|
Clawshrimpy posted:But I just take umbrage with the "slowing us down" and "mercy killing" parts. It's okay to feel that way. What we're not okay with is again, using either misunderstood concepts to justify that dislike. Some people have actually had to go through that choice IRL, and it is insulting to imply that those who actually have had to sign the form to have a dying loved one put to rest is the same as murder.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
glomkettle posted:The thing you're missing is that they weren't talking about people who were "slowing them down". They were specifically talking about euthanizing people they literally were not able to save. These are two completely different things, which is why people are getting frustrated by your lumping them together.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
glomkettle posted:The thing you're missing is that they weren't talking about people who were "slowing them down". They were specifically talking about euthanizing people they literally were not able to save. These are two completely different things, which is why people are getting frustrated by your lumping them together. Looks like I'll have to screencap it to get you guys to believe me  When you loving say poo poo like this, that have dangerous far reaching implications, I can't help but draw some uncomfortable parallels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
And again, no one is saying its wrong to think that the concept is good or bad. We're just saying its far from wanting to kill everyone who makes it hard for the Exodus to continue. Has it actually come up again? Like, at all? Has he looked at say, some old people on the journey and said or thought "Man it's tough to keep people around when they can't pull their weight"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
Yosuke posted:Has it actually come up again? Like, at all? Has he looked at say, some old people on the journey and said or thought "Man it's tough to keep people around when they can't pull their weight" This is why the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy. Just because something could maybe potentially lead to another thing doesn't mean it necessarily will, or is even likely to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Clawshrimpy posted:Looks like I'll have to screencap it to get you guys to believe me It seems I misremembered the exact words. Calling me out on that is fair, sorry for confusing my argument with things that are objectively untrue. However, you must be able to recognize that there is a significant difference between being "slowed down" as a society or species and being literally slowed down (and drained of resources in desperately short supply), not to mention Twiddy posted:It's worth noting that starving to death is very painful. Like, it sucks. A lot. Assuming a crazy hypothetical where I was guaranteed to starve to death I'd probably want someone to off me quickly, honestly. I can't believe I would want to be euthanized because I was autistic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Yosuke posted:And again, no one is saying its wrong to think that the concept is good or bad. True it's never come up again, but it's one of those overshadowing horrible things that's hard to get over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Clawshrimpy posted:Looks like I'll have to screencap it to get you guys to believe me Trying to apply conventional morality to a group that's in a life-or-death survival situation is foolish. They have limited supplies and are being pursued by a hostile power through barren wasteland. When you are a leader of a group like that (As Gain is) your responsibility for the survival of the group as a whole far outweighs your responsibility for any individual member of that group. It is a very delicate balancing act. What Gain says in full is "An Exodus increases the number of patients by 30 times. People get sick more easily when climates change. In that case, we even need medicine for mercy killings. During an Exodus, we can't afford to take very good care of those who slow us down." This is not a comfortable thing to think about- it isn't supposed to be. Gain's dialogue in this scene illustrates a few things- that he is decisive, pragmatic and focused on the goal of achieving Exodus, even if it means having to euthanize the terminally ill. It also illustrates that he is not without compassion, since right before he talks about mercy killing he hands the Exodus's chief doctor a key for a warehouse full of medicine that Gain personally gathered. When you judge the morality of a person's actions you have to consider mitigating circumstances- difficult situations often demand difficult decisions. Consider a medic on a battlefield performing triage- he can only tend to one or two of the many casualties scattered around him, so he picks those who he can save. Those too heavily injured will die anyway, and the lightly injured don't need his help anyway. All he can do is pass the mortally wounded an ampule of morphine as he goes by, so they can at least die comfortably. This is the same sort of situation the Exodus will face with their limited medical supplies and expected increase in sickness. The medicine must go to those it can save- to waste it on the dying is monstrous if it causes those who could have been saved to die from lack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
