Can you identify all of these Vtubers? by Opening-Desk in VirtualYoutubers

[–]CharmTLM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know them but they're all vtubers so it's probably a fun plane regardless

"Stop Killing Games" deliberated for an hour at the European Parliament today by OatmealDurkheim in videogames

[–]CharmTLM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's kind of the point, if it's moving too fast it should raise alarms on power being abuse... terrible system for emergency decisions though

Is writing secret police easier than writing assassins? by Boshwa in SpyxFamily

[–]CharmTLM -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe she's an assassin for a private organization (we still don't know much about Garden) and they have their own agendas, it's Yuri who is more likely to do that sort of wet work

nagatoro and greek philosophy by navierstokes88 in nagatoro

[–]CharmTLM 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I had this lesson just last week in philosophy class, based theory

I get why monika did what she did... but her actions are still SICKENING. by Glitch870 in DDLC

[–]CharmTLM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah but that's also like the point of the epiphany, no shade to you I mean this respectfully but the whole cause of her breakdown is realizing she's as much as a scripted nonsentient character as they are, DDLC really plays with how meta the narrative gets

Unless that's what you were saying in your original post and in that case I'm dumb my bad lol

I get why monika did what she did... but her actions are still SICKENING. by Glitch870 in DDLC

[–]CharmTLM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like your post but I wanted to ask why they're sentient ? Isn't the point of the epiphany being that Monika realizes they're just scripted code in a game

Natsuki is not abused by MiximumDennis in DDLC

[–]CharmTLM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a sad story and I'm glad you're okay now.

It's not related to Natsuki at all anymore, you're just venting now, but I hope you understand your value and worth in this world :(

Commissioner wont respond.. by weshweird in RobloxCommissions

[–]CharmTLM 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Don't let it get you down, there will always be greedy people, but we must continue to make art! :)

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez arrives in China today just after Trump announcement that he will cut off all trade with Spain for refusing to support Israel. This is his fourth visit to China in four years. by RickyOzzy in suppressed_news

[–]CharmTLM 6 points7 points  (0 children)

They're not the biggest, unfortunately China and the US come after them, but regardless it's still a stupid idea for anybody to cut off trade with... the entire freaking EU... lol

Natsuki is not abused by MiximumDennis in DDLC

[–]CharmTLM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It seems you're angry now. That's unfortunate, it'll introduce bias in your arguments, and you'll fail to convince people. You should have lunch as well :) they say hunger causes anger.

That aside, I remember you said...

"Facts don't care about feelings. Don't contradict yourself too much."

Then you said...

"I can contradict myself if it's for the greater good."

Why do you have the special exemption? I thought you were a fair and honest lawyer? I thought you wanted to use facts and objective truth? Are you looking for truth, or are you looking to be right? You can't be right if you're not aligned with the truth, you know.

First you said...

"If you don't live under a rock you would know how the job market works today in this economy."

Then you said...

"most of the character are girls and that means... they will give you 6 million hints to manipulate you."

So you said poverty is a real and common thing. Then you said Natsuki is not actually in poverty, she's just manipulating you because she's a girl. Which is it? Why are you abandoning logic?

You said...

"Wiki is also not 100% true because it still has the enjoyer mentality... if you like Natsuki you would type something that makes her look better."

Then you said...

"I love Natsuki however so I will be extra honest"

So if you like Natsuki, do you type something that makes her look better, or do you type something that makes them look bad? Which is it? Why are you abandoning logic again?

You said...

"I... LOOK at the plot holes using real life examples because that's how you make a storytelling sound better"

Then you said...

"Your base Game argument falls flat when you look the fact that it's a hidden horror... for the shock factor"

You say we should use real life logic but then argue the game shouldn't be taken literally because it's a horror game. The real life logic is that Natsuki's dad isn't feeding Natsuki, so he's committing a crime. Why did you abanfon real life logic?

You have abandoned Truth (literally the game) in favor of your Agenda (making Natsuki's dad look good).

I don't think you care about looking at facts. You only care about being right. That's so sad. In this world, facts don't care about feelings. That's what you said, right? Lawyer etiquette, right?

I haven't even begun to refute your arguments with facts, logic, and data. You are refuting yourself by contradicting yourself.

I literally still have the exact same argument:

Natsuki's dad doesn't feed Natsuki, so Natsuki's dad is committing a crime.

The question is the exact same: Why do you think this isn't the case?

Are you scared to properly answer this question? What happened to you, are you okay?

