First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply General Code Geass Discussion Thread
28340 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Osaka, Japan ★
Offline
Posted 9/13/09
Oh my Gawd!
5215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Where there is so...
Offline
Posted 9/16/09
The story wasawesome, gripping from beggining to end, although im not sure if it could go on for more episodes. The ending was okay, but i do wish it was a little longer..... Loved it and can't complain!!
1166 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M
Offline
Posted 9/17/09 , edited 10/1/09

infinitycubed wrote:


TheAncientOne wrote:


infinitycubed wrote:


TheAncientOne wrote:


infinitycubed wrote:

In the third season i want Euphemia alive and Lelouch dead.

Or to be a little longer winded, I want Euphemia (and Shirley and Milly and Rivalez, all of the good and innocent characters) alive and Lelouch (and Charles, and Kallen, and CC, and Rollo, and Cornelia, and Schneitzel, and Kaguya, and Tianzii, and Ogri, and Villeta, and Jeremiah, and Toudah, and Nunnally, etc. etc. etc. -- all of the evil characters) dead (or in some cases defeated,disgraced, and imprisoned will do) and a bunch of new characters gradually replacing them who are mostly good so that there is a fifty-fifty good to evil ratio (or any other reasonable one) instead of the absurdly high proportion of evil characters there was in the original cast.


You must have an interesting concept of evil. I would assume it would automatically classify anyone that participates in a military action, even if they never take a life with their own action (i.e., Kaguya) as evil.




Kaguya was a nominal member of the leadership of the Kyota Group, which in the first season supported a lot of rebel, guerrillas, and terrorist groups seeking the independence of Japan. Unless you have evidence that Kaguya consistently opposed giving any funds and support to any of the terrorist groups she would have been just as guilty of all the terrorist murders as any of the terrorists themselves.

And wasn't Kaguya plotting to restore the independence of Japan? If Japan was an independent state in a world full of other independent states, the lives of many Japanese and non-Japanese would be lost in wars between Japan and other independent countries. After a few thousand years the total number of Japanese killed in wars would exceed the total population of Japan in 2017, which was the maximum number of Japanese people that the geass command would possibly have compelled Euphemia to kill. And of course Japanese patriots would have hoped that Japan would be independent for much longer than that, and thus that it would kill many more Japanese in wars with other nations. Kaguya and other Japanese patriots didn't realize that they were seeking to slaughter countless thousands and millions and billions of Japanese in future ages, because they were too intellectually lazy to imagine what would result from achieving their desired goal.

Tianzi had a chance to unite two-thirds of the human race with her marriage to the Britannian crown prince, but she seems to have cared more for her own personal happiness than saving the lives of countless millions and billions of people who would be killed in future wars if Britannia and China were not united.

If Tianzi was a true empress she would have wanted to conquer and annex more and more countries to end all possibility that they would ever be able to make war on China and other lands ruled by China. Instead she was persuaded by Kaguya to help in the invasion of Japan with the goal of liberating it from Britannia. I saying that trying to liberate a nation so that it may enslave its people by making them die in future wars is a policy that makes Tianzi a disgrace to all emperors and empresses. She should have tried to conquer and annex Japan to the Chinese Empire. (incidentally, up to about 700 AD the Japanese Great kings claimed to be subordinate to the Chinese Emperors, so Tianzi could have considered Japan a rebel province)

And even if Tizani thought that it would be good for China to free Japan from Britannian control and make Brittannia less able to attack and invade China, Tianzi had and rejected a much better option to prevent Britannian attacks and invasions. She could have gone though with the marriage and peacefully united China and Britannia and greatly reduced the probability of any future Britannian attacks on China.

Tianzi may have never shot or killed anyone, but she was a warlord like Abraham Lincoln, or Jefferson Davis, or Hitler, or Churchill, or Stalin, or Roosevelt, or Mussolini and like them killed thousands or millions with her policies.

So even those two nice, cute, adorable, girls were guilty of mass murder in so far as they sometimes choose actions which caused thousands, or millions, or billions more t deaths than other policies which they could have chosen. I think that each of them has chosen to commit at least one evil deed and thus fits the definition of an evil person as one who has committed at least one evil deed.

And I could go on and on about the evil choices of all the older and less adorable characters.


