Discussion Forums > Anime Discussions
Ore no Imouto ga Konna ni Kawaii Wake ga Nai Dai 2-ki
Lord of Fire:
Kirino's behavior suddenly makes a whole lot more sense to me now.
Also, I can't stand Manami. I never really liked her, but this episode made her look even worse.
Sejiro:
cant wait
Garret02:
Thank you Lord of Fire, your post caused my page to reaload and I lost the whole response (I was like 5 sentences from clicking on "Post" button... I hope you're happy (you don't have to respond, I know you are). Now before I attempt to write my wall of text again, I need a shower...
(click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 04, 2013, 01:52:38 AM ---If you are inclined toward either extreme of "all things being determined" or "nothing being determined", no one can ever be at fault—it is either impossible to intentionally avoid an event or impossible to intentionally force an event to occur. If you are somewhere in the middle, I fail to see how it can be possible that, for all possible events e, it is not the case that no one is at fault. Supposing every event could have a cause attributed solely to the actions of a singular individual or group of individuals, wouldn't all things be determined, thus leading to a contradiction that some things are not determined?
I imagine your statement was at least a little bit hyperbole. So I won't provide specific, more realistic examples for which I would consider no one to be at fault.
--- End quote ---
I don't want to even try to understand what you just wrote, so I'll elaborate on my statement to inform you where I stand in terms of "fault". Fault can be found when individual takes conscious action (group actions can be break into individual actions as ultimately each member of the group makes decision himself) and result is not favourable. Example: man walks the street, he trips and falls. It's his fault that he's fallen. He took conscious action of walking the street while not looking under his feet and he fell. Now take the same man, same street and then lightning strucks him. Provided he did not have something that would attract this lightning it's noones fault. Shit just happened. Now situations where "shit just happens" are rather rare hence my exaggerated "ALWAYS".
Now apply that logic to oreimo. Kyouske grew up. That just happened, he didn't do it consciously. Kirino decided to show him middle finger. The relationship practically broke. Whose fault is this?
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 04, 2013, 01:52:38 AM ---I don't think blame casting in such a situation has any practical value in improving the relationship.
--- End quote ---
I am not here to "improve" relationship. There is nothing to improve. It happened. We are presented with a result. I judge people involved based on their actions that gave this result.
(click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 04, 2013, 01:52:38 AM ---From my perspective, I can see why she'd be hostile toward or skeptical of her brother, considering her general attitude toward and reaction to his change, and the fact that he's basically been a stranger in her life for the past several years.
--- End quote ---
But the problem is she is the cause he's a stranger. She provoked this situation and now she is pissed about it. It's like spilling milk over the floor, leaving it for a day and then being pissed at someone else that he didn't clean it up.
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 04, 2013, 01:52:38 AM ---As for the hitting, that I just attribute to it being anime. If I took issue with the "anime-typical" abusive behavior, there would be a lot of shows I simply couldn't watch—and in some cases I do take issue depending on how it's portrayed. With that in mind, the only thing I really consider is the verbal abuse, which to me is in line with the hostility/defensiveness/skepticism angle.
Plus, if we do consider physical abuse, Ayase takes the cake, IMO. "Isn't there something we always do when we part?" ... -shiver- And c'mon, handcuffs and fire? The first "S" is supposed to be "SAFE". ^^;
--- End quote ---
That's not really fair for anime, no for any medium. You should judge each scene for thing it's trying to provide. Ayase scenes are pure comedy. But scenes depicting Kyouske and Kirino relationship generaly try to imitate real world therefore they should be judged based on realism. So scenes where Kirino hits Kyouske shouldn't be considered "anime-typical".
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 04, 2013, 01:52:38 AM ---But again: teenager — perhaps best colloquially defined as "an individual with a license/licence to treat everyone like crap and get away with it".
--- End quote ---
Just when did the teenagers get this licence? It isn't good, is it? Noone should be able to get away with something just because he/she is at a certain age. Once again, just because it's commonly accepted it doesn't make it ok.
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 04, 2013, 01:52:38 AM ---I know he "answered" her, but it left a lot to be desired. It's a huge philosophy change, and his answer really only stated that his philosophy changed, seemingly in the face of everything he was passionate about before. Using a rather ridiculous example, it's a bit like claiming strawberry parfait is your favorite and suddenly turning down a free parfait and saying "I can't stand sweets". It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you basically lived for the stuff. A more sensitive S/O might be all "so... so you can't stand my bread!" ... or something, if strawberry parfaits were the same as crunchy rainbow starfish bread that tas—she's right behind me, isn't she?
--- End quote ---
Then she should've asked better question or follow up on this one. This is another thing that pisses me off about todays world. People are asking you a yes or no questions and are expecting you to elaborate without giving any effort into actually making aproppriate question. It's especially visible in sportsmen interviews. "Do you think your performance affected team's morale?" - it's a simple yes/no question yet journalists expect an essay. If I ever get successful enough to warrant an interview, I'm going to be a dick and answer all yes/no question with a simple yes/no answer.
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 04, 2013, 01:52:38 AM ---It may be unwarranted to expect that, but she's also still just a kid. Also, while "mind-reading" to that extent is still more generally not a realistic expectation, there is (at least if my observations are correct) a general, and to some extent justified, expectation that members of society are versed enough in human interaction to recognize certain behaviors as being indicative of an underlying problem, even if the problem itself isn't immediately identifiable.
