|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on Mar 24, 2015 0:44:51 GMT
Some observations that have little to do with the A-hole standing in front of the class. - Annie and Kat are sharing Kat's book in panel 1. Defiance starts in small ways! - Paz has not appeared in this class. We've seen a lot of the other students, many in the background drawn in low resolution, but not Paz. Her hair is fairly distinct even in low resolution, so this seems to be an intentional omission. I assumed Paz would lean towards Biology, but she doesn't appear to be here. Matt has not appeared either. Clearly Paz and Matt have skipped class and are making out somewhere. Poor Kat. I thought Matt and Beckie might be developing a relationship. During the Summertime Year End Ocean-Style Dance with Music!, they're holding hands on page 1393 panel 3 and dancing on page 1395 panel 7. Matt may not be in this class, but Beckie is stuck in Biology from Hell With no further evidence, I choose to believe that Paz and Matt just unwittingly dodged a bullet, and Kat and Beckie both get consolation cuddles back at the apartments. EDIT: The girl next to Beckie in the Biology class seems familiar. Another recurring classmate? She may not have any lines, but surely she needs a name... REDIT: I only found one other clear occurrence of the girl sitting next to Beckie. She is the girl that asked Annie about Jack's note on page 692. I think she is also standing in between Janet and Beckie in the first panel on page 1383, but it hard to tell since you can't see her face. Two clear appearance don't elevate her to anywhere near Beckie's status as a recurring classmate. And her one line of dialogue separates her from Beckie too. |
|
|
|
Post by zbeeblebrox on Mar 24, 2015 4:38:02 GMT
"Further reading is recommended." Well, yes, now he is poking airholes fun. I predict on the next page, class will be over and there won't be any time left for someone to stand up to him. Either Annie nervously talks to him after class, or it'll take place out in the hall between Annie and Kat. Or the rest of the chapter will follow Anthony, but that's just wishful thinking ;p Gunnercookies for zbeeblebrox!  Mr. Carter promptly took them away because I hedged my bets. :\ |
|
|
|
Post by thedoomblahsong on Mar 24, 2015 7:09:09 GMT
I wouldn't really call Jack or Renard monsters though. Jack was mind-controlled and Renard was blinded by love. Love, and Coyote. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 24, 2015 8:21:55 GMT
Um, I don't quite understand your analogy to bad boss or whatever it has to do with this situation. What I suggested was that Anthony would find Kat's work ethic and interest in science commendable. And Antimony's lazy-ass disinterest condemnable. What I'm saying is, suppose Anthony Carver finds Kat Donlan's studious nature to be correct but not worthy of particular praise (beyond good grades) because that is what a student *should* be doing in his mind, while he finds Antimony's lack thereof to be worthy of condemnation? [So, while he may draw comparisons favorable to Kat Donlan while belittling his daughter in public, this shouldn't be seen as praise and he wouldn't praise Kat otherwise.] Well, I just expect that he will notice that Kat's interest and skills in science are way beyond what could possibly be expected and he will praise her for that. There's a genuine difference between a student learning the material correctly and a student doing things beyond what is even taught. I'm sure even Anthony will be excited if he finds out that Kat is creating life. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 24, 2015 8:24:47 GMT
Aaargh!! Not this! If it is this, we'll be waiting to see this for weeks! It is this, isn't it! It's so gonna be this! Tom is such a troll! And I bet, when the scene change is over, it cuts first straight to Annie after her private meeting with Anthony. Gosh... SilverbackRon, at some point there must be Jimmy jims flipping. My thoughts if keeping with Tom and Anthony: Cut scene to something, then back to Annie who looks about to cry, she tells Kat that all he wanted was to give her the book and tell her to "Be more with the program" for the next class, everyone hates Anthony, chapter ends with her going to do homework and theres a note in the book for her from Anthony, that we NEVER get to see what is says. About that last part. Even if we NEVER were to see it, there should be a clear effect giving a hint about what it says so that we would be able to reasonably speculate and theoretically come to conclusion about it. |
|
|
|
Post by dliessmgg on Mar 24, 2015 10:58:58 GMT
Calling it now: next page will have Jones throwing a party for the reunion of father and daughter.
