|AnimeGalleries [dot] Net||AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com||AnimeLyrics [dot] Com||AnimePedia [dot] Com||AnimeGlobe [dot] Com|
I believe what you are TRYING (but ultimately failing) to say is that, in the grand scheme of things, the death of a child is sadder than the death of an adult, which is pretty much true. HOWEVER, this does not mean that the life of the child was "worth" more than the life of the adult. A child's death is sadder because, while the adult was able to experience most of life, the child barely got to experience any. It has nothing to do with "worth". Again, assigning "worth" to life calls into question your own value of life, which I honestly think is less than you (want to) let on (I already have a pretty good idea); yes, I am basically calling you a hypocrite. And I honestly pity a mother whose child places more "worth" on a person they do not know than on the person who gave birth to them, although, like Rolo vi Britannia, I believe that you are lying to remain on the moral high ground...which is not working in this case (your "code of ethics" should tell you that BOTH deaths would be terrible...like a normal person).
Of course, the real problem here is that we are talking about this during a discussion about a cartoon. A cartoon is a cartoon is a cartoon. None of it is real. Treating it as if it were real, all the "deaths" and all the "evil", does not make you a better person. Comparing the death of Nina to the "sadness" of the death of an actual child does not mean that you are compassionate person with a high value of life; it means that you are a rather off person with an EXTREMELY skewed view on the values of life. Its easy to say that a person should live even though they facing mind-boggling amounts of never ending pain but when you actually FACED with that decision, I can assure you that the decision becomes a lot harder.
When it comes to Euphemia, the reason why I do not place a lot of "value" (if I must use that word) is because she is not real. It has nothing to do with her age, her rank, or the fact that I hate pseudo-pacifistic people like her; its because she is not real and I can't possibly treat her like a real person, dead or alive. I could watch her death over and over again. In fact, if I strictly read Nightmare of Nunnally, I never would have known that she died.
Last edited by wolfgirl90; 02-07-2010 at 11:54 AM.
This is my war face.
This is what happens to trolls who mess with me.
Incomplete morning 02/08/10. still uncomleted 02/09/10. stillincomplete, 02/10/10.
Lelouch had more than seconds to think, and many more options than stopping the massacre and gaining the loyalty of the Japanese.
Of course stopping the massacre was a better choice than not stopping the massacre. But the fastest way to stop the massacre and the other massacres which Brittannian soldiers may have started elsewhere when they received Euphemia's massacre broadcast, was to capture Euphemia and use her as a hostage to get the Britannians to stop killing as soon as possible. Killing Euphemia instead of trying to use her as a hostage may have killed tens, or hundreds, or thousands, of Japanese who might have been saved by using her as a hostage.
Lelouch did not have to choose a future in which he needed any loyalty from the Japanese. And if he decided to take a course which required Japanese loyalty he might have considered gaining that loyalty without deserving it -- pretending to do everything he could to rescue the Japanese while not using Euphie as a a hostage and thus letting more Japanese be killed than necessary -- to be too evil a choice even for him.
How can you say that killing Euphie stopped the massacre? What evidence do you have?
So you have been trained to kill someone even when you have made them take violent actions against their will? You have been trained to kill someone even when you have a super weapon that enables you to capture people alive even when they wish to fight to the death? You have been trained to kill someone even when they pause in their killing and fighting long enough for you to capture them alive in safety to yourself and others? You have been trained to kill someone who loves and trusts you enough that you are perfectly safe in their presence and can walk right up to touching distance of them and can easily trick them into becoming your guest and thus your prisoner?
And Richard did not battle his way to the throne, he negotiated, bribed, threatened, and persuaded a lot of powerful people to support him, killed a few opponents, and was declared the rightful king by Parliament. And then his two little nephews, who had been declared illegitimate and thus no possible threat to his crown, disappeared from sight and people began to suspect that Richard had murdered them for some reason. Of course there was always the possibility that Parliament might declare the princes legitimate again. But that could only happen if Richard already had so many powerful enemies that it wouldn't make much difference who they chose as king against him, so killing the princes would not do him much good in that case either.
Of course all of Richard's children died eventually. I said that his only legitimate son died in childhood of natural causes. Which means that he was killed by germs. Which means that when Richard became king and altered his son's itinerary he accidentally caused his son's path to intersect with the deadly enemies (germs) which killed him. So by snatching a crown to leave to his son Richard lost the chance to leave a duchy to that son. No doubt a lot of people believed that God killed Richard's son to punish Richard for murdering the two princes. If they were right it would mean that God has as bad an aim as Khan Singh or Lelouch.
