DO NOT discuss the source material beyond this episode. If you want to discuss future events or theories, please use separate threads.
DO NOT ask where to watch/download this episode or give links to copyrighted, non-fair use material.
DO NOT troll/bait/harass/abuse other users for liking or disliking the series/characters.
DO read the Anime Discussion Rules and Site & Forum Guidelines.
DO NOT ask where to watch/download this episode or give links to copyrighted, non-fair use material.
DO NOT troll/bait/harass/abuse other users for liking or disliking the series/characters.
DO read the Anime Discussion Rules and Site & Forum Guidelines.
AnimageNeby said: Pusswookie said: Also, Negby, you incorrectly used "quantitatively" in your response to me. I mean, you had the right idea, just the wrong context to use it in [especially in relation to something intangible like morality]. Ermm..is 'Negby' addressing me? Am I to understand the word is correct, but not the context in which it's used? It's not entirely impossible, since I'm not native English, and it sometimes happens that a word which makes sense in my language in a certain context, doesn't in English. If it's specifically the context...well, I would have to see the post again. Can you give me the link? I can't seem to find the word it in my posts... PS. You SURE *I* was the one using it? Because I did find a post with "Quantitatively" in it, addressing you, but I wasn't the one saying it. Rather it was Takuan_Soho. (Glad I got rid of the potential label of pseudo-intellectual, and I still remain relevant ;-p ) Oh My B. At any rate, hot damn, English isn't even your native language? Well, congrats, because you're doing a better job of it than most. By the way, though I'm not particularly keen of waxing philosophical [and therefore will not likely continue with this conversation], I do need to correct something: Takuan_Soho said: If I accepted either of those last two statements, then I would agree that the word was used wrong, but since I don't I am safe! That's not how the English language works. You can't just say "I don't accept that I was wrong, and therefore am not." xD I think it's funny though. At any rate, you can scarcely disagree that morality is "intangible," and therefore "un-quantifiable." Can you see morality? Can you touch it? Can you put it on a literal scale and weigh it? No? Then it is not tangible [and subsequently not mensurable]. Oh yeah and, just for the hell of it: Takuan_Soho said: Is slavery sometimes morally good? Is rape sometimes morally good? Is torturing for entertainment sometimes morally good? Unless one wants to argue that they can be morally good, then yes, there are absolutes in morality. Ok, I really like arguing discussing things like this sometimes [completely contradictory to my earlier statement about not being too keen on philosophical topics, but that's just because you usually come across as a douche in those instances], so indulge me this. While I can't say that any of those things are good, the thing is, there's kind of a sliding scale of Morality vs. Practicality. I'm sure you know what I mean, hell, they've broached this topic a half a million times in anime already [alongside the whole, "what's better, forced peace or free chaos"]. What if you're the last man alive and there are women who wont sleep with you to continue the human race? While rape still isn't good in that situation [keep in mind, I'm arguing on the wrong side of the conversation here], it might be necessary. Or, let's say you're in the same situation, but you're in a tribe where the women are quite like the "wildlings" from Game of Thrones [or any similar culture] that only recognize a man if he can best them and bed them? As for the slavery, I mean, I don't know how to argue for it without going against my own beliefs and potentially coming off as racist, but here goes: it was incredibly successful, from a pragmatic point of view, in getting shit done. Most of the landmarks that we have today were built upon the backs of slaves, and most cultures that were considered truly "great" thrived on slaves as well. Here's a[nother doomsday] scenario: Basically my point is, "only a Sith deals in absolutes." |
| "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams "...but all these feels that are currently assaulting me don't seem to care. Conversely, I'm also aggressively erect at the moment..." |
| Umm..this is something I found wandering around.. What did you guys think?...Hideauze and whalesquid. |
 |
Darklight0303 said: this + it had a dancing scene similar to SnGTakuan_Soho said: Shadowlegend said: PerlaNemesis said: I loved those sweet moments between Amy & Ledo. And I'm looking forward to Ledo's battle with that Hideauze. bastek66 said: Better than Magi's 100% agreed. Can someone please tell me what they mean by "Magi"? I don't get the reference... Its another animation. Extremely popular manga series, but the adaptation has been very disappointing for the fan of the series based on what I read here. It was a travesty that had low production value and a horrible anime original ending. |
 |
Found in official anime website. This is what is underneath the sea: |
| So MAL finally starts locking news threads that are only a few weeks old? I wonder where was the announcement of this change? Or we are seeing yet another case of changes made that impacted users but not communicated to them? I wonder how long people would put up with this. As much as I have a bunch of information to share about anime announced recently I cannot share it in news board, and the anime series is too disorganized and chaotic to share information except with people already interested in the particular series. |