|
|
|
|
Post by elppa284 on Mar 24, 2015 16:23:33 GMT
...Is...is he trying to make her angry? Is this what this is all about? Is he trying to make her angry to see how much of her mother is in her? Because if that's what he's doing, that's messed up. And awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 24, 2015 18:18:16 GMT
I don't care what his reasoning is ... I don't care a single bit what your intentions are at your core ... No amount of backstory can act as character development ... Regardless, even if this is all for an altruistic ulterior motive, and he is trying to 'protect her' ... I don't care what his reasoning is or what his backstory says or what he's trying to do. I will never like him. His behavior is unacceptable. we all have the cards of "good intentions" in our decks... But the only people who need and tend to use them are the people who are wrong.... I think good intentions are more harmful to society than malicious behavior. I honestly don't care what his intentions are at this point. His behaviour is slowly tipping over the line of dick to just plain malicious. Anthony ... he's rude and impolite, he's being set up as a bad person, possibly for a subversion later on, but in the VERY BEST LIGHT right now he's a guy who goes by "the ends justify the means" which is never a good thing. We also do not completely understand what the action is yet: he may eventually turn out to be not detestable as a father, if what he is doing is in fact good for Annie. No. His actions are morally reprehensible and abusive. "Not liking Anthony" aside, I've been wondering during this whole debate is what is the ethical theory bringing consistency to the moral judgment of the people who swear to condemn Anthony regardless of what will be revealed in future. That good will and compelling reasons of absence do not justify his acts or lack thereof enough to clear him from condemnation, completely counts out all deontological ethics of duties and intentions (besides, what is "plain malicious" regardless of intentions?). If no historical reason leading person to act the way he does justifies the act, then determinism is just as banned as intentionalism. That the long term benefit of Annie herself would not justify his acts, means that there is no consequentialist account possible either. If neither the altruistic motives or beneficial results to others counts, then what is the ethical theory used in judgment? Perfectionism? But even the slightest appeals to any perfectionist account in Anthony's defence have been condemned as immoral as such, as has been the whole rationality of justifiable ends and by consequence all means-ends rationalism. What is left then, is perhaps an appeal to principled absolutism condemning some means regardless of ends, but this is a deontological theory that precisely only works when distinguishing the reasons and intentions of actions, and that precisely must - for otherwise it would stop functioning at the first moment there are two opposed duties affecting the same action - balance between duties and allow a stronger duty, a stronger principle to overcome a weaker one. If it is just a set of rules prohibiting actions, defined generally and abstractly or particularly in given cases, it is outright arbitrary. So, what is the moral of the people who are from the little information given condemning Anthony regardless of what are the reasons, explanations, intentions and consequences of his acts? And if there is none, it is pretty scary how people can justify this fanatical condemnation of someone calling his daughter's makeup ridiculous*, without even accepting a consideration of the conditions, reasons and ultimate consequences of his behaviour, let alone a theory of ethics to provide a consistent rationality to this judgment. That "ridiculous" was really Anthony's biggest wart. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 20:58:19 GMT
Hmm... I never said that, it was someone else; I think your quotes got messed up. I'm no expert on philosophy, but is a deontological worldview really incompatible with blanket prohibitions on certain kind of behavior? I thought one of the more famous positions of Kant was his view that people should never tell an outright lie, even when speaking to a "murderer at the door" about the location of their victim. I've never heard of "perfectionism" "rationalism" or "determinism" as moral theories. What's the difference supposed to be between determinism and intentionalism?
|
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 24, 2015 22:03:25 GMT
Once again, it's not just his actions in the classroom that people hold against him, it's the fact that he's acting this way on top of being absent from her life as a parent. Now I'll even admit that my judgement is harsh & premature, I'll even refrain from further judgement until more is given, but it would help if you keep the facts in mind as well. Facts like how the criticism against him is based on several things, not just one.