What do you mean by:
You can say that because we were not forced by a geass command to order a terrible massacre nobody we met ever had any reason to suspect that we might be imprisoned for life, institutionalized, or killed. But we still have decades of future life to possibly do something terrible and possibly be imprisoned for life, institutionalized, or killed. And the historical record shows that people who order terrible massacres are only slightly more likely than innocent babies to be imprisoned for life, institutionalized, or killed, so Lelouch should not have worried too much about those things happening to Euphie if he didn't kill her.
Suppose that you meet in June 2010 (this is written in February 2010) a young man born in 1990, whose family emigrated from another country to the US in 2000. Suppose you fall in love and he tells you his darkest secret which is rather disgusting:. And in return you tell him your darkest secret, which is
And then your new fiancee is killed in some accident or act of violence in 2011. Then in 2012 you acquire a time machine which can not travel into the past and thus can't help you to change history and save your boyfriend's life. But it can travel to alternate universes in the year 2012 in which he might still be alive. So you travel sideways in time to various alternate universes looking for alternate universe versions of your dead boyfriend.
You might find an alternate universe which diverged from yours in the year 2000, and in which your boyfriend''s family did not emigrate to the US until 2006. Your boyfriend's little brother is still alive. But this version of your boyfriend never happened to meet or fall in love with you. You could try to persuade him that you were really close to him in an alternate universe by telling him his darkest secret which he would only tell to someone he really loved. But of course in this universe he has a different darkest secret that you do not know about, since in this alternate universe the traumatic events in 2004 never happened.
You travel to universe after universe and find that your boyfriend never met you or fell in love with you in any of the timelines which diverged before June 2010. Then you find some alternate universes which diverged from yours in 2010 and 2011. You find a lot where your boyfriend is in loved with you, but unfortunately he is in love with his alternate universe version of you which you are not just going to kill and replace. And at last you find an alternate universe in which you died in 2011 and your boyfriend survived, and is still mourning your death. Now your only problem is figuring out how to introduce yourself.
Clearly only versions of your boyfriend which had the exact same life as the one you fell in love with, almost up to the accident which killed him in 2011, would be good for your purposes.
Consider alternate universe versions of someone born in 1990 and twenty years old in 2010, except in alternate universes where he is already dead.
In alternate universes which diverged in 1992 his selves would share the first ten percent of their lives and would have had different experiences in the other ninety percent of their lives. They would be only ten percent identical.
In alternate universes which diverged in 2000 his selves would share the first fifty percent of their lives and would have had different experiences in the other fifty percent of their lives. They would be only fifty percent identical.
In alternate universes which diverged in 2005 his selves would share the first seventy five percent of their lives and would have had different experiences in the other twenty five percent of their lives. They would be only seventy five percent identical.
In alternate universes which diverged in 2009 his selves would share the first ninety percent of their lives and would have had different experiences in the other ten percent of their lives. They would be only ninety percent identical.
And so on. Being 99 percent identical is not the same as being totally identical. Being 99.9999 percent identical is not the same thing as being totally identical.
Everything about Euphemia in Code Geass which makes me like her and want her to live happened during the first season during a period of probably just a weeks or months. Thus it was probably during the last five percent of her life and quite likely during the last one percent of her life, or an even smaller fraction of her life. Thus alternate universe Euphemias whose universes diverged from that in I]Code Geass[/I] as recently as just before the series opened, which have Euphies 95 percent identical with the one in Code Geass or even 99 percent identical, might still be so different from the events in the series that their Euphemias never did any of the things which make me like Euphemia and want her to live.
Euphemia was a character that we had grown to love, cherish and respect. She wasn't a character that most people expected to die -- only those familiar with the disgusting plot twists commonly used in Bandai productions expected her death. However, not only was Euphie murdered, but she was murdered by her beloved and long lost BROTHER for no reason that she could see. Yes, the last thing that girl saw was her brother holding a gun - or it would have been if she died as fast as Lelouch expected.
According to the criteria you used, it seems that Euphemia's death was about as sad, as shocking, and as bad as the death of Maes Hughes.
And it doesn't matter how much the audience knew Nina. I didn't say that Nina's death was sadder to most members of the audience than Hughes's death. I said that it should have been sadder to them, because the death of a child is always objectively sadder than the death of an adult, and everyone should always strive to overcome and compensate for their biases is in favor of people that they know better.
Of course in this situation you would not use a formula to judge the worth of lives but to figure out the smallest number you have to sacrifice.
Now suppose that the passengers all weigh about a hundred pounds but eight of them are large and overweight fourteen-year-olds and nine of them them are frail, underweight ninety-year-olds returning from their last pleasure cruse for mandatory euthanasia (yuck!) next week. If you choose to sacrifice six of the kids and none of the old people you will save a total of about six weeks of life for the old people, doomed to a premature death by the evil laws of their ageist society. But if you sacrifice six of the already doomed old people you can save about 336 years of life, or 17,472 weeks of life, for six of the youngsters (If the overweight youngsters have a life expectancy of exactly 70 years and so will never live to be killed at age 90). That is about 2,912 times as much life as you could give to the old people.
