Katawa Shoujo Forums

Guest Poster wrote:I guess I was arguing two things. One was that her response was irrational, but not necessarily inappropriate when taking all the circumstances into account. (you could argue that her response in her neutral ending was more inappropriate because she resigned herself to a role of being Hisao's ward instead of calling him on his faults at the cost of her own shrinking self-esteem)

The other was that, well...I felt some of your statements were too eager to dismiss humankind's emotional nature. I mean, statements like "Situations that may require extreme responses are those that involve active shooters and people attempting to commit suicide (among others)." or "(firmly setting a boundary in a raised tone and then threaten to call for help if he disregarded)" sound like straight out of a police manual and it would probably be wonderful (or not) if everybody could keep their emotions in check at all times and calmly and rationally deal with even emotionally charged situations, but I dunno...I can't help but feel reality is often a lot more complex than that. Maybe I'm too cynical if I say that even people who are generally emotionally mature can be put into situations that'll make them dismiss procedures and lose their temper. I know I've seen several examples in real life. Or maybe 99% of humanity simply isn't emotionally mature.

and I would argue that it was inappropriate. The neutral ending wasn't emotionally healthy either, but the reality is that screaming your head off and potentially giving the guy a heart attack is not the sort of reaction that anyone who's critically looking at the situation would deem appropriate. Hisao was never actually physically endangering Hanako or putting physical pressure on her. He was also trying to act in a calm and consoling, albeit in an irrational and unintentionally abusive, manner. She also had opportunity to speak, even if he was disregarding her initially feeble protests. In other words, the brunt of Hanako's emotional response was not drawn from physical necessity, but emotional necessity. Not saying the latter is somehow less important, but it means she had plenty of opportunity to say or act differently. Meaning, I can still find fault with her actual actions, even if the person they came out of could act no differently in that situation.

Also, it's not more complex than that. Humans are extremely complex and emotional creatures. There's nothing at all wrong with that, nor are those emotions something to be buried. However, given our capricious nature, intellectual capacity and conscious potential for destruction, it's all the more reason why it's important to try and temper ourselves as to avoid wholly unnecessary animosity and potentially dangerous conflict. Expressing our feelings is important, but it's always more healthy to do it in a controlled manner. What's more, simply complaining that it sounds too rehearsed or detached isn't any kind of a counterargument against the effectiveness or appropriateness of the response. Especially true when the responses themselves, while controlled and calculated, can still be very emotional. Indeed, they often should be. It's also true that sometimes things will invariably get out of hand, yes, but that doesn't mean that our actions are suddenly infallible when they do or there wasn't a better way a situation could have been handled. Certainly we can empathize with such a person's plight, even lessening our judgement of their actions (that's why the temporary insanity plea exists), but the action itself was still wrong. Also, do try do avoid being so hyperbolic with the made up statistics and whatnot.

Oddball wrote:So what exactly is the truth in "Why you and the other guy felt the need to even interject is also beyond me, since my comment wasn't even initially directed towards either of you," if it's not "I wasn't talking to you, so don't talk to me?"

I'm curious.

The truth was the meat of my statement, silly. The paragraph or so before that last tidbit that you quoted. The "Why you and the other guy felt the need to even interject is also beyond me, since my comment wasn't even initially directed towards either of you," part was specifically saying that. Literally interpret everyone word of that statement and you'll have its meaning. You twisted it into me telling you to do something while disregarding the rest of my statement. That would be the second time you've twisted my intentions. I never told you to do anything. If you have some weird issue with butting into conversations you weren't apart of, whatever, but I don't know your motivations so it's literally "beyond me".

If you have some weird issue with butting into conversations you weren't apart of, whatever, but I don't know your motivations so it's literally "beyond me".

This is a forum. Nobody is part of a conversation until they butt into it. I'm not sure why you have issues with this.

As for your truths, I find them overly clinical and detached from any real human sentiment or emotion and completely out of place in situation that was presented. You simply can't always expect people to act like machines and respond in well controlled non emotional ways even under the best of circumstances. Insisting they follow some written code as to how they should respond to conflicts is outright absurd.

