Cop Craft Episode 11 Discussion

KANLen09 said:
The political election arc is not getting any better with the climate of tensions between the alien Semanians and humans.

And I'd have to say, I agree with the Domingo Tourte candidate about the rifts between both races. "Have fun while they're here, and if they don't like it, they can leave." Some wise words. Dabbling in the same subject of "being human or alien", it takes a lot to ascertain one's stand.

So, finally seeing the two undercover ladies from the OP in action, and I presume this is the only time they'll have their screentime.

With the death of Mozeleemay last episode, the wife took the helm to represent his ideals, but as the plot thickens and goes with Zelada returning, there's something aloof about it.

With the plot now making even less sense with more conflicting information, I'm more worried about the last episode's conclusion and execution to wrap this story up in decent fashion.

nightcrawlercyp said:
First half was bs leftist propaganda. The politician guy was entirely correct. What he should have also said was that everything was owned by someone else at some point. Just because your ancestors owned a piece of land 100 years ago does not mean you have any right over it now. The second part was really great. So I would give it an ok.

nightcrawlercyp said:
First half was bs leftist propaganda. The politician guy was entirely correct. What he should have also said was that everything was owned by someone else at some point. Just because your ancestors owned a piece of land 100 years ago does not mean you have any right over it now.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
With similar reasoning, nobody should be entitled to citizenship by birth though. It is up to chance who is born a native and who isn't. Tourte didn't address that obvious counterargument (and it wasn't presented in the first place).

More than left-wing or right-wing propaganda, the main problem is that the debate was incomplete.

Luxeraph said:

How was it "leftist propaganda" when Tilarna is agruing from gut feeling(the guy is bad naming her kin) while Domingo is just dropping facts(with some anti alien bias) to the point she can't rebuke him.

Also Japan political scene is not like the US, if the politics used seem like the US is because they're copy pasting it with little to no bias because most japanese don't give a crap to what happens outside their borders.

nightcrawlercyp said:
Well, it is a debatable subject. First off I am against citizenship by birth. With the exception of US only shit hole countries do this.

nightcrawlercyp said:
That being said it is possible if you have citizens without the right to vote. The thing gets a bit more complicated when we talk about associated rights. Democracy as it is now is a complete failure. Only net tax payers that are enlist-able and veterans/active soldiers should vote. Also convicted felons should lose the right for life.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
I am referring to a broader concept. Most countries grant citizenship by birth to the children of its citizens, though some restrictions exist. Why should someone be granted US citizenship simply because their parents also had it? They didn't contribute anything themselves prior to being granted it. Completely up to chance.

The same here. The humans simply happened to be born to human parents. The Semanians simply happened to be born to Semanians parents. Completely up to chance.

Are people net tax payers exclusively by their own merits? No, maybe their parents were rich. Maybe they got lucky. Up to chance yet again.

Tying voting rights to military service requires, at the very least, separate justification for their military actions being the morally right thing to do. It also skews voting rights in favor of those who happen to like the values and moral beliefs of the military in question.

Depriving convicted felons of the right to vote makes it easy to purge voter rolls by inventing suitable laws to lock up the supporters of opposing parties.

nightcrawlercyp said:
1. granting citizenship to children of citizens. that makes sense. the whole idea is that as a woman you will produce new citizens for the country and as a man you will fight and die in wars if need be. (universal suffrage fucked both up) And all is based on the idea that generally you will not leave the country but settle on your parent's piece of land. Basically it has more to do with owning land in the country.

nightcrawlercyp said:
2. True. But Semanians are invanders. They do not share the culture, history or language of the humans. The culture, customs and history is what bonds a nation together.

nightcrawlercyp said:
3. Not really up to chance. Anyone can learn a trade for a living and pay taxes on the earnings. Is harder now with the multinational corporations but not impossible

nightcrawlercyp said:
4. The thing with the military is like this: anything you have must be protected from being destroyed or stolen by others. The people risking their life to protect all that deserve to decide how it is used. The rest matter less. If there is no one to protect the goods then you will be enslaved by another group and just work for them. Nothing will be yours anymore. So it makes perfect sense. Yes you grow food or whatever but without someone to protect it you could not enjoy the fruits of your labor. And with the exception of US and Russia who are huge if a real war starts any nation will be forced to forcefully enlist all able body men to fight under punishment of death or incarceration.