Thanks for clarifying. You do have an interesting concept of evil. Apparently anyone that raises a weapon to defend their freedom or indepedence fits the bill. I have to think if you were alive during the time before WWII, what (in)action would you have encouraged?

If you had been in Churchill's position, what would you have done? Surrendered your country? The only evil in the world isn't killing, but certainly the Germans did plenty of that, unless you think the Holocaust was fiction.

At this point, I am curious what country you are from. Regardless of how neutral and peaceful it may be in the modern era, I have little doubt it had "evil men" by your definition in action at its founding.

As to your statement:
"After a few thousand years the total number of Japanese killed in wars would exceed the total population of Japan in 2017, ..."

That is some interesting logic. Apparently genocide is less evil in your eyes than a larger number of people dying over a longer period of time. Second, I find it difficult to believe that war would still be the norm between large nations after "a few thousand years". You presume that large scale wars would be the norm for all that period of time, not only a pessimistic view, but one which modern history argues against for developed nations going forward. As an example, no two countries equipped with a nuclear arsenal have fought a direct war with one another, for reasons that should be obvious.


BTW, Euphemia sent in Suzaku to rescue her sister. I don't recall if he actually killed anyone in that battle, but it didn't appear to be for lack of trying. By you own definition, doesn't that make her evil? (Unless of course, you believe only the result counts, not the intent).



1) Yes, anyone who kills to defend their freedom or independence is almost as evil as someone who kills to take away someone's freedom or independence. In both cases they are committing murder to change or prevent or keep something, committing a greater evil in preference to accepting or tolerating what can at most be considered a lesser evil.

And there is a big difference between freedom and independence. Freedom is being a citizen with full rights instead of a slave or serf. It is more free to be a first class citizen than a second, third, or fourth class citizen .

Independence belongs to governments. It includes the power to make war, to endanger the lives of their own citizens and subjects and those of other sovereign governments. Living in an independent nation surrounded by other independent nations puts a person in danger, a danger which he could avoid if he lived in an world with one government which ruled everyone and everywhere and war was no longer possible. A person's country or nation is a terrible curse upon him, which he needs to get rid of.

If I was alive in the time before World War II, I would have been a completely different person, of course, so I don't know what I would advise anyone. If I was a time traveler I would have access to all kinds of fantastically advanced technology which I could take into the past with me and use to assassinate or brainwash leaders and entire armies and governments to change history starting centuries before World War II.

2) I have a citizen of the U.S.A., but obviously not a completely loyal one. And I think that the "Foundering Fathers" were great leaders who often did much good, but have to be counted as evil because of creating a new nation. By creating a new independent country they have become guilty of all the war crimes ever committed in wars between that nation and other nations. That includes all the death and destruction in all the alternate universes in which World war III has occurred or will occur, with hundreds of millions being slaughtered in each of them.

People often criticize scientists who invent atomic bombs, or missiles, or other weapons, for creating such deadly things which can be used to kill so many people. But the most deadly things in the world are invented by political leaders, not scientists. They are independent governments, the deadliest things ever created by man. Remember, weapons don't kill people, independent nations use weapons to kill people.

3) You claim that Churchill had only two choices, to fight exactly as he fought in our timeline, which included raining death from the sky upon German Cities, or to surrender his country to be annexed by Germany. But Churchill had many options of peace and war to choose from, some of which would have resulted in more short term and long term deaths, some in fewer. Britain could have made peace with Germany without being occupied, let alone annexed. And Britain could have made peace with Germany and later invaded Western Europe with American help to liberate Western Europe when and if Germany seemed about to be crushed by Russia. Or Britain could have fought without resorting to using weapons of mass destruction.

4) Of course genocide is less evil than killing a greater number of people. Genocide is less evil than killing even a single person, because it is impossible to commit genocide. Genocide is a senseless concept. You can't kill something which doesn't exist. Nationalities and ethic groups and religious groups and social classes don't exist. They are imaginary concepts used to categorize groups of people who have or are believed to have things in common., and things which make them different from other people. But the most important thing about people is that they all desperately need to not be killed.

Nobody can commit genocide, but people who falsely believe that nationalities and ethic groups exist and that genocide is possible can kill thousands or millions of real people in their senseless efforts to destroy that which does not exist. And each of those real people thus senselessly wasted is infinitely more important than any of the imaginary concepts such as nationalities and ethic groups that people have ever believed in.