Ant any rate, as I said, I'll reserve further critique for if and when he does anything objectionable, but any further critique will be tame (got the angry words out anyway).
|
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Mar 24, 2015 22:29:59 GMT
Once again, it's not just his actions in the classroom that people hold against him, it's the fact that he's acting this way on top of being absent from her life as a parent. Now I'll even admit that my judgement is harsh & premature, I'll even refrain from further judgement until more is given, but it would help if you keep the facts in mind as well. Facts like how the criticism against him is based on several things, not just one. And once again, not only these arguments contradict each other, but now you introduced either the internal contradiction, or Morton's fork - either of which invalidates your argument: Anthony is a horrible monster when Annie have to deal with his boxbotty personality, and at the same time Anthony is a horrible monster specifically because he arranged for her to live a few years without having to deal with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on Mar 24, 2015 22:33:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 24, 2015 22:45:18 GMT
And once again, not only these arguments contradict each other, but now you introduced either the internal contradiction, or Morton's fork - either of which invalidates your argument: Anthony is a horrible monster when Annie have to deal with his boxbotty personality, and at the same time Anthony is a horrible monster specifically because he arranged for her to live a few years without having to deal with it. My mistake. And I'll comment further after more strips are posted. |
|
|
|
Post by nero on Mar 24, 2015 23:05:05 GMT
Whatever reason Anthony has for being neglectful, it will take just as many years to make up for it. That is if Tom writes it that way. I would like to see if Annie could accept the fact that she might never really get along with her father.
|
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 24, 2015 23:38:07 GMT
Hmm... I never said that, it was someone else; I think your quotes got messed up. I'm no expert on philosophy, but is a deontological worldview really incompatible with blanket prohibitions on certain kind of behavior? I thought one of the more famous positions of Kant was his view that people should never tell an outright lie, even when speaking to a murderer about the location of their victim. I've never heard of "perfectionism" "rationalism" or "determinism" as moral theories. What's the difference supposed to be between determinism and intentionalism? Sorry, didn't notice to remove your quote from that post. Corrected that. My account of all known theories of ethics was indeed extremely concise. Let me elaborate a bit to at least partially answer your questions. Edit: LONG POST ALERT. Let me elaborate that behind "spoiler" sign. Deontological ethical theories, i.e. categorical ethics, exactly are by definition the ones that have these absolute prohibitions and duties that can be expressed in form 'one ought not' but they end up immediately in complete contradictions if one does not have any means to reason between the duties. So to say, all duties are prima facie and at minimum most of them (but in practice all of them) must make room for others in some situations.
Kant's theory is known as notoriously unclear, but let me try to explain, at the peril that somebody will provide a completely opposite interpretation of his theory. Only truly categorical moral principle that Kant was able to really found (and that one is dubitable, but that's external critique which was not the point here) was the principle that moral principles must be categorical, i.e. only maxims that could by all rational moral agents be held as obliging all persons are moral principles (a third condition is added that one must treat all rational moral persons as ends in themselves). That lying to a murderer example is usually wrongly quoted. It is originally an age old moral problem, posed in the Socratic dialogues, whether a person holding the weapons of another man should return these weapons if their owner has lost his mind and would likely hurt himself or someone innocent, and here related to Benjamin Constant's critique that because Kant could not universalise a maxim allowing lying, since the truth-speaking is the basis of all society, it would be morally correct in Kant's view to even lead a murderer to his innocent victim (or in the Socratic version, to arm your raging friend).
Kant responds, firstly, that the situation does not legally establish a right to lie, and legally you are better off not lying, because if you do not lie, you do not break any of your duties, and cannot be held responsible for any later outcomes. This is typical to morals of duties, and can be seen to lead to his second point: the emergency of the victim of the murderer does not establish any moral duty to you, nor does murder's want of knowledge of the victim's location. There is no maxim to be universalised according to which one's freedom is bounded by such conditional demands of others. This is the basic thing of deontological duties: what is required is fulfilment of duties, and nothing more can be asked. In liberal matrix, there are rather few of such duties to be established without creating particular contracts. So, in Kant's view, it is not simply the maxim 'one has a right to lie for altruistic motives' that cannot be universalised, but that one cannot have duties of altruism either, because the needs of others do not impose a duty upon you. There is a moral coldness or cruelty here: for example, killing is prohibited, but as long as you do not intentionally cause the death of others, you can let everybody suffer and die, and can still always appeal to not having breached with your duties. However, Kant continues that lying is not only not a duty, but a universal wrong against humanity because society is built on it. Let us make four notes. Firstly, this is a very particular case, because Kant thinks that this is foundational for establishing other moral and legal duties in social life - they would be impossible if one would be allowed to breach one's promises. So, there are not many such principles that one could easily establish. Secondly, it still does not establish any positive duty: you are only supposed not to lie, you are not supposed to tell the truth and you are not forced to take upon any particular duties related to which a situation of telling truth or lying would be imposed to you. Thirdly, lying, as any acting upon a duty, is a question of intention. No matter how unclear Kant's theory amy generally be, it is indisputable that his morals are those of intention: only the intention of the act matters. If you tell as truth something that is not true, but do not know this, you cannot be held morally responsible, because you had the good will to tell the truth. Now, similarly, if we had a duty to, say, do good to others - maybe this can be partially derived from the duty to treat others as ends - and we honestly try to do that, we cannot be held morally responsible for failing to do so. This is why I said this kind of absolutist strategy fails. The other reason was related to a yet fourth note. If it is the requirements of a moral society that make lying a universal wrong, then this can be used as a critique of moral principles in order to found other ones or undermine the absoluteness of prohibition of lying.