But to play along, even if what you said was true and the well rehearsed speeches would work under normal circumstances, I don't think it's out of place to say that these were neither normal circumstances nor where there normal people involved. The inherent character flaws in both the main character in this case had backed them into a corner where they had simply left themselves with no peaceful solution that would work and still be true to their characters. Essentially, these were two very broken people and you simply can't expect something that's broken to function properly all the time.

... and frankly, even this post sounds too clinical devoid of human emotion to me. I think I'm going to go to another forum I frequent now and make jokes about people in rubber suits smashing Tokyo.

Oddball wrote:

If you have some weird issue with butting into conversations you weren't apart of, whatever, but I don't know your motivations so it's literally "beyond me".

This is a forum. Nobody is part of a conversation until they butt into it. I'm not sure why you have issues with this.

As for your truths, I find them overly clinical and detached from any real human sentiment or emotion and completely out of place in situation that was presented. You simply can't always expect people to act like machines and respond in well controlled non emotional ways even under the best of circumstances. Insisting they follow some written code as to how they should respond to conflicts is outright absurd.

But to play along, even if what you said was true and the well rehearsed speeches would work under normal circumstances, I don't think it's out of place to say that these were neither normal circumstances nor where there normal people involved. The inherent character flaws in both the main character in this case had backed them into a corner where they had simply left themselves with no peaceful solution that would work and still be true to their characters. Essentially, these were two very broken people and you simply can't expect something that's broken to function properly all the time.

... and frankly, even this post sounds too clinical devoid of human emotion to me. I think I'm going to go to another forum I frequent now and make jokes about people in rubber suits smashing Tokyo.

I never expressed that I have an issue, it's just strange behavior when you clearly didn't even read through the whole conversation yourself (as your initial response to me made a point I clearly made earlier). At that point, I'd consider you "butting in" and not attempting to actually join the conversation in a reasonable way. Honestly, your behavior was just kind of silly, and that's putting it as nicely as I can.

Also, again, you're missing the point if you think anyone is acting like a machine. You can find responses that aren't lashing out irrationally to be that way, but whatever response you would have given that escalated beyond the ones I suggested likely would have been destructive or even dangerous. However, there was no written code, you're also making that up. There are simply general measures and precautions, as well as rules of thumb, that one should abide by when in an emotionally high strung situation. Many of these can be crafted by the individual themselves, gotten from reading the myriad books and articles written on the subject or mutually worked out via a coalescence of input from various parties. You can disagree with that, fine, but just saying whatever the hell you want when you're pushed is not going to end well for anyone. You can't simply hide behind human emotion as an excuse to act like a child every time someone pushes your buttons.

Also, you're not "playing along" because you're, once again, missing the point. One creates contingencies specifically for "not normal" situations. You don't have normal highly emotional conflicts. If you do then there's something wrong. What's more, you're simply reverting back to the "bu-bu-but Hanako's messed up, so you can't judge her actions!". I'm sorry, but no, I can still deem her actions as being dangerous and unnecessarily extreme, regardless of her emotional state or how expected/understandable/inevitable her response was. I've pointed this out so many times by now, but you just don't seem to want to accept it.

It's also hilarious that you talk about being "true to character" when such irrational behavior wasn't typical of the highly analytic Hisao. You could argue that that's where his mindset took him, but such a last minute evolution in behavior hardly reinforces that the ultimate outcome was the only possible solution that would remain "true to character". That's actually beside the point entirely, but I just found your argument kind of funny.

Have fun on your other forum, I was getting a bit tired of your redundancy anyway.

I don't think you guys know the difference between objective and subjective.

I never expressed that I have an issue, it's just strange behavior when you clearly didn't even read through the whole conversation yourself (as your initial response to me made a point I clearly made earlier). At that point, I'd consider you "butting in" and not attempting to actually join the conversation in a reasonable way. Honestly, your behavior was just kind of silly, and that's putting it as nicely as I can.

You're not very good with "nice". Maybe you should read more books about it.

Also, again, you're missing the point if you think anyone is acting like a machine.

I don't think anyone is acting like a machine. I think the problem lies in the fact that you want them to.

You can find responses that aren't lashing out irrationally to be that way, but whatever response you would have given that escalated beyond the ones I suggested likely would have been destructive or even dangerous.

I don't disagree with this. I disagree that the suggestions you made are in any way realistic or suited to the characters or narrative.

