Discussion YMMV / AvatarTheLastAirbender

It's good form to at least link that. Forcing people to go on a wild goose chase to find the reasoning for their cut, let alone to see if there is consensus isn't really helpful.

Disregard this reply bubble.

Please consolidate this. As of now, you've made it so that people theoretically need to have at least three different pages which aren't even linked directly to each other to see the discussion (this, the still unlinked thread, and the work page itself since you didn't bother to put the entries here).

I agree with some pulls, disagree with others. Not going to waste my time clarifying until you consolidate this.

Hello. I revised my first post and added a link to the ATLA MEH page and the MEH cleanup page.

Added my replies to the MEH thread.

If you want to address some concerns you have some Broken Base entries, I'd recommend taking it over to the Broken Base Cleanup Thread. You'll probably get some feedback from there.

Thanks for the reply!

I think Azula counts as well. Was she really evil, or was she just never given the chance to be good? Mai and Ty Lee are sort of interesting cases, because I think they could count. With both of them, there's a lot of debate as to how much they feared/loved Azula. But I haven't seen much of a divide with perceptions of them, it's more of a scale.

That's more an Alternative Character Interpretation than Base Breaker. Opinions on Azula are fairly unanimous (she's popular and no one really fights over this interpretation even if they disagree).

Bump.

Katara definitely counts. Some people think she's a strong, female lead. Others think she's a whiny, over-emotional B. As does Zuko, for the reasons OP mentioned.

Mai counts, if only because of what she did to Zutara shippers. I think Suki counts as well, because she became a Sixth Ranger and joing the Gaang with so little fanfare that a lot of people thought she just wound up joining them at the endgame because she was Sokka's GF. She was an Ensemble Dark Horse before then, but some people really didn't like her after she joined up.

But Azula and Ty Lee seem pretty unanimously liked.

No Aang wasn't told he couldn't teach Katara. But as I pointed out, he didn't have to be. It's implicit in the fact that Pakku refused to teach Katara.

If Pakku didn't want to teach Katara, why would he be ok with Aang teaching her by proxy? Trying to say "Oh well, Pakku never said so." is just silly.

No one told Hama she couldn't use Bloodbending on civilians. Doesn't mean it was a good idea. No one told Sozin he couldn't...genocide (not idea how to phrase that in a verb) the Airbenders.

I grant you these are mountains compared to a molehill, but saying it's ok to do something just because you weren't told you couldn't is ridiculous when it's clear to all involved that it's not ok to do it. Not Cheating Unless You Get Caught is still cheating, just with "Blackmail" Is Such an Ugly Word on top.

The NWT, moon murder notwithstanding, was holding pretty well and judging by the scale that master benders can perform on, Pakku alone could solo half the Fire Nation fleet. Not exactly dire straits. (That actually raises a bit of Fridge Logic come to think of it...)

And again, his sexism towards Katara is not about Aang. Quoth Katara: "This isn't about you." Yeah, it's connected, but it's not the thing itself. Different subject entirely.

This is about Pakku being somehow unreasonable for objecting to one of his students going against his wishes. His wishes may be considered objectionable by anyone's standards but his own and those of the Northern Water Tribe (I.E. the only people that actually matter here) but they're what they are and it's his right to dictate the terms by which he will teach Aang.

It is not, therefore, unreasonable to refuse to train Aang when Aang went behind his back.

P.S. I believe the word is actually kerfuffle. You Monster! ;)

Oh for goodness sake, this discussion page dropped off my watchlist again, that's the only reason I didn't respond. Just message me the next time you want to add a trope back, okay? Don't just do it when an arbitrary period of time passes.

Anyway:

"No Aang wasn't told he couldn't teach Katara. But as I pointed out, he didn't have to be."

Yes, yes he does. He is not being erected as a big mean strawman that can easily be knocked down but he has a point. He's arbitrarily enforcing rules on people and willing to also put a lot of people at risk to do so. Seriously, Aang is supposed to save the goddamnded world and he was willing to seriously hinder him, which could potentially kill out his entire tribe, over his need to defend arbitrary sexism. What is he point supposed to be that is supposedly so valid? That he got his feelings hurt that someone else offered to train a woman in water bending because he wouldn't? That's not a point. At all.

This is so far from a strawman with a point that you have to literally ignore the blatant facts of the show and construct an alternate trope to make this valid. And this trope has enough trouble with arbitrary contortions.

EDIT: I'd also add your very first sentence of your trope example points out the flaw in your argument - you claim that Aang accepted Pakku's conditions to be his student and disobeyed them blatantly. Pakku did not make the teaching of Katara by one of his pupils a condition of his training. Therefore, Aang cannot disobey him. And to meet you halfway, Katara even was willing to humor the jerk's sexist crap for the sake of Aang and politely apologized (though clearly under duress) until Pakku decided to act like a ten year old and start taunting her with juvenile insults.

It's not arbitrary. A week is very reasonable amount of time. I actually considered messaging you. Don't know why I decided not to...anyhoodles.