So if I had a choice between killing 1,000,000 people and 1,000,001 people I would chose killing the lesser number of people, even if that meant exterminating three small ethnic groups instead of two small ethnic groups, because the one life that would be saved would be something real, and thus worth more than the continuation of all the ethic groups that were, are, or will be.

And you can hope that if current trends continue war will soon be a thing of the past, but why count on independent nations reforming and giving up their past evil ways? If a world government is formed the leaders and the voters and the generals can be as eager to fight wars as anyone in the past was, but they will be unable to lead the world into war since there won't be any other governments to fight against.

We may hope that if current trends continue war will soon be obsolete, but that might not happen. That is not a sure thing. For example, perhaps an atomic war will kill hundreds of millions of people and reduce the level of civilization. Then wars might continue to be fought at an ancient or medieval technological level for countless thousands or millions of years.

5) In the first episode Suzaku was ordered to kill Lelouch, refused, and was shot by his officer but somehow survived. In "The Princess and the Witch" I believe that Euphemia asked Suzaku to fight without killing or to save everyone, or something like that, and he promised to do so. In "Battle of Narita" Lloyd asked why Suzaku became a soldier if he didn't want to kill and Suzaku said he became a soldier to save everyone. I thus believe that Suzaku did not kill anyone between killing his father and going after Lelouch in episode 23. And Euphemia would believe that he would keep his promise and try to rescue Cornelia without killing anyone. I believe that sending in a warrior who has promised you not to kill anyone counts as an extremely nonviolent military move!

In Episode 22 Euphemia said that she could not kill but perhaps she only meant killing people personally. Perhaps like many military officers she would leave the killing of enemies to others and merely direct military operations.



Continued and also spoilered for brevity:



The Wise Wizard
Member
76481 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / U.S.A.
Online
Posted 9/19/09 , edited 9/19/09
Previous quotes spoilered for brevity
(edit made for typo)


As my reply is also lengthy, I will also spoiler it, to spare those not interested in reading it from a long scroll.

The batteries on my wireless keyboard actually died while typing this!




1166 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M
Offline
Posted 9/25/09 , edited 10/1/09

TheAncientOne wrote:

Previous quotes spoilered for brevity
(edit made for typo)





As my reply is also lengthy, I will also spoiler it, to spare those not interested in reading it from a long scroll.

The batteries on my wireless keyboard actually died while typing this!






1166 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M
Offline
Posted 9/25/09 , edited 10/1/09

infinitycubed wrote:


TheAncientOne wrote:

Previous quotes spoilered for brevity
(edit made for typo)


As my reply is also lengthy, I will also spoiler it, to spare those not interested in reading it from a long scroll.

The batteries on my wireless keyboard actually died while typing this!



here is another spoiler for the rest of our discussion



The Wise Wizard
Member
76481 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / U.S.A.
Online
Posted 9/28/09
You really should edit that message and use/restore quote tags. Even I had some difficulty separating what I wrote from what you did, so I can only imagine the difficulty for anyone else.

It also wouldn't hurt if you spoilered the text, just to save anyone that was not interested from having to skip over 2/3 of the page.
52645 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / The great not so...
Offline
Posted 9/28/09 , edited 9/28/09

TheAncientOne wrote:

You really should edit that message and use/restore quote tags. Even I had some difficulty separating what I wrote from what you did, so I can only imagine the difficulty for anyone else.

It also wouldn't hurt if you spoilered the text, just to save anyone that was not interested from having to skip over 2/3 of the page.


I agree to this I hate having to use auto scroll every time I want to post something here.

I mean its good that you are posting and active in the forums, but if its going to be more than 2 paragraphs long then use spoiler tags. Cause some of us hate walls of text. It took me 1 minute to scroll all the way down here and that was on auto
198 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F
Offline
Posted 9/28/09
I found season one and two music on Imeem! Great selection, though I am having troubles downloading the playlist to my iTunes... Here is the link: http://www.imeem.com/groups/eOXtIuFC/playlist/6N3wHSHa/supermaniax-exclusive-code-geass-season-1-and-2-music-pla/

I also have it on my profile. They even have the "All hail Britannia!" song!
1166 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M
Offline
Posted 9/28/09

TheAncientOne wrote:

You really should edit that message and use/restore quote tags. Even I had some difficulty separating what I wrote from what you did, so I can only imagine the difficulty for anyone else.