(...)
I -do- think it's ridiculous that he could be -that- dense, especially considering her comments when she called him on it, and that annoyed me, yes. But it's not like one can really fault someone for their general or social intelligence, et cetera—barring willful ignorance, that is. But "willful ignorance" is hard to prove, and it's not always really an "intelligence" thing so much as an "I'm smart enough to know better, but I just don't care" thing.
--- End quote ---
You know, it's not the first time you stress that Kirino is "still a kid" but completely neglect the fact that Kyouske is only three years older than her. And apparently boys mature much later (and it's been scientifically proved that men just don't care). Yet you seem to expect from him analysis and aproppriate response of Kirino's behaviour as if he'd degree in psychology.
And why do I expect Kirino to act mature? Because I think that everyone beyond age of 12 have enough wisdom and intelligence to be fully responsible for their actions. And this belief is not negotiable :P Kirino in S1 is well past age of 12 (and even safety +/-2 years) so if her relationship with her brother was important to her, she should've thought it over many times and at the very least realize that treating someone like shit for helping you is generally not the best idea.
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 04, 2013, 01:52:38 AM ---Based on his general demeanor and interactions with his sister before he started distancing himself
--- End quote ---
Again, "he started distancing himself". He? No no no, it was Kirino that showed him middle finger. It was Kirino that distanced herself. Take this situation for example. You are doing something every day and your sister is accompanying you every day. You don't do anything to keep her to accompany you, she just tags along by herself. Now suddenly, she stops that, you keep doing what you've been doing. Who distanced himself? Kyouske didn't do anything, he basically kept satus quo. That is not an action. Unless you'd argue that not taking an action is an action in itself, which although technicaly correct, is not my belief here (and this is also non negotiable). It's like saying that not believing in god is an action of believing that he doesn't exists. You can't perform an action of believing something doesn't exists if the only reason that action is considered is because of believers. Meaning if noone ever claimed some god existed, statement "I don't believe in god" wouldn't exist and so you not believing in god would not be considered an action.
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 04, 2013, 01:52:38 AM ---Also, I'm not blaming Kyousuke, at least not intentionally if it appears so.
--- End quote ---
It does appear so. Saying things like "if he did that then it would be different" is basically blaming him for it. Ofcourse it could be different. You know, if Kirino wasn't such a bitch there wouldn't be a problem. If thier parents worn rubber there wouldn't be this problem. So stressing that if specific person didn't do specific thing is like blaming that person for the result.
(click to show/hide) (click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 04, 2013, 01:52:38 AM ---And that particular reading is a rather unfortunate misinterpretation.
--- Quote from: Garret02 on July 03, 2013, 07:59:23 PM ---
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 02, 2013, 09:36:31 PM ---Sometimes, that means taking a bit of a beating to get the other party to understand that "you mean no harm", until they're willing to listen to what you actually have to say.
--- End quote ---
You know, to me that sounds a little bit like a soft version of "You will come to love me!" which is little rapey to say the least :P
--- End quote ---
... Methinks perhaps it's not clear who is who in such a hypothetical scenario? The person trying to establish that they are not harmful is the one taking the proverbial beating, in order to satisfy the person doing the beating enough to convince them of such.
Your interpretation (as I understand it) would be as if the person trying to establish that they are harmless were continuing to prod the "convincee" lightly while saying "see, I'm not hitting you very hard, you can trust me! Now take off your clothes. /rapeface/"
In my version, at least as it was intended, the goal is to get the "convincee" to accept that your intentions are not harmful by allowing them to put you through some series of tests, so to speak. Presumably, if you wanted to do them harm you wouldn't bother trying to gain their trust—unless of course you wanted to do them more serious harm which first required their trust. By accepting their hostility and refusing to react to it, a response that seems at least unlikely from a hostile party with intent to harm, you hopefully succeed in convincing the other party that you aren't looking for a fight.
I'm not really sure how that bears any resemblance to what you described?
I was under the impression that such an approach was fairly common in attempting to gain people's trust, in normal society as opposed to just in criminal endeavors.
Anyway, not sure if that was just a joke or a serious remark, but I figured it'd be best to clarify that sort of thing.
--- End quote ---
It was half joke and half true. Because I'm doing two big assumption. I'm assuming that while somewhat dysfunctional, women brains generaly work. And so they can tell what they do/don't want. I'm also assuming that if the person trying to estabilish he is harmless had to go through "taking a bit of a beating" and still got negative response, is still trying. If he is still tring it means he will not give up that easily, even more so now after he put so much effort in this. And now he is in situation when he still can't score and his patience is running out. In this case he will either give up or become my rapey example. And since I'm pessi... ekhem realist, this is my first choice expectation of someone willing to take much denial on his road to score.
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 04, 2013, 01:52:38 AM ---Anyway, I personally have no particular issue going on about this indefinitely other than time consumption vs. enjoyment, but I suspect it probably puts a bit of a damper on any other conversation. At this point it's fairly clear that we disagree, and I think we've also made our positions clear enough to establish that we are unlikely to come to a mutual understanding, as well as clear enough for most observers to either mostly agree or mostly disagree with either side.