No, no he doesn't, as I've already outlined, and which you've failed to address.

There's that word again. Arbitrary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Pakku had a reason for refusing to teach Aang: Aang disobeyed him. The reason is based on the system that Pakku is the teacher and Aang is the student and it's Aang's obligation to obey him. Going behind his back and teaching Katara when he refused to is not obeying him.

Pakku's "wrong" position: I can refuse to teach Aang because he went against my wishes. His point is completely valid, and he is totally within his rights to make that choice. Could he have picked a better time to do it? Sure. Is it excessive? Quite possibly.

"Potentially kill out his entire tribe" is an exaggeration. The North isn't in any immediate danger of being wiped out that teaching Aang is 153% CRUCIAL, and wouldn't be even if Pakku weren't an ultra-powerful master waterbender.

Come to think of it, I needn't have mentioned Zhao killing Tui (La?) because Katara learning waterbending doesn't even matter if there's no waterbending to begin with.

The blatant facts of the show: Pakku refused to teach Aang because Aang went behind his back. Pakku is wrong because he's a sexist asshole And That's Terrible.

Except that he isn't wrong, as I already pointed out. But if you've got another trope for Pakku being clearly right despite being treated as wrong, I'm all ears. Jerkass Has a Point? (actually it might be, but we'll cross that bridge if we come to it).

He became Pakku's student. Can he have refused to go along with Pakku's decisions and still have become his student? He could have said he wouldn't become Pakku's student if he isn't going to teach Katara as well. He knows Pakku doesn't want Katara to be trained and wouldn't have trained Aang if he had made a point of both or neither. He still chose to learn under Pakku. So yes, he did agree to go along with what Pakku wanted. Call it an implicit condition if you like, but it's still there for all to see.

An excellent way to solve this would have been to have Arnook say "While normally I would tell dat beeyotch to bounce, Ozai is wack and it's the Avatar's job to put as cap in his ass, so if the Avatar says train dat shorty, then you train dat shorty, mothafucka. I ain't got time fo' dis shit." (sic)

The fact that he supported Pakku's decision could lend itself to either argument.

Acting like a ten year old to Katara is not important. Katara and Aang. Two different situations. Connected but different.

Also, I don't really see how that's halfway between my point and yours...meeting halfway would be more like "Aang is just as wrong for ignoring Pakku's decisions as Pakku is for making them".

It seems you aren't addressing that Pakku was completely wrong in the first place to refuse to teach Katara.

You kind of have to address that aspect first. If that first condition was unreasonable, then he doesn't really have a point in insisting on that condition in terms of whether or not he'd teach Aang.

IIRC, Pakku is a sexist Jerk with a Heart of Gold (introduced as a straight up jerkass) who is presented as a fairly nuanced character- not a Straw Misogynist. Which is to say that he's not a strawman, but he also doesn't have a point.

Wrong by what standard? Not the standards of the North. Certainly not by the standards of Arnook, who supported his right to pick and choose his students.

Why should he agree to train students who disobey him when he says something they don't agree with? Because they're the main characters?

He's wrong to not train Katara because he's a sexist asshole And That's Terrible. Back to square one.

I'll meet you halfway. Pakku was totally in the right and Katara is a Complete Monster for disagreeing.

As for nuanced, any nuance he has he achieved after having his views on women, which exist for literally no reason other reason, shot down so that Katara would be awesome.

He refused to train Katara purely because of her gender. That makes him pretty unreasonable from the outset, since even though the North is rather patriarchal, there's nothing like a rule that women can't be waterbenders.

Basically, Pakku starts out by saying "I don't train members of group x"- that's unreasonable

Then, he says, "I won't train Aang, because Aang would then train members of group x"- that's even more unreasonable.

I'm getting the feeling you hate the character of Katara and are basing your defense of Pakku on that.

^ His views on women are the whole reason why he wouldn't train Katara/Aang in the first place. If he didn't have those views, there would have been no conflict.

Edit- Basically, while generally it is pretty reasonable that a Master chooses who his students are, the whole issue arises because Pakku has unreasonable criteria for who he will teach (i.e. no one with two X chromosomes).

He didn't refuse to train Aang because Aang would then train members of group x. He refused to train Aang because Aang ignored his decisions. Subtle but important difference.

As has been said, his not training Katara (I don't train members of group x), while connected, is NOT the same as his not training Aang.

I won't deny that I dislike Katara, but that's not why I'm defending Pakku. I honestly believe it's his right to make the choices he makes, even if I might not agree with them.

His views on women are the whole reason why he wouldn't train Katara/Aang in the first place. If he didn't have those views, there would have been no conflict. Sounds like straw to me.

Edit- Basically, while generally it is pretty reasonable that a Master chooses who his students are, the whole issue arises because Pakku has unreasonable criteria for who he will teach.

Criteria that Aang agreed to support when he became Pakku's student. Nothing says he has to like it, but needs must, as they say, when the devil drives.

Just a reminder: This is Your Mileage May Vary. You shouldn't delete opinions because you disagree with them. That's what "vary" means. If there is something factually wrong — not interpreted differently — it should go. Otherwise ... live and let live.