For one thing, lying seems to be required for the persistence of social life: although philosophers are very keen to think that lying is bad regardless of situations, anthropologists can tell otherwise: in fact, social life requires massive amount of lying on a daily basis and people mostly accept and embrace it. For another, society seems to require many other principles, say the procedural principles regulating the creation and applying of rules, the principles by which we decide what is morally or legally right in general, and in particular case. When these principles propose different courses of action in a same case, an absolutist must decide between them according to some locally established hierarchy, and thus the "absoluteness" of principles does not mean that they have to hold in every case to which they apply. So, for example, many human rights are considered absolute in the absolutist theories, so that they can be expressed as duties not to break these rights, but then they are often formulated as "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property", where the word 'arbitrarily' leaves the grounds for a reasoned limitation of the given right, normally because of the force of the other rights, which is obvious even without word arbitrary, as in the cases where degrading treatment (usually considered as absolutely prohibited by human rights treaties) is allowed in order to save life against the will of the patient because of the right to life that limits the duty to respect one's freedom from degrading treatment. So, then to try to establish a blanket ban of absenting from home or calling one's daughter's makeup ridiculous...
Deontological theories require formal rationalism, because the absoluteness of duties and principles makes no sense if their "absolute" command changes or their application is left up for irrational decisions. Therefore, these theories are rationalist even if they did not claim rational determination of the right principles and duties (which they usually do). However, here I referred to means-ends rationalism, which is the theory according to which one acts rationally when one chooses the means that leads to the wished end, and then that mean is justified if the end is justified. This requires a rationality about the ends: we can somehow define what ends, in whole, are better than others. Consequentialist theories are notoriously means-ends rationalistic.
Perfectionism is a variant of virtue ethics that considers the ethical end to be the perfection of some sort. This is the opposite of duty ethics in that when the duty ethics work in on/off manner by which you always act correctly when you reach the minimal state of fulfilling the duty - i.e., when you do not do what is prohibited by the duty - and always incorrectly when you do not fill that condition - i.e. you do what is prohibited -, the perfectionist ethics is an "ethic of aspiration" which means that you should strive for a greater realisation of good, so that we can do better or worse instead of only right or wrong. Consequentialist ethics often are those of aspiration: e.g. utilitarians usually support striving for the greatest possible utility for all in some form (not necessarily the one that would maximise the absolute amount of utility). However, the most virtue-ethical type of perfectionism aims at the perfection of the moral agent himself, so that we are interested in the virtue of the moral actor rather than the correctness or goodness of his/her acts - and derivatively may judge the actions by whether they make the person more virtuous, or 'perfect'. So, here's one form of a theory that defines some good ends and may justify means according to getting to those ends, say, that of the student's greater mastery of certain knowledge justifies the hardship imposed to them, if it leads to that end by improving their learning.
