1) I will say that in R and M characters either having exaggerated or completely apathetic reactions is pretty common, sure. however, as you said, this is for the sake of comedy and very rarely is it subtle when it comes to whether or not the Smith family are being shit. If they wanted to make a joke about Morty caring one moment and suddenly deciding a second later he's too tired to respond appropriately they would have made it clear all the Mortys are still dead and to still have Morty respond casually to ice cream flavour changes. Also this is specifically a conversation in regards to character writing and the intention of showrunners so material written by a different person who authors an alternate universe version of the character in question is very much something I can point out as being faulty evidence. Also I don't think you responded to the fact that Morty would usually get annoyed or confused by Rick tricking him. I shall conclude my comment with passive aggressive, snide, superior, abrasive language, not even for the purposes of bad faith rhetoric but just for the purposes of being insulting.
2) Not self evident as Morty literally sleeps part way at the beginning of the episode while Rick was planning, this would be a very good opportunity. Either way I don't see it working as in this case Rick pretty clearly refers to the reality as something he missed, and therefore spent some amount of time in it. Before you go into your argument about how Rick "miss"ing the reality actually falls under your interpretation as it shows he knew about it let's recap what the definition of the word "miss" is (according to the OED):
'notice the loss or absence of.
"he's rich—he won't miss the money"
Similar:
notice the absence of
find missing
feel regret or sadness at no longer being able to enjoy the presence of.
"she misses all her old friends"
feel regret or sadness at no longer being able to go to, do, or have.
"I still miss France and I wish I could go back"'
so yeah, the definition of a 4 letter word dictates that miss is not in fact "liking the concept of something and proceeding to feel remorse at the aforementioned concept being ruined in some meaningful capacity". Also saying that he might have had prior experience doesn't work because he wouldn't have just had that reality prepared weeks in advance for a response to a random thing Morty said to piss him off the night before.
I shall conclude my comment with passive aggressive, snide, superior, abrasive language, not even for the purposes of bad faith rhetoric but just for the purposes of being insulting (although to be fair I've already done that in this point anyway).
3) Lmao this is pathetic. "Rick didn't take environmental precautions to prevent a weapon from causing harm to something, he didn't do what he said he did, see a difference? He therefore didn't contain said damage in the environment, he lied about who knows how much stuff, which can very much include the damage he dismissed to not have caused to exist." I really thought you might actually, like, not get into a circular logic debate because you read my comment the worst possible way. It's not false equivalence to say that if a fictional character is shown/ stated to change the environment so as to not cause unnecessary destruction in the use of a weapon whose relative utility is presentation, or in this case less physical damage, we would intuitively say that the weapon was being used instead of just the environment being chosen to give the illusion of the weapon working and that furthermore, this intuition shouldn't change just because the flow of this information is backwards. Maybe the TOP equalisation was a bit inaccurate to the actual statements and information provided in the anime/ manga. One thing of note is that Rick never actually lies, the scene isn't presented as a "Rick was lying" scene, he just never told Morty that he changed environments. To conclude, the idea that "he knows one thing we didn't know, therefore he must know all the things and we must know nothing of the things" sounds fairly bad when I phrase it like that, just because an assumption we made about a series of events is wrong doesn't mean that everything we know about said series of events should be disregarded. To actually conclude I shall commence passive aggressive, snide, superior, abrasive language, not even for the purposes of bad faith rhetoric but just for the purposes of being insulting.
4) "Rick knew at least 3 things about the reality because that's what he got to say about it, it could have been more given how he will miss the place, and this sentimentality in turn could show a prior experience with it. Rick didn't necessarily travelled to the reality as said before, he could have created himself at many points in the episode." You know to refer to my points in 2) for this. I shall conclude my comment with passive aggressive, snide, superior, abrasive language, not even for the purposes of bad faith rhetoric but just for the purposes of being insulting that in actuality probably is just bad faith argumentation to show Antvasima to present the opposition as someone who shouldn't be debated with (spewing something along the lines of "Because I don't think they would believe what you do, which I see as basic and wrong, so with what I had to say having been said and that having done nothing I see no point in having to pretty much saying the same as a reply. So this I see as more productive.") so I can have my way in the CRT without debating and at worst having to come to a shitty compromise.
"2-C, possibly/likely 2-B for the merging is good, but the merging itself should still go as possibly/likely, I'll do the wording."
Is your great expertise needed to write "possibly/likely 2-C, possibly/likely 2-B" or is there more finesse required in spite of the limited vocabulary tolerated in tiering sections?
