If you have a hard time retrieving written information - as shown by the fact that you don't even know when people are talking about the stolen chocolate hearts or the stolen locker - perhaps I'm not the one to blame.
Wrooooong~
I'm attacking Isabelle but in no moment I defended Kate. Stop making shit up.
And in no moment I contradicted that.
I think that you really should improve your basic reading comprehension.
No, she can't "guess" that. But in no moment she questioned Lindsey to ask "why did you do this?" - she instead jumped at the gun, with her "IMMA GOING JUSTEEEEESSE", and slapped Lindsey. Acting without thinking, or without enough information to act, is itself immoral - it's how you get people harming each other while babbling "but my intenshuns were sooo good~ I should get a free pass to harm others!".
And killed her. By drowning. Oopsie, it's so convenient to not list it alongside the rest~
[As I said it was actually her homunculus, that is an attenuating factor; however Isabelle had no way to know it.]
The info that you're asking to be spoonfed is easily retrievable from the context.
It was still the consequence of her actions. She's still killing someone, regardless of her "intenshuns" or zodiacal sign or the name of her sister or any other irrelevancy.
If we had access to her thoughts, perhaps we could judge her based on her "intentions".
But that doesn't work here, with a first person narrator. Nor it would in real life unless you have a crystal ball to know someone else's intentions (or if you're a liar claiming to know them).
You're conflating morality with legality.
You don't even know what you're trying to debate. But yeah, I'm apparently I'm the one disconnected from reality... sure.
...anyway, since you brought legality up: in most countries she'd be still condemned. For example, in her native UK, it would be manslaughter. Her defendant could (and should) bring up the absence of malice in her actions to avoid elevating the crime to what's legally considered murder, but note that the difference is presence/absence of malice, not "intentions". Think on why.
Congrats for shooting your own foot.
Twice.
It is because it shows that she's still willing to harm innocents in her pseudo-justice.
I do have arguments as shown over and over. Things don't magically stop existing because you want to pretend that you don't see them.
Refer to the above.
She is not just "overreacting out of anger and saying bad things". She is planning it.
["Since you brought legality up", part II: legally that's called premeditation. It is an aggravating factor behind crimes. Still, I'm discussing this from a moral point of view, not a legal one.]
A person who causes more harm to the others around them.
And we know how Kate turned out in the end. The MC mentions it (I think that it's at the start?)
Now you're just lying, given that I mentioned Kate's actions over and over and over.
Still "conveniently" omitting that she killed someone. Or planned to kill Spinach, even acknowledging her innocence. Riiiiiight. But I'm totally the one being biased~.
It's blatantly obvious that you don't even know what I'm defending. (Or what you're defending yourself.)
I'll spoonfeed it for you. I'm saying that:
1. People like Kate cause harm.
2. People like Isabelle cause MORE harm than people like Kate.
3. People should be considered "good" or "bad" based on the result of their actions, not on irrelevancies like intentions.
Have you ever considered that one of the joys of fiction is that you can experience things that never happened, and get to know people who don't exist?
That is why everyone is here - you can become a chad who fucks 9001 women by playing a game, you can follow your darkest fetishes (rape included) without actually harming someone else, you can even live what would never happen in real life.
Discussing what happens in a fictional work, including the morality of the characters - yes, even in a porn game! - only comes naturally from that.
Unless you think that those threads are better suited for "ANDRAID HWEN? WHY DEVELOPER ARE OF HATE PHONE USERS?" spam. ...I wouldn't be surprised if you do.
I rest my case.
