Your definition from the dictionary is not wrong, as such, though it lacks context. Your applicaiton of Sylar to that definition is 100% wrong, especially when you starty babbling on about 'limited' definitions. Again, in drama of any sort, terms like protagonist and antagonist are exlusive and you are simply incorrect to make out someone can be both.
You will note you are not convincing a single person- this is because, despite your belief in yourself, your argument is rubbish and not even the tiniest bit convincing. You should think about why that is, and examine yourself in light of that.
As you are not going to change your mind, we shall take your opinion as read, and also that absolutely no-one else at all agrees with you.
So, all that being so... anyone else got any comment on the topic?
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"The main character in a drama or other literary work."
Pretty unambiguous, Ush.
Ush, just look at the definition that differs from your's - it quite clearly makes a direct reference to a 'drama of any sort,' meaning you're -- again -- very wrong. The context in no way changes the ambiguity.
Appeal to popular consensus, logical fallacy. Once you stop committing fallacy after fallacy, maybe then you might be in a position to label my argument 'rubbish.' Until then, quit it. In fact, perhaps you should think about why you were forced to drop out of our argument, and then reevaluate your stance, and examine yourself in light of that.
Also, take note that Strangelove was constantly contradicted himself and couldn't even form a cogent argument, Exanda appears to have failed to read what I was arguing properly and what definition I was using, as was Rex, who when labelling me wrong, failed to in any way support that stance.
Unsupported assumption. Four people have expressed disagreement, while nobody else has even given their stance on the argument.
Sorry mate, but you just seem like a kid trying to get one over on society through the internet; objective viewpoint, please don't attack me with, what, an e-peen?
If you have anything more to say, lay it out nice and clear, free of babble, and people can see if you have a reasonable argument or if you are just trying picking up scraps. I will also suggest that you find a better source, as I would agree with Ushgarak that that definition lacks context. Find an academic source.
"The main character in a drama or other literary work."
Completely unambiguous. To say that the definition would not apply to a drama, when it makes a direct reference to the word in the definition, is absurd.
Please, shut up, Sorgo. The fact that you're spouting 'Logical fallacy!' everywhere makes it a dead give away.
You want me to support my stance? Hah. Okay, let's think. The main plot of the first season of Heroes is 'Stop the Bomb.' The majority of the protagonist characters contribute to this:
- Peter fights Sylar to stop him from blowing up New York.
- Peter also ensures that he's got people ready to shoot him if he goes nuclear.
- Claire and HRG both ready themselves to shoot Peter.
- Matt Parkman tries to kill Sylar.
- Niki & DL kill Linderman, the pro-Bomb antagonist.
- Niki even tries to stop Sylar.
- Mohinder tries to kill Sylar.
- Hiro dedicates his mission to killing Sylar and stopping the explosion all throughout the season.
On the other hand, Linderman and Mama Petrelli want the Explosion to happen and take out New York.
Sylar is all for the Explosion, even going so far as getting the power of induced radioactivity himself. He does not contribute to the well-being of others or the halting of the Explosion, but actively contributes to its occuring. Hell, fighting Peter is what causes Peter to lose control.
Nor does Sylar show any redeeming qualities that, in the end, make him a good person (and therefore, a protagonist). Darth Vader does this; he becomes the evil Sith Lord, but redeems himself by killing the Emperor. Raskolnikov in Crime & Punishment murders an old woman and her sister to prove that he is a 'Napoleon,' but he is still the protagonist because, throughout the book, he suffers from guilt and eventually confesses to his wrongdoings.
Sylar feels absolutely no guilt in killing people with abilities. He does express a moment of not wanting to blow up New York and kill "needlessly," but that goes away pretty fast and he decides to go with it.
I also feel that it is pertinent that you're arguing the defition of 'protagonist' with Ush, who is an English teacher. As Exanda said, provide an academic source. We already have ours.
Also, you're entirely off-topic. The discussion ends here.
__________________
Last edited by REXXXX on Nov 12th, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Oh wow, who knew those words were exclusive to Sorgo?
Are you actually stupid? Do you still not know that I was and was not arguing? Here, I'll put it in nice big letters for you, hell, I'll even put it in bold because I'm such a nice guy:
I AM NOT ARGUING THAT SYLAR IS A HERO! I DO NOT CONSIDER SYLAR A HERO! I DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER HIM AN ANTIHERO! I AM ARGUING THAT HE WAS ONE OF THE PRIMARY CHARACTERS FEATURED IN SEASON 1!
Do you... get this yet?
Are you even trying to appeal to authority? That's a [Sorgo]Logical fallacy![/Sorgo] Being an English teacher doesn't mean that he can't be wrong on a question regarding the English Language.
Good god you guys are a paranoid bunch. Could someone actually post me a link to this guy's profile? I highly doubt that any internet forum poster possesses even a tenth of my super genius intellect myself, and if that's the case (which it probably is), it should be obvious that Sorgo I be not.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 9th, 2007 02:45 PM