How can you believe that all humans who are turned into chimeras suffer agonizing pain all the time? Nina's father turned up in the second season, turned into a chimera that looked even more uncomfortable than Nina's chimera, and yet could think clearly enough, without being constantly distracted by agonizing pain, to make amazing progress in alchemy.
Bringing Nina's body back to life was an amazing alchemical achievement. It was like unscrambling an egg, restoring information which had been totally lost, reversing entropy -- it would have been an amazing achievement even if it was not also a successful reanimation of a dead body. And Tucker managed to do it by himself with relatively few resources - the humonucli who controlled the State devoted most of their alchemical resources to the effort to create the Philosopher's Stone. And you claim that Tucker did it while suffering agonizing pain! It seems to me that either 1) there no agonizing pain in being a chimera, 2) or else it soon went away, 3) or else Tucker had to spend a few dollars a week on pain-killers in order to feel good, and Nina would have had to do the same, 4) or else Tucker should be considered the anime character with the greatest will power and self control of all.
It seems to me that if Scar hadn't murdered Nina it would have been easy for her father or other alchemists (he feared losing his job because he was not rated very highly, so others must have been as skilled as he was) to quickly restore Nina and the dog to their original conditions. That would have been infinitely easier than reviving Nina's body after Scar exploded it! Any statements that turning someone into a chimera could not be reversed must have been some kind of official dogma and not fact.
So if Nina was turned into a monster (monstrosity) and then soon returned to Human form she should not have been better off dead, any more than children who are disfigured in accidents and restored to normal by surgery are better off dead. She would not have been better off dead any more than the protagonist of H.P. Lovecraft's classic The Shadow out of Time who suffered an analogous experience would have been better off dead. And in that story members of the Great Race volunteered for such experiences.
So I compared Scar's urge to exterminate alchemists with the mistaken beliefs which lead to the witch hunts and then decided to go one step further and compare his actions to burning modern Wiccans in the belief that they were the imaginary witches the witch hunters sought to exterminate.
And maybe Zazie the Beast had some desire to help other people, either Humans or alien insect swarms.
And what about Milly? Suppose that she suffered 100 suffering units as a result of Wolfwood's death. Wolfwood suffered infinitely from being killed. So even if Wolfwood had a girl in every town and one hundred girls each suffered 100 suffering units as a result of Wolfwood's death that would still com to only 10,000 suffering units as compared to Wolfwood losing infinitely by dying. The loss that other people feel at a person's death is infinitely small compared his loss, and so adds infinitely little to the total loss.
First, before I wrote my post I checked to find the name of the kid that Wolfwood shot, and I found out that in the in the manga Zazie was a swarm of insects with a hive mind, native to the planet. But there are many differences between the anime and the manga, so we can not automatically assume that Zazie was an alien insect swarm in the anime.
In the anime Zazie pretended to be a boy from the town hiding out from the bad men most of the time, so of course he would not have worn a sign saying "don't trust me, I'm one of the Gung-ho Guns", let a alone a sign saying "Don't trust me because I'm not really Human." I don't remember anyone saying that Zazie was an alien after he revealed himself to be one of the Gung Ho Guns, which of course is the kind of thing I would tend to remember. So it is quite likely that Zazie was completely Human in the anime.
If Knives did not bother to tell the Gung-Ho Guns that Vash was almost completely impossible to kill, (or Zazie would not have tried to shoot Vash with a pistol and Wolfwood would not have shot Zazie to save Vash) it is quite possible that even if Zazie was an alien in the anime, Knives did not know it, and even if Knives knew it it is quite likely he would not have told the other Gung-Ho Guns.
And just how is a swarm of insects going to make itself look like a Human child? Make a Human body to control? The easiest way would be to possess a Human child. So it is quite likely that even the manga there was a real Human boy who was infested, possessed, and controlled by the alien insect swarm. In that case, if Zazie was an alien insect swarm in the anme also, when Wolfwood shot the Human body he probably killed the possessed boy and let the alien insect swarm slip away to find a new victim to control.
2) Second, I have absolutely no biases in favor of Humans and against aliens. More like the opposite.
I remind you that Vash wasn't Human either, but a "plant" (a power plant and not a vegetable, I think) and was called a "monster" in the flashback to his childhood. Did that ever lessen your respect or liking for him?
But that is beside the point.
As you may remember, the Children in Grave of the Fireflies starve to death after the fire bombing of Kobe on March 17, 1945, in which 80,000 people were incinerated and many thousands left homeless. It seems to me that conventional firebombings of cities and nuclear bombings of cities are equally war crimes and that there is a high probability that attacking cities with either type of attack is a violation of the spirit and almost as probably the letter of many laws of war.