symbv said: Found in official anime website. This is what is underneath the sea: I SMELL PLOT. Now I am excited even more for future episodes |
| The episode felt extremely rushed. That is actually a good sign. It probably means they do plan on having some epic story and they've run out of time for all this filler-esque material. So maybe the following episodes will all be pretty intense again. On another note, this episode was so full of fanservice. Especially the private dance. lol. Amy doing a dance like that in such a skimpy outfit. |
 |
symbv said: Found in official anime website. This is what is underneath the sea: It's the same as AoiMizu already gave. But the effort is appreciated. |
| ^ He did not say it was underneath the sea and found in the official website I suppose? Anyway, here is where it is in the official website http://gargantia.jp/#world_27 |
| So MAL finally starts locking news threads that are only a few weeks old? I wonder where was the announcement of this change? Or we are seeing yet another case of changes made that impacted users but not communicated to them? I wonder how long people would put up with this. As much as I have a bunch of information to share about anime announced recently I cannot share it in news board, and the anime series is too disorganized and chaotic to share information except with people already interested in the particular series. |
symbv said: Found in official anime website. This is what is underneath the sea: Oh dear god, they discovered Tartessos! Talk about a plot twist! |
Takuan_SohoMay 16, 2013 8:11 AM
symbv said: ^ He did not say it was underneath the sea and found in the official website I suppose? Oh thanks for explaining the picture, I was wondering what AoiMizu meant by the picture :o But I did see that it's from the official website from the writing in the corner. Wow this is definitely getting incredibly interesting! edit: wow my typos made my post sound like nonsense... |
tingyMay 17, 2013 1:26 AM
| I had bad feeling something will happen in the moment he went scavenging for old relics undersea. So, could see on the Earth be mother planet of Hideauze? This could turn into environmental anime also, let's say Hideauze was born of toxic materials dumped into the sea. Sea creatures mutatated into Hideauze. |
Takuan_Soho said: Pusswookie said: That's not how the English language works. You can't just say "I don't accept that I was wrong, and therefore am not." xD I think it's funny though. Actually, yes it is. Just say no to the tyranny of Noah Webster.  Takuan_Soho said: I was thinking of having some fun here, but I will go back to when and how I used it. My evidence for improving morality was based on physical facts: reduction of murder rate, reduction of slavery as a % of population, etc. Those things ARE quantifiable. So in that context, my use of the word was accurate. Now you can disagree that my evidence "proves" my position, but not in the use of the word. As for morality being "tangible", if what I said was true AND one can point to definite items to prove the improvement of morality over time, then morality IS tangible. That said, my entire argument either hangs together or falls together. If you disprove my assertion that morality has improved or that my empirical facts don't support this conclusion, then you would be right that my use of "quantitative" and "tangible" is wrong, however until you disprove my initial argument, my usage is perfectly accurate.  Challenge accepted. "My argument is based on empirical facts." No, your argument is based on your own assumptions born of empirical facts, leaving plenty of room for error. For instance, just because crime has supposedly declined [are you even sure about that? If you could give me a reference or something] doesn't mean that people are any better or more morally sound then their predecessors, it just means that such crime is better regulated. In ye olden times, the likelyhood of getting caught was significantly larger, whereas these days it's a lot harder to escape the law. So no, I wouldn't say that people these days are of a superior character to those in the past; in fact, I'd say that those who still do morally abject things are that much more detestable. Pusswookie said: Takuan_Soho said: Benjamin Franklin once said "the great thing about being rational, is that one can rationalize anything". The answer to your question is no. Rape is never morally okay. Slavery is never morally okay. Shinji will never have the right to rape Asuka even if they are the last two people on Earth. That "necessary" has been behind the justification of nearly every injustice in the world. Take your example "A" (species survival), if that justifies rape then why couldn't an individual make the same argument for the survival of his genes "B"? Who gets to decide that "A" is okay but "B" isn't? You have just talked yourself into a trap. The only way out of the trap is to ironically make what you mean absolute. What you would then say is "only if the existence of humanity is at stake is rape acceptable". See what has been done? We have specified it, i.e. made it absolute. That you ranked one above the other isn't "relative" because you have permanently fixed one as being greater than the other. As for your hypothetical: 1) if rape is needed to ensure the survival of humanity, then humanity should figure that its time to pass on. 2) If humanity cannot unite to build a weapon to destroy the asteroid short of enslaving all of humanity, same thing. *whistles* Alrighty, this