@Fast Eddie

@Eegal- Why should Aang have to keep his promise to not teach Katara if Pakku's reason for not teaching her isn't reasonable in the first place? I mean I get why Pakku would be pissed at Aang not listening to him but there's no rule that a condition of studying under someone means you have to follow any rule of theirs no matter how unreasonable.

It's like if someone would only tutor me in Math so long as I promised never to share what I learned with black classmates (because the tutor refuses to teach black people). If I break that promise the tutor is not the voice of reason here.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Or is it somehow ok when Aang does bad things because he's CLEARLY in the right?

Aang wasn't under any obligation to learn from Pakku just as you aren't under any obligation to learn from Math Tutor Of Doom. If he doesn't agree with Pakku's beliefs, fine.

But he agreed to abide by them in order to learn from him. It being ok to go back on his word simply because he doesn't agree with it skirts close to an entirely different trope.

Another way they could have done it (which would have been cheap, but oh well), is for Roku to pull another Jeong Jeong. Roku: "Bitch, I said teach Aang and if he says jump, you say how high!" (sic)

Aaaargh, why am I not getting the Discussion page updates? Sigh.

Anyway, my point still stands - there is a factual error in including this trope example and that is that Aang is disobeying his teacher directly. He isn't. For that matter, Pakku isn't really a strawman making a straw argument - from his perspective, his point is valid. He's not a straw character that's being knocked down by an inferior argument - the irony of the episode is that it is not anything Katara or Aang says to him that convinces him to rethink his position, but the discovery that she's the granddaughter of his former fiance. A woman that he cared for but drove away. So yea, there's a missing Straw argument here in the first place.

"Two wrongs don't make a right. Or is it somehow ok when Aang does bad things because he's CLEARLY in the right? "

You've really been setting up a lot of false equivalancies here. You've literally compared Aang trying to find a solution to the problem that Pakku won't teach Katara to Sozin and Ozai committing genocide. These are not even remotely the same thing. Aang is trying to respect Pakku's feelings by simply training Katara himself. He's not a member of the tribe and thus is not bound by their customs. It's Pakku that later decided to impose his sexism further and act offended that blatantly discriminating against people by gender probably doesn't sit well.

...and I'm sorry, are you really suggesting that depriving people of a certain race or gender the opportunity to gain the same knowledge as an oppressive class is literally the same thing as oppressing an entire class of people in the first place? You're really saying that a person forbidden to teach a black person math is actually wrong to teach a black person math when the entire point of not doing so is to deprive the black person of equal status? Entirely on the basis that by accepting the right to gain the knowledge in the first place, they'll be hurting the feelings of the people who literally want to deprive an entire race or gender of the same rights and opportunities they have in the first place? For your strawman to have a point, this only works if the process of teaching black people math, say, immediately caused their molecular structure to devolve into gelatin while our hero was arguing the virtues of math tutoring.

It's not "wrong" to teach Katara. In any other country on this planet, she would be an equal citizen. The policy is in and of itself wrong and Pakku throwing temper tantrums like a two-year-old for being challenged on it is not right under any circumstance. By your standard, Aang is in the wrong to fight the Fire Nation because they're simply practicing their right of global Manifest Destiny and they started the war under the belief they were helping people and who is Aang to stop them?

EDIT: Oh wow, I made a hilarious typo. You guys should have seen it. But I fixed it. That's what I get for troping while tired.

Honestly, I think Pakku is within his rights not to teach Katara, and within his rights to tell Aang not to teach Katara as long as Aang's his student (I think it's foolish and backwards, but he also shouldn't be forced to teach someone when he's fundamentally opposed to it. And as long as Aang's his student, he can tell Aang what to do with his training). I also think Aang was... tempting fate for teaching Katara. It's just not the right time to introduce sweeping social change.

However, I just don't think that's relevant. At the end of the day, Pakku didn't tell Aang not to teach Katara so he's just Moving the Goalposts at that point. As Rebo said, Aang's not a member of the Northern Water Tribe (and neither is Katara for crying out loud), and assuming that all Northern Traditions apply to both of them is just silly.

So yeah. I say axe the example for factual reasons.

Must something wrong with the watch system. Discussion page was dropped from my list too.

Anyway, my point still stands - there is a factual error in including this trope example and that is that Aang is disobeying his teacher directly. He isn't.

Then drop directly. Trope still stands. P doesn't want T. A knows P doesn't want T. A does T. P kicks him out. P wrong because he's a sexist asshole And That's Terrible.

For that matter, Pakku isn't really a strawman making a straw argument - from his perspective, his point is valid.

Every strawman believes their own perspective is valid. If a strawman didn't believe their point was valid would it be a strawman in the first place? (actually asking here, not being rhetorical)

He's not a straw character that's being knocked down by an inferior argument - the irony of the episode is that it is not anything Katara or Aang says to him that convinces him to rethink his position, but the discovery that she's the granddaughter of his former fiance.