Laws of War :
Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907
The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.
Attacking a city with thousands of conventional bombs or one atomic bomb would seem to be the most devastating and least limited way of injuring the enemy invented yet, and so the one most likely to violate that article.
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.
It seems to m that any good military person would view each and every radical and revolutionary new weapon and tactic as being probably unlawful until it is proven lawful. And I believe the use of thousands of conventional bombs or one atomic bomb to slaughter tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians in a city would seem to contradict the spirit of these articles about bombardments or attacks on inhabited places. It seems to me that such actions should be considered guilty and criminal until such time as such actions may be declared innocent and lawful.
Thus I believe that anyone who orders or takes part in such vile, evil, terrible, inhumane, and horrifying actions before they have been decreed totally and absolutely lawful is being criminal in regarding such evil actions as lawful until expressly forbidden, The correct attitude would be the opposite, to regard revolutionary new weapons and tactics as being probably unlawful unti they have been specifically and directly decreed lawful by an international court or treaty.
Last edited by proEuphie; 04-14-2010 at 10:43 PM.
My MAIN point before (I was trying to allude to this without actually saying it...again) was that you were using references to Witchcraft and Wicca a bit incorrectly and since you have used them towards me each time, I was a bit insulted since I'm Wiccan (I have said this more than once). This is why I was curious about some possible underhanded and uncalled for comments from you.
Wicca is a branch of Witchcraft (all Wiccans are Witches, but not all Witches are Wiccan), so yes, that makes me a Witch. And since you listed every other stereotype against Witches in one go, well needless to say, I'm still insulted.
I figured I should nip that in the bud before you continue on with your Euphemia rant.
This is my war face.
This is what happens to trolls who mess with me.
I have been looking through this thread along with your Mecha Ethics thread and was going to keep out of this but...lucky you, you attention seeker, I can't keep quiet anymore.
Now I know I'll regret not quoting you in this post, but I'd like to point out numerous things.
(1. In an earlier post you seem to think that had Euphy been left alive that since Lelouch gave no time-related statement in his (unintentional) Geass command, it was possible the command could have ended at any given moment.
On the other hand, I'm under the impression that no specified time = continued obedience whenever conditions are met.
So to the best of my knowledge Euphy would continue to try and kill all Japanese NOT until some random breaking point, NOT until physically unable (in which case she would be unable to kill, obviously, though the command would not have gone away.) but until her death.
EDIT: I'm going to ask a question here
Do you honestly think that Euphemia could happily live out the rest of her life eternally captive (which she would have to be in order to keep her from trying to waste more Japanese people)
knowing what she did? Considering she's a pacifist she'd likely be guilty, never be free, and wonder why the impulse to kill continues to enter her thoughts.
Being alive/existing and actually living are two different things.
Since you like Euphemia so much I'd think you'd just wish her a happy afterlife, not hope to doom her to a miserable existence. (or just realize she's fictional...)
Also, while I'm talking about Geass I'd like to state you also appeared to be under the impression that the "Survive" command placed on Suzaku would allow him to live whatever the circumstance...that I'm almost certain is a lie. You can't effectively give a Geass command for something that is physically impossible.
For example, right before Shirley's actual death in R2 (not that you would know) I recall him trying to give her a "live" command (to no avail). If someone is already dying you can't reverse that as it is not physically or mentally possible for that person to do so.
(2. Just putting this out there, but your attempts to try to say any one human life is worth more than another depending on their age etc. is extremely concerning to me.
(3. There are many more things I'd like to take up with you, but I don't have the time tonight, so I'll combat more of your horrific logic tomorrow.
I'll also state this now just to guard myself that I am not Christian, Wiccan, or any other religion you decided to attempt to group people in.
Last edited by SakuraFox512; 02-07-2011 at 10:36 AM. Reason: Punctuation
Notice that I described the witches that the witch hunters tried to exterminate as "imaginary witches" twice in two paragraphs. Since you are all too real I do not see how you could possibly think that any description of those evil but fortunately imaginary witches was meant to apply to you or any group of witches that you are associated with.
Last edited by proEuphie; 02-10-2010 at 10:45 PM.
Yeah, but.... If you do what normal people do, you can still remember the good stuff she did in the anime, AND enjoy the manga knowing she did that to. Unless you only like Euphy cause she died.Everything about Euphemia in Code Geass which makes me like her and want her to live happened during the first season during a period of probably just a weeks or months. Thus it was probably during the last five percent of her life and quite likely during the last one percent of her life, or an even smaller fraction of her life. Thus alternate universe Euphemias whose universes diverged from that in I]Code Geass[/i] as recently as just before the series opened, which have Euphies 95 percent identical with the one in Code Geass or even 99 percent identical, might still be so different from the events in the series that their Euphemias never did any of the things which make me like Euphemia and want her to live.