is going to be a hard one, given that, for the most part, I agree with you against my own point to begin with. If you don't mind, I'm going to frame this as my method of argument vs. yours, because not only did I never say that rape or slavery was okay, I didn't even say that they were acceptable. In my scenarios, they are "evils" born of necessity. Also, I really wish you had worded your whole A & B thing better, because that was kind of confusing, but I'll give it my best shot anyways. "If only the existence of humanity is at stake then rape is acceptable is an absolute in and of itself [paraphrasing]." I suppose so, but to be fair, mine is a very specific instance, as opposed to your incredibly broad statement of "we are definitely better than the past." [By the way, in an unrelated point, I think it's really entertaining that both of us are basically saying that "if rape is necessary for the survival of humanity, then fuck 'em," yet meaning two entirely different things xD] At any rate, while I agree with you, my point is that neither you nor I are the designated "chancellor of Humanity," and therefore don't have the right to cast judgement of the survival of our species because the only applicable option "makes us feel bad." I'm sure that you realize how you're using your own moral bias in that statement alone; so basically it comes down to, as I said, Morality vs. Practicality. Do you die with a clear conscience, caged by what is admissible and what isn't, or survive through objectionable [and even contemptible] means? Also, in both of my scenarios, there was no blue highlighted Paragon "get me out of this conveniently" option. The laborers won't believe you, and certainly won't spend their lives working on something that may or may not [in their minds] save humanity, but the scientists have the means to force them and save everyone. The other story is a bit less acceptable, but while you look at it as " what right does A have to force such a thing on B, even if it's for the survival of our race," you can also look at it [if you're a horrible person like myself] as "what right does B have to condemn the human race to annihilation just because he/she wants to be picky?" I'm just saying; If B isn't too keen on A, then are you really O.K. with humanity's subsequent [and entirely avoidable] death by Friendzone just because B can't take one for the team? |
StickyWizardMay 16, 2013 5:49 PM
| "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams "...but all these feels that are currently assaulting me don't seem to care. Conversely, I'm also aggressively erect at the moment..." |
| Cool, now answer mine. Don't just repeat what you've said though. |
| "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams "...but all these feels that are currently assaulting me don't seem to care. Conversely, I'm also aggressively erect at the moment..." |
| No action =/= Filler Things that don't interest you =/= Filler |
| So MAL finally starts locking news threads that are only a few weeks old? I wonder where was the announcement of this change? Or we are seeing yet another case of changes made that impacted users but not communicated to them? I wonder how long people would put up with this. As much as I have a bunch of information to share about anime announced recently I cannot share it in news board, and the anime series is too disorganized and chaotic to share information except with people already interested in the particular series. |
| I am 1000% sure now that Earth oceans will happen to be the so called "hideauze homeworld", lol. Also: in this thread - people calling plot development and character development as "filler". Never change, MAL community, never ever change. |
AhenshihaelMay 17, 2013 12:37 AM
 |
Takuan_Soho said: Pusswookie said: Cool, now answer mine. Don't just repeat what you've said though. LOL it took me 7 minutes and 4 seconds to type my response to you up. Sorry for making you wait :-) Before I get into this I want you to know that you're making me take time out of watching Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood in order to do so [and here you are arguing for morality's sake]. Anyways, just a heads up, you've seemingly misinterpreted a few of the things that I've said, but first: Takuan_Soho said: Hitler felt the same way you know. He HONESTLY thought he was saving the German people (which is fortunate for us because his obsession led him to make incredibly stupid mistakes that allowed the west to win). The arrogance behind "I have to the right to force you because you are too stupid to think for yourself" pretty much is self explanatory. Takuan_Soho said: Disagree. We HAVE to cast judgment. If we do not, who will? How did progress occur? Do you think the abolitionists said "hey slavery has been with humanity since the begin, who are we to judge?" Of course not. They judged. They discriminated. And thank Baal for that. Takuan_Soho said: Indeed, the irony was not lost on me :-) Oh really? I wonder, do you think Hitler ever thought like that? At any rate, I want you to reread what I've said, and how you responded to it, then realize how completely different the two scenarios [mine and actual past slavery] are. One is fueled by racial discrimination and ignorance with the goal of facilitating an agrarian economy, the other is fueled by self-preservation [which is often used as a moral placeholder to "justify" all manner of morally questionable things]. It's basically the Renegade option in Mass Effect; people might not like you for doing it, but in the grand scheme of things, it needs to be done. By the