However, there was no written code, you're also making that up. There are simply general measures and precautions, as well as rules of thumb, that one should abide by when in an emotionally high strung situation. Many of these can be crafted by the individual themselves, gotten from reading the myriad books and articles written on the subject or mutually worked out via a coalescence of input from various parties.

First, the bold parts.

Second, you seem dead set on insisting that when people do loose their tempers, they should carefully remember what they have read and studied on the subject and conduct themselves in a civilized manner... Which makes me wonder if you even know what loosing your temper actually is?

You can disagree with that, fine, but just saying whatever the hell you want when you're pushed is not going to end well for anyone. You can't simply hide behind human emotion as an excuse to act like a child every time someone pushes your buttons.

Nor can one simply hide behind the fact that people DO loose their tempers and lash out, and when they do, the aren't thinking clearly and certainly aren't going to hold themselves to any code of conduct that they may (but probably haven't) spent time studying.

Also, you're not "playing along" because you're, once again, missing the point. One creates contingencies specifically for "not normal" situations.

How many people do you think actually do this?

What's more, you're simply reverting back to the "bu-bu-but Hanako's messed up, so you can't judge her actions!". I'm sorry, but no, I can still deem her actions as being dangerous and unnecessarily extreme, regardless of her emotional state or how expected/understandable/inevitable her response was. I've pointed this out so many times by now, but you just don't seem to want to accept it.

No. I'm not saying you can't judge her. I'm saying you can't hold her at fault for lashing out when back against a wall. There's a subtle difference that you don't quite seem to get.

It's also hilarious that you talk about being "true to character" when such irrational behavior wasn't typical of the highly analytic Hisao. You could argue that that's where his mindset took him, but such a last minute evolution in behavior hardly reinforces that the ultimate outcome was the only possible solution that would remain "true to character". That's actually beside the point entirely, but I just found your argument kind of funny.

I would make the argument that he's deadset in his mind to help her and is otherwise blind to the situation, as that was a recurring theme thought out the route (and other girls routes as well). I don't see that as any form of evolution of the character at all. It's simply the way he has always acted, granted, it may seems a tad more extreme in this circumstance, but he was also dealing with a problem he saw as a tad more extreme as well.

I was getting a bit tired of your redundancy anyway.

I grow tired of your emotionally devoid analytical BS myself. Make you a deal, you ignore me and go on thinking your right, and I'll do the same.

megiddo wrote:I don't think you guys know the difference between objective and subjective.

Objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

the extremeness of her reaction could have killed Hisao with his heart condition and wasn't necessary for what the situation warranted. Those are facts independent of personal bias. Objective. The end.

Can you tell me just how excessive her reaction was, objectively? I mean, can you give me a measurement of some kind or does "excessive" depend on whomever is observing and judging her actions?

Oddball wrote: You're not very good with "nice". Maybe you should read more books about it.

Please leave your hypocritical faux-wisdom out of this; it only makes you appear even less credible.

Oddball wrote: I don't think anyone is acting like a machine. I think the problem lies in the fact that you want them to.

and I already expressed that you're wrong in my desires and explained why. You saying it over and over again despite that just appears dense.

Oddball wrote: I don't disagree with this. I disagree that the suggestions you made are in any way realistic or suited to the characters or narrative.

and, for what feels like the thousandth time, I never argued that they were realistic for the characters. Merely more appropriate alternatives. Again, dense. Also, if you think it's unrealistic for two people in general to act in a more rational manner in that situation, then you must be dealing with some very emotionally unstable individuals in your life. People can get their buttons pushed without freaking out. It happens.

Oddball wrote: First, the bold parts.

someone writing an article or a book on something doesn't equate it to being a code. It just means there's plenty of information about the topic that is potentially applicable to one's own life (which is why I stressed multiple books). If there was some kind of "how to deal with 101 emotional situations" handbook (which I don't doubt but isn't what I was referring to), it would be a code. A straight code probably wouldn't work, because it's not actually getting to the core of the individual or helping them to mature. Unless you're psychologically and emotionally invested in a solution to your own personal shortcomings, then merely attempting to follow some rules is almost futile. The solutions should also be specific to you, and thus a single code probably wouldn't be appropriate for most people. Of course, you're still going to see patterns in what are deemed successful solutions to certain issues and generally accepted solutions to certain kinds of situations. That's mostly because we're all part of the same species and general social environment, and thus it's inevitable that there's going to be some significant psychological and circumstantial overlap. All that said, I can see how those two statements might seem contradictory. Hopefully now you understand where I'm coming from. To say there's a "code" for dealing with emotions is a gross oversimplification of human psychology, and a stance I would never take.