I have recently transformed into a defender of the mentally ill. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
Yes, the story of Nightmare of Nunnally does diverse at a point but diverges after Clovis' death. She ends up sharing the position of Governor-General with Cornelia rather than becoming a Sub-Viceroy. This is why Euphemia is more politically active (and more politically successful) here than in the anime. So again, what about Euphemia in the anime made you like her and how different do you think she could possibly be? Really the only difference between Euphemia in the anime and Euphemia in NoN is that she isn't introduced via a fall out of a window.
Although, I guess this only matters if one liked Euphemia for the character that she is: open minded, kindhearted and innocent to a fault; she appears this way in the anime and she appears this way in NoN. If one only cared about Euphemia's actions and only wanted to see those EXACT actions (whether she succeeded or not), I guess one would be out of luck (). Of course, that would lead to a weird discussion with Sunrise:
Euphie fans: "How could you kill off Euphemia?! She was so kind and innocent!"
Sunrise: "Yes, we know how popular Euphemia was and upset you were, which is why brought her back and made her a main character in Nightmareof Nunnally."
Euphie fans: "That doesn't matter...she still died in the anime! The anime Euphie is the only one we loved and the only one we care about!"
Sunrise: "If that's the case, what do what us to do about it?
Well, I'll let you answer that one. If another Euphemia isn't what you want (because they are not continuing Lelouch of the Rebellion, so you can just forget about her coming back this way), then are you just upset over her death? And if that's the case, don't you think that nearly THREE YEARS (the episode where she died premiered in March 2007 in Japan; so yeah, its been almost three years since her "death") is a little long too still be whining about the death of a cartoon character?
Do want her to come back in anime form, do you want her to be brought back to life or are you just on a soapbox to announce to everyone how shocking her death was (something that most people, including myself, are not even arguing against) and to reveal how "sad" you were?
This is my war face.
This is what happens to trolls who mess with me.
There is no way you can really think that way.
It is, but in television, it's not.
" I am death and sorrow." -Acheron
Take the quizz here!
This of course doesn't apply to those who are evil, have done "evil" things, are associated with "evil" people and/or people who are associated with "evil" people and haven't expressed disgust over those "evil" things. At which point, they could all die. In fact, they could be used as fodder to save the "good people", even if the "good people" are doing inherently evil things, since the lives of the "evil people" mean nothing compared to lives (or even just life) of the "good people (or person)".[/quote]
Last edited by wolfgirl90; 02-12-2010 at 04:14 PM.
This is my war face.
This is what happens to trolls who mess with me.
Wow, you people scare me.......
The seven stakes of purgatory! ^^ Good thing to know that they will be the last thing you see before you die. ^^
And for all we know somebody who suffered and endured worse than what you expect Nina or Euphemia to suffer if not killed may someday read your posts and think that the people who believe that Nina or Euphemia were better off dead and needed mercy killings were somewhat less than perfect thinkers.
I do not believe that anybody is better off dead under any circumstances. However, suppose that we agreed that some people might sometimes be better off dead under some circumstances. Then what would be the decision process to decide when someone is better off dead? It would seem obvious to demand that the person in question should think that he or she or it needs to die, and asks to be killed.
But sometimes someone might wish for death and later be glad that he didn't die, and realize that he made a mistake in the long term when he begged for death.
(added 02/14/10) I had several operations when I was a very young child. One of my earliest memories is of a sad and unhappy night in a hospital bed. If this was after an operation, and if the anesthetic was not the exact correct dose for a child of my weight, I might have felt some residual physical discomfort from the operation, which might have kept me awake. But whatever the cause, I remember it as a long and seemingly endless period of unhappiness.
That night seemed so long that the rest of my life might almost seem like a happy dream that I might wake up from to find myself back in that hospital bed.
How many millions and even billions of sick and injured and wounded men and women and children have suffered not merely what I suffered that night, but pain and misery tens of times as intense, or hundreds of times as intense, or thousands of times as intense, and not just for one night, but for several days and nights, or for weeks, or months, or years, before they died or recovered? How many millions and billions of persons have had black periods of pain and despair in their past, periods which seemed so endless at the time that they sometimes feared that their years of happier life afterward were just a pleasant dream from which they might wake up to find themselves back in their time of horror?(end of 02/14/10 addition)
About 12,693 Confederate soldiers were wounded at Gettysburg, about 0.177 or 1 in 5.6 of the 71,699 engaged, and about 0.0084 to 0.021 of the 600,000 to 1,500,000 who served in the rebel army, or 1 in 47.2 to 118. 8,174 Confederate veterans attended the 50th anniversary reunion in 1913. If they came equally from all Confederate units between 58.66 and 171.65 of them would have been wounded at Gettysburg. If they were all veterans of Gettysburg about 1,446.7 of them would have been wounded at Gettysburg, Of course other rebels wounded at Gettysburg were alive who did not attend in 1913, and probably half or about 6,000 of the Confederates who were wounded at Gettysburg were still alive thirty years after the battle in 1893 or forty years after the battle in 1903.
