|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Have they said how many episodes there will be of this? 12 episodes. I doubt we will have any more judgements besides No-name.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
ViggyNash posted:The system itself is meant to be objective, and the dolls that are the arbiters are meant to be objective agents of that system. But, obviously, the system has some giant cracks. The system is meant to be objective by the canonically fallible and imperfect characters running it. I really want to believe you're being deliberately obtuse to further this conversation but it's hard to tell. quote:That then implies that this entity God has absolute authority over the dead, or at least the system is acting as such, and therefore I'm simply considering him/it as the fundamental structural basis of their world, which also encompasses the moral absolutism inherent to the system. Am I misremembering something? Were we not told that God is gone? What, exactly, makes you so sure this system that God is no longer a part of is absolutely moral correct? I'd argue that, since we can't take anything said by the characters as 100% factual, there's no way of knowing if the God they've referred to is an actual divine being or just a more powerful version of whatever they are, but I don't think that's really worth debating until we have some more information.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
ViggyNash posted:The system itself is meant to be objective, and the dolls that are the arbiters are meant to be objective agents of that system. But, obviously, the system has some giant cracks. The system has been anything but impersonal and abstract so far, though. It's a vast, messy bureaucracy of very fallible people, and that invites us to judge it and its worth. Shrugging your shoulders and saying 'that's just the way it is' seems entirely alien to the point of this show, and the fact that this is a created system does not exempt its creator from criticism, in much the same way as you can criticise a parent for being poo poo at their job or for actively abusing their child.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
I'm all caught up. I think my earlier argument was pretty much on point. Oculus's rules and the periodic erasure of the arbiter's memory seem designed to keep them as inhuman as possible, and to enforce regularity in their judgements by simply preventing them from changing or evolving at all. It doesn't seem to work, though; the show strongly suggests that arbiters pick up bits of emotion by osmosis, and eventually end up with much more developed personalities, as per Nona, Quin, and Ginti. Nona is fostering this process on purpose -- it's hard to say what her endgame might be, but she tells Quin that she values multiple points of view and wants to covertly introduce a human element into the judging process. So basically: because this is anime, the Overman is a five-foot tall girl in braids and the sacred games we have to invent to atone for the death of God most definitely include Twister. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:No, there's a distinct difference between saying "that's wrong" and "I don't like that" even if there is no absolute standard of what is or isn't wrong. They communicate different concepts, as evidenced by the fact that I can dislike something and do it anyways because I feel it's morally correct or vice-versa. quote:Of course morality is subject to disagreement and perspective, but that's not the same as "morality does not exist." It just means that you have to think about it as what it is: a tangle of conflicting perspectives, often not even fully or consistently expressed, that people adhere to for personal reasons. quote:You say "personal disapproval" as if that's a dismissal, but it's not actually enough to dismiss it. If morality isn't absolute, that just means that instead of residing in God's hand or in the fabric of the universe or whatever, it's a human creation. It's whatever we decide it is, and it makes perfect sense to talk about "wrong according to X" or even just "wrong to X." Consensus is a good starting point because it excludes only solipsists and sociopaths (loosely speaking), and because a moral consensus translates easily to actually doing whatever the consensus decides; it's close to the raw practicality of might-is-right, but includes the interests of everyone who agrees that other peoples' interests also matter. quote:Sure you can, I already explained how last post: if God isn't perfectly good. If you define God as perfectly good then you can't conclude that he's immoral (obviously) but there are lots of conceptions of divinity that don't include that clause. It's easy to conceive of a creator who exercises absolute power over our souls and judges us arbitrarily, or malevolently, or in a well-meaning way which is nonetheless abhorrent to us. Those conceptions are also a useful way of talking about the unfairness of the world, and looking at it in a more or less pessimistic light. I'm arguing pretty much straight out of Arthur Laff's "Memorandum from the Devil" and "Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law," if you want things stated better and more completely that what I'm writing. Darth Walrus posted:1984 was about an absolute, undefeatable regime that defined reality as it saw fit. Does that mean that we, as readers, are not allowed to criticise the Party? IngSoc doesn't have any power over the reader; they are