Position: I have the right to pick and choose my students, and to cut them loose if they do something they know I won't like.
Argument: You don't because you're a sexist asshole And That's Terrible.

Pakku's sexism is the motivating factor, but it is not his position in this case.

You've literally compared Aang trying to find a solution to the problem that Pakku won't teach Katara to Sozin and Ozai committing genocide.

Yeah, and I also acknowledged they weren't exactly the same thing. Not equal, but akin.

Aang is trying to respect Pakku's feelings by simply training Katara himself. He's not a member of the tribe and thus is not bound by their customs.

Bologna. He's a guest in the North, and has no right to pick and choose what rules he wants to follow. He doesn't have to agree with them, but he does have to respect them.

He can leave at any point if he encounters a rule he doesn't want to follow.

It's Pakku that later decided to impose his sexism further and act offended that blatantly discriminating against people by gender probably doesn't sit well.

It's Pakku who was justifiably upset that Aang went against his wishes and refused to train him any longer which was wrong because Pakku is a sexist asshole And That's Terrible.

...and I'm sorry, are you really suggesting that depriving people of a certain race or gender the opportunity to gain the same knowledge as an oppressive class is literally the same thing as oppressing an entire class of people in the first place?

Forgive me, but I don't understand what's being said here. Depriving Katara of the ability to learn waterbending is the same as depriving all females the ability to learn waterbending? Is it not? Is Katara somehow special (other than in the head ;P)?

You're really saying that a person forbidden to teach a black person math is actually wrong to teach a black person math when the entire point of not doing so is to deprive the black person of equal status?

No, what I'm saying is it's wrong to seek out that person for help, agree to his terms, and then get upset when he rescinds his help because you violated those terms.

There's nothing forcing Aang to learn from Pakku. He didn't like it? There was the door. Maybe the doorknob hit him where Raava split him. He knew about Pakku's sexism and learned from him anyway.

He could have left and found a different teacher. BDSM could have created a new waterbending master to learn from. They could have made a new one in the North. "Pakku's a sexist asshole And That's Terrible, you should learn from Bobbo the Super Duper Waterbending Master Of Doom instead."

Don't gotta like it, but needs must, as they say, when Vaatu drives. And Aang gave him the keys to the car.

Entirely on the basis that by accepting the right to gain the knowledge in the first place, they'll be hurting the feelings of the people who literally want to deprive an entire race or gender of the same rights and opportunities they have in the first place?

Entirely on the basis that it was Aang's decision to go along with Pakku in spite of his beliefs, and if he chooses to go against those beliefs because he doesn't agree with them he can't get upset when Pakku chooses to kick him to the curb.

If you knew Math Tutor of Doom was racist, why learn from him in the first place? But knowing he's racist, and knowing he would kick you to the curb, you still agree to work with him and you still go against him and then get upset when he does exactly that?

Got no one to blame but yourself. You might not like MToD's conditions, but you agreed to them in the first place so he has every right to dictate terms based on those conditions and he is not, therefore, wrong to do so, no matter how much you want him to be.

In any other country on this planet, she would be an equal citizen.

Different strokes and all that.

The policy is in and of itself wrong

Not by the standards of the North. The place they are at. The place whose opinions currently matter. The place they can leave at any time with no love lost.

By your standard, Aang is in the wrong to fight the Fire Nation because they're simply practicing their right of global Manifest Destiny and they started the war under the belief they were helping people and who is Aang to stop them?

If Aang agreed to the Fire Nation's conditions in the first place, knowing full well the implications of such, and THEN decided to try to stop them, then yes. Otherwise no.

At the end of the day, Pakku didn't tell Aang not to teach Katara

As pointed out already, he didn't need to. It's implicit in his refusal to train Katara in the first place. Aang clearly recognizes it, which is why they train at night in the canals.

If Aang agreed to the Fire Nation's conditions in the first place and THEN decided to try to stop them, then yes. Otherwise no.

... so Jeong Jeong, Zuko, and Iroh were in the wrong for defecting?

Eagal, why don't you write up a proposal for what you want to put in? The wording that was being edit-warred over is at least part of the issue.

Then drop directly. Trope still stands.

Well, actually, no it doesn't. Aang and Katara don't dispute his right to not teach her, and they both arrange to apologize to him even though he blatantly moved the goalposts and created an arbitrary rule to enforce his beliefs on them and actually does not deserve it. Therefore, he's not a strawman. This isn't a trope intended to simply show every character who disagrees with the hero.

Every strawman believes their own perspective is valid.

But is the narrative painting him as a blatant villain with a false argument that's easily torn down? Because I'm pretty sure "I refuse to teach women! Wait, other people are teaching women?! GET OUT OF MY SCHOOL AND STOP LETTING WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS!" is never a valid argument.

'''Position: I have the right to pick and choose my students, and to cut them loose if they do something they know I won't like. Argument: You don't because you're a sexist asshole And That's Terrible.'''

That's not his position and you know it. His position is "Women are inferior and should not be trained. How dare you train a woman!?" Being the only water bending teacher in the world right now, he's attempting to use his privilege to oppress Katara. Aang going around him is the right thing to do because Aang has the right to teach anyone he wants.