--- End quote ---
Boards are for getting into arguments. Not coming to mutual understanding :P
ph4zr:
^ (Garret02) / ^^^ (LoF)
This would be an example of a freak accident. There was most likely no reasonable expectation that LoF would have known you (Garret02) were posting. In such a scenario, I would not assign any blame. According to your own words, I would also assume you would not assign blame. /Realize most likely joking, but just an illustration.
(click to show/hide)I can't believe I'm seriously bored enough to respond again. Luckily for you if you wanted a response, the material I was supposed to be working on hadn't come in yet. 感謝しなさい！/Be grateful! /Last part is jest and tsundere parody.
Not even going to bother quoting specific passages at this point. Quick, dirty. If you get what I'm saying, you get it. If you don't: -shrug-
-- teenagers --
Get a license/licence because they're still developing, and said developments include all the hormonal stuff and the still ongoing development of the brain. As such, they don't think like "adults" do. Also, I'm not excluding Kyousuke from this category. It's simply not the case that I really feel like any of his actions or lack of action are "faulted" by anyone, thus it doesn't seem like there's any real expectation of explaining his behavior to excuse fault. But, if I felt I needed another one, that would be another reason to also not fault Kyousuke.
I feel like there should be plenty of neuroscientific evidence to support this, but at the moment I don't believe I still have access to my Uni's subscription to research, and I'm just too damned lazy to look it up on Wikipedia or what have you. Just another one of the many arguments against trying teenagers as adults in the majority of cases.
-- "improving relationships" --
I thought I clarified this previously, but that was a general observation, regarding the actions of participants or otherwise involved parties. Even supposing this were a real scenario, you would not fall under the category of "participants or otherwise involved parties". If I still need to clarify that further: The opinions of individuals who are in no position to influence the outcome of events, as relevant to the relationship, are themselves not considered relevant to this observation. If there is no point in blame casting within the relationship, what value does blame casting from outside the relationship add?
Supposing Jaeger and Wong were having a disagreement regarding whether they should take jam sandwiches or ham sandwiches to their picnic. Smith isn't invited to the picnic. Jaeger and Wong decide they'll take jam ham sandwiches. Smith comments that this is disgusting. Jaeger and Wong are the one's eating the sandwich, and they've agreed on the choice of jam ham sandwiches. Takeshi just doesn't give a fuck. Now: What's really the point of Smith's observation that the combination doesn't suit their palate? Neither Smith's disgust nor Takeshi's indifference make any difference to the involved parties—they've already reached a resolution, and I doubt it had any significant impact on Smith or Takeshi's lives, either.
You're still entitled to cast blame, and I'm not attempting to indicate otherwise. I don't think participants in similar situations would have benefited from it, and I personally don't feel any need to assign blame in this scenario.
Meanwhile, Reimu's donation box is still empty.
-- Kyousuke + blame --
Not really. Suppose you were playing a game of whatever and left it running in the background. It's an easy game, so you tell your kid brother/sister/Hideyoshi to watch it for you while you go do something else. Suddenly there's a fire in an empty room on your ship, but your kid sibling doesn't vent the oxygen out to space. You come back. You can (a) blame them for something they wouldn't even know how to do and thus couldn't really "choose" to do or (b) not, realizing that it's not really their fault.
Before you bring up the point that you might blame the person leaving them in charge despite knowing that they knew nothing about the game, let me point out that there is no such "precursor" individual for Kirino and Kyousuke. Unless you want to go back and blame their parents for how they brought them up, and then their parents, et cetera, et cetera, and while we're at it, don't forget society and genetics, either. You are still free to bring it up, but that observation does not seem relevant to the issue I was trying to illustrate.
Personally, I don't think Kyousuke even had the capacity to consciously choose to do what he would have needed to do to avoid the situation. Since "conscious choice" is your requirement for fault, even by your standards I wouldn't say I was faulting Kyousuke.
-- strangers --
It doesn't matter whose actions initiated the transformation. What is relevant is that they essentially existed as strangers for that time. Does it really matter if A cuts off ties with B or B cuts off ties with A? The relationship is still severed either way.
--distance--
Yes and no. Kyousuke stopped dragging her around with him with the whole "I'm grown up now and can't hang out with you all the time" bit. Later Kirino stopped trying to hang around him for her whole "I'll become awesome and show him!" bit.
My observation regarding the distancing bit was to provide a reference point. It didn't matter to me which specific event I chose so long as the reference resolves to a point in time where they got along much better. If you prefer, I can rephrase it as "prior to the point at which Kyousuke and Kirino became distanced" in the passive voice and side-step the blame issue. The relevant issue was that they got along in the past, and based on that I think Kyousuke would have taken active and conscious steps to repair the relationship if he had realized what was going on.
If that view needs explaining, it's simply because it seems to me that even when relationships fall apart it's rare that there is no residual feeling.
--actions--
I realize I started it, but are we really going to keep getting all philosophical with definitions? Just to point it out, even if "not taking an action" is an action of sorts, "not believing in {x}" is not the same as "believing in not{x}". One is a failure to assert a belief in {x}. The other is an assertion that not{x}. It is possible to fail to assert {x} but to still accept the possibility that {x}, the latter of which is precluded by an explicit assertion of not{x}.