way, from here on out, I'm going to end each paragraph with the point that it's hammering in, as not only have you misunderstood me recently, but I've seen it happen in a number of situations and, trust me, that can result in a lot of Also, in regards to the Hitler situation: that was likewise fueled by discrimination and, of course, subject to human error. The scientists in my question, on the other hand, don't discriminate, and their instruments are not wrong. They either stop that asteroid, or everyone dies. The situation is absolute, the morality applied isn't. "Morality isn't absolute." Oh yeah, and when I said they were "evils born of necessity," I was referring to the actions taken in my story. I know that there were no good reasons for actual historical slavery. Takuan_Soho said: A and B are both independent moral agents. That "humanity is at stake" is no more a justification for rape than "I just wanted to do it". If you cannot convince her, then suck it up and accept the fact that you were not evolutionarily meant to procreate. Well that's a pretty defeatist attitude isn't it? A & B are independent moral agents, that's the point. The situation, and subsequent moral dilemma found therein, can be interpreted in very different ways when viewed through a different lens. "Morality isn't always straightforward, and therefore not absolute." Takuan_Soho said: "Humanity is at stake" is no more justification for rape than "I just wanted to." Yeah? Well "no thanks, you aren't really my type" seems like pretty shitty justification for ending the human race. Neither has absolute moral standing ground, it's just that one values their personal freedoms to a fault whereas the other is about preservation. It's moral shades of grey. Really, you can frame this as "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" if you change the story just a little bit: as an addition, there are actually several women left alive, all but one of whom are infertile. The other women have tried to procreate, but cant, and resent the only fertile one for selfishly choosing to let their tribe [and Mankind] die, all because she didn't want to get her fuck on. "You need to have absolutes in morality because otherwise you'd have that attitude about a great many things." I do have that attitude about a great many things. It's called considering all the possibilities, and it isn't always socially acceptable. At any rate, it seems that at this point, you're admitting that there isn't [yet] such a thing as absolute morality, and implying that there should be. If that's the case, then maybe so, but that's probably a topic for someone else. Obviously, in real life, they'd probably just have sex, but in my scenario the unwilling participant is abominably selfish [given the situation]. I realize that's probably kind of unfair, but it's to prove a point. Oh, by the way, this is somewhat unrelated but if it helps, you can assume that said unwilling participant is a guy...a conveniently rape-able guy. This one, to be more precise, is more along the lines of "Morality isn't always applicable," which is a really just a concomitant part of "Morality isn't absolute." Pusswookie said: In ye olden times, the likelyhood of getting caught was significantly larger, whereas these days it's a lot harder to escape the law. So no, I wouldn't say that people these days are of a superior character to those in the past; in fact, I'd say that those who still do morally abject things are that much more detestable. Takuan_Soho said: Nah, that is an illusion caused by our media. Everything we think of as "more detestable" occurred in the past. Mass murder? Check. Genocide? Check. Sexual depravity? Check. But at least we aren't lynching people or burning them at the stake anymore. Ok, not even going on the fact that we still do all of those things, as that's not really my point [but, you know, we do] or the fact that you didn't really answer what I said about crime just being better monitored [and consequently more dis-encouraged]. Nope, those can wait, as for now: I didn't say that we do more detestable things now, I said that the things that we do now are more detestable because, and I believe you've said something along these lines, we're better than that. Except for not really. We should be better then that. While I don't agree that we're necessarily more morally stable, I do think that we're more morally enlightened. The thing is, having universally spread knowledge of what's wrong and right isn't the same as actually having better character. We can [and oftentimes do] still decide to do the wrong things, which is all the more contemptible because we know [or are at least raised to believe] now that it's wrong. "Being more emotionally intelligent and actually applying that knowledge are two separate things." Now, if you're referring to the world, then we do still have lynchings and we still burn people at the stake. Public beheadings too. I just watched a graphic video yesterday depicting a group of elderly people being burned alive in Africa for suspected witchcraft. That was fucked up way back when, but now? Really? If you're only referring to The States, or whatever developed country you're in, then in that case: Takuan_Soho said: Unless you want to state that "revenge killing" is morally equivalent to the rule of law, then yes, there has been progress. I'm not sure where I said that, but...yeah, I guess; what is the death penalty if not revenge killing? Also, just so we're clear, what culture do you think is better now? Do you mean the world at large, or just certain countries? Better than who, and how far back are we talking here? This is really contextual you know; the further back you go, the less we actually know about their ethical tendencies. At any rate, you know how long this took me to type? For-fucking-ever. I kept losing my train of thought while looking something up, or having to re-read something just so I was sure that I wasn't misunderstanding you and making myself look like a total asshat. Hell, I even ending up arguing with myself over a few points to be honest [internally; I wasn't acting like Golum or anything]. Not to mention that I had to come up with a few points that I don't even necessarily support, just to show that there are many sides to one problem. TL:DR  |
