#navier

Like, Sovieshu really divorced his wife, who married someone else and had kids, but those kids occassionally go stay with Sovieshu like he has shared custody.

I sat by the window of the parlor and looked at the moon at length, mulling over everything in my head. Rashta’s past was shocking, yes, but I didn't delight in the idea of bringing this news to Sovieshu. The Rashta who had done those things was not the same Rashta who was beginning to bloom as the new butterfly of high society. She wasn't the same Rashta who had the emperor’s affections lifting her. Nor was she the same Rashta who attacked Kosair with lies and sought to mimic me among the nobles. The Rashta who had been a slave and left her child behind had been at her weakest moment. To expose Rashta was not a matter of sympathy, and it wasn't because Sovieshu had asked me to show her pity from the beginning. No, it was a matter of my pride. Not to mention that this Viscount Lotteshu was a man whose credibility was in question. He may have told Kosair that Rashta abandoned the baby, but who really knew the truth? Only the two of them truly knew whether the baby was abandoned or taken from her.

Navier talks about how Rashta "did those things." Like they are crimes. "Those things" being having a baby and running away leaving him behind.

She recognizes slavery is horrible, but she can't fathom why that might make Rashta be willing to run away and leave her baby. Even if Navier didn't know the full circumstances, she had to have known there was a possibility Rashta was raped. But that doesn't factor into any evaluation.

Moreover, even if she feels bad for Rashta, there's no moment of guilt. She's the empress. She can do things that would end slavery, either immediately or in incremental steps. She can help promote rights for enslaved people. But she acts like slavery is just a fact of life. And yes, that would have been a common view in a society like the one. But the empress still can't dodge responsibility.

...

With Sovieshu, he frequently talks about what Rashta must have gone through and inequalities in education... but he seems to feel that's all other people's fault. Also from Vol. 3

On his way to see Rashta, Sovieshu saw a familiar, repugnant man. It was Viscount Lotteshu, the man who had had Rashta in his possession in her days as a slave. Viscount Lotteshu quickly bowed down once he saw Sovieshu. “Oh, Your Majesty, what a surprise meeting you here…” Sovieshu’s eyes narrowed. That was what he should be saying, not the viscount. Sovieshu knew that Rashta’s hands and feet were rough and full of scars. They were the scars from her hardships when she'd been a slave. And Viscount Lotteshu was the very man who had worked her so hard. Moreover, the viscount had even tried to bury Rashta in high society. Sovieshu didn’t welcome the idea of such a man coming to visit Rashta now. ... A runaway slave and a former master. The two were like water and oil, but Viscount Lotteshu’s visits were too frequent. The more the two met, the more Viscount Lotteshu’s denial of Rashta ever being his slave became more convincing.

Sovieshu has seen first hand what slavery has done to people. His mistress and future wife bears the scars... but he puts that entirely on Lotteshu. Nothing to do with Sovieshu.

There is never a time when Sovieshu toys with the idea of ending slavery or creating better human rights laws. He's appalled when Rashta sells Lebetti into slavery. But he never extends that horror to cover slavery in general.

He never thinks, "I helped do this. Rashta's scars are in part because I, as emperor, allowed this to continue. And there are lots of children just like Rashta and Lebetti."

Everyone has their right to fault-find her, but to drag Rashta and make her as the sole victim here and claim Navier as the ally of the patriarchal system? Isn't it even hilarious to read the posts? 😂

Basically, there's no logical analysis as the basis of this account's post.

Let's break them down:

1. Strawman fallacy

1.1 Dismissing Navier's trauma to defend Rashta's

This user could only find a scapegoat without truly reading the Webtoon thoroughly by simply comparing their trauma and simplify them which is full of misunderstanding. That's the strawman fallacy. It's literally you mistake one thing for another because you try to simplify the conclusion to fit your perspective.

Navier does feel the pain and burdens of being the one who competently handled the political affairs among the countries (empiredoms/kingdoms). She's groomed to be a flawless empress by her family and they definitely saw her potentials and dedication.