Oddball wrote:Second, you seem dead set on insisting that when people do loose their tempers, they should carefully remember what they have read and studied on the subject and conduct themselves in a civilized manner... Which makes me wonder if you even know what loosing your temper actually is?

The reality is that people shouldn't "lose their tempers" (specifically not when it's dangerous to do so) and when they do it's an emotional slip-up on their part. Of course people shouldn't do a lot of things they do anyway, it's part of being human. I already expressed the inevitability of it, but that doesn't make it suddenly okay. People are almost invariably going to unnecessarily lie, cheat and even steal at some point. Sometimes they do it when it's practically beyond their control to do so due to the emotional pressure of a situation rendering them unable to think straight. So too are people going to lose their tempers sometimes. That doesn't make it any less of an poor action. That said, when one "loses their temper" they're likely past the point of no return. There's a HUGE difference between getting angry and losing your temper. The distinction here is key, and as an adult (and even adolescent), if you have an issue with losing your temper or a lot of unchecked anger that you're aware of, you have a responsibility to deal with it for the sake of those around you. of course some people aren't aware of their own pent up emotions (probably like Hanako) and I'd be far less inclined to hold them accountable for their actions. Hell, even some people who are aware and trying still don't have a lot of control. That aspect of it is very case by case and individualized. Of course, when analyzing the actions independent of the individual, well, you know the drill.

Oddball wrote: Nor can one simply hide behind the fact that people DO loose their tempers and lash out, and when they do, the aren't thinking clearly and certainly aren't going to hold themselves to any code of conduct that they may (but probably haven't) spent time studying.

again, you're stressing a "code of conduct". Having a something akin to a personal mantra, some self-enforced tenets and learning how vent your anger and deal with emotional stress (as well as your own specific issues) in a healthy way is not a code of conduct. It's a process of growth and development. That said, the solution I mentioned was merely presented as a better alternative to the actions actually taken only to prove that a better solution was readily available (as someone said they felt Hanako's action was "appropriate", which may be true in keeping with the character, but not for the general situation itself). What's more, for the millionth time, a poor action is a poor action regardless of the person who preforms it. I don't understand why you can't wrap your head around the fact that the actions taken in this situation by both parties are simply bad ones. This is a fact independent of the individuals themselves. The sheer fact that you recognize they're both emotionally damaged and acting irrationally only reinforces that point. It's just like you don't want to admit that just because people aren't in a frame of mind to act otherwise it doesn't mean they actions they take can't be bad ones.

Oddball wrote: How many people do you think actually do this?

fallacious bandwagon logic aside, plenty of people actually learn how to deal with their own emotional triggers. Again, it's part of growing up. It's why anger management exists. It's how many adults learn to function as adults. Anyone who's been to a therapist, talked with a knowledgeable individual or read a single book on the subjecting has probably learned a thing or two about boundaries, healthy emotional venting, how to deal under emotional pressure, etc. You're acting like this is magical foreign knowledge privy only to a select few. It's called learning and implementing. Yes, even the "enlightened few" inevitably slip up now and again. That's beside the point, however.

Oddball wrote: No. I'm not saying you can't judge her. I'm saying you can't hold her at fault for lashing out when back against a wall. There's a subtle difference that you don't quite seem to get.

Yet the entire point of the tangential argument was about her actions themselves, not the character. I've expressed this so many times but you can't seem to integrate this information it into your psyche. The reality is that I could hold most people at fault for acting the way Hanako did in that situation, but Hanako herself is actually something of an exception. In a court of law, if she did kill Hisao via yelling (an actual possibility), she would likely get off specifically because of the nature of her condition. Like I expressed before, she doesn't have the emotional tools necessary to even begin to deal with a situation like that. Unlike, say, you or I probably do.

Oddball wrote: I would make the argument that he's deadset in his mind to help her and is otherwise blind to the situation, as that was a recurring theme thought out the route (and other girls routes as well). I don't see that as any form of evolution of the character at all. It's simply the way he has always acted, granted, it may seems a tad more extreme in this circumstance, but he was also dealing with a problem he saw as a tad more extreme as well.

