Comment by exz on Yami-ochi Rasu Bosu Reijou No Osananajimi Ni Tensei Shita. Ore Ga Shindara Bad End Kakutei Na Node Saikyou Ni Natta Kedo, Mou Yami-ochi - Chapter 4

@exz yes and no. Because the boy was acting like a child, which is explains because he is a literal child. Imagine if he was 17 and decided to attack the mc because she refused to dance with him. His reaction to attack because of it would seem narrow-minded and petty. Even if you argue he's a spoiled noble, it would still seem extremely childish to react like that. Thus, the author made them children.

@JPANIME Not really, in all truth he’s still a spoiled noble, and as a teenager he’s still an immature child.

All due respect that argument doesn’t make sense.

@exz except he's a child. That's literally the point.  

All due respect, your complaints are nonsensical and childish. 

@JPANIME Let’s be honest, what’s more childish, you responding to me saying I’m childish for disagreeing, or me voicing my opinion and very clearly implying a teenager can be childish and spoiled?

All do respect, don’t know shade unless you can look in a mirror.

@exz cool story, and nice deflection. Let's look at what you actually said. 

"I like this but they should be a bit older, the drama would kinda make more sense but it’s good."

"Not really, in all truth he’s still a spoiled noble, and as a teenager he’s still an immature child."

Yeah sure. You "implied" that. 

With all due respect.. you lack common sense, deflect harder, maybe you'll reach whatever it is you "implied."

@JPANIME You’re the one who brought up the 17 y/o hypothetical and argued that his reaction would be “extremely childish” if he were 17. That is exactly what I disagreed with.

I never said a teenager would be mature however but you implied it. I said the opposite: he’s a spoiled, immature noble, so he could still act childish as a teenager. Being 17 (which I only said teenager never gave a direct age teenagers range from 13-18) doesn’t suddenly make someone incapable of being petty, jealous, impulsive, or immature.

My original comment was simply that I think the drama would make more sense if they were older. You then argued that it wouldn’t because his behavior is childish, and I pointed out that teenagers can still behave childishly. In what world is what I said insane? Go ask anyone within the world “Can a teenager be childish” the answer would be yes, as even an adult can be childish.

So where exactly did I “deflect”? I directly addressed the premise of your argument. You’re now acting like I claimed something (no clue what) when my entire response to you was that they can, I stuck with the main premise of what was said, you can’t trying to take a high ground and failing.

You can disagree with me thinking the drama fits better with teenagers, but calling my argument “nonsensical” (which is dumb and bold) doesn’t change the fact that you’re arguing against something I never said.

Also I’ll add this: You indirectly claimed that teenagers cannot be childish and have yet to back that up, when my whole premise was “I think the drama would make more sense if they were teenagers instead of 9-10 year olds.”

You responded by saying his behavior makes sense because he’s a literal child. I then pointed out that if he were a teenager, he could still be an immature, spoiled noble and behave childishly in the exact same way for it to feel better and make more sense than a 9-10 year old doing such. That directly addresses your argument.

So who is deflecting here?