Pakku's sexism is the motivating factor, but it is not his position in this case.

Uh, yea it is. It is the only reason he's behaving this way. Stop trying to downplay this and pretend it's not a big deal.

Yeah, and I also acknowledged they weren't exactly the same thing. Not equal, but akin.

No, they are not remotely the same or akin and even invoking the concept of genocide in the discussion is a fantastical version of Godwinning. Blatantly murdering people for your own gain is explicitly wrong. Attempting to train a friend because the only water bending teacher in the world refuses to train her because he's a sexist shit is explicitly right (though should be done delicately - something they acknowledge.)

Bologna. He's a guest in the North, and has no right to pick and choose what rules he wants to follow.

Same to you - neither he nor Katara are members of the Northern Water Tribe and Pakku has no right to enforce oppressive policies on foreigners. If Aang had simply left the city and trained Katara without telling him, he would have no ability to stop him - and he would have been absolutely right because Aang is allowed to teach anyone he wants.

It's Pakku who was justifiably upset that Aang went against his wishes and refused to train him any longer which was wrong because Pakku is a sexist asshole And That's Terrible.

Yes, Pakku is a sexist asshole and that is terrible. And he shouldn't be refusing to teach people based only on their sex.

Are you suggesting that context is irrelevant when it is his sole motivator for suddenly making up new rules?

And are you forgetting Aang and Katara were still respecting his right not to teach her!?

Forgive me, but I don't understand what's being said here. Depriving Katara of the ability to learn waterbending is the same as depriving all females the ability to learn waterbending? Is it not? Is Katara somehow special (other than in the head ;P)?

Uh yes, Katara is being denied the opportunity to train entirely based on her sex, which is an oppressive policy applied to all female waterbenders in the North. You are somehow saying that her disputing that is disrespectful and mean and we should be taking the side of the jackass depriving her of that because REASONS.

No, what I'm saying is it's wrong to seek out that person for help, agree to his terms, and then get upset when he rescinds his help because you violated those terms.

I hope you're aware that actually happened historically in the United States. Like, black people were forbidden by law from learning to read and helping them to do so was a crime. I'm surprised you're so vociferously defending someone's right to that simply based on a technicality ("But it's his RIGHT to not let black people read and how dare you deprive him of that right! STRAWMAN HAS A POINT!"). So I'll let you take a shot at redoing that argument again so you're not openly advocating that slave holders had the right to keep their slaves uneducated in order to prevent them from having the means to gain their own freedom.

There's nothing forcing Aang to learn from Pakku. He didn't like it? There was the door.

Well there actually is and that's the fact that there isn't another water bending master that can help him before the comet arrives. Pakku is in a position of power over Aang and Katara and he's abusing it. And for some reason you are really stuck on defending his right to do so when he's in the wrong and Aang and Katara are practically contorting themselves to try and accommodate him.

He could have left and found a different teacher. BDSM could have created a new waterbending master to learn from. They could have made a new one in the North. "Pakku's a sexist asshole And That's Terrible, you should learn from Bobbo the Super Duper Waterbending Master Of Doom instead."

Why...yes, I guess if the storyline was completely different and had completely different characters and plot points, then the resolution would be completely different. Thank you for your observation.

So now, in the show as it stood, Pakku was the only person who could teach Aang and he was a shithead. So, back to the trope?

Different strokes and all that.

...wow, I love how you really do seem to think it's better to respect the rights of a country to disenfranchise people and they're within their rights to do so.

So, hey, I wonder how those slaves learned to read anyway? Man, some people must have stolen knowledge from the noble white Southerners. Don't they know how disrespectful that is of their right to keep their slaves incapable of defending themselves?

Not by the standards of the North.

By the standards of the Fire Nation, blowing up every country that disagrees with you is enlightening them for their own good.

I mean, I really shouldn't keep this going since we already resolved the trope issue a while back, but now it's just getting funny.

If Aang agreed to the Fire Nation's conditions in the first place, knowing full well the implications of such, and THEN decided to try to stop them, then yes. Otherwise no.

And then when they change their conditions retroactively and punish him for it, you're totally on board because HEY HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT POOR ABUSED STRAWMAN.

As pointed out already, he didn't need to.

And yes he did, and we're done here.

Side note, it's not like Aang broke Northern Water Tribe LAW by teaching Katara, just their tradition. It would be one (very stupid) thing if the rules were "it is punishable by law for women to learn waterbending in the North," but rather it's "we do not teach women waterbending here." Aang isn't breaking the laws of the city he's in; he's an outsider who is not observing the traditions of the city he's in. At worst, it's a faux pas. Not something to, you know, threaten the fate of the world over.

And I'm sorry, he's in the right to break that tradition when it's literally preventing one of his allies from being able to properly help him for no good reason. There is no legitimate point to be had to respecting a tradition that women cannot be trained in water bending. Handwaving a storyline tackling mass societal oppression with "different strokes, how dare they offend the sexists!" is honestly more telling of why this conversation is happening.