Intutionalism and determinism are not ethical theories as such but views of action that have ethical consequences. Intuitionalism views action as rationally intentional, and determinism as determined by social biological, physical or otherwise factors. The effect to justifiability is that from the internationalist point of view a person is held morally responsible of his direct action and its foreseeable consequences regardless of his/her background, and possible side products are outside of his responsibility; from the deterministic viewpoint the rule-violating person's moral condemnability is reduced by the background factors that force him/her towards an action, as the society shares some of the responsibility for the occurrence of such action. The potential to confuse these with each other yields from the fact that if the action is provably externally determined then an internationalist would not see it as condemnable. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 24, 2015 23:42:50 GMT
Whatever reason Anthony has for being neglectful, it will take just as many years to make up for it. That is if Tom writes it that way. I would like to see if Annie could accept the fact that she might never really get along with her father. This is of course true, and both are real possibilities. I don't think anybody is denying that his absence requires him to make up for it if he is to "normalise" his relationship with Annie. Just that he might not be a horrible person for having been absent for so long, and that Annie might take the re-establishment of their relationship very positively even if his father remained "a quiet man". |
|
erro
New Member
Posts: 6 
|
Post by erro on Mar 25, 2015 2:41:53 GMT
Posted in the wrong thread, reposting here.
Now that we established that he is not up-to-date on Antimony, we begin with his introduction- That his class will be difficult but overall more rewarding. This is true, however, early on, such a class will inspire the ire of the class members. He then proceeds to single antimony out, to establish himself as a cruel man. The purpose of this is twofold- To remove contact with him to ensure the other students will not pick on her because of her relation, and to make her an object of pity, so that people are willing converse with her. He establishes himself as an enemy early on, to encourage the class to converse about it, which will result in antimony being someone folks sympathise with, and can befriend. He sends her out to remove her makup to remove the mask she hides behind, so that the kindness that everyone else shows to her will encourage her to work to befriend everyone else. This is ensured by requiring her to share a textbook with someone else, guaranteeing contact with a friendly individual.
Anthony has not been informed by anyone that she is already acquaintances of the rest of her class, and failed to realize so due to making this plan ahead of time, after reading through a sizable amount of psychology textbooks to formulate a plan to encourage social contact.
And, to the slightly less reasonable guess (I’m not too good with social cues, but running the pages I’m about to reference by others, it appears that most think she’s somewhat happy), I’m making a guess that Antimony figured it out. Hence why she appears to be somewhat more happy, bordering on glowing, with a somewhat more light and joyus stance.
I’d talk more, but that’s all I have at the moment before I fall asleep- So I’m just gonna finish with that instead. I will, however, make a guess that anthony does not know why Antimony sent someone to punch him in the face, because Divine is actual partially Kat’s dream, and a manifestation of her concerns for antimony, and a worry about the grasp he has on her still, manifest due to her slowly becoming an angel and the massive web of belief that sprouts from her.
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Mar 25, 2015 3:29:45 GMT
Ah, all sorts of memories of my experiences from high school are flooding back because of this thread! ...lying seems to be required for the persistence of social life: although philosophers are very keen to think that lying is bad regardless of situations, anthropologists can tell otherwise: in fact, social life requires massive amount of lying on a daily basis and people mostly accept and embrace it. Maybe some of the philosophers don't see "little white lies" as transmissions of information but as a soothing behavior, similar to any other large primates grooming each other, and by doing so distinguish them from the lies that manipulate others to their detriment?  [And welcome to the forums, erro!] |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 4:12:37 GMT
Thanks for the detailed post! I wasn't sure that I remembered the Kant thing correctly. I just found an essay that says basically the same thing as you -- that he was talking about legal responsibility -- which is an important part of the context that I don't think I knew before. Although most people here will probably not frame their arguments in terms of a unified moral theory, they are very interesting to discuss!  |
|
|
|
Post by antiyonder on Mar 25, 2015 7:10:51 GMT