StickyWizardMay 17, 2013 1:16 AM
| "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams "...but all these feels that are currently assaulting me don't seem to care. Conversely, I'm also aggressively erect at the moment..." |
I think, on most points, I'm siding with Pusswookie here, because I think it makes the most logical sense, especially when applying reciprocity of argument. Though some things are iffy, but it depends what you mean exactly (btw, what is the Renegade option of Mass Effect; I never played it ;-) ) For instance, your: "While I don't agree that we're necessarily more morally stable, I do think that we're more morally enlightened." Hmm...but would you claim that it is, in effect, demonstratively morally enlightened, however? I mean, I'm inclined to think we're morally enlightened too, but I'm too well aware that everyone (well, generally speaking, of course) in every society thought the same as well, yet we would consider those often inferior. So while I may think that we're morally superior or enlightened, I also think this is probably due to a temporary (derived from my/our culture and timeline) misconception. I may think or feel we're morally better, but I do not claim it as a fact. Do you? Or are you more in line with my thoughts about this matter? |
AnimageNeby said: I think, on most points, I'm siding with Pusswookie here, because I think it makes the most logical sense, especially when applying reciprocity of argument. Though some things are iffy, but it depends what you mean exactly (btw, what is the Renegade option of Mass Effect; I never played it ;-) ) For instance, your: "While I don't agree that we're necessarily more morally stable, I do think that we're more morally enlightened." Hmm...but would you claim that it is, in effect, demonstratively morally enlightened, however? I mean, I'm inclined to think we're morally enlightened too, but I'm too well aware that everyone (well, generally speaking, of course) in every society thought the same as well, yet we would consider those often inferior. So while I may think that we're morally superior or enlightened, I also think this is probably due to a temporary (derived from my/our culture and timeline) misconception. I may think or feel we're morally better, but I do not claim it as a fact. Do you? Or are you more in line with my thoughts about this matter? I think that ethical [I'm changing it to ethical] enlightenment =/= moral superiority. If anything I think that higher moral awareness would make us morally inferior: now we all have a general idea of what's wrong and we fucking do it anyways. Not that I really care though, just saying. I can't really answer your question either, about whether we're better or not. I doubt it, and would argue against those who act certain of it. Unlike Soho, I think that morality is a vague and indeterminate [and highly contextual] thing that's only found in shades of grey. Deep, I know |
StickyWizardMay 17, 2013 4:09 AM
| "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams "...but all these feels that are currently assaulting me don't seem to care. Conversely, I'm also aggressively erect at the moment..." |
| You know what? Sorry Neby [and Soho], but during this I've come to realize that I've had way too many inordinately long discussions as of late, and I need a break. I think that, for the time being, I'll entrust dealing with Takuan's wrong differing opinions to you. By the way, Renegade is the pragmatic, but usually kind of assholish option, as opposed to Paragon, which is the Nice Guy option. Well, so long, and  |
StickyWizardMay 17, 2013 1:50 AM
| "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams "...but all these feels that are currently assaulting me don't seem to care. Conversely, I'm also aggressively erect at the moment..." |
Pusswookie said: AnimageNeby said: I think, on most points, I'm siding with Pusswookie here, because I think it makes the most logical sense, especially when applying reciprocity of argument. Though some things are iffy, but it depends what you mean exactly (btw, what is the Renegade option of Mass Effect; I never played it ;-) ) For instance, your: "While I don't agree that we're necessarily more morally stable, I do think that we're more morally enlightened." Hmm...but would you claim that it is, in effect, demonstratively morally enlightened, however? I mean, I'm inclined to think we're morally enlightened too, but I'm too well aware that everyone (well, generally speaking, of course) in every society thought the same as well, yet we would consider those often inferior. So while I may think that we're morally superior or enlightened, I also think this is probably due to a temporary (derived from my/our culture and timeline) misconception. I may think or feel we're morally better, but I do not claim it as a fact. Do you? Or are you more in line with my thoughts about this matter? I think that moral