TBH I don't see any reason why shrimpy couldn't be offended or believe the sentiment was wrong/evil or be uncomfortable. I can see something like that easily making people I know uncomfortable. EDIT: just put that last bit back in since someone quoted it, I deleted it because it seemed kind of unnecessary Stalin-Chan fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Stalin-Chan posted:TBH I don't see any reason why shrimpy couldn't be offended or believe the sentiment was wrong/evil or be uncomfortable. I agree 100%. In this particular case, I think what people are responding to is more that Shrimpy seems to have assumed things about the situation that aren't true, but everyone should keep in mind that there is a huge difference between clarifying the details of a character's decision and judging Shrimpy for having differenet personal beliefs on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
glomkettle posted:I agree 100%. In this particular case, I think what people are responding to is more that Shrimpy seems to have assumed things about the situation that aren't true, but everyone should keep in mind that there is a huge difference between clarifying the details of a character's decision and judging Shrimpy for having differenet personal beliefs on the matter. Yeah I admit I kind of don't know the whole context, i'm just going off that jpeg he posted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Stalin-Chan posted:Yeah I admit I kind of don't know the whole context, i'm just going off that jpeg he posted. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
if shrimpy thinks that that's beyond the pale then he's entitled to that thought it's more the 'it's just like killing an autistic kid' line of thought that people are disliking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
It is a separate, lesser issue that Clawshrimpy seems to think that the pragmatic approach is one that is absolutely, unambiguously evil, and can't see why anyone who isn't evil would ever use that line of thinking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
ClawShrimpy, after watching more of your reviews I have some advice for you that should instantly make you a better poster: Every time you want to use the word 'Evil', unless you're directly talking about Nazis, replace the word 'evil' with the phrase 'morally questionable' (if it's a decision you don't agree with on moral grounds) or 'morally objectionable' (if it's an action you don't agree with on moral grounds). Very few people are going to argue that Gain hasn't done some morally questionable and morally objectionable things. He has and will likely continue to do so because he feels the potential good (freeing everyone from an oppressive regime, letting everyone live freely in the manner of their choosing) is worth more than his own morality. Whether Gain's motivation is selfish (proving his parents right) or selfless (a general desire to help people), he is sacrificing his own morality for the sake of others, which many people could (and do) see as a heroic act (depending on the circumstances). One of Tomino's common themes is: imperfect people making imperfect decisions in an imperfect world. Whether the choices made by those imperfect people are ultimately beneficial is usually left to the viewer to decide but in my experience making that decision before a Tomino show is complete or nearly complete is usually a bad idea. The man loves his last-minute surprises. PoptartsNinja fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 13:18
|
|
|
That will make him a better poster, yes, in the sense that "morally questionable" isn't an absolute condemnation the way "evil" is. Generally though it sounds to me like Clawshrimpy is usually pretty absolute when he labels characters as "evil."
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
The more I read this thread the more annoyed I get when Clawshrimpy uses words that absolutely do not mean what he thinks they mean or do not apply in the slightest to things he has seen. Please use the correct words. People have even told you them a bajillion times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Clawshrimpy would have hated Xabungle so I'm glad he didn't go with that. A good first step for Clawshrimpy is using words/terms/definitions properly and changing the language he uses, but yeah getting him to not be so absolute in the first place is a goal. Clawshrimpy a lot of the time when you go "wow and these are the GOOD guys? Look at the bad thing they are doing" that is often the point of the scene. Good people do bad things sometimes and bad people do good things sometimes, for a variety of reasons and factors. As was said they are imperfect people making imperfect decisions in an imperfect world and not everything they do ends up going as intended. I remember thinking Adette eating all the food was a little forced when I watched years ago too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
It sounds like he would've enjoyed Turn A a lot more, I recall most of the characters in that aren't terribly morally questionable. Really if he could at least understand why someone might choose a decision he disagrees with, he'd be basically fine. The real sticking point, i think, is how he broadly paints anything he personally disagrees with as irredeemably evil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:ClawShrimpy, after watching more of your reviews I have some advice for you that should instantly make you a better poster: I suppose that's fair, I only really say "evil"" because I didn't know what else to call it, "unheroic" "wrong" etc?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Evil is a word you use when you're talking about things that are totally irredeemably wrong and awful, that no sane person would even consider. It's a very strong word to use when describing the actions of real people, or in this case people presented as realistic, so yeah if you don't actually mean to put someone's actions on the same level as Hitler don't say evil. Morally questionable and morally objectionable are good terms to use. They do a much better job of conveying "I don't agree with this" instead of "this is literally the same as genocide."