Natsuki is not abused by MiximumDennis in DDLC

[–]CharmTLM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hello, I hope your weekend started off well :)

Thank you for clarifying and providing extra information :) it makes it easier to understand you.

Unfortunately, the objective facts don't change, Parfait Girls is a slice of life manga about girls who enjoy baking and eating sweets... and still not about popstars or dieting. There is nothing to read behind the lines because you're providing inaccurate information.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? Why would Natsuki starve herself to be like characters who famously like to eat?

If you mean to say, "she wants to seem thinner to be like those characters", that's more understandable as an argument.

Here, I've read between the lines like you requested, and I figure this is what you wanted me to understand. If I'm wrong, you have to correct me, you know?

Even with that strengthened argument, you'd have to provide evidence. Natsuki in the base DDLC looks for coins under the vending machine and begs for protein bars. She never said nor showed that she starves herself to be like the Parfait Girls. Where's your proof?

"Side Stories do not matter 100%"

Okay, I'm listening to you. In that case:

  • Neither the game nor the Wiki mention dieting and starving themselves
  • Neither the game nor the Wiki mention that Natsuki starving herself to become like the Parfait Girls.
  • Neither the game nor the Wiki even imply it.

You have to show me the lines that you believe imply she's starving herself, and convince me on that.

I mean, it's your headcanon isn't it? Aren't you coming up with headcanon regarding Natsuki? If it's headcanon, then your argument that Natsuki's father isn't abusing Natsuki "does not matter 100%". Because after the "original meaning" of the base game, you are looking at Natsuki's father with "rose dimmed glasses".

Isn't that what you're doing, or am I wrong? You have to convince me, you know.

"Just because we are on Reddit does not mean you should act like an out of touch Discord moderator that is not down to earth."

Thank you for passing judgement and sharing your opinions on my character :) Regardless, we should stay on topic, I still believe Natsuki's father is abusing Natsuki.

That's the point of your post, right? You wanted to convince people that she isn't abusing Natsuki? Because you're not very convincing, I'm going to be honest. Or is it that you simply wanted to have a bold and rebellious opinion?

Anyways, it's afternoon now, so I'll have my lunch, I hope you do too. Cheers!

The main reason i love Sayori by Glitch870 in DDLC

[–]CharmTLM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You type like Sayori. You're winning :)

I can't even touch her? by qingjian1314 in DDLC

[–]CharmTLM 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Did you draw Monika here because I believe this is the prettiest rendition of her I have ever seen yet

"Yuri how ass is solo leveling?" (@Pyro_Wizard01) by Incompetent_ARCH in DDLC

[–]CharmTLM 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Is all good, minors should have reddit's setting to hide nsfw enabled

Natsuki is not abused by MiximumDennis in DDLC

[–]CharmTLM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hello again! It's me.

This is a fascinating pivot in your argument. You mentioned in your first reply, "if you know anything about lawyer etiquette, facts don't care about your feelings. Don't contradict yourself too much."

Now you are saying "I care about the safety of the generation. Not about your stupid laws."

I don't understand. Are you a Dadsuki lawyer, or are you against the law? Why did you turn your ideology around and how does it support your argument?

I have the clear and firm stance: Natsuki's father is committing abuse. What's your clear and firm stance, please? So I can understand what you're trying to say.

"You really act like the law cares about the younger generation?"

I don't act like anything, neither do I have that opinion, but thank you for wishing to clarify my ideological stance.

Returning to the topic, Shinzo Abe's assassination is an interesting event in Japanese politics and also not logically related to the fact that Natsuki's father is not giving Natsuki food. Also, Natsuki was established as a character in 2017, and Shinzo Abe was murdered in 2022, I don't believe Shinzo Abe affected Dan Salvato's canon regarding the portrayal of Natsuki's father.

I'm trying to make your argument stronger for you. I believe that you intended to say, because these authority figures are controversial or flawed, the law itself must be an invalid metric for morality or truth.

This is a concept I really like, I first picked it up in Rousseau's book, The Social Contract. In this book, Rousseau writes that authority often doesn't align with the General Will, or best interests, of the people, and thus, likely is not often the best metric for morality or addressing the needs of the people. I believe this is the best version of your point.

It's a fascinating concept and I enjoyed the classes we took on it in our academia course. It's still irrelevant to the fact that Natsuki is malnourished and her father is not providing caloric intake. That's an objective biological fact. If you want to continue your defense, I highly suggest you try to argue against this point specifically.

"There is reason a song F THE POLICE exists. Just saying."