Eagal, why don't you write up a proposal for what you want to put in? The wording that was being edit-warred over is at least part of the issue.

Whatever you may think of Pakku's conditions, Aang agreed to them when he became Pakku's student. After he caught Aang teaching Katara waterbending despite knowing Pakku would object, Pakku refused to train Aang further. He was perfectly within his rights to kick Aang out but he was portrayed as wrong for refusing to train Aang.

But is the narrative painting him as a blatant villain with a false argument that's easily torn down? Because I'm pretty sure "I refuse to teach women! Wait, other people are teaching women?! GET OUT OF MY SCHOOL AND STOP LETTING WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS!" is never a valid argument.

His "false" argument is that he has the right pick and choose his students. The opposition to this argument doesn't address this point, just focuses on his sexism. Rather like you're doing.

That's not his position and you know it. His position is "Women are inferior and should not be trained. How dare you train a woman!?"

Motivation, not position.

Being the only water bending teacher in the world right now

When was that established? Aang himself said they could find someone else. And it's not like advanced waterbending was even crucial in the first place. Just the way things are done.

Uh, yea it is. It is the only reason he's behaving this way.

Hence, motivation.

Same to you - neither he nor Katara are members of the Northern Water Tribe

And because of that they have no right to pick and choose what rules they want to follow. Dem's da rules and if you don't like it, leave.

If Aang had simply left the city and trained Katara without telling him, he would have no ability to stop him - and he would have been absolutely right because Aang is allowed to teach anyone he wants.

Well there you go. Problem solved.

Yes, Pakku is a sexist asshole and that is terrible. And he shouldn't be refusing to teach people based only on their sex.

Sure he/it is, and maybe he shouldn't. But he did, and because of this belief, he refused to allow Katara to be trained. And knowing this, Aang still became his student, and then went against his wishes. He caught them and the rest, as they say, is history.

Are you suggesting that context is irrelevant when it is his sole motivator for suddenly making up new rules?

Still not suddenly. He made his position clear from the start. Not spelling it out in fifty foot letters doesn't mean it's not there.

And are you forgetting Aang and Katara were still respecting his right not to teach her!?

Great, but they're still going against his wishes. And because Aang went against his wishes he exersized (I can never spell that word right) his right to choose who his students will be.

Uh yes, Katara is being denied the opportunity to train entirely based on her sex, which is an oppressive policy applied to all female waterbenders in the North. You are somehow saying that her disputing that is disrespectful and mean and we should be taking the side of the jackass depriving her of that because REASONS.

I'm a bit confused here. First you're getting all upset saying that I'm suggesting that not teaching Katara and not teaching all women are the same thing, then you turn around and say something completely different when I ask if they're not, confirming my position that they are...

Anyway, Katara never agreed to Pakku's position in the first place, so it's not really important whether her opposing it is disrespectful and mean.

I hope you're aware that actually happened historically in the United States. Like, black people were forbidden by law from learning to read and helping them to do so was a crime.

Unequivalent situation.

Black people didn't come from elsewhere and say "I want to learn." and then agree to the conditions placed upon them, only to go back on their decision when they encountered a condition they didn't like.

Katara and Aang weren't taken from the South / The Western (Eastern?) Airbender Temple and forced into slavery. They entered the North of their own volition. When they encountered an obstacle they agreed to go along with it and then tried to work around it, knowing that it would get them in trouble.

Well there actually is and that's the fact that there isn't another water bending master that can help him before the comet arrives. Pakku is in a position of power over Aang and Katara and he's abusing it. And for some reason you are really stuck on defending his right to do so when he's in the wrong and Aang and Katara are practically contorting themselves to try and accommodate him.

Addressed this above.

wow, I love how you really do seem to think it's better to respect the rights of a country to disenfranchise people and they're within their rights to do so.

I'm all for social change. It's one thing for the people of a country to decide enough is enough. It's quite another for a foreigner to come around and say "Everything you believe is wrong. You should change because the way I do things is totally right. Your beliefs are evil and you should feel bad for not believing the same things I do."

By the standards of the Fire Nation, blowing up every country that disagrees with you is enlightening them for their own good

Internals vs international. Unequivalent.

And then when they change their conditions retroactively and punish him for it

Pakku didn't change his conditions retroactively. He made his position on women learning waterbending entirely clear from the start. Aang chose to ignore that and was rightly punished for it.

And yes he did, and we're done here.

"Yes he did". Brilliant argument. Infinite in its complexity.

Yes, we are done here considering you're not even trying to address my argument, just setting up strawmen, ironically.

On to Larkam:

Side note, it's not like Aang broke Northern Water Tribe LAW by teaching Katara, just their tradition. It would be one (very stupid) thing if the rules were "it is punishable by law for women to learn waterbending in the North," but rather it's "we do not teach women waterbending here." Aang isn't breaking the laws of the city he's in; he's an outsider who is not observing the traditions of the city he's in. At worst, it's a faux pas. Not something to, you know, threaten the fate of the world over.