Also, I can still claim I don't believe, or fail to believe, in the invisible yet paradoxically opaque and possibly purple griffin (no caps — they're a humble deity), regardless of whether or not someone has asserted a belief in such an entity. Granted, that's not what you said. Unless we take the equivalence relation you provided for the "inaction is a type of action" branch, where {not asserting x} = {asserting not x}, in which case it is what you said, by my previous failure to assert belief in a deity for which no one has yet asserted existence—regardless of whether it was an action previously, the equivalence would make it an action. Further, if someone fails to assert that they don't not believe in their humble and possibly purple invisible opaqueness, do they therefore implicitly assert that not{not{x}}, ergo, by your equivalence, belief in said deity?
バカバカしい/Ridiculous. I've never explicitly rejected Russell's teapot, but that doesn't mean I implicitly assume there's a teapot floating somewhere out there. Similarly, I've never explicitly accepted Russell's teapot, but that doesn't mean I implicitly reject the possibility that there is a teapot. Whether I actually reject the teapot or not is irrelevant to my example.
I'm not even going to bother checking that for consistency. I'm not claiming all failures to act are actions, and you are asserting that you do not view inaction as an action. Our exact reasons and conclusions on the matter are different, but not substantially so that it's worth going further into why your proposed equivalence doesn't work very well, and is quite probably a straw man. If we accept your proposed equivalence for the alternative to your own stance, all statements not explicitly asserted would be both simultaneously true and false. This isn't necessarily impossible or even implausible, if you don't restrict yourself to more traditional models, but for these purposes any model which would accept such an equivalence as an axiom is irrelevant.
If you really want to further consider the action/inaction branch, I'll point out this: I don't consider all failures to act as actions. I do consider choosing not to take a course of action to be an action. Since I do not believe Kyousuke had the ability to choose the course of action required, I cannot fault him for that even if I wanted to do so.
And, -sigh-, I didn't expect to have to, but it looks like I really do need to provide my entire "fault" spiel that I wrote the other day. The most relevant bits are in bold.
(click to show/hide)Mind, I haven't provided formal definitions for anything, so it's entirely possible, even probable, that I've left an important gap somewhere.
(You can probably safely ignore the following 'amateur logic spiel' unless you care about how I'm assuming "fault" is defined in this case.)
Perhaps most importantly, I made the implicit assumption that "fault" implies "sole attribution" or a "predictive and required relationship" (in which "A is at fault for B" requires both "A=>B", if A then surely B (predictive), and "~A => ~B", if not A then surely not B (required) ... otherwise known as "A<=>B" -facepalms-). Rephrased in English, "fault", as implicitly defined, means that "if A happens, B must occur; and if B occurs, A must have happened". If you choose to go with "B could not have happened without A" (i.e., just "B=>A"), then you could make rather absurd accusations such as "Smith would not have been shot by Wesson if Smith had not been born, therefore Smith's birth is at fault for Smith being shot by Wesson." One might be able to make an argument for changing it to "A is partially at fault for B" if "B=>A", but... well. I don't know. It just seems awfully convoluted at that point.
It seems to me you'd have to resort to probabilities and assumptions about the relative frequency of unknown cause-and-effect relationships in order to assign a "fault index". E.g., "How 'at fault' is the universe's existence for the death of J. Doe? Well, 'the universe's existence' is a property that is required for all events occurring in the universe, and therefore minimally at fault, as it serves no meaningful predictive value of any particular event, beyond the existence of events in general."
If you accept "all things being determined" or "nothing being determined", you either have it that all events are equally at fault for all other events, as they are just constants, not variables, or that all events are random, and thus no such cause-and-effect relationships can be established, due to the results being independent of the variables. At least, I think that's how it would work.
I also didn't bother to major in philosophy, so I'm basing that just on assumptions made from basic definitions of sets and set membership.
Why is that relevant? Simple: While I didn't want to expect it, it was within the realm of possibility and expectation that you might go down the line of reasoning that "(if not{x} then not{y}) is equivalent to the assertion that (if {x} then {y})"—in this case, your assertion that my assertion may as well be equivalent to faulting someone for something that didn't take place, which could have prevented the situation. The assertion of equivalence is, by the way, again not valid. If you take a look at the tables for "~x => ~y" and "x => y", this should be immediately apparent. Simply because not taking a certain action would prevent an event, does not mean that taking that action will cause an event. Whether you reverse the roles of action and inaction makes absolutely no difference—if you want to be picky, my actual statement would be stressing that he didn't take an action that could have prevented the outcome, not that his failure to act caused the outcome.
And, again, this particular inaction is, from my perspective, a necessary/unavoidable inaction. In eroge terms, the action required at the time wasn't in the list of options. In "people" terms, the necessary course of action was not apparent to him—you can attribute that to personality, reality tunnel, or whatever you please.
There are any number of actions or "un-actions" that could have prevented the situation. That doesn't mean that their inverse can also be said to have caused the situation. Supposing a super volcano had erupted in the early 1900s, preventing both WW I and WW II, is it the super volcano's fault for not erupting and preventing the deaths of so many soldiers and civilians? If I have to provide the answer to that rhetorical question, I'm afraid I'd have to re-post your Seinfeld gif.
There certainly are positions that could be taken in support of that view, but I think most would dismiss them as straw man arguments or invoke Poe's Law.