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
I would've loved to see his reactions to Fang of the Sun Dougram and (in a wildly different change of setting from mecha shows) Ping Pong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:28
|
|
lol at anyone who thinks bringing up or pointing out logical fallacies will actually help this thread. Video repost:AnacondaHL posted:relevant to the thread
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
AnacondaHL posted:lol at anyone who thinks bringing up or pointing out logical fallacies will actually help this thread. Video repost: Well actually, I'd say we've jumped an absolutely huge hurdle right now. Shrimpy admitted his word choice was a little too strong and presumably he'll keep that in mind with future reviews. People wouldn't jump on him anywhere near so much if what he said was "X did some morally questionable things" instead of "X did some things that were evil", and nor would he always have to defend his stances anywhere near so often. Though that wasn't really a matter of logical fallacies, just helping expand his vocabulary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
I only thought using "evil" was okay because evil is something that has a range. but I suppose not, it's just the easiest word for me to reach to when I respond nagatively to someone's actions, for example, it's easier for me to say, call an anti-vaxxer "evil" than to disagree with their viewpoint. the same applies to when I have to deal with people who use slurs, or do anything else that makes me have such an emotionally negative response.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Clawshrimpy posted:I only thought using "evil" was okay because evil is something that has a range. but I suppose not, it's just the easiest word for me to reach to when I respond nagatively to someone's actions, for example, it's easier for me to say, call an anti-vaxxer "evil" than to disagree with their viewpoint. the same applies to when I have to deal with people who use slurs, or do anything else that makes me have such an emotionally negative response. Considering you brought up slurs, most people wouldn't consider that evil either. Generally slurs are seen to come from the user's absolute ignorance to the harm they can cause. That's considered to be a relatively normal thing (after all, you can't be educated and correct about everything), so the person is seen as making a bone-headed mistake. Even if it should be corrected, the person isn't considered evil for their actions, just very ill-informed and negligent. Twiddy fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
For curiosity's sake, can you give us your own personal definition of evil? You might have already defined it earlier and I might have missed it, but it would help clarify your own views. Evil generally does not have a range. Basically if saintly is the extreme end of good, evil would be the extreme end of bad, which is why posters are kinda jumping on you for categorizing every bad action as evil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Allarion posted:For curiosity's sake, can you give us your own personal definition of evil? You might have already defined it earlier and I might have missed it, but it would help clarify your own views. Evil generally does not have a range. Basically if saintly is the extreme end of good, evil would be the extreme end of bad, which is why posters are kinda jumping on you for categorizing every bad action as evil. simply, m definition of evil is anyting that's wrong or just not morally right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Clawshrimpy posted:simply, m definition of evil is anyting that's wrong or just not morally right. That simple view is why people will always get on your case when you use it, as it ignores everything about the character making the choice. More so when you also call a person who is not a good "hero" archtype this. You've basically lumping people with genuinely good intentions making actions they really don't want to on the same level as a murderer who does it for fun. Evil is not a word to use when you don't like a character. Its why people call you out for black and black when the actual heroes of the story are just violent or jerks as far as personalities go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Please do not try to use the word evil Clawshrimpy. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:Please do not try to use the word evil Clawshrimpy. It doesn't mean what you think it means. I know what it means fine. I just don't see what is wrong with calling anything I see as morally repugnant out on that? Clawshrimpy fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Clawshrimpy posted:simply, m definition of evil is anyting that's wrong or just not morally right. If you treat evil as the mere opposite of 'good', in the pragmatist/utilitarian sense that what people collectively want is right or whatever allows the current system to continue functioning is good, then evil is actually often the best solution. If you destroy a broken system you can make people more free than ever before. If you define evil as just 'does things I don't like' - which is what you're saying when you say 'anything not morally right', then the word is a meaningless tautology. You have to at some point adopt a baseline argument about what is good and evil and why, so that things can be compared.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Clawshrimpy posted:I know what it means fine. Your definition though translates to "if someone is not as absolutely nice and courageous and honest etc. as I want someone to be, then they're a monster". That's a false-dichotomy because people are inherently flawed and make mistakes all the time, and thus by your own definition that would mean that everyone in the world is evil, you included.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Clawshrimpy posted:I know what it means fine. I just don't see what is wrong with calling anything I see as morally repugnant out on that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Clawshrimpy posted:I know what it means fine. I just don't see what is wrong with calling anything I see as morally repugnant out on that? Calling something out and categorizing everything you think is wrong as actually being evil is not really the same thing, though. Just because it's easier does not make it any more effective as communication. In this case, you don't agree with the idea that Gain's situation can, in all reality, lead to things that they cannot handle in a way which leaves everybody coming out safely in the end, and that he is both aware of this and willing to deal with it in a way that helps the largest number of people. What confuses me is that, in any position of power, you might have to run into bad situations that cannot be easily fixed. That this gives you a strong emotional response does not really matter-- that situation could happen regardless. I think what you might be saying is that you don't like seeing some content in stories. This does not mean that the characters involved in things you don't like are actually bad, and if they are not intently causing the situations that lead to said things, they are not inherently evil. It is of course an option to say "they didn't have to make that decision at all", but then you really