Not that Pakku's training was 100% utterly crucial. It's just the way things are done. Wouldn't be the last time Aang complicated a situation unnecessarily. I can't recall Aang ever using advanced waterbending and Katara used techniques she developed herself.

And like you said before, there are better times to make this an issue.

Whatever you may think of Pakku's conditions, Aang agreed to them when he became Pakku's student. After he caught Aang teaching Katara waterbending, knowing Pakku would be angry, Pakku refused to train Aang further. He was perfectly within his rights to kick Aang out but he was portrayed as wrong for refusing to train Aang.

Because he imposed a rule upon Aang that he did not spell out to him and he did so because he's a terrible person. Aang and Katara, before pointing this out, took things a step further and apologized to him when he does not deserve an apology. He is not a strawman with a point, he's a jerkass that needs to be taught a lesson. That's not a strawman or every freaking antagonist in any narrative is automatically a strawman.

That this argument is still going shows that no matter how unsubtle they made that message of "SEXISM IS BAD," you're going claim he's a big mean ol' strawman we should feel sorry for and how dare Aang and Katara feel rightly upset that he's a petty jerk to them.

They have no right to pick and choose what rules they want to follow. Dem's da rules and if you don't like it, leave.

Gotta love the libertarian outlook you're advocating. Apparently protesting or attempting to get the rules changed (which is what they end up doing!) is not an option - the only water bending teacher they have access to in a short time frame is perfectly within his rights to oppress people based on sex and put thousands and potentially millions of lives in danger.

If Aang had simply left the city and trained Katara without telling him, he would have no ability to stop him - and he would have been absolutely right because Aang is allowed to teach anyone he wants.

Well there you go. Problem solved.

According to you, this is bad because Aang made an agreement with unspoken rules and then violated it and Pakku is the real victim.

I'm a bit confused here. First you're getting all upset saying that I'm suggesting that not teaching Katara and not teaching all women are the same thing,'

Uh...it is. It literally is. Pakku will not teach any women entirely based on their sex. I don't know how much clearer "Women aren't allowed to water bend" can be.

So, I do want to see how you spin the black people and reading thing.

Unequivalent situation.

Uh, no it's not. It is the exact same thing.

Black people didn't come from elsewhere and say "I want to learn." and then agree to the conditions placed upon them, only to go back on their decision when they encountered a condition they didn't like.

Oh, I see, so it's okay to disenfranchise people as long as you tell them you're going to do it first when they're in a position of duress.

Addressed this above.

Yes, I noticed that you completely sidestepped my rebuttal in which you claimed that if the story was completely different, your argument would somehow be valid.

I'm all for social change. It's one thing for the people of a country to decide enough is enough. It's quite another for a foreigner to come around and say "Everything you believe is wrong. You should change because the way I do things is totally right. Your beliefs are evil and you should feel bad for not believing the same things I do."

Yea, welcome to the real world where people do this all the time and if the reason why isn't obvious to you, I question your sincerity of being for "social change."

Katara is being adversely and directly impacted by that policy despite not being part of their culture - so she has every right to tell them how full of it they are. And for that matter, while she's not a citizen of the tribe, she is empathetic to the women in the tribe who are being told how to live and suffering for it to the point that the only way to escape it is to abandon their family and friends and leave. According to you, she shouldn't stick up for them at all because how dare she interfere with the rights of another country to browbeat their women into submission (water bending isn't the only thing they're subjected to, as you recall.)

Internals vs international. Unequivalent.

This from the "Katara pointing out that Pakku not training her because she's female is wrong is exactly the same as Sozin starting a war and blowing up entire countries" guy. I'm not terribly surprised that your idea of what is and isn't equivalent is just as arbitrary as what is and isn't actually a fact on this show. Speaking of...

Pakku didn't change his conditions retroactively.

Yes, he did. Three people including me pointed this out.

"Yes he did". Brilliant argument. Infinite in its complexity.

I'm not sure how many times you need to be told by how many people that what happened on this show and what you think happened on this show are two different things.

Not that Pakku's training was 100% utterly crucial.

Yes it was. There are no other water bending masters for him to learn from. Pakku is using his position of privilege to enforce an oppressive policy on him and Katara, who's not even native.

That's the entire reason you were whining that the writers should have just written a completely different story in which he wasn't the only person who could teach Aang water bending and that would magically make it okay.

And like you said before, there are better times to make this an issue.

To be honest, given the criticality of their mission, there really aren't. Aang needs to learn water bending now. He has three months, tops, to learn four elements. Any time they're wasting finding him a different water bending master because Pakku has a stick up his butt about women is time he's losing to actually complete his mission.

And that's not even getting into the obvious fact that Katara still needs a water bending master so she can better defend Aang in the first place.

Yea, when the fate of the world isn't immediately at stake, they could take their time to broach the issue more calmly and affect change at a more casual pace. They do not have that time. And as even you admitted, in a matter of days the Fire Nation would have invaded, destroyed the moon, and murdered everyone there.