And it seem probable that most of them were glad to be alive and thankful that they survived during most of the time they survived.
but on July 4th and 5th, 1863, many of them were not so happy to be alive, as General Imboden related in Battles and Leaders of the Civil Warhttp://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/books/ba...w.cfm?page=424 in his account of escorting the seventeen-mile-long wagon train with the supplies and the wounded over a mountain road between Cashtown and Chambersburg.
After dark I set out from Cashtown to gain the head of the Column during the night. My orders had been peremptory that there should be no halt for any cause whatever. If an accident should happen to any vehicle, it was immediately to be put out of the road and abandoned. The Column moved rapidly, considering the rough roads and the darkness, and from almost every wagon for many miles issued heart-rending wails of agony. For four hours I hurried forward on my way to the front, and in all that time I was never out of hearing of the groans and cries of the wounded and dying. Scarcely one in a hundred had received adequate surgical aid, owing to the demands on the hard-working surgeons from still worse cases that had to be left behind. Many of the wounded in the wagons had been without food for thirty-six hours. Their torn and bloody clothing, matted and hardened, was rasping the tender, inflamed, and still oozing wounds. Very few of the wagons had even a layer of straw in them, and all were without springs. The road was rough and rocky from the heavy washings of the preceding day. The jolting was enough to have killed strong men, if long exposed to it. From nearly every wagon as the teams trotted on, urged by whip and shout, came such cries and shrieks as these:
"O God! why can't I die ?"
"My God ! will no one have mercy and kill me ?"
"Stop Oh! for God's sake, stop just for one minute; take me out and leave me to die on the roadside."
"I am dying! I am dying! My poor wife, my dear children, what will become of you ?"
Some were simply moaning; some were praying, and others uttering the most fearful oaths and execrations that despair and agony could wring from them; while a Majority, with a stoicism sustained by sublime devotion to the cause they fought for, endured without complaint unspeakable tortures, and even spoke words of cheer and comfort to their unhappy comrades of less will or more acute nerves. Occasionally a wagon would be passed from which only low, deep moans could be heard. No help could be rendered to any of the sufferers. No heed could be given to any of their appeals. Mercy and duty to the many forbade the loss of a moment in the vain effort then and there to comply with the prayers of the few. On ! On ! we must move on. The storm continued, and the darkness was appalling. There was no time even to fill a canteen with water for a dying man; for, except the drivers and the guards, all were wounded and utterly helpless in that vast procession of misery. During this one night I realized more of the horrors of war than I had in all the two preceding years.
If somewhere between one percent and fifty percent of all the wounded men at Gettysburg were in the wagon train and were begging for death that would be about 127 to 6,346 men. And probably about half of those hundreds or thousands of men begging for death survived until 1893 or 1903 and were mostly happy to be alive and glad that they hadn't been killed to put them out of their misery. Some of them would have survived to attend the 1913 reunion and even into the 1920s.
(03/10/10) And how many thousand and millions of men, and women, and children have suffered pain too intense to bear and wanted to die, but physically couldn't kill themselves or get someone to do it, and so had to bear the unbearable pain until they recovered and lived happier lives and no longer wished that they had died then?(03/10/10).
So it seems that even if you set as a minimum requirement that somebody actually begs for death and asks to be killed before deciding to give him a mercy killing (which would mean that Nina and Euphemia should not have been killed) he might be mistaken about death being better than life, and so those who killed at his request might also be mistaken.
That is not saying that it is necessary to kill all evil people or any specific fraction of them. I believe that such a vast majority of adult Humans are evil that killing or imprisoning even a large proportion of evil persons would cause civilization to crumble and almost everyone, good or evil, to die of starvation and disease. So there is no point in even considering adequately punishing all evil persons, since the non-evil activities of those evil persons are necessary to keep everyone, evil or good, alive.
Last edited by proEuphie; 04-10-2010 at 10:08 PM.
No, I didn't say that your life comes to mean nothing at any specific age. But I believe that the younger a person dies and the less life that they live the sadder their death is. And the older a person gets and the more evil he does or lets happen the more evil he becomes and the less he deserves to live and the more he deserves to die, and thus the his life has less value as compared to when he was younger and less evil.And don't forget if you're over the age of 18, your life hardly matters. And if your 50+ your life means nothing.