Well he's usually very perceptive of social cues and analytic of the situation around. The fact that he recognized Hanako was even angry normally would have been enough for him to reevaluate his actions in that situation. The reality is that such blind ignorance and disregard for others isn't really normal for his character, even when he's acting a bit more dense. The point was, it wouldn't be a stretch to say Hisao's character might have acted differently in that situation. Not saying his actions were unrealistic, but I doubt it was the inevitability you implied it to be. The general malleability of Hisao's character (a must for the VN medium) seems to reinforce that sentiment. Hanako's own actions in the face of such behavior seemed inevitable though.

Oddball wrote: I grow tired of your emotionally devoid analytical BS myself. Make you a deal, you ignore me and go on thinking your right, and I'll do the same.

I'm sorry you have trouble dealing with rational thought, but I'm not simply going to ignore your rebuttals that skew my intentions. If you want this conversation to end, stop replying.

megiddo wrote:Can you tell me just how excessive her reaction was, objectively? I mean, can you give me a measurement of some kind or does "excessive" depend on whomever is observing and judging her actions?

The problem with your argument is that you're implying the seemingly inherent subjectivity of the threshold of what one might deem excessive based on this situation is somehow limiting an objective conclusion from being drawn about whether or not the actions she took were excessive. That's false, as we can clearly see that her actions were dangerous for someone in Hisao's condition and Hisao himself was posing no real physical danger to Hanako (nor would such an extreme reaction likely have been necessary to remove his presence). One doesn't need units of measure to objectively say "yeah, you clearly used too much flour" if they're even vaguely familiar with the recipe.

You are correct to imply that I can not, objectively, say exactly how overboard Hanako went, but thankfully my ability to impartially say "her actions went overboard" is not contingent on that.

axlryder wrote:The problem with your argument is that you're implying the seemingly inherent subjectivity of the threshold of what one might deem excessive based on this situation is somehow limiting an objective conclusion from being drawn about whether or not the actions she took were excessive. That's false, as we can clearly see that her actions were dangerous for someone in Hisao's condition and Hisao himself was posing no real physical danger to Hanako (nor would such an extreme reaction likely have been necessary to remove his presence). One doesn't need units of measure to objectively say "yeah, you clearly used too much flour" if they're even vaguely familiar with the recipe.

You are correct to imply that I can not, objectively, say exactly how overboard Hanako went, but thankfully my ability to impartially say "her actions went overboard" is not contingent on that.

It's reasonable to expect the actions she took though, as she was basically acting in fight or flight mode. Cornered in her sanctuary by Hiao, she couldn't run, so she got hostile.

I really don't think it's necessary to treat Hisao with kiddie gloves here. The guy wouldn't appreciate you for that. He has been on medication for some time, so he doesn't get heart attacks merely from emotional stress. He's portrayed as being able to deal with the various emotional bumpy rides in other routes and can even consistently have sex without too much risk. The only times he consistently gets worse is when he gets lax with his medication. I think he can handle five lines of harsh venting just fine. Now if Hanako had physically attacked Hisao, THAT would have put him at a genuine risk, since he still deals badly with blows to the chest even from someone who's not particularly atlethic. But Hanako didn't attack him, nor did she threaten to and her outburst ended the moment Hisao left the room. The worst he had to deal with was a hysterical "I hate you". That having to feel like shit afterwards.

I also agree with Daitengu. Flight or fight, and she wouldn't have fled from her own room in her nightgown and in the emotional state she was in. Hisao's interaction with Hanako in that scene being calm and consoling wasn't much of a consolation when every word made Hanako feel worse and worse. Hanako's attempts to make Hisao leave her alone may been feeble, but anyone knowing her would realize that even those kinds of reactions take effort from her and SHOULD be taken seriously and anyone expecting her to suddenly develop an assertiveness she doesn't even possess on her best days has very unrealistic expectations. Taking Hisao's insistence to protect her from herself against her own wishes in mind and Hanako's turmoiled emotional state, what happened in Misstep was pretty much the most realistic outcome we could expect. You could argue the characters shouldn't be the way they are, but that's just getting into opinions.