enlightenment [higher moral awareness] =/= moral superiority. If anything I think that it would make us morally inferior: now we all have a general idea of what's wrong and we fucking do it anyways. Not that I really care though, just saying. I can't really answer your question though, about whether we're better or not. Unlike Soho, I think that morality is a vague and indeterminate [and highly contextual] thing that's only found in shades of grey. Deep, I know Hmm...I see. I always thought that being morally enlightened at least implied being morally better too. But I guess you deviate from that line of thought. I never encountered someone claiming to be enlightened and yet not feel superior in *some*field. At the very least, one could say that somebody saying he's enlightened implies he's claiming to be superior at discerning morality better. :-) Though, hypothetically, this does not mean he claims to be superior in morality as a whole, indeed. I stress the 'hypothetically', because I'm sure you agree, most will couple some form of morally superiority to their claim of moral enlightenment. |
AnimageNebyMay 17, 2013 2:26 AM
Pusswookie said: You know what? Sorry Neby [and Soho], but during this I've come to realize that I've had way too many inordinately long discussions as of late, and I need a break. I think that, for the time being, I'll entrust dealing with Takuan's wrong differing opinions to you. By the way, Renegade is the pragmatic, but usually kind of assholish option, as opposed to Paragon, which is the Nice Guy option. Well, so long, and Noooooeeeesss! :~( C'mon, it can be interesting too! ;-) I know what you mean, though. Very well, even. |
Pusswookie said: You know what? Sorry Neby [and Soho], but during this I've come to realize that I've had way too many inordinately long discussions as of late, and I need a break. I think that, for the time being, I'll entrust dealing with Takuan's wrong differing opinions to you. By the way, Renegade is the pragmatic, but usually kind of assholish option, as opposed to Paragon, which is the Nice Guy option. Well, so long, and No reason to apologize, if this isn't fun, then it isn't fun. That is the only reason for doing it. As I final thing I just wanted to clarify something because it is both central to my point and to clear up your notion that I did no understand your point: > One is fueled by racial discrimination and ignorance with the goal of facilitating an agrarian economy, the other is fueled by self-preservation [which is often used as a moral placeholder to "justify" all manner of morally questionable things]. It's basically the Renegade option in Mass Effect; people might not like you for doing it, but in the grand scheme of things, it needs to be done. < To be clear: It DOESN'T matter the reasons. I don't care if it "needs to be done". If it requires slavery to save humanity, it is still morally wrong, and the person who did it should expect to pay for what they have done. To use an animation illustration: Lelouche at the end of Code Geass. His "ends" did not "justify" his means. He still had to pay the price for doing what he did. There is a reason there is the quote: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Regardless of the false dilemma's you create, the end result is that it is still immoral. |
symbv said: Found in official anime website. This is what is underneath the sea: This single image is actually more interesting then the past 2 episodes of this anime lol. |
SetsukoHara said: symbv said: Found in official anime website. This is what is underneath the sea: This single image is actually more interesting then the past 2 episodes of this anime lol. Precisely. I can't wait to see the plot around this massive structure |
Takuan_Soho said: Pusswookie said: You know what? Sorry Neby [and Soho], but during this I've come to realize that I've had way too many inordinately long discussions as of late, and I need a break. I think that, for the time being, I'll entrust dealing with Takuan's wrong differing opinions to you. By the way, Renegade is the pragmatic, but usually kind of assholish option, as opposed to Paragon, which is the Nice Guy option. Well, so long, and No reason to apologize, if this isn't fun, then it isn't fun. That is the only reason for doing it. As I final thing I just wanted to clarify something because it is both central to my point and to clear up your notion that I did no understand your point: > One is fueled by racial discrimination and ignorance with the goal of facilitating an agrarian economy, the other is fueled by self-preservation [which is often used as a moral placeholder to "justify" all manner of morally questionable things]. It's basically the Renegade option in Mass Effect; people might not like you for doing it, but in the grand scheme of things, it needs to be done. < To be clear: It DOESN'T matter the reasons. I don't care if it "needs to be done". If it requires slavery to save humanity, it is still morally wrong, and the person who did it should expect to pay for what they have done. To use an animation illustration: Lelouche at the end of Code Geass. His "ends" did not "justify" his means. He still had to pay the price for doing what he did. There is a reason there is the quote: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Regardless of the false dilemma's you create, the end result is that it is still immoral. Someone is applying his own moral code to a completely different world. Morality is a matter of perspective. Just that. |
|