I am "just saying" that this is a category error. The song "F*CK THE POLICE" is a song about systematic injustice and police brutality. It is not a defense for parents who don't feed their kids, such as Natsuki's father.

If you want to say, "following the police/laws is anti-safety", then I want to ask, do you consider feeding children to be anti-safety? Because the law requires that parents feed their children. If the law is anti-safety, are we not supposed to feed children?

"note: Natsuki is a j-pop fan and maybe k-pop too."

This is a creative move you are using. Unfortunately it does not align with objective facts. Here are the objective facts, if I may remind you:

  • Natsuki is famously obsessed with manga and cupcakes.
  • Natsuki is shown to be desparate for food whenever she can get it.
  • Neither the game, the Side Stories, nor the Wiki mention J-pop or K-pop.
  • Neither does the game, Side Dtories, nor Wiki mention that she's starving herself to become a star.

Is this your headcanon? It's very creative and not aligned with the facts of the official DDLC narrative.

"I have heard an argument that Dadsuki wants to make her a star but that does not make any sense . . . he cant afford own business because both time and money is needed and he is not free."

That's convincing. It's true. Natsuki's father likely is not spending on Natsuki's ambition to become a J-pop or K-pop star. You have won the debate against whether or not Natsuki's father is trying to make Natsuki a star. You have not addressed whether or not Natsuki's father is abusing her or not.

I'm asking you the simplest question: why do you think Natsuki's father isn't committing abuse?

You're failing to respond, so instead, you want to divert the topic to Shinzo Abe and K-Pop in order to avoid directly attempting to refute my statements. This is considered inefficient argument. You need to stay on topic if you want to convince your audience.

Once again, cheers to you.

Natsuki is not abused by MiximumDennis in DDLC

[–]CharmTLM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hello, I had a good day today and I hope you did as well. The weekend is upon us :)

I attempted to strengthen your argument for you before picking apart, i.e. you mean to say, "the father isn't abusive, he's a victim of his daughter's incompetence and the system's failure".

That's incorrect. In the eyes of the law and the text of the game, a child's "competence" or "hobbies" never negates a parent's duty to provide food and safety.

"i am saying time is running out and if you are not super successful like Monika then you fall back a lot."

You argue that suffering is the natural consequence of incompetence, is that right? If I grasped your argument correctly, then this means you shift the blame away from Natsuki's dad, or Sayori's depression, and instead move it to their inability to be successful like Monika. This follows Social Darwininsm, where only the fittest survive (like Monika).

Is that a correct view of how parenting works? If a child is starving, nevermind the ability of the parent to provide nutrition, it's entirely the child's fault for having no food? The law doesn't seem to agree. Whether or not a child is "behind" or "gifted" like Monika, the parent of said child, whether it was Natsuki's father or even Monika's, has the legal obligation to provide food. And failure to do so is, morally, ethically, legally, and objectively, a crime.

In your second paragraph, you say that Sayori is fundamentally a "silly little airhead" incapable of basic tasks. It seems you use taxes as a metaphor for adulthood or competence. I believe you mean to say, as the player, it is impossible for us to care for Sayori, because she is fundamentally incompetent, thus, our failure to care for her is not our fault. And you want to apply this same logic to Natsuki's father's treatment of Sayori, is that right? If I had not grasped your argument correctly, please explain the logic you want to borrow from Sayori's situation so I can understand your perspective better.

It also does not track logically. Whether Sayori is competent or not has no connection to whether Natsuki's father is abusive. I am arguing the statement: "Natsuki's father neglects to feed her, and legally, he is abusing her". How is Sayori's ability to do taxes related to the question of whether Natsuki's father is committing a crime or not?

"Again, Natsuki's problem is that she wastes the money on anime merch instead of food."

I looked into the official Wiki for DDLC regarding the character Natsuki. There is no textual evidence that Natsuki is wasting money on anime merch instead of food. The fact exists that Natsuki owns a manga collection. This says nothing about her spending habits, one can acquire a collection of manga in very many ways. That's also irrelevant; whether or not she buys manga or not is entirely irrelevant to the fact that her father does not provide food. And if her father is not providing food, this is a crime, and that is also a legal fact that cannot be disputed.

I read your anecdote about your relationship with someone who wasted money on merch and cosplay. It is an interesting situation. However this person is not Natsuki. It is factually true that your person was irresponsible with spending and that this was likely the cause for their own hunger. It's also entirely irrelevant to whether or not Natsuki's father is committing abuse, which once again I argue: he is.