Oh, and Hisao usually IS pretty perceptive, but he does admit near the end of the good end most things he assumed about Hanako were wrong and he wasn't the only one. Lilly, who's also fairly perceptive, was also wrong about several things. Hanako's so closed-off she's not easy to figure out.

Taking Hisao's insistence to protect her from herself against her own wishes in mind and Hanako's turmoiled emotional state, what happened in Misstep was pretty much the most realistic outcome we could expect. You could argue the characters shouldn't be the way they are, but that's just getting into opinions.

I think the conversation he had with Lilly in this version really didn't help either. Rather than backing off and accepting that Lilly had a point, he really did need to get his own act together first, he went off thinking, "NO. I'm right. Lilly doesn't know what she's talking about this time," and approached Hanako not only with the desire to help her, but also to prove himself. Hisao does have a bit of hubris to his character, not alot and not all the time, but enough to get him to do some really stupid things because he feels the need to prove he can do them.

axlryder wrote:

megiddo wrote:Can you tell me just how excessive her reaction was, objectively? I mean, can you give me a measurement of some kind or does "excessive" depend on whomever is observing and judging her actions?

The problem with your argument is that you're implying the seemingly inherent subjectivity of the threshold of what one might deem excessive based on this situation is somehow limiting an objective conclusion from being drawn about whether or not the actions she took were excessive. That's false, as we can clearly see that her actions were dangerous for someone in Hisao's condition and Hisao himself was posing no real physical danger to Hanako (nor would such an extreme reaction likely have been necessary to remove his presence). One doesn't need units of measure to objectively say "yeah, you clearly used too much flour" if they're even vaguely familiar with the recipe.

You are correct to imply that I can not, objectively, say exactly how overboard Hanako went, but thankfully my ability to impartially say "her actions went overboard" is not contingent on that.

I think that what megiddo is trying to point out is that the discussion taking place here has far more to do with the inherent prejudices and beliefs of the parties involved than tangible factors that can be equated to an ultimate 'right or wrong' scenario. More importantly, given the nature of the discussion, it's very important to establish one's own views as just that, one's own views. They can be codified, rationalized, and consistent; but ultimately only exist within the arbitrary realm of perspective. That's the purpose of a forum like this: to gain insight into the mind and nature of people who look out into the world with a completely different set of eyes.

Let's take the analogy of using flour. I like to make dumplings, and I like them to be pretty heavy. I use a mixture of one cup water, one cup flour, and one egg. This drives my grandmother crazy. She likes lighter, airy dumplings, usually opting for more water and less flour. She could point at my dumplings and say, "you used too much flour." Problem is, I used too much flour for what she enjoys. I used exactly enough for what I enjoy. There is no absolute reality here; it's not an objective situation. I could certainly see the argument that there comes a point where you have used so much flour that the recipe does not cook right, but then that contingency would have a certain threshold of mixture balance over which you could say X number of cups too many were added. Even if you don't know offhand, that measurement exists. You can't do that with human emotion and interaction. You can have processes and communication tools to try and get the most effective reaction in the manner that causes the least emotional disturbance, but that's still arbitrary as to how you measure those qualities.

As for the subject at hand, I'd certainly say that Hanako's behavior wasn't the ideal of healthy emotional resolution, nor was Hisao's in cornering someone well past the point he had literally been asked to leave. If they both acted in accord with such an ideal, then there would be no story, and far worse they would be the worst hollow facades that ever dared to wear a human face. Life is messy, and this is a story about just how messy it can be for even those with noble intentions. It doesn't make it right or excusable, but it does make it truthful and that is the more worthy quality in my book.

Tilting Clock wrote:

axlryder wrote:

megiddo wrote:Can you tell me just how excessive her reaction was, objectively? I mean, can you give me a measurement of some kind or does "excessive" depend on whomever is observing and judging her actions?

The problem with your argument is that you're implying the seemingly inherent subjectivity of the threshold of what one might deem excessive based on this situation is somehow limiting an objective conclusion from being drawn about whether or not the actions she took were excessive. That's false, as we can clearly see that her actions were dangerous for someone in Hisao's condition and Hisao himself was posing no real physical danger to Hanako (nor would such an extreme reaction likely have been necessary to remove his presence). One doesn't need units of measure to objectively say "yeah, you clearly used too much flour" if they're even vaguely familiar with the recipe.