You've gone so far out of the bounds of what this trope is to try and justify it that I'm really questioning why you're so committed to it.

So much for being done here, eh?

Because he imposed a rule upon Aang that he did not spell out to him and he did so because he's a terrible person. Aang and Katara, before pointing this out, took things a step further and apologized to him when he does not deserve an apology. He is not a strawman with a point, he's a jerkass that needs to be taught a lesson. That's not a strawman or every freaking antagonist in any narrative is automatically a strawman.

Been over this already. Just going in circles now.

That this argument is still going shows that no matter how unsubtle they made that message of "SEXISM IS BAD," you're going claim he's a big mean ol' strawman we should feel sorry for and how dare Aang and Katara feel rightly upset that he's a petty jerk to them.

Never said anything about feeling sorry for him. But like I said before, SEXISM IS BAD isn't really a counter to his position, so yeah, I'm going to claim strawman. They're ignoring his argument and focusing on the sexism angle because it's easier to tear that down.

Apparently protesting or attempting to get the rules changed (which is what they end up doing!) is not an option

Complaining about the rules after you go out of your way to defy them it is just sour grapes.

If they really cared attempting to change it would have been their first option. They went against it because it inconvenienced them.

According to you, this is bad because Aang made an agreement with unspoken rules and then violated it and Pakku is the real victim.

Aang leaving the city and teaching Katara would be bad because Aang went back on his word? Not really sure how you got that from what I said but ok. Aang would have been a Complete Monster for leaving the city to train Katara! Really dodged a bullet there, eh? What kind of series would it be if the main character was a Complete Monster?

Uh...it is. It literally is. Pakku will not teach any women entirely based on their sex. I don't know how much clearer "Women aren't allowed to water bend" can be.

I think we may have a failure to communicate in this particular point. Either that or you're being intentionally obtuse, because IN THE VERY SAME SENTENCE, I agree that it is.

"I ask if they're not, confirming my position that they are"

So my question is, are you really not noticing that part or are you intentionally ignoring it?

So, I do want to see how you spin the black people and reading thing.

Nor do I, so do be a pal and drop that strawman.

Yes, he did. Three people including me pointed this out.

Three people saying the same thing doesn't make it true. If I could get two other people to agree with me would you accept that? No, of course you wouldn't.

You've gone so far out of the bounds of what this trope is to try and justify it that I'm really questioning why you're so committed to it.

I'm committed to it because I'm right. Got sidetracked into unnecessary arguments on the nature of social change or whatever nonsense it is.

Why don't we skip to the meat of the problem and drop the Katara line of thought altogether, because this is really just about Aang and Pakku.

And by skip, I'm mean end this debate because you're too busy knowing about Pakku's crying game to even acknowledge Pakku's position in the first place, so there's really nowhere to go from here.

We're at an impasse. I'll never say this isn't a strawman and you'll never say this is, and all it takes is one person objecting to keep it off the page, and I'm far too lazy to try much harder to convince you and in any event my patience is wearing thin.

BUT more importantly than all of that put together: Is Aang from the Eastern or Western Air Temple?

Edit: Wow, I was way off. Turns out it's the South. It's almost ironic.

Been over this already. Just going in circles now.

Indeed we have - people keep pointing out you're factually wrong, and you just hand wave anything that disagrees with you.

So, I have a quick question for everyone:

What do you think is Pakku's straw argument, and what is the point you think he has?

I think part of the issue is we're not all seeing eye-to-eye on this.

I don't really think he is making an argument straw or otherwise.

As I remembered the show, it was to the effect that he wouldn't teach Katara (since he opposes teaching women), and so didn't want to teach Aang because Aang would share his new skills with Katara. As per Rebochan, it seems like the situation was that Pakku started teaching Aang, and then refused to continue when he found out that Aang was teaching Katara. Am I recalling that correctly?

What I think makes Pakku not a straw character is that while he's being a huge jerk and unreasonable in that situation, he's not a one shot Straw Misogynist- we learn about him as a person and his background and he shows up later as a (cranky) ally of the heroes.

I'd also note incidentally that other mentor characters also had resistance to teaching members of the Gaang (e.g. Jeong Jeong and Pindaro) and while they agreed to eventually, they weren't presented as wrong for doing so.

Edit: sorry it tried to open a new thread.

Wow, that's bad.

That said, the basic entry is vaguely valid: "Attempts to make them seem sympathetic ring a bit hollow when you remember that they're on the bad guys' side."

If someone wants to readd it basically saying that, I wouldn't complain. But the "Draco The Death Eater-er" treatment they got there had to go.

Yes, but an In-Universe version.

And also Aang isn't looking for them to agree with him, he's looking for one that will give him a solution to his problem that will both decisively end the war and allow him to maintain his principles. Notably, the closest any of them get is Yangchen, who understands his motivation and literally can't answer his questions.

Yes. They were distressingly popular back in S2 when they had relatively little screentime and were just pretty much The Heavy's Dragons, which is definitely a couple steps below main character.

It wasn't until S3 that they got serious characterization and screentime.