If his life loses half its value periodically, every ten years or every hundred years for example, than it's value will get smaller and smaller over time but will never reach zero.
Imagine an intelligent species A that committed evil deeds at twice the rate that Humans did and an intelligent race B that committed evil deeds at half the rate that Humans do. The average member of race B would be twice as good or half as evil as the average Human of his age and four times as good or a quarter as evil as an average member of Species A of the same age. Thus at any given age the life of an average member of Species B would twice as worth saving as an average Human and four times worth saving as an average member of species A.
Humans of today on the average are less evil and more good than Humans thousands of years ago, so their lives at specific ages have more value than those of their ancestors thousands of years ago.
In my post # 128 in about my ninth section of text from the top I discuss choosing who to throw out of an over crowded lifeboat. In one case I discuss ninety-year-olds who are about to be euthanised according to the evil laws of their ageist society, clearly showing I believe that it is evil to kill people who have reach any specified age -- after all, most people hope to live forever and not be executed on account of their age.
Last edited by proEuphie; 02-13-2010 at 01:59 AM.
It's not just because we disagree, but look around. There are about 6 threads by ProEuphie about this, and he flooded other threads with it. It's annoying and he's completely trolling the Code Geass Sub forum.
Last edited by Rolo Vi Britannia; 02-13-2010 at 06:21 PM.
I have recently transformed into a defender of the mentally ill. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
it seems it is impossible for people not to become evil
They are evil for doing things or not doing things.
but let me ask you thisImagine an intelligent species A that committed evil deeds at twice the rate that Humans did and an intelligent race B that committed evil deeds at half the rate that Humans do. The average member of race B would be twice as good or half as evil as the average Human of his age and four times as good or a quarter as evil as an average member of Species A of the same age. Thus at any given age the life of an average member of Species B would twice as worth saving as an average Human and four times worth saving as an average member of species A.
What if Species A commited Good acts at 10x the rate of humans
and species B at 10x less then humans
Does that not skew your equation of value?
People commit evil it's true but they also commit good.
Where does that factor into your equation of value?
what absolute rubbishHumans of today on the average are less evil and more good than Humans thousands of years ago, so their lives at specific ages have more value than those of their ancestors thousands of years ago.
IMO we are no more or less evil then we ever were
Unless you can somehow prove that they were more evil?
which I doubt
I kind of saw it coming in the episodes leading up to it, so I wasn't too shocked by it, and I never really paid attention to Euphie in the anime, I still think that it was pretty horrible though, Suzaku was pretty mad, but hey, Lelouch is the kind of person to do anything to "fix" the world, and Euphie was messing it all up, he had to do something, he's like the Light Yagami of Code Geass in a way. Lol.
I do not think that showing remorse for one's evil deeds is enough to make one not evil. Many evil-doers fake remorse if facing punishment. And even feeling remorse and not merely showing it is not enough.
Almost everyone who kills someone feels some guilt and regret for it at least sometimes. And many or even most of them did not have just reasons for killing. I don't think that sometimes feeling genuine remorse is enough to make someone not evil.
Take for example, Heinrich Himmler, considered to be one of the most evil men in history. der Spiegel magazine called him "the greatest mass murderer of all time", despite all his competitors for that distinction.
"Himmler told his personal masseur Felix Kersten that he always carried with him a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, because it relieved him of guilt about implementing the Final Solution; he felt that, like the warrior Arjuna, he was simply doing his duty without attachment to his actions. This was consistent with the "eclectic" borrowing of disparate Hindu concepts that the Nazis used in their construction of a neopagan religion. Himmler was once known to remark: "I marvel at the wisdom of the founders of Indian religions.""http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler
If this is true Himmler sometimes felt some guilt about the extermination of millions of Jews, despite his warped and irrational conviction that the Germans had a holy duty to destroy those demons in human form before they could destroy the world. And Himmler also supervised the slaughter of hundreds of thousands and probably millions of non Jewish persons. Those killings he could not excuse in his mind by the twisted ideology which justified killing the Jews but only by reasons which to him were less strong. So Himmler must have felt more faint twinges of guilt and remorse for each thousand non Jewish persons he had killed than he did for each thousand Jewish persons that he killed.
If sometimes feeling some guilt, regret, and remorse for one's evil deeds is enough to make someone not evil, Heinrich Himmler was not evil. And if Heinrich Himmler was not evil, who was? I have great doubts about any definition which might be used to exclude Heinrich Himmler from the category of evil persons merely because he was not totally and absolutely one hundred percent pure evil.