--anime--
Not really sure what to say to this. I'm not saying your observation doesn't have merit, just that I didn't really consider such scenes at the time. If I considered them realistically, perhaps I would change my view somewhat, but most likely only with respect to the fact that I don't consider interpersonal violence acceptable in the majority of situations. It wouldn't change my view that I don't think anyone is at fault for the general situation.
-- questions --
It's a bit of a social expectation in certain cases that clarification will follow. Sometimes the expectation is on the part of the person asking ("what, and why?"), other times it's on the part of the respondent ("{immediate answer}, but you probably won't get it, so also {reason}"). The more literal minded might expect a presentation of "Do you {x}? And why?", assuming they don't just answer "Yes/No. Because {some hyper-literal explanation involving biology/philosophy/quantum mechanics/what-have-you}."
I can be hyper-literal, so far as my knowledge allows, but usually if I am it's because I'm too lazy to kick in my "human-speak" faculties or because I feel like making someone's life difficult or otherwise dodging, or occasionally I just feel like toying with them/having fun.
Social expectations like these generally seem to exist to "smooth over" interactions and, in some cases, improve efficiency. (At least, IMO.) Similarly to how you admit the expectation that people treat each other with some modicum of respect, even if they don't genuinely want to do so, many just assume and accept such expectations and behaviors as implicit in the transaction.
--rapey--
Right. Misogyny. It really is pointless debating this, then. /Oh, wait, that's an ad hominem argument. Myself, I'm an equal opportunity individual: I am what would generally be considered a "misanthropist". According to the two-party gender system, that makes me equal parts misandrist and misogynist.
Even putting that aside, I can see that you really don't seem capable of understanding the point to the original quoted statement. That isn't meant as an insult. It's not really your fault if your perspective and filters prevent you from recognizing the more general applicability of such an approach to confrontations with hostile entities. It is entirely possible that you've had the incredibly good fortune to never find yourself in a situation where you had to earn someone's trust or acceptance the hard way. Or, if you have, it is quite possible that you've never had to earn their trust using that particular method.
And, why—and this is especially ironic coming from me, one of the more hopeless of the perverts on the board—is it that everything always seems to devolve into being about sex?
(click to show/hide)I honestly am unsure whether your intent is to convince me that your view is correct, to influence me to drop the exchange, presumably implicitly declaring you "the winner" or indicating that I've abandoned my position as indefensible, or simply to make me look like a fool.
In any case, I had already indicated that we are unlikely to compromise our individual stances, I had already given you the option of interpreting my withdrawal as your own victory, and while my own walls mark me as unmistakeably verbose and not particularly adept at communication, your own statements indicate life philosophies and views that modern, non-misogynist individuals would most likely dismiss as being... well, not exactly worthy of admiration. I gave outs at several points* by indicating that I didn't expect a reconciliation of our views, after any of which you could have easily chosen to declare your own victory in a similar way to your response to Vuzedome. To a non-trivial portion and perhaps the majority of posters, my withdrawal and your acceptance of it would have been taken as your victory.
*Okay, so strictly speaking, only two, though I do think the one in the middle could have been worked into an easy out.
If I had to choose between looking like a bumbling idiot who can't string a sentence together (me) or an eloquent lad who looks down on women and, jokingly or not, endorses violence as a resolution to relationship issues (you), well... It would be another thing entirely if you were a troll, but your post history, at least your recent post history, does not seem to imply that you go looking for fights for the sake of stirring up trouble. I could very well be wrong, and you could just be a deep-cover troll, in which case "bravo", but meh.
(click to show/hide)Not specifically a rebuttal to Garret02's comment, but if we're going there I may as well clarify my own position.
In my view forums are meant to aid communication. They provide an environment in which individuals can cluster in order to discuss topics of common interest. Whether that "common interest" involves heated discourse in which multiple parties vie to defend their position and gain support, or just denounce the positions of others, is really dependent on the forum, its members, and the topics. Sometimes maybe it's just to cluster and figure out what other people think about a topic that interests you, without actually caring if you agree or not. To me it's mostly about facilitating communication and expansion of horizons. But, like all tools, it can be... /ahem. Anyway.
Yeah, forums can be used for arguing. It's just one of their many uses as a tool for communication.
And /sub-thread. This is me reaching a peak of a debate and dropping it all with a heavens shattering *clang*
I am hereby explicitly stating in no uncertain terms that you can consider yourself as having won, and not merely implying it as I may have made the mistake of doing previously. This is the point where you brush me off with "Ha! Running away? Well whatevs." and we both move on to new threads or at least new topics of conversation within this thread.
This is also where we start talking about how moe-yandere Ayase is and how everyone seems to hate Jimiko/Ms. Plain/Manami. And, seriously, I don't remember Kirino standing outside the door during the "protect the imoutos!" scene from the LN, but I think it was a nice touch for the flashbacks in the anime.
I do agree that the episode makes Manami look pretty bad, though. She had fairly good reasons, but the episode didn't really go into them. Who knows if the first of the OVAs will look at it or just skip straight into the last stretch.
With that, if you'll excuse me, I believe I was being shown to a place in the city where wishes come true.
CappinHoff:
--- Quote from: ph4zr on July 05, 2013, 12:47:59 AM ---^ (Garret02) / ^^^ (LoF)
This would be an example of a freak accident. There was most likely no reasonable expectation that LoF would have known you (Garret02) were posting. In such a scenario, I would not assign any blame. According to your own words, I would also assume you would not assign blame. /Realize most likely joking, but just an illustration.