nightcrawlercyp said:
5. About the last part any law can be abused and it has been abused just in the way you mention in many regimes. Thing is if you do not respect the laws of the country good or bad, you do not have the right to make decisions about it. And if the rules are like this a majority will be affected and they will forcefully change the regime. Also if the Constitution is properly written you cannot do it so easily.

nightcrawlercyp said:
Thing is if you do not respect the laws of the country good or bad, you do not have the right to make decisions about it.

nightcrawlercyp said:
That being said despite what they tell you most people can never get elected . Here is the main reason: most people cannot afford the funds not to work for a few months and also fund a campaign. And if you do not that people will not vote you.

Shiromeki said:
Lol. This whole episode reminds me of the real life elections starting soon.

Wonder why the FBI showed up

TomatoSempai said:
quote=nightcrawlercyp message=58412310...
I mean, Nearly all America (The americas if you think that NA & SA are different continents or you're from the States) has birthright citizenship, I'm pretty sure Canada, Luxembourg, alongside parts of Mexico, are not shitholes.

Not related in any form: Your 9/10 score for Arifureta really scares me.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Sex-separated roles as breeding stock and cannon fodder? I didn't expect you to openly endorse ultraconservative arguments. At least I know where you stand, I guess.

redwhitenblue said:


Holy cow, you're a delusional leftist idiot. I'm not going to go over everything you said because it was a bunch of idiotic rambling

redwhitenblue said:
that is in a post that is way too long,

redwhitenblue said:
The vast, VAST majority of people who die as Soldiers are men.

redwhitenblue said:
Men can't give birth.

redwhitenblue said:
These aren't arguments, let alone ultraconservative arguments,

redwhitenblue said:
these are facts.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Your broken quotes make it seem like I wrote that, which isn't the case. Maybe you should fix that.

TomatoSempai said:

I mean, Nearly all America (The americas if you think that NA & SA are different continents or you're from the States) has birthright citizenship, I'm pretty sure Canada, Luxembourg, alongside parts of Mexico, are not shitholes.

Not related in any form: Your 9/10 score for Arifureta really scares me.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
It is easy to call people idiots. Anyone can do that. Actual arguments are hard.

Also, the main arguments in my posts above do not hinge on any left-wing premises. Do you think that calling out logical fallacies and asking for additional justification are somehow left-wing?

I can't help it if the other party brings up a long list of unjustified claims.

That is a descriptive proposition. The idea that men (and specifically men) should wage wars on the behalf of states is a normative proposition. The former does not logically imply the latter. Your argument relies on an obvious argumentative fallacy.

More specifically in this case, something being popular doesn't logically imply that it is ethically correct or holds special ethical value. Arguing that it does is also an argumentative fallacy. You would have to somehow separately prove that popularity implies ethical value.

That is a descriptive proposition. The idea that women have a moral duty to produce children for the sake of nations is a normative proposition. The former does not logically imply the latter. The same argumentative fallacy as before.

You are trying to reach conclusions, so you are trying to use them as arguments in the sense that people normally use the word "argument."

"The vast majority of people who die as Soldiers are men" and "Men can't give birth" are descriptive, factual statements, sure, but they do not imply the ethical conclusions that you are trying to draw. They are irrelevant tangents. It is like you don't understand the premises, conclusions, logic, or argumentation in play here.

By the way, the reason why your arguments fail isn't leftism. It is the absence of valid logic. I haven't even adopted any left-wing premises in this entire post.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Sex-separated roles as breeding stock and cannon fodder? I didn't expect you to openly endorse ultraconservative arguments. At least I know where you stand, I guess.

To whom does it make sense?

