"Don't like, don't read"

[hixa kuogame]

Criticism itself requires knowledge. Criticism requires an analysis, which is part experience about the subject as well. It's in the concept. If the person just states an idea, that's not criticism, and that would be void.

You can t fully know until you've done it though
You can't make a full analysis until you know every, or almost every, aspect of the subject
When has their ever been someone officially critique something when they're not completely educated in their field?
For example
Even simon cowell who can't sing knows good singing and good music because he has experience with the subject
If you can't write or draw and don't know the lifestyle, system, challenges or work ethics of a mangaka completely then you can't really understand what you're criticizing therefore its void
Making it a total opinion

Bold part is false. Want an example? Get a teacher. A math teacer, that graduated in math in college. He has more knowledge and skills than the students. Yet, he can make a mistake, or use a mistaken method to teach or to explain.

The same thing here. We've seen that kishi has made mistakes in the art, for example, some plot incosistences that are criticized. The criticism requires knowledge about what is being criticized, mostly. Of course, as a consequence, knowledge about the field is required as well, but not necessarily equal to the one who made the object being criticized. Just knowledge.
Plot for example,is something that involves many areas. Having knowledge is some of them might be enough to criticize a basic aspect of the plot.

In an analysis, is the same thing. You must understand what is being criticized, but the analysis will help in in the that. The analysis will get every characteristic of the object, and put it right in front of you, for then, you use them to suport or disprove an argument which suports a main idea.

That's not critism
That just pointing out a fault
Faults and mistakes are natural amongst humans

 

[Wolfus]

You can t fully know until you've done it though
You can't make a full analysis until you know every, or almost every, aspect of the subject
When has their ever been someone officially critique something when they're not completely educated in their field?
For example
Even simon cowell who can't sing knows good singing and good music because he has experience with the subject
If you can't write or draw and don't know the lifestyle, system, challenges or work ethics of a mangaka completely then you can't really understand what you're criticizing therefore its void
Making it a total opinion

Wrong. An opinion doesn't possess any evidence or any kind of suport. The criticism does. To make an analysis, you don't have to be exactly like the other person to criticize, and that's what you are suggesting. There are knowlegde in many fields, and many kinds of knowledge can be applied and adquired from an analysis. The suport of this is on the other comment.

That's not critism
That just pointing out a fault
Faults and mistakes are natural amongst humans

And what proves that it is a mistake is the criticism. The main idea is: "this is wrong, this is a mistake". Then, with the analysis, one can build the argument to suport this idea.

You can t fully know until you've done it though
You can't make a full analysis until you know every, or almost every, aspect of the subject
When has their ever been someone officially critique something when they're not completely educated in their field?
For example
Even simon cowell who can't sing knows good singing and good music because he has experience with the subject
If you can't write or draw and don't know the lifestyle, system, challenges or work ethics of a mangaka completely then you can't really understand what you're criticizing therefore its void
Making it a total opinion

To criticize, it's not necessary for one to have the same knowledge as the creator of what is being criticized, nor the same ability. Critiques have a lot of knowledge in the field, as they criticize every aspect of the subject. Even though, this doesn't mean they can do better, nor that they have the same knowledge. The critiques mgiht not even be able to create anything related to it. This even shows that their knowledge is limitted to a point, and the creator surpasses them, as the creator could apply the information to the creative process, which is knowledge, knowledge that the critique lacks.
Any regular person that criticizes something, is, most likely, criticizing just a small part of the subject. That's why I even said that one might dislike something, doesn't mean he dislikes everything about it.
This person is even more limitted. That's why it doesn't require the same knowledge to criticize.

 

[hixa kuogame]

Wrong. An opinion doesn't possess any evidence or any kind of suport. The criticism does. To make an analysis, you don't have to be exactly like the other person to criticize, and that's what you are suggesting. There are knowlegde in many fields, and many kinds of knowledge can be applied and adquired from an analysis. The suport of this is on the other comment.

I didn't say an opinion was factual and I didn't say you have to be like the person you criticize
I'm saying you need full understanding of what you're criticizing otherwise your critique is void and discreditable
You wouldn't truly know what you're talking about

 

[hixa kuogame]

To criticize, it's not necessary for one to have the same knowledge as the creator of what is being criticized, nor the same ability. Critiques have a lot of knowledge in the field, as they criticize every aspect of the subject. Even though, this doesn't mean they can do better, nor that they have the same knowledge. The critiques mgiht not even be able to create anything related to it. This even shows that their knowledge is limitted to a point, and the creator surpasses them, as the creator could apply the information to the creative process, which is knowledge, knowledge that the critique lacks.
Any regular person that criticizes something, is, most likely, criticizing just a small part of the subject. That's why I even said that one might dislike something, doesn't mean he dislikes everything about it.
This person is even more limitted. That's why it doesn't require the same knowledge to criticize.

You're saying two different things
A criticism is pointing out the mistake of ones work
And criticism is your input and evaluation of something in particular
Which is it that you're trying to convey

 

[Wolfus]

I didn't say an opinion was factual and I didn't say you have to be like the person you criticize
I'm saying you need full understanding of what you're criticizing otherwise your critique is void and discreditable
You wouldn't truly know what you're talking about

Full understanding would be all the knowledge about the field that the object being criticized belongs to. This is not required, as even the creator might not have this knowledge.
The knowledge required is limitted to the part of the object you're criticizing. In fact, the knowledge used is proportional to the evidences used in the arguments(remember that these arguments are disproving or suporting the opinion, the idea). If these evidences are enough to the point that they can't be countered, is the point that reached the minimum of knowledge required.
To gather the evidences, you can apply logic and knowledge in other fields to some characteristics of the object.

You're saying two different things
A criticism is pointing out the mistake of ones work
And criticism is your input and evaluation of something in particular
Which is it that you're trying to convey

You didn't understand what I said. How is it known that something is a mistake? First, the person, the critique, thinks that it is a mistake. This is the idea. Then, with the all process I mentioned and even more, evidences are gathered and used to suport the idea. This is how.
Pointing a mistake is just one KIND of criticism.

 

[hixa kuogame]

Futile argument is futile...

 

[Wolfus]

Futile argument is futile...

Just because you can't counter it, it doesn't make it futile. You used your arguments, I've countered them, you've countered mine, I've countered yours, and this is how a discussion works.

 

[hixa kuogame]

Just because you can't counter it, it doesn't make it futile. You used your arguments, I've countered them, you've countered mine, I've countered yours, and this is how a discussion works.

Its not that I can't counter so that's a wild assumption
I just realized I was stating the same points over and over again and was getting no where
No point in a futile argument when I was eating dinner at the same time

 

[Wolfus]

Its not that I can't counter so that's a wild assumption
I just realized I was stating the same points over and over again and was getting no where
No point in a futile argument when I was eating dinner at the same time

If you are repeating arguments that were disproved, you lack arguments to continue the discussion. I'm ot saying that this what necessarily happened to you, but this is how a person runs out of arguments.

 

[shelke]

Finally, someone here realizes that Kishimoto may believe that his manure is made of gold, but you do not have to buy it out of sheer fanboyism. There are certain dimensions to writing/penning a story and if he discards them like garbage, then harsh criticism is long overdue. I do believe in classy disrespect. Hence, we are in disagreement there, otherwise, I agree with you thoroughly.