/jp/ - Otaku Culture

>>45380002
>One, you're contradicting yourself in these two comments
No. We interpret the names of all the cards in a uniform manner (either figuratively or literally), irregradless of the character unless given suffienct reason to differ from this. There is no reason to interpret only Junko's cards literally if everyone else's are taken to be figurative.
>I do have a good reason to do so. There's many other factors such as her spellcards being stale but extremely hard.
Being stale but extremely hard gives no support to them being lethal and in violation to spell card rules. That sort of leap of logic just plain makes no sense. Other characters have stale and extremely hard cards too. Are they supposed to be lethal too? And the other factors that you mentioned I've already given a rebuttal to.
>That is irrelevant + please continue to ad hominem me.
That is not irrelevant and I didn't ad homined you. If your theory cannot stand a critical analysis and you have to resort to ignoring a valid critique, then there's good reason to disregard your theory. I'm not letting this one go and ask again: If Junko broke spell card rules in LoLK, why didn't anyone care? Why were there no repercussions? Why was this not addressed in the ending scenes?
>There IS direct proof that you're entirely ignoring and instead doing mental gymnastics to counter the arguments you cherrypick out of my replies.
There are more plausible explanations to the factors that you've presented as proof. Explanations that don't conjecture lethal spell cards and a major violation in spell card rules during several duels that for whatever reason was never referred to again in canon afterwards.
>OK, we can stop here.
Ok, but if you really want empirical proof for my position boot up LoLK, play Legacy mode, and get hit by one of Junko's spell cards. Let me know if you die immediately which you would if the card really was lethal.