It makes sense to the people who accept your ethical premises, I guess? Essentially people who endorse this variant of ultraconservative thought. That requires separate arguments. Going by my subjective values, I wouldn't want to live in your kind of society.

It makes sense to the people who benefit from this, for instance? Maybe, but then the argument is based on moral egoism and not any seemingly noble goals. And who benefits is completely up to chance based on sex, country of residence, and other external factors (e.g. which wars happen to break out where or the conditions of breeding children for the nation).

Also, it depends on contingent factors which state or other entity people should fight for or whether they should fight at all. The "my country, right or wrong" you are suggesting requires further justification.

Where your parents lived is completely up to chance and inheritance likewise. Didn't earn any of it. You didn't even try to address the argument here.

Culture is fragmented and varies on a large number of dimensions that cannot be easily quantified or ordered, and they don't always neatly correlate with each other. There is no non-arbitrary way to divide a large pool of individuals into distinct, clear-cut cultural groups. If you think otherwise, present a concrete way to do this so that every state can house a nation and precisely one nation (a culturally homogenous group) in an ethically relevant way.

To give an example in the context of the show, in many ways Kei and Tilarna have more similar values than Kei and Tourte. It is possible to group Kei into a cultural group with either (or neither) if you emphasize different things and tweak the criteria. If we go by cultural similarities and kick out the outsiders, Tourte might easily end up as the one to be kicked out.

Furthermore, why would history be ethically relevant? It is the history of other people and may not motivate an individual born afterwards. The cultural values of a child can dramatically differ from those of their parents.

Bringing up language also seems arbitrary. People can be more culturally aligned with people of another first language than their own.

Whether cultural uniformity is morally desirable also requires separate arguments. The most culturally unified societies imaginable sound dystopian and totalitarian. Even less strict versions can easily end up stamping out dissent, often by implicit means.

If your parents hand you hundreds of millions or you happen to win the lottery, you don't need to do any of that. Then even a person who otherwise wouldn't become a net taxpayer (because of his personality, values, etc.) ends up becoming one. Chance is involved by simple logic. Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Besides, your argument rests on contingent economic conditions. Jobs may be so sparse and wages so low that it is impossible without luck. Those external conditions are also up to chance (outside the individual's control).

You sidestepped my argument. Firstly, even if you sometimes need organized violence, it does not imply that a particular violent organization (in this case, the military) will use it for morally correct purposes. For an obvious example, let's say you enlist and end up napalming a random village of civilians somewhere. Good job.

Secondly, even if you sometimes need organized violence, it does not imply that a particular violent organization upholds morally righteous values. Organizations are not value-neutral. Enlisting can result in harmful consequences even outside actual combat.

This gives a carte blanche to any tinpot authoritarian dictator who happens to win an election or in the case of a constitution happens to win a constitutional majority. Also, a majority might be fine with the situation if said tinpot dictator mostly persecutes minorities that can't unseat him. Fairly common in human history and even today.

Completely irrespective of the laws' contents? Well, have fun with all sorts of atrocities then.

So campaign finance is often out of control. How is this relevant to people getting locked up for political reasons? Did you just go on a random tangent here?

nightcrawlercyp said:
Also you can repopulate a country with 1 man and 1000 women, the opposite is not true. So you cannot afford letting a majority of women going to war

nightcrawlercyp said:
2. without most women producing at least 3 babies each your population dies off in 3 generations. Is not fallacy, is biology.

nightcrawlercyp said:
1. women cannot go in wars. they will die. As a dimorphic species men are much much stronger and resilient than women.

nightcrawlercyp said:
3. someone has to fight to defend what you own . Unfortunately we do not live in Eden anymore. And women sure cannot do it. Over 99% of women cannot survive without men (and yes women can survive without a man but not without men as collective)

nightcrawlercyp said:
Unfortunately we do not live in Eden anymore.

nightcrawlercyp said:
3. someone has to fight to defend what you own .

MyDadDisownedMe said:
Wow, this thread went south fast. Who could've seen that one coming.

TheDeedsOfMen said:
Contemporary racially charged politics. Nothing works better.