Once again, it's not just his actions in the classroom that people hold against him, it's the fact that he's acting this way on top of being absent from her life as a parent. Now I'll even admit that my judgement is harsh & premature, I'll even refrain from further judgement until more is given, but it would help if you keep the facts in mind as well. Facts like how the criticism against him is based on several things, not just one. And once again, not only these arguments contradict each other, but now you introduced either the internal contradiction, or Morton's fork - either of which invalidates your argument: Anthony is a horrible monster when Annie have to deal with his boxbotty personality, and at the same time Anthony is a horrible monster specifically because he arranged for her to live a few years without having to deal with it. Responding for a second time as I said I'd comment with the new strip out. Now since I said I'd tone things down, that means I won't make any more harsh comments regarding Anthony, but I still reserve the right to be critical. Sending her to a possibly more stable environment (or how I'm guessing he saw it) is a fair move, but even if he thought he could avoid encountering her, unwillingness to deal with the problem of how he acts around her is merely dodging/running away from the problem rather than solving it. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 25, 2015 8:12:51 GMT
Ant any rate, as I said, I'll reserve further critique for if and when he does anything objectionable, but any further critique will be tame (got the angry words out anyway). Yup, I took one of your quotes as those of unconditional condemnation, but we actually already had a talk about it, so sorry. The general point I wanted to make was just that condemnation of an act regardless of all possible information about the act is ethically untenable position. You no longer hold that position, so sorry. Being critical, of course, is another thing than to condemn. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Mar 25, 2015 8:17:07 GMT
Sending her to a possibly more stable environment (or how I'm guessing he saw it) is a fair move, but even if he thought he could avoid encountering her, unwillingness to deal with the problem of how he acts around her is merely dodging/running away from the problem rather than solving it. But it remains that if he is the problem, or his emotions are the problem, then it is commendable to take himself out of the picture for at least the time it takes to solve the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor on Mar 25, 2015 15:23:16 GMT
Commendable isn't quite the word I'd use here. Unless he'd explained in any visible way that he was considering himself an unfit father-yet had the hopes that some self imposed isolation would make him competent again in time-and he believed furthering her education where she would be under the partial watch of his old friends and Eglamore couldprovide her real benefit that he was simply incapable of, I probably still wouldn't go so far as to commend him, no matter his intentions.
The way it stands, he sent away Annie with no explanations, no assurances, and proceeded to have no contact with her until the MicroSat call, which wasn't even provably intended as a way to have meaningful contact with her. Annie could easily have, in grief or by lack of social grace, failed to bond with Kat, and by cataclysmic chain, be the same withdrawn, quietly mourning girl that she was when she arrived.
Sending her away for what could have been a lifetime deprived of contact has/is denying any semblance of a father and daughter relationship which could have been so important in dealing with the mutual pain of bereavement. And if he would have presented an even worse option than outright abandonment by staying with Annie, that still doesn't make his choice particularly noble to me, because I see a point when any and all options are painful and potentially damaging to his daughter and "not inflicting as much short/long term trauma on your kid as you could have" is what you go with, as not greatly worthy of praise.
If or when we see that Anthony genuinely struggled with his decisions, shows comprehension of the suffering Annie has gone through because of his absence if not remorse, and makes it clear one way or the other what role he intends to take in Annie's life, then it might become possible to decide if he worthy of commendation or condemnation for those choices.
Based on his recent actions my impressions of him are still overwhelmingly negative, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Mar 25, 2015 22:24:27 GMT
Does anyone else find it weird that a place built on technology would still use black boards? I believe blackboards and chalk are more eco-friendly than dry-erase and they don't use nearly as much electricity (yes mining chalk does require energy). I'd call the blackboards a mark of "posh-ness" and a sort of traditionalism over neo-Luddite-ism or anything. It takes less justification to bring the latest & greatest technology into a new facility, than to replace older quite-functional technology already in place and working. And if the latest & greatest technology happens to cost considerably more, you might get the older technology in a new facility. But this classroom doesn't like it was recently built or refurbished. Once again, it's not just his actions in the classroom that people hold against him, it's the fact that he's acting this way on top of being absent from her life as a parent. Now I'll even admit that my judgement is harsh & premature, I'll even refrain from further judgement until more is given, but it would help if you keep the facts in mind as well. Facts like how the criticism against him is based on several things, not just one. And once again, not only these arguments contradict each other, but now you introduced either the internal contradiction, or Morton's fork - either of which invalidates your argument: Anthony is a horrible monster when Annie have to deal with his boxbotty personality, and at the same time Anthony is a horrible monster specifically because he arranged for her to live a few years without having to deal with it. But any imagined conflict or contradiction is easily resolved. Anthony is not a horrible monster because of his behavior. His behavior simply reveals his personality - and that personality is why he's a horrible monster. |
|