Remember when Sovieshu admitted Navier's impressive cognitive ability by recalling the political figures' names and faces compared to Rashta's? THAT is Navier's one of potentials. Her dedication to her duty was proved when she'd constantly dealt with the Eastern Empire's business and then later, the Western's. Again, REREAD the Webtoon.

She's barely able to enjoy her life because of the amount of duties she had to bear as an empress and a noblewoman (managing political affairs, being the image of her empire, etc). Being raised in the luxury of one's family doesn't mean they can live their life as they wish.

There are the deals they should comply. You get the comfort, but you need to pay the price. It's all conditional and transactional. You don't have to be a tormented slave to be able to grasp and feel trauma.

What did Sovieshu do during his tenure as the emperor? He's the imperial member (the position is even higher than Navier who is a Duke and Duchess' daughter which make her a noblewoman not an imperial woman as a comparison) which makes him bear more responsibilities, but could he do anything for the empire?

Navier didn't only suffer from her husband's infidelity, but also his massive ego, humiliation, and verbal/psychological abuse. Did you recall it when he showed Navier the tortured blue bird just to spite her? She PASSED OUT afterwards. Did this user think they're merely a bare minimum trauma?

And, by the way, Navier barely felt love she deserved. Heinrey's initial plan was not to give Navier's love and affection the way she craved. He was going to use Navier to ruin Sovieshu's image just to conquer the Eastern Empire.

He didn't even care about Navier in the first place. Reread the Webtoon or his TV Tropes page. If Navier found out his true intention, could this user imagine how devastated it was for Navier?

Furthermore, Navier had to put up with Rashta's childish and self-centred nature. The latter desired to feel the life that Navier had e.g a loving husband, a prestigious family, an extravagant life, power, etc and to do that, she needed to steal the former's spouse just because she suffered from the horrible life she'd faced?

Can Rashta imagine the price of living a life like that? If she's useless, she might be ditched by the imperial family and if she can't feed off her husband's ego anymore, she'd be tossed away like a rag doll. Can she even endure that?

Apart from this case, there are several things that Rashta did just to rub Navier the wrong way (one example was when the former plagiarised the latter's party dress just to get the public attention. Yikes). In the meantime, the latter never did a single thing to turn the tables on the former.

The only thing she did was just concuring the deal that Heinrey offered by accpeting his marriage proposal to flee Sovieshu's clutch. And what Navier did afterwards? She returned the favour that Heinrey once gave. Not even sparing a thought to elaborate a plan to ruin Rashta's life.

2. Ad Hominem

This fallacy literally means someone focuses on attacking one's attributes such as personality, experience, emotions, feelings, physical features instead of correcting the ideas.

The ad Hominem serves here: she personally attacked Navier by saying, "You were raised with a golden spoon, loved by others" Sure, darling, she's born from a respectable family with power and there's always been a PRICE by submitting to their orders and obeying the rules also adhering to the social norms.

3. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

And there's this statement without evidence (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam):

"while you barely did anything?" Where's the PROOF of the last phrase, girl? 🙄 Did you truly fully read the Webtoon?

4. Special pleading argument

Last but not least, the double standard argument (Special Pleading Argument) this user made:

What is Special Pleading Argument? It's basically when you set criteria (principles/rules) to others or circumstances, but you excuse yourself or special circumstances from this implementation by excluding sufficient justification.

Here, she criticised Navier, "Don't compare your trauma to that of a slave" and what was she doing here? Comparing Rashta's trauma with hers? Does her statement contain logical consistency? 😂

Ps. Ah I forgot one thing: the other fallacy, red herring (shifting the main topic to a new one). Can you spot that?

But she deserved everything Rashta did to her. I get that she didn't invent slavery. Nor was ahe as powerful as Sovieshu. It's hard to say if she could have ended it on her own. Nevertheless, she had money and power, yet we never see her do anything to even ameliorate enslaved people's suffering.

On the contrary, much of her distaste for Rashta and criticism stems from Rashta being formerly enslaved. It might be too much to ask Navier to like her husband's mistress, but it's not too much to ask the empress to address inequality in her country.