknowledge a work beyond one's initial prejudices or expectations is probably what lends the objective air to people's experiences/conceptions of "good writing". However, the obvious issue is that a person's initial prejudices/expectations are of course subjective in the first place. The quality of 'good' writing then ultimately really lies in a work's ability to induce just that experience in its readers/viewers -- the ability to surpass people's expectations and expand their consciousness. However, as the individual reasons for such a response will always be subjective, there can be no strict universal definition of "good writing".

All this basically to say, that in the end your definition of "bad writing" is also subjective. Although it's possible to define many 'objective' metrics for writing, and Citrus in fact would probably fare poorly by many of them, ultimately which metrics actually matter to other people or could unquestionably be attributed to an objective 'quality' of the work is totally subjective, or more accurately, undefinable.

last edited at Feb 1, 2014 2:03AM

Did you guys all forget about Yuzu's background from ch. 1? She was a 'gal'/gyaru in with the 'popular' crowd back in her old school, who were all obsessed about having boyfriends. The new character is obviously one of Yuzu's 'friends' from back then who might do some nasty stuff if she finds out Yuzu is into a girl now. I guess a love triangle isn't totally impossible but I think the setup is leaning much more towards prejudice/discrimination.

Also, I dunno for certain what Yuri Project's policy on licensed works is, but I wouldn't assume yet that they will drop it. I think it would be reasonable for them to keep up with current releases while deleting older chapters as they are officially published. In any case, I think people have got their priorities backwards if they're complaining about a series becoming in print and officially available: it's a chance to legitimately support the creators and yuri. The one thing I would recommend is if you're in a country/region where obtaining the licensed releases will be difficult is to just download/archive the first volume chapters now so that once the official version gets released, you'll still have them.

Ah, yup. Thanks!

Kind of weird to see Minna referred to by her last name, made a tag suggestion. This is probably the most canon Mio pairing.

^ Appreciate the endorsement.

Haha, damn, I love this author. Reimu and Marisa, so cute.

Sadism is okay, but I'm not really a fan of what feels like bullying. The art here is pretty gorgeous, but I liked the content less than I expected. Hopefully the story will start moving towards a more mutual, consensual relationship going forward.

Chapter six looks pretty rushed... I don't feel I have the skill/time to be a real good translator, but even I could tell stuff was off.

I thought it was pretty okay except for the final 4koma. I happened to see the /a/ thread where the scans were being edited and it seems like the translator totally missed the context of the background dialogue (the "royalty" stuff is probably a reference to the earlier "beach queens" scene). But yeah, the way it currently is is definitely jarring.

Seen somewhere that there was staff that worked on Hidamari Sketch on the team for this one (?). I am glad and.. kind of not glad at the same time. How would it have been animated in a more traditional way? Still keeping the bright visuals ofc. With higher fidelity animation (I sense that the quality it had right now will drop after ep3, and some of it wasn't very good, but the kiss scenes were... PERFECT). Still, can't help but wonder.

The director of the series was the director for Hidamari Sketch Season 3 (and some earlier episodes), but the quality of animation itself is more dependent on the budget for the series (in terms of the number of animators they can hire, and for how long) than the directing style. Even without an experienced Slice of Life director/team at the helm we likely wouldn't get much more of an increase in quality, so I consider the team we have right now to be wholly a good thing.

I can certainly agree that the show's budget restrictions are visible in the animation though. But at the same time, they've nailed the important moments (the kiss scenes) so perfectly that I just can have no issues with the animation.

In terms of the animation for the kiss scenes themselves, it seems like they have the animator for the Sono Hanabira OVA on board. I can definitely see the similarities. Suffice to say, I was blown away by the first episode and have no doubt that the rest of this season is gonna be an absolute blast.

(Looks like this series is the one that's gonna make me take the plunge into buying imported BDs :P. I've been tempted before, but finally this series is one where I can't afford to hold back.)

This artist is pretty good. All their stuff has this great lighthearted atmosphere of being charming/adorable as fuck. Dat Marisa shot in this one is just awesome.

lol. cute

Yeah, I like it too. Seems like it came out before Mokou and Kaguya's canon settings were really established, but that's okay. The conclusion is very poetic and poignant-feeling.

Must've been a lot of Touhou stuff I went through before I really got to know the characters, I know I read this before but it must've been before I became a TeruMoko fag. Otherwise I definitely would've favourited it or something, lol. Thanks for bumping it up!

Yup, Minase Ruruu is always sheer awesome. Moreover, I just realized though, that page 14 is totally a reference to Teekyuu (!!). lol, great taste; come to think of it, this piece was definitely a bit more hyper and random than usual.

Haha, I was just about to say (in the Princess's Mirror thread) that I thought the discussion had been ended a bit too amicably. Delusional, self-satisfied assholes should be called out as such, not allowed to carry on with the misconception that their blown up bullshit actually contributed anything (actually, consider this post my doing so here, since I somewhat feel like I missed my chance to in the actual thread). Bans are one way to do that, but if the issue is that there aren't enough moderators to immediately respond to such disturbances, then I think the deficiency this time was that the regular posters dealing with that guy were too polite in tone. When a supposed 'discussion' gets dragged into nothing more than a net of sophisms by a moron so personally invested in their own words they miss how much of a jackass they are, there's no need to hold back. Censorship, banning, 'cleaning' the thread; all would actually constitute favours to new readers who stumble into the discussion thread afterwards.

Incidentally, I actually wouldn't have assumed that that csx guy was one of the alternates of sevenqt or whoever from a while back, because his self-satisfied style and spotty argumentation seemed even more immature than I remember sevenqt being. It could well be the case though, so I wonder what csx himself would have to say about that.

Since creating a post purely just to badmouth another user kinda flies against my personal standards of constructiveness, though, let me take the opportunity to extend thanks and congratulations to the Dynasty Staff (and any passing scanlators like Yuri Girl 1001) for the new year. I've just nearly caught up on my Dynasty backlog this past week and I have to say that this month of Christmas releases has been amazing. So much great yuri has definitely helped take the edge off a 'vacation' with terrible net access, half of the time restricted to just my phone :P.

Dang, that was sweet, I really liked it. I also liked the execution of the dreamlike symbolism and imagery; this was a pretty creative storyline. Kantai Collection doesn't seem to have inspired that many deeper, character-oriented fan works yet, but I look forward to explorative stuff like this expanding with things like the continuing manga or anime.