despots, but not our despots. If Capital-G God exists, then he does have power over us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Paracelsus posted:That would depend on what level you're talking about, as they're both simply stating a preference using different words. If morality is set by the individual's preferences, then you do "like" the action more than not doing the action. I'm saying that under your system the difference between the two is entirely arbitrary. And if that's fine with you, then that's fine with you, but it doesn't really get you anywhere in an argument. I think you're dismissing the psychological difference between preference and obligation too easily, but that as you say isn't an argument. Paracelsus posted:The problem is that there's no means to deal with differences between those perspectives, and no way to rationally convince someone with a different perspective. Individuals are simply ships passing in the night. Without that means of interaction, neither is there a means to judge that can't be defeated simply by the object of the judgment rolling their eyes. Individuals are simply ships passing in the night, there's no way out of that. But you can rationally convince someone if you both agree on the same assumptions, no matter how faith-based or irrational those assumptions might be, and some assumptions are very easy to come to because they're so culturally or even biologically bound up that almost everyone has them. Stuff like "happiness is good" and so on. Human beings have enough in common that you can talk about basic human morality and it mostly makes sense, although not with the kind of strictness or completeness that any absolute moral system would desire. Paracelsus posted:If it isn't absolute, it ceases to be distinct from an absence of morality. This isn't true at all; think about it in terms of the results. Someone with a highly developed moral system is going to act differently than someone with none, even if they don't ground that morality firmly. You might describe this as mere "preferences," but people still tie themselves in knots because they think something they want is wrong or something they don't want is necessary. The difference might only be psychological, but from where I'm standing that "only" is inappropriate; it's all in our heads anyways, but what's in our heads is very important to us. Paracelsus posted:Part of this is why I was distinguishing God from simply a god. Capital-G God is good because simply by existing he defines terms of goodness that are identical to himself. A mere god is supernatural and has power, but goodness is not defined by them. But even if there's a consensus among humans regarding the morality of gods, if there's a different consensus among the gods then you're at a dead end, unless there's an overarching system of morality that applies even in the absence of total consensus. A capital-G God existing just ends the whole discussion, as you've said and I've acknowledged. Paracelsus posted:I'm arguing pretty much straight out of Arthur Laff's "Memorandum from the Devil" and "Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law," if you want things stated better and more completely that what I'm writing. I'm reading the Memorandum right now; I'm not really seeing the problem. The Devil offers as one of his potential solutions the possibility that there is no meaning except for what we decide for ourselves, individually and collectively. I'm just pointing to "the meaning we decide for ourselves" as an acceptable definition of morality, since I don't believe in higher powers or universal laws, and acknowledging the "collectively" part when I talk about consensus. Or put another way, morality is morality regardless of its scope, and God is just shorthand for a scope that encompasses all of us from the outside in, instead of each of us from the inside out. Paracelsus posted:I think under the system Tuxedo Catfish is describing, it would absolutely be immoral for those living under IngSoc to criticize the Party, since the consensus is in their favor, but that's a separate issue from what you're asking. I said "consensus is a good starting point," and I chose that language on purpose; I'm not describing a complete system that goes back to first causes in the first place, because like Laff says, that's a fool's errand. I'm saying that morality can arise from irrational assumptions, and that's fine, and it's still a form of morality, and -- making a leap from epistemology to practice right here -- that people who share as many of your irrational assumptions as possible are easier to form a social contract with. I don't think it's possible to go from that argument to any specific value judgements, so my system doesn't say anything about the morality of the Party, other than "it probably exists." Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Or to bring all that back to Death Parade: Given that the Arbiters aren't human and are deliberately engineered to be inhuman, it should come as no surprise at all that their system seems monstrously unfair to most human beings. As a human being I both agree with that assessment and I think that's what the show is meant to communicate, and what's more, if you don't agree, then even with your admittedly unassailable power to roll your eyes, we probably have common ground somewhere upriver that I could use to convince you. Because you're human too, and I mean, poo poo, you speak the same language and we probably even have a wealth of common experiences considering we're both nerds talking about metaphysics in an anime forum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Or to bring all that back to Death Parade: What is this strange triangle? This is partially the point I was trying to make with my initial post, and that Paracelsus was trying to defend. I think I'm just entirely incompetent at explaining my own viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
