[ SECRET POST #4606 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4606 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Kotomi Ichinose, CLANNAD]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________

















05. [SPOILERS for Endgame]



__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILERS for Endgame]



__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for Jessica Jones season 3]
[WARNING for dubcon]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #659.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Ok, here I go:
1) NO 'sociopath' is not a psychological diagnosis but that's only because 'antisocial personality disorder' is a more accepted and broad term
2) You can have a conversation about fictional characters and not devolve into ad hominen attacks. Also, I think it's healthy to keep in mind that these are only movies, in the end, as much as we love them (or hate aspects of them) and don't actually make much impact in our own lives.
3) Is that what the secret is saying? Also, that is a very extreme thing for you to say about the original OP, particularly as they are talking about a fictional character.
I could argue that you are a terrible person who should probably not be allowed near children, small animals or the elderly, because you believe that it's NOT selfish to allow billions of life to continue to not exist when you have a chance to bring them back, all because you want to save one (even if it is your own child). See how this works? Does the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few?
I actually agree with OP. Tony was being selfish and I'm glad he turned around in the end. And yes, it was very IC for him.

[(Anonymous)]

What I find problematic is looking at a transparently manipulative plot device in a profoundly stupid science fiction movie (one that makes some MST3K movies look good in comparison) written by marketing-propaganda wonks as a serious ethical problem. It's kind of like judging your friends based on their theory of the physics of Vibranium/Unobtanium.

[(Anonymous)]

+1