It also wouldn't hurt if you spoilered the text, just to save anyone that was not interested from having to skip over 2/3 of the page.


Easier said than done.

1166 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M
Offline
Posted 9/30/09
I have been messing around with the quote tags and got one of your blocks of text clearly separated from mine. But I have been unable to figure out how that block of text is treated differently from your other blocks of text and I can't get them to clearly sperate. And I have never done a spoiler thing and don't know how to do it.
The Wise Wizard
Member
76481 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / U.S.A.
Online
Posted 9/30/09

infinitycubed wrote:

I have been messing around with the quote tags and got one of your blocks of text clearly separated from mine. But I have been unable to figure out how that block of text is treated differently from your other blocks of text and I can't get them to clearly sperate. And I have never done a spoiler thing and don't know how to do it.


For multple quotes, it is easier to type the tags in, rather than using the button. For the examples, I will have to use parenthesis instead of the square brackets that should be used, so that the tags are not interpreted.

Just put (quote) at the beginning of the block of text, and (/quote) at the end. Likewise, (spoiler) begins spoiled text, and (/spoiler) ends it.

I have found that it causes problem for quotes to cross spoilers. The simple solution is to keep all open and close quote tags within any open and close spoiler tags.

For example, if you changed the parenthesis to square brackets " [ " & " ] " in the following example:

(spoiler)
(quote)
The other guy said yadah, yadah, yadah
(/quote)
To which I replied blah, blah, blah.
(/spoiler)

...the result would be:



The "Preview Post" button is your best friend for this type of work.

It is a lot easier to do it as you go, rather than going back to correct it later, but it isn't difficult.




Back more on topic, I expect we continue our debate until the end of time without any agreement. The reason is that we proceed from a difference in fundamental belief.

You confirmed you think nothing in life is worse than being killed. Further, if I interpreted your most recent message on the topic correctly, you extend this even to death by disease and even old age.

As you might suspect, I believe believe being killed or dying is not the worst thing that can happen to an individual.

I will have to admit to having something of a bias, as I myself seem to have an unnatural lack of fear of death. Of course, I fear pain as much as most people, and few methods of death are painless, so if given the choice to be killed slowly or quickly, I would chose the latter.

A normal person fears death to some degree, and this is healthy, as it acts as part of a self-preservation mechanism. I expect whatever causes this is also linked to the desire to reproduce, as I also had no significant drive or urge to have children.

That said, I think that if I possessed a normal fear of death, I would still believe there are worse things that can happen to one than being killed or dying.

I am curious, if you were to rank your own fear of dying on a scale of "0" (meh, don't really care, as long as it doesn't hurt), to "100" (I'd sell all my relatives and friends into torture and slavery if I could be immortal), where would you place yourself?


1166 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M
Offline
Posted 10/1/09 , edited 10/1/09

TheAncientOne wrote:


infinitycubed wrote:

I have been messing around with the quote tags and got one of your blocks of text clearly separated from mine. But I have been unable to figure out how that block of text is treated differently from your other blocks of text and I can't get them to clearly sperate. And I have never done a spoiler thing and don't know how to do it.


For multple quotes, it is easier to type the tags in, rather than using the button. For the examples, I will have to use parenthesis instead of the square brackets that should be used, so that the tags are not interpreted.

Just put (quote) at the beginning of the block of text, and (/quote) at the end. Likewise, (spoiler) begins spoiled text, and (/spoiler) ends it.

I have found that it causes problem for quotes to cross spoilers. The simple solution is to keep all open and close quote tags within any open and close spoiler tags.

For example, if you changed the parenthesis to square brackets " [ " & " ] " in the following example:

(spoiler)
(quote)
The other guy said yadah, yadah, yadah
(/quote)
To which I replied blah, blah, blah.
(/spoiler)

...the result would be:



The "Preview Post" button is your best friend for this type of work.

It is a lot easier to do it as you go, rather than going back to correct it later, but it isn't difficult.




Back more on topic, I expect we continue our debate until the end of time without any agreement. The reason is that we proceed from a difference in fundamental belief.

You confirmed you think nothing in life is worse than being killed. Further, if I interpreted your most recent message on the topic correctly, you extend this even to death by disease and even old age.

