Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-31371445-20170222233857/@comment-27136653-20190106081534

>Okay then, explain how it's better.

Pretty much, when we assume that red is DT, we are inherently assuming that the trait is something that is already native to the soul, when in fact we can simplify Frisk's "DT achievements" as being due to the native determination, rather than their own trait. In essence, occam's razor.

>Integrity.

Integrity = morality, wisdom, honor. Being yourself is much more vague than that, it's not limited to just those three synonyms.

>How can your trait be Kindness when all humans have it?

It's not just that all humans have it. It's also the fact that it's essentially a real magical substance. If all humans have this magical substance within them, then what does having one additional magical component of the same nature, the "trait of determination", change exactly? What exactly is the difference between having magic, and having magic?

Once again we spiral back to the fucking fact that DT is soul power, which implies that the soul owns 99% of its power to the substance of DT, which shows just how pathetic this increase in magical DT is if we assume that red is DT, contrary to what is being claimed all around, that having a soul of DT somehow makes a huge difference. I believe in continuality. So if you tell me that a 1% decrease in DT from the full state disallows Frisk's soul to refuse, I'd laugh, not only because it's a disproportional change, but also because obviously this is implying that in order to refuse, the soul must use up 100% of its power, which would allow for only a single refuse, and then permanent death (if you drain the soul of its soul power, something bad should happen, logically).

This is why I view "DT trait" to be bs. Because due to various other facts, it just makes no god damn sense.

>All of which are attributes of Determination.

And all of which can be explained using the default DT substance, rather than their own trait. Heck, those things you've listed, I can say that the 6 humans were capable of doing that too, and I wouldn't be wrong. They could reset, there's proof for that. Luckily, they haven't commited a genocide, but I bet it would still be possible, because DT wasn't giving us any special powers, it was merely allowing us to reload.

One thing that is unique to Frisk though is the refuse power. But here, I can just say that that's the culmination of their DT power, that anyone would be able to do that, and that the only reason the other children didn't was because they couldn't get through Asgore and eventually lost all hope, giving up. Frisk achieved this power in order to save Asriel. The other children had no such noble goal.

>Now YOU tell ME how Frisk actions attribute to "being theirself."

That's the thing. Individuals labeled that way aren't unique in anything. You could view them as a mix of the other 6 traits, or as neither. They can be anything whatsoever. The only condition is, that they don't conform to solely one of these 6 traits (because then that would logically be their trait, right?)

If you like meta explanations, you can say that this is because Frisk is controlled by the player. The player's personality varies, and so does Frisk therefore. Hence why a red soul is needed to describe them.

>No, just that you need to select the item through the HUD to use it.

I still regard HUD as a purely meta concept. It's ok if we wanna analyze the gameplay itself, but the ultimate goal is to remove HUD from our theories, so that we can have a non-conflicting universe.

I'm tired of this. Either, the world is a simulation, or there's no HUD. Anything in between makes no sense. You're saying the world works like a videogame, while not actually being one. That's an oxymoron. You're describing a universe that is identical to a simulated universe, while claiming that it's not simulated. That's a nonsense, that's what grinds my gears. I'd even be happier with the simulation case, because it just makes more sense than this. But the best case is the "no HUD" case, where there's no weird meta whatsoever, while things actually making sense. And if they don't, we just find an alternative explanation for them.

>Except he KNOWS that you STILL have control, and even says so in the fight. He knows it, and WE know it once he says it, so why should he say it AGAIN?

We always have control. And yet, he always talks. I fail to see your argument?