(click to show/hide)I can't believe I'm seriously bored enough to respond again. Luckily for you if you wanted a response, the material I was supposed to be working on hadn't come in yet. 感謝しなさい！/Be grateful! /Last part is jest and tsundere parody.
Not even going to bother quoting specific passages at this point. Quick, dirty. If you get what I'm saying, you get it. If you don't: -shrug-
-- teenagers --
Get a license/licence because they're still developing, and said developments include all the hormonal stuff and the still ongoing development of the brain. As such, they don't think like "adults" do. Also, I'm not excluding Kyousuke from this category. It's simply not the case that I really feel like any of his actions or lack of action are "faulted" by anyone, thus it doesn't seem like there's any real expectation of explaining his behavior to excuse fault. But, if I felt I needed another one, that would be another reason to also not fault Kyousuke.
I feel like there should be plenty of neuroscientific evidence to support this, but at the moment I don't believe I still have access to my Uni's subscription to research, and I'm just too damned lazy to look it up on Wikipedia or what have you. Just another one of the many arguments against trying teenagers as adults in the majority of cases.
-- "improving relationships" --
I thought I clarified this previously, but that was a general observation, regarding the actions of participants or otherwise involved parties. Even supposing this were a real scenario, you would not fall under the category of "participants or otherwise involved parties". If I still need to clarify that further: The opinions of individuals who are in no position to influence the outcome of events, as relevant to the relationship, are themselves not considered relevant to this observation. If there is no point in blame casting within the relationship, what value does blame casting from outside the relationship add?
Supposing Jaeger and Wong were having a disagreement regarding whether they should take jam sandwiches or ham sandwiches to their picnic. Smith isn't invited to the picnic. Jaeger and Wong decide they'll take jam ham sandwiches. Smith comments that this is disgusting. Jaeger and Wong are the one's eating the sandwich, and they've agreed on the choice of jam ham sandwiches. Takeshi just doesn't give a fuck. Now: What's really the point of Smith's observation that the combination doesn't suit their palate? Neither Smith's disgust nor Takeshi's indifference make any difference to the involved parties—they've already reached a resolution, and I doubt it had any significant impact on Smith or Takeshi's lives, either.
You're still entitled to cast blame, and I'm not attempting to indicate otherwise. I don't think participants in similar situations would have benefited from it, and I personally don't feel any need to assign blame in this scenario.
Meanwhile, Reimu's donation box is still empty.
-- Kyousuke + blame --
Not really. Suppose you were playing a game of whatever and left it running in the background. It's an easy game, so you tell your kid brother/sister/Hideyoshi to watch it for you while you go do something else. Suddenly there's a fire in an empty room on your ship, but your kid sibling doesn't vent the oxygen out to space. You come back. You can (a) blame them for something they wouldn't even know how to do and thus couldn't really "choose" to do or (b) not, realizing that it's not really their fault.
Before you bring up the point that you might blame the person leaving them in charge despite knowing that they knew nothing about the game, let me point out that there is no such "precursor" individual for Kirino and Kyousuke. Unless you want to go back and blame their parents for how they brought them up, and then their parents, et cetera, et cetera, and while we're at it, don't forget society and genetics, either. You are still free to bring it up, but that observation does not seem relevant to the issue I was trying to illustrate.
Personally, I don't think Kyousuke even had the capacity to consciously choose to do what he would have needed to do to avoid the situation. Since "conscious choice" is your requirement for fault, even by your standards I wouldn't say I was faulting Kyousuke.
-- strangers --
It doesn't matter whose actions initiated the transformation. What is relevant is that they essentially existed as strangers for that time. Does it really matter if A cuts off ties with B or B cuts off ties with A? The relationship is still severed either way.
--distance--
Yes and no. Kyousuke stopped dragging her around with him with the whole "I'm grown up now and can't hang out with you all the time" bit. Later Kirino stopped trying to hang around him for her whole "I'll become awesome and show him!" bit.
My observation regarding the distancing bit was to provide a reference point. It didn't matter to me which specific event I chose so long as the reference resolves to a point in time where they got along much better. If you prefer, I can rephrase it as "prior to the point at which Kyousuke and Kirino became distanced" in the passive voice and side-step the blame issue. The relevant issue was that they got along in the past, and based on that I think Kyousuke would have taken active and conscious steps to repair the relationship if he had realized what was going on.
If that view needs explaining, it's simply because it seems to me that even when relationships fall apart it's rare that there is no residual feeling.
--actions--
I realize I started it, but are we really going to keep getting all philosophical with definitions? Just to point it out, even if "not taking an action" is an action of sorts, "not believing in {x}" is not the same as "believing in not{x}". One is a failure to assert a belief in {x}. The other is an assertion that not{x}. It is possible to fail to assert {x} but to still accept the possibility that {x}, the latter of which is precluded by an explicit assertion of not{x}.