As you might suspect, I believe believe being killed or dying is not the worst thing that can happen to an individual.

I will have to admit to having something of a bias, as I myself seem to have an unnatural lack of fear of death. Of course, I fear pain as much as most people, and few methods of death are painless, so if given the choice to be killed slowly or quickly, I would chose the latter.

A normal person fears death to some degree, and this is healthy, as it acts as part of a self-preservation mechanism. I expect whatever causes this is also linked to the desire to reproduce, as I also had no significant drive or urge to have children.

That said, I think that if I possessed a normal fear of death, I would still believe there are worse things that can happen to one than being killed or dying.

I am curious, if you were to rank your own fear of dying on a scale of "0" (meh, don't really care, as long as it doesn't hurt), to "100" (I'd sell all my relatives and friends into torture and slavery if I could be immortal), where would you place yourself?




Thank you. I hope that my reply is a little more neat looking now, and you can remember who wrote what better.

Yes it looks like we'll never agree on many things. However, you should go back to one of my previous posts on this page because I have extended it beyond getting sidetracked into the discussion of whether imperialism or nationalism, conquest or rebellion, was better and got back to the issue of how good or how evil the characters were. Based on how good or evil their actions in pursuit of their goals are not how good or evil we might consider their goals to be.

Speaking theoretically, I think that any rational person would have to be about 1000 in your fear of dying scale,although sometimes I fear that I am not nearly as high on the scale as I should be.

The Wise Wizard
Member
76481 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / U.S.A.
Online
Posted 10/8/09 , edited 10/8/09

infinitycubed wrote:
Speaking theoretically, I think that any rational person would have to be about 1000 in your fear of dying scale,although sometimes I fear that I am not nearly as high on the scale as I should be.


Whoa.

So with 100 being, "I'd sell all my relatives and friends into torture and slavery if I could be immortal", you think a rational person would be 10x that!?

Even if one takes the atheistic view of death (total cessation of existence), I cannot even conceive of that level of fear of death. Of course, if I felt that outcome was an absolute certainty, my fear of death would actually be even lower.

After all, if I didn't exist, I certainly wouldn't miss being alive. :)

The only thing I can conceive of engendering such fear of death in a rational person would be if they knew with absolute certainty that when they died they would be consigned to eternal torment even worse than hell for eternity.
1166 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
64 / M
Offline
Posted 10/9/09 , edited 10/9/09

TheAncientOne wrote:


infinitycubed wrote:
Speaking theoretically, I think that any rational person would have to be about 1000 in your fear of dying scale,although sometimes I fear that I am not nearly as high on the scale as I should be.


Whoa.

So with 100 being, "I'd sell all my relatives and friends into torture and slavery if I could be immortal", you think a rational person would be 10x that!?

Even if one takes the atheistic view of death (total cessation of existence), I cannot even conceive of that level of fear of death. Of course, if I felt that outcome was an absolute certainty, my fear of death would actually be even lower.

After all, if I didn't exist, I certainly wouldn't miss being alive. :)

The only thing I can conceive of engendering such fear of death in a rational person would be if they knew with absolute certainty that when they died they would be consigned to eternal torment even worse than hell for eternity.


So if you didn't exist you wouldn't miss being alive. That is the trouble with your imagination. You think that it is better to be in a situation where you have no frustrated desires, even if it means having no satisfied desires either and no desires, sensations, thoughts, and feelings at all, than to be in a situation where you exist and think and feel but your thoughts and feelings are unhappy ones, such as being tortured in hell forever.

I believe that even if you are suffering intense pain you will still be experiencing more pleasure than a dead person would (unless there is an afterlife). I say that being tortured is more fun than that not being at all, that there is more pleasure in agonizing pain than in non existence.

People tend to imagine that intense pain and intense pleasure are at opposite ends of a scale and that death is kind of a neutral feeling in the middle between pain and pleasure -- and thus sort of like an more or less average state of mind.

But I suggest that a better mental picture .would be to think of intense pain and intense pleasure as being points on the rim of a circle, with a neutral feeling halfway between them. Imagine that the circle is infinitely large, and non existence is in the center point and is infinitely evil. The farther away from the central point of non existence, the better. All known human experiences are on the circle infinitely far away from the central point of death and oblivion and thus are infinitely superior to it, even though some are more pleasurable or painful than others.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.