human memory is very very malleable. this is a minor edit. whole incidents in fairly good detail have been manufactured in the real world. to judge Patrick so harshly, for what appears to be a normal human trait, is not really a good idea. also,
http://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-3/page-47-2/
panel 4- that’s a laugh being stifled, or perhaps a giggle. yes the authors point to the prior page but who’s to say they didn’t watch a marathon that night and this is all we saw. (in fact looking ahead they did watch a fair number)
also, this whole arc needs to be taken as symbols and metaphors. in objective reality we are in a place where there are no measurements, no rulers, stopwatches, or any other measuring instruments work here. also as far as we know no recording can be done here either, so even if we measure we cannot record. so, are you seriously going to allege that Alison did not enjoy herself that night? that this was not a mostly positive interaction? look at what Alison attempted after the show was over.

That’s not a strawman argument, Palmvos is pointing out (quite rightly) that memories are imperfect by their very nature. It’s why multiple witnesses of an event will give multiple (and often conflicting) accounts of the events. It’s even led to a style of storytelling where multiple characters narrate the same events over and over, and the result is multiple stories to entertain the viewer:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RashomonStyle

“In reality, this condition is so common it’s often said that if you have 12 witnesses to a crime, you’ll often get at least 13 different stories of what happened.” This has actually led to wrongful incarceration of people being harassed by the police, when they go after the suspect because some of the repetitions of the story differed in slight details. It’s how they sent Martha Stewart to prison (as a scapegoat to distract from how the Enron executives and other Wall Street types were getting away with their crimes; the only corporate executive to see the inside of prison during that particular time period was Stewart, when they convicted her of perjury – by making her repeat her side dozens of times, then declaring “AH HAH! YOU LIED THAT TIME! GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!”)

Helpful hint: if you overuse an accusation, you destroy its impact. Calling every single argument that disagrees with yours a strawman only establishes that you either don’t know what a strawman is, or think “strawman” means “any opinion that disagrees with mine.”

You called Palmvos’ argument a strawman. I pointed out that it’s not. At no point did I ever accuse you of a strawman argument. (or to use your own phrasing, “are you claiming that I called your argument a strawman? Oh hey look, I never argued that, so it’s a strawman. QED”)

And yes, I think poorly of Anima for describing happy emotions and positive feelings about interpersonal relationships as a negative thing, as a “component” to be cleansed. Especially since your entire argument is that Patrick’s memory is imperfect based on the one panel in the page. And as Palmvos ALSO rightly points out, that one panel shows one moment in time; that particular cartoon (“Rabbit Fire”) has a total run length of 7:00. Plenty of time in which to laugh – and that’s assuming they didn’t go on to watch many, many more, as Patrick discovered the joys of animation. It is FAR more likely that Alison and Patrick shared at least one moment of simultaneous giggling and guffawing, between Daffy’s meltdown and Elmer’s confused blastage.

Yeah…

1: You accused Palmvos, then me, of resorting to strawman arguments.
2: your exact words were “The memory showed Allison laughing at the cartoon, which she did not do in reality.”
3: You’re attempting to obfuscate the argument. It’s very simple: you claimed that Patrick was remembering a false memory, we pointed out that the memory is in fact pretty accurate, you started accusing us of resorting to strawman arguments. Along with a condescending attitude, which doesn’t work even when you are in fact correct. Which you are not.

As for the question of whether or not this was a misremembered memory (which is the original argument, before you attempted to derail things by making it about whether or not you were accusing us of resorting to strawman arguments (you were) and whether or not we were (we were not)), all parties were in agreement that yes she was laughing. A slight “fudging” of the exact details is to be expected in memories. That does not make it a “false” memory, it makes it a standard memory. I can’t remember all the details of my old elementary school, but I certainly remember going to said school. I don’t even remember the exact phrasing I used the last time I ordered a meal at a restaurant, but that doesn’t mean my memory of eating at said restaurant is false.

I’d follow up with a “Q E fucking D,” except that’d just be petty and ridiculous – just as it is when you used it. You haven’t “checkmated” anyone with any of your posts, and acting as if the people you address are beneath you like that just makes you come across as a twit.

Yeah… you sound like Eric Cartman trying to win a debate. Including the bit at the end there… let me clue you in on a little something. The old school gentlemen and renaissance men and ladies and personages you’re trying to imitate? They didn’t “treat people with all of the respect they deserve,” i.e. they didn’t sneer dismissively at people who disagreed with them and say, “you do not share my opinions, therefore you are an idiot, good day sir.” They actually tended towards positions such as “I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” or “which of us is right, only history will be able to judge.” Attempting to ape formal speech and literature in order to convey juvenile attitudes just makes you look all the more juvenile.

Thank you. I’m here through thursday; try the buffet.