mean that "they shouldn't have left at all" in this case, and that the story is null and void, perhaps. However, unless you really think that, then what you might mean is just that it's hard to watch characters have to go through stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Steam posted:Your definition though translates to "if someone is not as absolutely nice and courageous and honest etc. as I want someone to be, then they're a monster". That's a false-dichotomy because people are inherently flawed and make mistakes all the time, and thus by your own definition that would mean that everyone in the world is evil, you included. That's not what I'm trying to say, though, I'm saying if someone does anything thats, at least in my view "morally repugnant" that makes them on some degree to not be a good person, and the easiest way to say that is to call them evil to some degree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Clawshrimpy posted:That's not what I'm trying to say, though, I'm saying if someone does anything thats, at least in my view "morally repugnant" that makes them on some degree to not be a good person, and the easiest way to say that is to call them evil to some degree. See the way you just worded that? You actually just proved Steam's interpretation. "This person did a bad thing I did not like, therefore he is kind of a soulless monster." Degree does not change much here. You have used this definition on characters who have not done anything either from my observations, describing people who are cold and uncaring on the same vain as a world ending monster. You are ignoring the motivation and the circumstances of the choice. Its easy to call a bad thing bad, but that does not mean the person is evil for doing it. Yosuke fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Clawshrimpy posted:That's not what I'm trying to say, though, I'm saying if someone does anything thats, at least in my view "morally repugnant" that makes them on some degree to not be a good person, and the easiest way to say that is to call them evil to some degree. When you say "on some degree" could that degree be really small? Could a person still be overall good, even if to some degree they're not totally perfect?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Clawshrimpy posted:I know what it means fine. I just don't see what is wrong with calling anything I see as morally repugnant out on that? You also thought you knew what transhumanism meant. You didn't. And it only took a couple of years to convince you of this. Evil is often used in a hyperbolic manner to describe even rather petty acts, but most people hold it's meaning to be not the opposite of good so much as the complete absence of good. Thus people or characters who hold some good in them or their actions are still not evil, even if they do morally objectionable things - they're just misguided. Or ignorant. Or jerks. Or stupid. Or a mix of the above. In other words, human - because all people, yourself included fall under those banners at some point or another. Most people fall under them on a regular basis. Then again, this is coming from someone who'd be rather hesitant to call even the Nazi's evil. Not because I think they were good folks, but because I think it's a rather silly label to put on any individual or group given that it's so final a label that it normally puts a damper on further discussion. It's fine to use if you don't want discussion and are just talking about them in brief, not so much when you're looking to establish a dialogue or examine motive in depth. The word is mostly useful for simpler morality stories like Disney films than for anything that tries to introduce moral complexity. Not to say that those things aren't fine mind - they're often extremely well made and entertaining, which is often enough in and of itself. Steam posted:Your definition though translates to "if someone is not as absolutely nice and courageous and honest etc. as I want someone to be, then they're a monster". That's a false-dichotomy because people are inherently flawed and make mistakes all the time, and thus by your own definition that would mean that everyone in the world is evil, you included. Of course he's not evil - he has good intentions and that's what's important. No-one who wants good things could possibly be a bad person. You certainly wouldn't find any villains in shows he likes doing bad things for what they believe is good reason. No siree. To (hopefully) help illustrate how silly your definition of the word is I want to ask you just one simple question Shrimpy: have you ever, for any reason, broken your own moral values? Doesn't matter if the reason was cowardice, convenience, desperation or anything else - have you ever done so? Because if you have, then you are, by your own definition, an evil person. Not even evil to everyone else because you broke their values, evil by your own judgement. Before you answer that question though, I'd just like to point out that if you answer no, then I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly won't believe you. Making mistakes and breaking your own morals for some reason is so fundamental to the human experience that even the people writing the Bible had Jesus do so at least once - because he was, according to the Bible, partly human after all. Your definition basically paints everyone who ever lived evil. And if everyone is evil, the term becomes so meaningless that no-one is any longer evil. Worse, you're left bereft of any moral judgements to cast, because you used up the only one that counts to you - so everyone is just left as morally nothing. Or morally grey to put it another way. It might also be helpful to point out that words like ignorant, desperate, stupid and so on exist for a reason. They exist, at least partly, to account for all the other reasons that people would do something bad. If people only did bad because they were evil, which is essentially what you are saying, then we wouldn't need to describe people using those labels at all, because evil as a catch all term would suffice. People in general don't though - they use other words, both because they more precisely describe the meaning they're trying to convey and carry less baggage. What you are saying is that there is no difference between a desperate father stealing bread to feed his kids and someone trying to commit genocide - both are so similar in terms of moral value that they deserve the same classification. More, that anyone who does anything even slightly objectionable should really have just sat down and thought of some other action that wouldn't break their own moral values, because doing anything bad is, according to you, never the solution no matter how desperate the situation. Which most people will find stupid. And is a major part of the reason why you get so much flak. tsob fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
The thread has done a good job of communicating, and I would like you to respond Shrimpy. I'd also just like to add that you said you use "evil" because it's easier for you to communicate. The problem with that is the goal of communication is NOT ease, but clarity, and ease of communication frequently runs counter to clarity of communication. The easy road is very rarely the good road in life!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 21:07
|
|