Takuan_Soho said: The trouble with moral relativists is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to pretend that morality is a "matter of perspective" just as long as that perspective agrees with what they believe to be moral. Precisely. |
| Let's go bowling. |
| I thought the last 2 episodes were kind of refreshing, actually. I just hope we'll get some action soon. This anime is looking good, so far. |
  |
| interesting but not action packed, Ledo and Chamber finally found something they can do together, the killer squids attack!!! I'm ready for next time, even though it will probably not be as exciting as I think. |
My Main Candies:   |
AoiMizu said: 'Kami_no_Kage said: NihonFalcom said: Nuuuuu Hideauze :( Now I'm really wondering what'll happen in the final Urobutcher episode ;__; I keep on getting the feeling that in the last episode Ledo finally decides he wants to stay on Gargantia, only for the Alliance to arrive, and the Urobutchering ti begin. I read somewhere before and Urobuchi say that Suisei no Gargantia will have whitish-gray ending....good and bad ending in a same time? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I've read that too, they're chatting about kakumeiki valvrave and one of them turn to ask Urobuchi is he going to be "white Urobuchi" this time after seeing the first 2 episodes of SnG, and the other said "it's impossible for Urobuchi to be 'white'. Urobuchi's respond to it is that if he can just get away with"green Urobuchi".If he has to anwser, he is rather for 'grey' this time and he add "though it is white enough for me" So I guess we can expect more characters to survive this time. |
AnimageNeby said: Potpourri said: So the Hideauze are squids from Earth eh? Past 2 episodes were pretty damn slow but it's finally starting to pick up. What if Earth isn't too far from the Hideauze home world. Well, it's still a bit premature to tell. Possibilities: 1)There is a connection and the hideauze were based of these earth based squids, possibly with genetic-manipulation or something by the culture of Ledo in the past (which would give it a Frankenstein theme). 2)The Hideauze are, in fact, completely alien to earth but have established colonies on earth, and living in a peaceful way with humans there, while fighting them in space. Note that the humans on earth don't realise they are from space, or are, in fact, intelligent. 3)There was only one or a few Hideauze there, maybe sucked along with the wormhole when Ledo got to Earth. 4)It's a regular whalesquid and chambers made an error, or the likeliness is coincidental I've placed them in declining likelihood, and slight variants are possible, of course. For instance, option 3 seems unlikely seen the picture we got of an undersea-city; 6 months seems awfully short to have made that by a few Hideauze who were sucked in with Ledo. I don't think the hideaz made that facility. I think that was a pre exodus base. |
Takuan_Soho said: Pusswookie said: You know what? Sorry Neby [and Soho], but during this I've come to realize that I've had way too many inordinately long discussions as of late, and I need a break. I think that, for the time being, I'll entrust dealing with Takuan's wrong differing opinions to you. By the way, Renegade is the pragmatic, but usually kind of assholish option, as opposed to Paragon, which is the Nice Guy option. Well, so long, and No reason to apologize, if this isn't fun, then it isn't fun. That is the only reason for doing it. As I final thing I just wanted to clarify something because it is both central to my point and to clear up your notion that I did no understand your point: > One is fueled by racial discrimination and ignorance with the goal of facilitating an agrarian economy, the other is fueled by self-preservation [which is often used as a moral placeholder to "justify" all manner of morally questionable things]. It's basically the Renegade option in Mass Effect; people might not like you for doing it, but in the grand scheme of things, it needs to be done. < To be clear: It DOESN'T matter the reasons. I don't care if it "needs to be done". If it requires slavery to save humanity, it is still morally wrong, and the person who did it should expect to pay for what they have done. To use an animation illustration: Lelouche at the end of Code Geass. His "ends" did not "justify" his means. He still had to pay the price for doing what he did. There is a reason there is the quote: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Regardless of the false dilemma's you create, the end result is that it is still immoral. You know what? I suppose I can sort of agree with that. My point wasn't that slavery and the like were moral things in and of themselves [they're pretty immoral], but that they could be used for moral reasons. That's being pragmatic, and that's where you start getting into the shades of grey. In actuality, I think that the simple fact that "shades of grey" even exists proves that morality isn't absolute doesn't it? Don't get your knickers in a twist just yet though, read what's below this: Seeing as the term "morality" is so all-encompassing, how about instead we just split the difference and say that immoral things can be used for good purposes. That way, there are certain aspects of morality that are absolute [rape and slavery among them] but morality in and of itself [which definitely includes killing] isn't absolute. With the exception of a few things, it is in fact very perspective and context based [like giving food to a starving serial rapist; that's a good thing for a bad cause]. Also, while we're on the topic of Lelouch: Even though he did so many bad things, and eventually reaped the consequences, many would still regard him as a hero, wouldn't you say? That really goes along with what I've said above, and besides, "evil actions for a good cause" has a nice little dichotomy between absolutism and vagueness doesn't it? That's about the best compromise I can come up with, anyways. |
