Pt2.
But if that wasn't all, the fl then uses a (can't remember the name of this fallacy but it is defined as when an individual in an argument/debate can not respond to their opponent logically so instead they change and alter the topic with something else that they can then either argue with or have a better chance of winning, example: you are having an argument with someone over them not cleaning the mess that they made and out of no where they bring up the fact that a couple weeks after dinner you didn't do the dishes but they did) fallacy tactic by bringing up how she is her father's daughter and therefore should be killed as well; thinking that would result in a win for the argument.
This doesn't go well for the fl as the ml admits that she should've been executed alongside her father. Which is true if we are looking at this with common sense and are comparing the story to what would have happened in relation to the setting of the novel. Thus leading to the fact that the fl as a narrator is unreliable and is equating her admiration for her father as proof of innocence when in fact it's just simply that, admiration for a role model.
Last but not least, the ml being referred to as bad is also a figment of the narrators imagination/perspective because once again let's look at it subjectively the ml was never a "bad person" until he did something the fl didn't like which was disagree with her; she even says it herself that he changed all of a sudden, but the only change she points to is the ml holding her father accountable.
But if that wasn't all, the fl then uses a (can't remember the name of this fallacy but it is defined as when an individual in an argument/debate can not respond to their opponent logically so instead they change and alter the topic with something else that they can then either argue with or have a better chance of winning, example: you are having an argument with someone over them not cleaning the mess that they made and out of no where they bring up the fact that a couple weeks after dinner you didn't do the dishes but they did) fallacy tactic by bringing up how she is her father's daughter and therefore should be killed as well; thinking that would result in a win for the argument.
This doesn't go well for the fl as the ml admits that she should've been executed alongside her father. Which is true if we are looking at this with common sense and are comparing the story to what would have happened in relation to the setting of the novel. Thus leading to the fact that the fl as a narrator is unreliable and is equating her admiration for her father as proof of innocence when in fact it's just simply that, admiration for a role model.
Last but not least, the ml being referred to as bad is also a figment of the narrators imagination/perspective because once again let's look at it subjectively the ml was never a "bad person" until he did something the fl didn't like which was disagree with her; she even says it herself that he changed all of a sudden, but the only change she points to is the ml holding her father accountable.