ViggyNash posted:What is this strange triangle? This is partially the point I was trying to make with my initial post, and that Paracelsus was trying to defend. I think I'm just entirely incompetent at explaining my own viewpoint. Quibbles about the role of a g/God who's only referred to in a brief exchange in one episode where one party is clearly joking and the other's deadpan tone could mean anything.  e: It's all sort of relevant if you're trying answer the question of "who has a right to judge human beings" though, which is what it feels like the show is leading up to. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Mar 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
A really loving good two-parter, holy poo poo. My only gripe is minor and even moot one, how the one game I was looking forward to seeing took a big ol' backseat to what was happening between the two men. I was hoping it would be like you have several zones for the puck to bounce and bank off of and those rack up during each round. You hit zones for each body part or organ, and then whoever scores deals those banked zones to the other person. Make the areas right next to your goal especially vital, like brain or heart, so that they actually have to pull away from their goal to try and not let the other guy bank those to try and use them against you or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
I'm a little at a loss as to how the system, as presented in the dying moments of the most recent episode, isn't ridiculously flawed (i.e. I don't see how there can be any argument suggesting that it is actually, effectively, impartial or useful). The boy's put into a state of frenzy, thanks to what is basically emotional and physical torture, and then nearly everyone eggs him on to do violence to a guy (including the erstwhile victim). Our so-called impartial arbiter actually brings up the idea in the first place, then hands him the knife. Only then does No-Name interfere and push him to not hurt the dude. How is this revealing the darkness in his soul, and not just nurturing it? My problem, beyond the fact that the torture designed to push people to their breaking point is only arbitrarily employed, is that said torture is endorsed by the system. Decim gives (some) people the ability to hurt others, and then puts them in a situation where they they have to hurt others out of self-defence. For which he then spaces their souls. However, in compelling people to use violence against each other he's just as guilty of these crimes, since he's knowingly tricking others into situations where they'll torture or kill, and then pushing people to breaking point when it seems like the scenario won't be explosive enough. As if putting people under extreme duress is any reflection of how they'd act in any other circumstance. Would the fan really have sacrificed her life for anyone else, other than her idol? Would the newly weds have attacked each other had they not been playing darts? Unless a pair's lucky enough to get a scenario where they aren't actively damaging each other when they play (that bowling couple got off really lucky), one of them's basically hosed. First one to blink loses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
I think I'm going to wait until the show is done making its case before I try and defend a side, because the show isn't quite clear enough about what it's trying to say yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
ViggyNash posted:I think I'm going to wait until the show is done making its case before I try and defend a side, because the show isn't quite clear enough about what it's trying to say yet. I'm afraid I must insist, please continue with the game. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
I'm on the side that the system is imperfect and we're meant to see it that way, otherwise its kind of boring. What I might have done was flip the knife over and use the blunt end to shut him up. I think this was the episode though we got to see Both people spaced. dotJPG posted:I'm afraid I must insist, please continue with the game. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 18:05
|
|
dotJPG posted:I'm afraid I must insist, please continue with the game. holy poo poo adtrw.gif
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
dotJPG posted:I'm afraid I must insist, please continue with the game. goldmine
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
dotJPG posted:I'm afraid I must insist, please continue with the game. We will now have you participate in a flame war. Your lives will be staked upon the outcome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Hidingo Kojimba posted:We will now have you participate in a flame war. Your lives will be staked upon the outcome. Can we arrange substitutes? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
dotJPG posted:I'm afraid I must insist, please continue with the game. Well played, sir goon. Well played.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 20:03
|
|
dotJPG posted:I'm afraid I must insist, please continue with the game. 