StickyWizardMay 18, 2013 4:36 AM
| "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams "...but all these feels that are currently assaulting me don't seem to care. Conversely, I'm also aggressively erect at the moment..." |
Pusswookie said: Takuan_Soho said: Pusswookie said: You know what? Sorry Neby [and Soho], but during this I've come to realize that I've had way too many inordinately long discussions as of late, and I need a break. I think that, for the time being, I'll entrust dealing with Takuan's wrong differing opinions to you. By the way, Renegade is the pragmatic, but usually kind of assholish option, as opposed to Paragon, which is the Nice Guy option. Well, so long, and No reason to apologize, if this isn't fun, then it isn't fun. That is the only reason for doing it. As I final thing I just wanted to clarify something because it is both central to my point and to clear up your notion that I did no understand your point: > One is fueled by racial discrimination and ignorance with the goal of facilitating an agrarian economy, the other is fueled by self-preservation [which is often used as a moral placeholder to "justify" all manner of morally questionable things]. It's basically the Renegade option in Mass Effect; people might not like you for doing it, but in the grand scheme of things, it needs to be done. < To be clear: It DOESN'T matter the reasons. I don't care if it "needs to be done". If it requires slavery to save humanity, it is still morally wrong, and the person who did it should expect to pay for what they have done. To use an animation illustration: Lelouche at the end of Code Geass. His "ends" did not "justify" his means. He still had to pay the price for doing what he did. There is a reason there is the quote: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Regardless of the false dilemma's you create, the end result is that it is still immoral. You know what? I suppose I can sort of agree with that. My point wasn't that slavery and the like were moral things in and of themselves [they're pretty immoral], but that they could be used for moral reasons. That's being pragmatic, and that's where you start getting into the shades of grey. In actuality, I think that the simple fact that "shades of grey" even exists proves that morality isn't absolute doesn't it? Don't get your knickers in a twist just yet though, read what's below this: Seeing as the term "morality" is so all-encompassing, how about instead we just split the difference and say that immoral things can be used for good purposes. That way, there are certain aspects of morality that are absolute [rape and slavery among them] but morality in and of itself [which definitely includes killing] isn't absolute. With the exception of a few things, it is very perspective and context based in fact [like giving food to a starving serial rapist; that's a good thing for a bad cause]. Also, while we're on the topic of Lelouch: Even though he did so many bad things, and eventually reaped the consequences, many would still regard him as a hero, wouldn't you say? That really goes along with what I've said above, and besides, "evil actions for a good cause" has a nice little dichotomy between absolutism and vagueness doesn't it? That's about the best compromise I can come up with, anyways. Depends on the premise used, of course. But since most people would adhere to the principle of 'do not do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you', I would think this is a good starting point to base your morals or ethical system on. It's a form of reciprocity in the ethical domain, and is closest to a logical reasoning for developing a morality (and what kind). That's why I prefer it. It doesn't mean it's not relative anymore, or one is infallible in it, but from all possible choices, this one makes the most logical sense, if one has to adopt a set of moral rules anyway. There are some others, like the Categorical Imperative of Kant, which are rationally based and useful too. |
AnimageNebyMay 18, 2013 4:35 AM
| ... I don't get it are you disagreeing with me or what? Are you just adding on? |
StickyWizardMay 18, 2013 7:28 AM
| "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams "...but all these feels that are currently assaulting me don't seem to care. Conversely, I'm also aggressively erect at the moment..." |
| Yeah I was referring to you, it's just that I had a typing error. |
| "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams "...but all these feels that are currently assaulting me don't seem to care. Conversely, I'm also aggressively erect at the moment..." |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Suisei no Gargantia Episode 13 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )zimno - Jun 30, 2013 |
502 |
by Titadou
»»
Sep 24, 8:43 AM |
|
Poll: » Suisei no Gargantia Episode 10 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Jun 9, 2013 |
346 |
by Titadou
»»
Sep 21, 11:24 PM |
|
Poll: » Suisei no Gargantia Episode 9 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - Jun 2, 2013 |
670 |
by Titadou
»»
Sep 20, 11:57 PM |
|
» Gargantia Season 2 CancelledDawnJ - Apr 5, 2015 |
37 |
by Drakath_V
»»
Sep 16, 2:47 AM |
|
Poll: » Suisei no Gargantia Episode 7 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Stark700 - May 19, 2013 |
424 |
by Titadou
»»
Sep 15, 4:43 AM |