Also, I can still claim I don't believe, or fail to believe, in the invisible yet paradoxically opaque and possibly purple griffin (no caps — they're a humble deity), regardless of whether or not someone has asserted a belief in such an entity. Granted, that's not what you said. Unless we take the equivalence relation you provided for the "inaction is a type of action" branch, where {not asserting x} = {asserting not x}, in which case it is what you said, by my previous failure to assert belief in a deity for which no one has yet asserted existence—regardless of whether it was an action previously, the equivalence would make it an action. Further, if someone fails to assert that they don't not believe in their humble and possibly purple invisible opaqueness, do they therefore implicitly assert that not{not{x}}, ergo, by your equivalence, belief in said deity?
バカバカしい/Ridiculous. I've never explicitly rejected Russell's teapot, but that doesn't mean I implicitly assume there's a teapot floating somewhere out there. Similarly, I've never explicitly accepted Russell's teapot, but that doesn't mean I implicitly reject the possibility that there is a teapot. Whether I actually reject the teapot or not is irrelevant to my example.
I'm not even going to bother checking that for consistency. I'm not claiming all failures to act are actions, and you are asserting that you do not view inaction as an action. Our exact reasons and conclusions on the matter are different, but not substantially so that it's worth going further into why your proposed equivalence doesn't work very well, and is quite probably a straw man. If we accept your proposed equivalence for the alternative to your own stance, all statements not explicitly asserted would be both simultaneously true and false. This isn't necessarily impossible or even implausible, if you don't restrict yourself to more traditional models, but for these purposes any model which would accept such an equivalence as an axiom is irrelevant.
If you really want to further consider the action/inaction branch, I'll point out this: I don't consider all failures to act as actions. I do consider choosing not to take a course of action to be an action. Since I do not believe Kyousuke had the ability to choose the course of action required, I cannot fault him for that even if I wanted to do so.
And, -sigh-, I didn't expect to have to, but it looks like I really do need to provide my entire "fault" spiel that I wrote the other day. The most relevant bits are in bold.
(click to show/hide)Mind, I haven't provided formal definitions for anything, so it's entirely possible, even probable, that I've left an important gap somewhere.
(You can probably safely ignore the following 'amateur logic spiel' unless you care about how I'm assuming "fault" is defined in this case.)
Perhaps most importantly, I made the implicit assumption that "fault" implies "sole attribution" or a "predictive and required relationship" (in which "A is at fault for B" requires both "A=>B", if A then surely B (predictive), and "~A => ~B", if not A then surely not B (required) ... otherwise known as "A<=>B" -facepalms-). Rephrased in English, "fault", as implicitly defined, means that "if A happens, B must occur; and if B occurs, A must have happened". If you choose to go with "B could not have happened without A" (i.e., just "B=>A"), then you could make rather absurd accusations such as "Smith would not have been shot by Wesson if Smith had not been born, therefore Smith's birth is at fault for Smith being shot by Wesson." One might be able to make an argument for changing it to "A is partially at fault for B" if "B=>A", but... well. I don't know. It just seems awfully convoluted at that point.
It seems to me you'd have to resort to probabilities and assumptions about the relative frequency of unknown cause-and-effect relationships in order to assign a "fault index". E.g., "How 'at fault' is the universe's existence for the death of J. Doe? Well, 'the universe's existence' is a property that is required for all events occurring in the universe, and therefore minimally at fault, as it serves no meaningful predictive value of any particular event, beyond the existence of events in general."
If you accept "all things being determined" or "nothing being determined", you either have it that all events are equally at fault for all other events, as they are just constants, not variables, or that all events are random, and thus no such cause-and-effect relationships can be established, due to the results being independent of the variables. At least, I think that's how it would work.
I also didn't bother to major in philosophy, so I'm basing that just on assumptions made from basic definitions of sets and set membership.
Why is that relevant? Simple: While I didn't want to expect it, it was within the realm of possibility and expectation that you might go down the line of reasoning that "(if not{x} then not{y}) is equivalent to the assertion that (if {x} then {y})"—in this case, your assertion that my assertion may as well be equivalent to faulting someone for something that didn't take place, which could have prevented the situation. The assertion of equivalence is, by the way, again not valid. If you take a look at the tables for "~x => ~y" and "x => y", this should be immediately apparent. Simply because not taking a certain action would prevent an event, does not mean that taking that action will cause an event. Whether you reverse the roles of action and inaction makes absolutely no difference—if you want to be picky, my actual statement would be stressing that he didn't take an action that could have prevented the outcome, not that his failure to act caused the outcome.
And, again, this particular inaction is, from my perspective, a necessary/unavoidable inaction. In eroge terms, the action required at the time wasn't in the list of options. In "people" terms, the necessary course of action was not apparent to him—you can attribute that to personality, reality tunnel, or whatever you please.
There are any number of actions or "un-actions" that could have prevented the situation. That doesn't mean that their inverse can also be said to have caused the situation. Supposing a super volcano had erupted in the early 1900s, preventing both WW I and WW II, is it the super volcano's fault for not erupting and preventing the deaths of so many soldiers and civilians? If I have to provide the answer to that rhetorical question, I'm afraid I'd have to re-post your Seinfeld gif.
There certainly are positions that could be taken in support of that view, but I think most would dismiss them as straw man arguments or invoke Poe's Law.
--anime--
Not really sure what to say to this. I'm not saying your observation doesn't have merit, just that I didn't really consider such scenes at the time. If I considered them realistically, perhaps I would change my view somewhat, but most likely only with respect to the fact that I don't consider interpersonal violence acceptable in the majority of situations. It wouldn't change my view that I don't think anyone is at fault for the general situation.