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
dotJPG posted:I'm afraid I must insist, please continue with the game. A goon can never stop making posts, for that is the reason why they exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
dotJPG posted:I'm afraid I must insist, please continue with the game. Holy poo poo, that is amazing. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Beef Waifu please make that a giant banner at the top of ADTRW tia
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Open Source Idiom posted:I'm a little at a loss as to how the system, as presented in the dying moments of the most recent episode, isn't ridiculously flawed (i.e. I don't see how there can be any argument suggesting that it is actually, effectively, impartial or useful). The boy's put into a state of frenzy, thanks to what is basically emotional and physical torture, and then nearly everyone eggs him on to do violence to a guy (including the erstwhile victim). Our so-called impartial arbiter actually brings up the idea in the first place, then hands him the knife. Only then does No-Name interfere and push him to not hurt the dude. How is this revealing the darkness in his soul, and not just nurturing it? First off, as has been made clear before, the games are pre-set. If one believes the aribters/system is as omniscient as it is, the games are probably set up to atleast invite the scenarios that we've seen (such as a bonhomie game of bowling or a angry attack with darts). The question really comes down to nature or nurture. Fangirl showed the willingness to give her life for another, and whether or not she would have done it for someone other then her idol, its still a willingness that no one else in the series has shown other then the wife from the first episode, and thats where Decim made a admitted failure in judgement. So, the question is "Does murder boy's soul deserve a second chance at incarnation?", which is already a pretty iffy question since we're trying to use something as nebulous as a soul. Does that include memories? Would murder boy's soul feel a kinship or even friendship with Sae if they met in a new life? How much of the soul defines the being? Would detective's soul be predisposed to being actively, dangerously deranged? The show seems to treat a lot of behaviour as nature, not nurture, and so the judges try to dreg up any behavior whatsoever that indicates objective evil, since then the reincarnated soul would also show this behaviour (by the philosophy they've exhibited, anyway). So the theory goes that any judgement where X has behaved in a evil manner is a test as to whether X would do so again. Sure, a lot of people will do stuff out of desperation that they wouldn't do in a normal state of mind, but if the soul can be affected in the same manner, brought to the same desperation, and come to the same outcome, then the reasoning of the arbitration doesn't seem as flawed. If the system worked, then you could filter out all murderers, eventually, purely by voiding every soul that shows repeated murderous intent. To be honest, it seems as though Noname is arguing nurture to Decim's (and the arbitration system's) nature, that you can force any person to do lovely stuff by putting them in a bad enough situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Post-off between Viggynash and Tuxedo Catfish, winner gets made mod, loser gets banned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Post-off between Viggynash and Tuxedo Catfish, winner gets made mod, loser gets banned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Post-off between Viggynash and Tuxedo Catfish, winner gets made mod, loser gets banned. They both reveal themselves to be unacceptable and horrible people by the arbitrary standards of the forum, and eat a double-void.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Post-off between Viggynash and Tuxedo Catfish, winner gets made mod, loser gets banned. How would you decide a winner? Darth Walrus posted:They both reveal themselves to be unacceptable and horrible people by the arbitrary standards of the forum, and eat a double-void. Honestly, the most likely scenario.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
ViggyNash posted:How would you decide a winner? Be fair, there is a non-zero chance that you'll end up kindling a rather sweet little romance and we'll have a new mod couple.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
dotJPG posted:I'm afraid I must insist, please continue with the game. .Tuxedo Catfish posted:Individuals are simply ships passing in the night, there's no way out of that. But you can rationally convince someone if you both agree on the same assumptions, no matter how faith-based or irrational those assumptions might be, and some assumptions are very easy to come to because they're so culturally or even biologically bound up that almost everyone has them. Stuff like "happiness is good" and so on. Human beings have enough in common that you can talk about basic human morality and it mostly makes sense, although not with the kind of strictness or completeness that any absolute moral system would desire. quote:This isn't true at all; think about it in terms of the results. Someone with a highly developed moral system is going to act differently than someone with none, even if they don't ground that morality firmly. You might describe this as mere "preferences," but people still tie themselves in knots because they think something they want is wrong or something they don't want is necessary. The difference might only be psychological, but from where I'm standing that "only" is inappropriate; it's all in our heads anyways, but what's in our heads is very important to us. To put it another way, morality is defined by the way we have to think about it in order to process the concept, and that way of thinking requires us to act as though there were an outside standard. Once we stop thinking like that, we no longer really have access to the concept. But no one really does stop thinking like that at the most