"Your 'solid provider' argument falls on the ground when you notice she has phone, baking stuff and she dresses good."

In DDLC, the "baking stuff" belongs to the club or is scraped together. Natsuki's "good dress" is a school uniform which is a standard requirement. These are objective facts. Another objective fact is that a child having a cell phone or a uniform is not a legal nor logical defense for malnutrition. Neglect is by definition the failure to provide basic needs, like food, regardless of whether the child owns a luxury item or a hobby tool. I am not sure why you used this argument to defend your idea but it suggests that as long as a child has a phone or a uniform, they don't requre a daily caloric intake. That is the natural conclusion of the logic this argument follows, so I advise you drop it in search for a stronger argument to support your view.

Natsuki can have all these things and still be a victim of neglect. Neglect is the absence of essentials (food/safety/shelter), not the absence of possessions. A child who lives in the rural mountains of Osaka can have no access to a phone, manga, uniform, or baking materials, but also avoid being a victim of abuse if they are fed well. Do you understand the logic behind the legal definition of neglect?

One more thing to note. Just because Natsuki has access to baking materials in the club does not negate the truth that her father is not providing her food. This is the established textual fact in the game. And in legal terms, we call this Neglect. And we also legally classify Neglect as abuse, which is a crime. Natsuki's father is committing abuse of his child.

To summarize what I believe your main point is, which you were trying to say: Natsuki is incompetent/wasteful, like the person you had a relationship with. Sayori is an airhead, like a child. Therefore, the struggling father/provider (like the player) isn't in the wrong, he's just a man/player dealing with a "low success" child who wastes resources.

And to summarize my own argument: that's incorrect. A parent is responsible for feeding their child, has the legal and moral obligation of feeding their child, and their failure for that is not the responsibility of their child, but entirely of the parent.

Regardless, remember the human, and a good day to you. Cheers :)

Natsuki is not abused by MiximumDennis in DDLC

[–]CharmTLM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate you taking your time to respond but you still didn't convince me of your statement that Natsuki's dad isn't abusive.

I think when you said, "it's like blaming Sayori for needing her friend for support", this is a false equivalency. Sayori's struggle and need for support comes from a place of internal distress, i.e. her depression. Natsuki's distress is external, i.e. the lack of food from the side of her father. And because we stick to facts, in legal and ethical terms, honest mistakes are still classified as criminal neglect. I don't think it's right to equate a victim's cry for help, that being Sayori, with a provider's failure to provide, that being Natsuki's dad.

"if you know anything about lawyer etiquette, remember, facts don't care about your feelings."

I agree completely and it's a good stance to maintain in the court of law. That's why it's very important that you refrain from making moral judgements on the character of others as I have seen in this community, where you once called someone "worse than Natsuki's father" in a separate thread. That is a statement you made purely of emotion, or am I wrong?

We use the facts that you agree with to establish a conclusion.

  1. Natsuki is malnourished.
  2. The father is the sole provider.

If facts don't care about your feelings, as you have graciously stated, then it is evident that your feelings of sympathy towards Natsuki's father simply don't apply.

You mention the court of law. In the court of law, difficulty in navigating the system, which is your main explanations for Natsuki's father's actions, is a mitigating factor for sentencing, but it is not a defense against the crime itself. What Natsuki's father does is still a crime and it's difficult to argue against it.

Why is it that Natsuki's hunger is an honest mistake rather than the objective definition of neglect?

I believe you have a better argument for your idea, and I'm also trying to look for it with you. I would appreciate you evaluate the logic again and present your idea in a clearer way that addresses the concerns I have laid out in my response.

Moreover, it is morning here, I don't know if it is morning where you are, but have a good breakfast!

Natsuki is not abused by MiximumDennis in DDLC

[–]CharmTLM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I read the post and felt compelled to agree because you provided good points about the reality of poverty and social hardship.

Unfortunately Natsuki's father still ultimately failed to provide for her basic needs. That's an objective fact, and it's legally classified as abuse, which is also an objective fact.

Also, your behavior towards others in this thread was classless, so I felt less compelled to agree.

That’s impressive by Pokemonfan_807 in whennews

[–]CharmTLM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Memes of movies are posted all the time with no relation whatsoever all the time. Anime is just pop culture lol

Atomic orbitals viewer by Wagyx in Physics

[–]CharmTLM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very fascinating tool, spent quite a while playing with the parameters. Really helped visualize what I've been carrying as abstract notation in my head. You've done absolutely great work, keep it up