-- questions --
It's a bit of a social expectation in certain cases that clarification will follow. Sometimes the expectation is on the part of the person asking ("what, and why?"), other times it's on the part of the respondent ("{immediate answer}, but you probably won't get it, so also {reason}"). The more literal minded might expect a presentation of "Do you {x}? And why?", assuming they don't just answer "Yes/No. Because {some hyper-literal explanation involving biology/philosophy/quantum mechanics/what-have-you}."
I can be hyper-literal, so far as my knowledge allows, but usually if I am it's because I'm too lazy to kick in my "human-speak" faculties or because I feel like making someone's life difficult or otherwise dodging, or occasionally I just feel like toying with them/having fun.
Social expectations like these generally seem to exist to "smooth over" interactions and, in some cases, improve efficiency. (At least, IMO.) Similarly to how you admit the expectation that people treat each other with some modicum of respect, even if they don't genuinely want to do so, many just assume and accept such expectations and behaviors as implicit in the transaction.
--rapey--
Right. Misogyny. It really is pointless debating this, then. /Oh, wait, that's an ad hominem argument. Myself, I'm an equal opportunity individual: I am what would generally be considered a "misanthropist". According to the two-party gender system, that makes me equal parts misandrist and misogynist.
Even putting that aside, I can see that you really don't seem capable of understanding the point to the original quoted statement. That isn't meant as an insult. It's not really your fault if your perspective and filters prevent you from recognizing the more general applicability of such an approach to confrontations with hostile entities. It is entirely possible that you've had the incredibly good fortune to never find yourself in a situation where you had to earn someone's trust or acceptance the hard way. Or, if you have, it is quite possible that you've never had to earn their trust using that particular method.
And, why—and this is especially ironic coming from me, one of the more hopeless of the perverts on the board—is it that everything always seems to devolve into being about sex?
(click to show/hide)I honestly am unsure whether your intent is to convince me that your view is correct, to influence me to drop the exchange, presumably implicitly declaring you "the winner" or indicating that I've abandoned my position as indefensible, or simply to make me look like a fool.
In any case, I had already indicated that we are unlikely to compromise our individual stances, I had already given you the option of interpreting my withdrawal as your own victory, and while my own walls mark me as unmistakeably verbose and not particularly adept at communication, your own statements indicate life philosophies and views that modern, non-misogynist individuals would most likely dismiss as being... well, not exactly worthy of admiration. I gave outs at several points* by indicating that I didn't expect a reconciliation of our views, after any of which you could have easily chosen to declare your own victory in a similar way to your response to Vuzedome. To a non-trivial portion and perhaps the majority of posters, my withdrawal and your acceptance of it would have been taken as your victory.
*Okay, so strictly speaking, only two, though I do think the one in the middle could have been worked into an easy out.
If I had to choose between looking like a bumbling idiot who can't string a sentence together (me) or an eloquent lad who looks down on women and, jokingly or not, endorses violence as a resolution to relationship issues (you), well... It would be another thing entirely if you were a troll, but your post history, at least your recent post history, does not seem to imply that you go looking for fights for the sake of stirring up trouble. I could very well be wrong, and you could just be a deep-cover troll, in which case "bravo", but meh.
(click to show/hide)Not specifically a rebuttal to Garret02's comment, but if we're going there I may as well clarify my own position.
In my view forums are meant to aid communication. They provide an environment in which individuals can cluster in order to discuss topics of common interest. Whether that "common interest" involves heated discourse in which multiple parties vie to defend their position and gain support, or just denounce the positions of others, is really dependent on the forum, its members, and the topics. Sometimes maybe it's just to cluster and figure out what other people think about a topic that interests you, without actually caring if you agree or not. To me it's mostly about facilitating communication and expansion of horizons. But, like all tools, it can be... /ahem. Anyway.
Yeah, forums can be used for arguing. It's just one of their many uses as a tool for communication.
And /sub-thread. This is me reaching a peak of a debate and dropping it all with a heavens shattering *clang*
I am hereby explicitly stating in no uncertain terms that you can consider yourself as having won, and not merely implying it as I may have made the mistake of doing previously. This is the point where you brush me off with "Ha! Running away? Well whatevs." and we both move on to new threads or at least new topics of conversation within this thread.
This is also where we start talking about how moe-yandere Ayase is and how everyone seems to hate Jimiko/Ms. Plain/Manami. And, seriously, I don't remember Kirino standing outside the door during the "protect the imoutos!" scene from the LN, but I think it was a nice touch for the flashbacks in the anime.
I do agree that the episode makes Manami look pretty bad, though. She had fairly good reasons, but the episode didn't really go into them. Who knows if the first of the OVAs will look at it or just skip straight into the last stretch.
With that, if you'll excuse me, I believe I was being shown to a place in the city where wishes come true.
--- End quote ---
Both of you actually lost. You were both arguing about something that is actually pretty common in younger preteen sister and older teen brother relationships. Before the preteen girl becomes a teen she's close to her bro. Then as she get's older and things change her attitude and outlook on things change. To the older bro comes confusion as we have no clue wtf just happened. With this comes misunderstandings, emotions and various other things. So basically what happened is normal. No need to spam a thread with walls of text that end in arguments not pertaining to the thread.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version