You are correct to imply that I can not, objectively, say exactly how overboard Hanako went, but thankfully my ability to impartially say "her actions went overboard" is not contingent on that.

I think that what megiddo is trying to point out is that the discussion taking place here has far more to do with the inherent prejudices and beliefs of the parties involved than tangible factors that can be equated to an ultimate 'right or wrong' scenario. More importantly, given the nature of the discussion, it's very important to establish one's own views as just that, one's own views. They can be codified, rationalized, and consistent; but ultimately only exist within the arbitrary realm of perspective. That's the purpose of a forum like this: to gain insight into the mind and nature of people who look out into the world with a completely different set of eyes.

Let's take the analogy of using flour. I like to make dumplings, and I like them to be pretty heavy. I use a mixture of one cup water, one cup flour, and one egg. This drives my grandmother crazy. She likes lighter, airy dumplings, usually opting for more water and less flour. She could point at my dumplings and say, "you used too much flour." Problem is, I used too much flour for what she enjoys. I used exactly enough for what I enjoy. There is no absolute reality here; it's not an objective situation. I could certainly see the argument that there comes a point where you have used so much flour that the recipe does not cook right, but then that contingency would have a certain threshold of mixture balance over which you could say X number of cups too many were added. Even if you don't know offhand, that measurement exists. You can't do that with human emotion and interaction. You can have processes and communication tools to try and get the most effective reaction in the manner that causes the least emotional disturbance, but that's still arbitrary as to how you measure those qualities.

As for the subject at hand, I'd certainly say that Hanako's behavior wasn't the ideal of healthy emotional resolution, nor was Hisao's in cornering someone well past the point he had literally been asked to leave. If they both acted in accord with such an ideal, then there would be no story, and far worse they would be the worst hollow facades that ever dared to wear a human face. Life is messy, and this is a story about just how messy it can be for even those with noble intentions. It doesn't make it right or excusable, but it does make it truthful and that is the more worthy quality in my book.

Nice rebuttal, but I'd still have to disagree. It's also rather obvious what Meggido is trying to establish, as you're trying to establish the same argument, just in an longer way. However, the fact that you can confirm using too much flour can make a recipe botched beyond measure confirms my sentiment. To think that the existence of a threshold doesn't exist for "too much" is false. If I start screaming at my child for not tying his shoe right the first time, are you really going to say "well, thinking the father went too far is purely subjective, as their are varying degrees of appropriate response to that situation". You're still attempting to forward the idea that because their is no ideal "appropriate" response in that scenario, and potentially no objectively ideal threshold for "going too far" can be established, that objectively establishing that someone passed that vague mark is impossible. I'd argue that such a threshold does exist in this scenario (along an almost infinite line of branching possibilities). However, it takes into account far too many variables to be practically established with the information and mental faculties we have. However, just because we don't know that exact threshold, it doesn't mean we can't still eyeball the recipe and be objective in our assessment of it being botched.

Just refer back to my previous comment as to why she did indeed pass that mark. She could have very well killed Hisao. That's not my views, that's reality, we saw a similarly emotionally taxing situation at the very beginning of the game that did almost that. We see several situations throughout the game that even light physical strain can be enough to trigger an attack. When emotionally jostled and scared, as Hisao expressed he was, your heart's BPM can elevate well into what is normal for moderate or even heavy exercise. We can also establish that lesser alternatives undoubtedly exist and would be effective in that scenario, even if done by gradual escalation (which their was plenty of opportunity for). Which exact response would be best, I can't claim knowledge of, but my statement isn't hinged around that. I have yet to see a single logical or rational explanation as to why she didn't go too far, only people getting defensive about Hanako's inability to act differently in the situation. It goes beyond mere perspective unless you want to argue the subjectivity of the value of human life or Hisao's inability to comply with anything less than vitriolic screaming. The former deals with philosophical ideas that go beyond the scope of this conversation (how can I say I objectively need food and shelter if my life has no intrinsic value and thus necessitates nothing?). The latter doesn't make sense for Hisao's character (who, while his perceptions of Hanako's contentions were clouded, we've seen as intelligent enough to perceive the seriousness of a situation once it was explicitly expressed to him)