basic level ("the good" we base our decisions on) because otherwise we couldn't decide to get out of bed in the morning ,which we demonstrably do. quote:I'm reading the Memorandum right now; I'm not really seeing the problem. The Devil offers as one of his potential solutions the possibility that there is no meaning except for what we decide for ourselves, individually and collectively. I'm just pointing to "the meaning we decide for ourselves" as an acceptable definition of morality, since I don't believe in higher powers or universal laws, and acknowledging the "collectively" part when I talk about consensus. Or put another way, morality is morality regardless of its scope, and God is just shorthand for a scope that encompasses all of us from the outside in, instead of each of us from the inside out. As far as I can tell you also lack the ability to deal with cross-societal interactions or competing factions within a society where there really isn't a consensus; you've simply kicked the can down the road a bit, but you still have the same issue if you can't win via rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
Paracelsus posted:We're probably not going to see eye to eye on this one. To me, morality as a thought process doesn't seem to work unless you believe on some level that there's a reference standard you're measuring something against; otherwise why would you have the preference for the morality in the first place? And if you're not measuring against anything other than your own perceptions, I don't see how that's distinct from aesthetics. Why would it be? Beauty and goodness are very similar concepts. If that, specifically, is what you mean by preferences then I've got no problem admitting that morality is a preference. (Including my taste for human-centric naturalism, if that was your objection.) e: Ohh, okay, I see the problem. That would contradict what I said earlier about "I don't like" vs. "that's wrong." I'm not sure how to resolve that actually -- but I'm certain they describe different subjective experiences. Paracelsus posted:To put it another way, morality is defined by the way we have to think about it in order to process the concept, and that way of thinking requires us to act as though there were an outside standard. Once we stop thinking like that, we no longer really have access to the concept. But no one really does stop thinking like that at the most basic level ("the good" we base our decisions on) because otherwise we couldn't decide to get out of bed in the morning ,which we demonstrably do. I don't think I disagree, I'm just drawing a distinction between acting as though there were an outside standard, and actually believing in one. The former is pragmatic, the latter is a leap of faith, which is a valid choice, but amounts to giving up on the search for meaning. I know that my beliefs about what is right are an accident, just the product of being born at a certain time, being around certain people, having certain experiences, and so on. I could throw up my hands and go "everything is permitted!" but the thing is, I'm fairly certain that even if I wanted to do that, it wouldn't make me happier. If faith is intellectually unjustifiable and nihilism is despair then the only remaining course of action is to accept that our arbitrary, externally meaningless standards are still meaningful to us, and to deal with that unresolvable tension as best we can. Paracelsus posted:The collective issue comes up in the second piece, discussing individualist and collectivist interpretations of what rights people have. The radical individualist position destroys the ability to have rights that govern interactions, which is the only way they'd have any meaning, and the collectivist position does away with rights of the individual altogether. In neither situation can the concept of rights exist, and the only real solution is to place them somewhere outside both the individual and the collective; in the article's case, the Constitution serving as the God-like entity. The Constitution is, of course, somewhat arbitrary, but so is the system that Quindecim is part of. I think you're overestimating the Constitution, or at least misplacing it. You say it's outside both the individual and the collective, but I think that's an illusion, a convenient fantasy. The rights don't exist in themselves; they exist in the individual and collective conception of anyone who respects the Constitution as a standard. (At least, we can't know that they exist -- they might anyways, just as God might, but it'd be a hell of a coincidence.) Even if most people who respect the Constitution as a standard think of it that way, it's not necessary to think of it that way in order to follow its guidelines; you can acknowledge it as arbitrary and follow it anyways for reasons with irrational origins. Assuming I've understood him correctly, Laff doesn't mention the idea of a transcendent, God-like Constitution to advance it seriously; he mentions it to highlight the contradictory results of trying to think of it that way, leading to the proposition that we have to think of ourselves as the creators of laws and moral rules and not their discoverers. If that's true, then the rules aren't outside us at all; they're in us (because we've internalized them, in whatever form we understand them) and between us (assuming you can think of many individuals, each acting according to what they understand as shared rules, as a collective). This is different from Quindecim's system, where external rules are enforced on humanity by inhuman beings. (At least until Nona started interfering.) We can't make an absolute moral judgement on that, for all the reasons we've discussed, but we can still make a subjective one -- and a subjective moral judgement is still distinct from the non-existence of moral judgement. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Why yes, I did ask Paracelsus to take my place in the post-off. I didn't. Tuxedo Catfish posted:This is different from Quindecim's system, where external rules are enforced on humanity by inhuman beings. (At least until Nona started interfering.) We can't make an absolute moral judgement on that, for all the reasons we've discussed, but we can still make a subjective one -- and a subjective moral judgement is still distinct from the non-existence of moral judgement. Consider that, conversely, us humans are external to that system, and so by the same supposition that being an external party/system allows them to enforce an objective judgement, we too can objectively judge them and their system from our external position. However, in order to do so, we must judge whether the fundamental building blocks of the system, the void/reincarnation split and whatever moral code puts souls on one track or another, is a valid basis for their judgement. Without determining that, there is no firm ground for our judgments to stand on. In that case, any judgement we make will be a subjective one. But if we begin with the basis that they have no right to make absolute moral judgments by stating some fundamental rule that absolute judgements are not possible, it then follows that we have no right to judge them absolutely as well. But in that case we would have to explain we would have to explain this fundamental rule that paradoxically renders itself moot since it is itself an absolute judgement that judges judgement. Obviously, it's not possible to justify a paradox. So we're back to the first scenario, in which we either have to judge the fundamental basis or simply take it for granted. As far as I can see, we can't really judge the void/reincarnation split without getting neck deep into the murky swamp of religious debate, so lets take that for granted. But the moral code... we don't actually know what that is. We've seen it implemented, with the most revealing case being the most recent episode, but how do we define what that code is? I don't have a good enough sense of what it is on a specific enough level, so like I said earlier I'm gonna cop-out until we have more to work with. ViggyNash fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Mar 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
ViggyNash posted:Consider that, conversely, us humans are external to that system, and so by the same supposition that being an external party/system allows them to enforce an objective judgement, we too can objectively judge them and their system from our external position. Er, no we can't, unless we're God. The inside/outside thing doesn't cause subjectivity, it's just a side-effect. But we can say something like "assuming self-determination is a moral right, Quindecim's system is wrong" and prove that statement follows from the premise, even if we can't prove the ultimate righteousness of self-determination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Er, no we can't, unless we're God. The inside/outside thing doesn't cause subjectivity, it's just a side-effect. Point being that we can be more objective as outsiders looking in than someone inside trying to judge the system they are a part of. I shouldn't have said it as an absolute statement, true, but it's as close as we can get without being god (which is impossible) so the closest to god-like objectivity anyone can be is an impartial outsider.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
ViggyNash posted:Point being that we can be more objective as outsiders looking in than someone inside trying to judge the system they are a part of. I shouldn't have said it as an absolute statement, true, but it's as close as we can get without being god (which is impossible) so the closest to god-like objectivity anyone can be is an impartial outsider. Assuming that the impartial outsider actually understands the situation being judged, I agree. However, it's becoming increasingly clear that the arbiters have no idea whatsoever how humans work. It doesn't matter how impartial you are if you straight-up do not understand what you're supposed to be judging.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
glomkettle posted:Assuming that the impartial outsider actually understands the situation being judged, I agree. However, it's becoming increasingly clear that the arbiters have no idea whatsoever how humans work. It doesn't matter how impartial you are if you straight-up do not understand what you're supposed to be judging. True. But when you benchmark software, do you need to have any idea how the software works? No, you just need to know what to look for, and what that suggests. Whether the arbiters have at least that kind of understanding hasn't been made clear though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Considering the fact that the show began with an arbiter making an incorrect judgement and not realizing it until a human pointed it out, I think it's pretty clear they have only a superficial understanding of what to look for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Death Billiards is canon! She finally has a name. The preview looks like Ginti is being set up by the old man to oppose Decim. The opening also foreshadowed that Chiyuki has ice skating skills. Maybe she was a professional skater and died on the rink?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
It could also be a winking nod to death billiards since neither Decim or Chiyuki comment on it though admittedly they have little reason to. Nice way to connect the two together anyways. Course he also opted to be voided so that puts a slight damper on their relationship, reincarnation-wise anyways. So was that the idol dude's body at the Ginti bit at the end there? They didn't show his head but I think those were his clothes. Would be amusing if Ginti's non-judgement was actually a plot point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
For those who can't remember Death Billiards: The old man in the playing cards is the same as the one in Death Billiards if it wasn't obvious. Nice episode, can't wait for things to heat up towards the conclusion next episode.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 01:32
|
|