Hundreds of millions of persons have been slaughtered throughout history, in countless thousand and thousands, probably millions, of massacres. In many cases entire communities of friends and families are wiped out so that any survivor has nobody left who loves or cares for him. The first person who dies in such a massacre is survived by all of his family and friends who miss him for the short rest of their lives, while the last person killed has nobody to love him or feel sad for his death but is surrounded by people who hate him and lust for his death. Does that make the death of the last to die any less evil, tragic, and sad than that of the first to die?
If everyone died of natural causes at exactly the same age one could calculate how much time everybody had left to live. In a situation where one was forced to choose between the deaths of two different persons, one of whom would live for ten more years and the other for fifty more years, one might decided that it would be worse to take fifty years of life from one person than to take ten years of life from another person, and thus that the life of the person who had fifty more years to live was worth more to him than the other person's life was worth to him.
Suppose that a new life extension treatment becomes available to everyone in the world and nobody knows yet how long it will prolong life. Is everyone's life expectancy now two hundred years, or a thousand years, or ten thousand years? Nobody knows. So if one has to choose between the deaths of three persons of different ages, one can no longer say that one life might be worth more to its possessor because if spared he could expect to live more years.
But you can still say that if person A has lived for 25 years, person B has lived for 47 years, and person C has lived for 125 years, that C has had five times as much life as A and more than two and one half times as much life as B, and B has enjoyed 1.88 times as much life as A. Thus one could calculate that, other things being equal, it would be most unjust to kill A, less unjust to kill B, and least unjust to kill C. And of course one shouldn't kill any of them unless absolutely certain that it was inevitable that at least one of them would die and the only choice you had was which one would die.
Most people who do evil know the difference and care. But they believe their society when it tells them that some evils are not evil but good, or else they believe that their own personal code tells them that what society considers evil is really good, or they think that they are doing a smaller evil to prevent a larger evil, or else they have any of thousands of excuses and reasons for doing evil instead of good "just one time".
Last edited by proEuphie; 02-19-2010 at 01:07 AM.
No, proEuphie, YOU are trolling the Code Geass sub forum. -_-
"DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!!"
Seriously... As long as someone is arguing with her, she will just never stop. Not that this is any of my business, though. In fact, I'm completely cool with seeing those funny arguments still going around here. :D
proEuphie: I admit that Euphemia's mass-murdering and then her death were probably the most shocking events I've ever seen in an anime*, but the writers just chose to make it that way. There's just NO POINT in arguing about it over and over!! It's not gonna make the writers decide to change the story and make Euphemia live for you. In other words: Live with it. If you can't, just forget about Code Geass. That's all. Is it that hard?
EDIT: *And I'm not saying that I don't like the story. In fact, it's a whole lot better this way IMO. If Lelouch had let Euphemia live and everybody wins, then what kind of story is that? Not saying that this -justifies- anything; I'm just saying that I like the plot as it is. And no, that's not sick. After all, why do you even watch anime? (Which is ANIME, by the way. Not real life.)
Last edited by Aku no Hikari; 02-15-2010 at 10:39 AM.
Okay then. I disagree because sometimes people have to die to save others. And no matter what, when someone dies, it's always bad. No matter what.
Anyway, unless it's an anime and it's someone I hated, I usually won't be happy when anyone dies.
You are a complete hypocrite.
I have recently transformed into a defender of the mentally ill. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
But there is some doubt about how much work a geassed person can be forced by his geass to do if the instructions are are vague about how to tell if the task is completed or when to start or stop.
If the girl who was told to scratch a cross on the wall each day took one to five minutes each day to go the wall, mark the cross, and return to where she was, and did it for 30 days to one year by the end of the first season, she would have done so for 30 to 3650 minutes, or 0.5 to 60.0833 hours or 0.0208333 to 2.503 days.
And Lelouch would have known that he could expect to get at least as many minutes, or hours, or days of work out of someone given a geass command with no clear end point as the girl had performed so far.
And by the end of the second season Lelouch would have known that the girl had performed her task for one to two minutes per day for up to 730.5 days, If the girl did it for 730 days that would total 730 to 7300 minutes, of work, or 12.1666 to 121.666 hours, or 0.5069 to 5.069 days of work under the control of the geass. Except that I heard that the girl began to mark just a line instead of a cross on the wall.
But that was in the future when Lelouch gave Euphie the geass command. Lelouch did have a clear example of the kind of geass command that he he gave to Euphemia.
His geass command to Suzaku to "Live" or "Survive". That command, given in a moment of desperation, was not planned. It did not specify what situation or situations, or types of situations Suzaku was supposed to survive, nor did it tell hims how long to survive or live.
And Suzaku turned cowardly at that moment, as heard in audio tapes of his panicked reactions which were played at the end of the next episode "Island of the Gods". But later that day, in "Island of the Gods", Kallen attacked Suzaku and he defeated her instead of running away.
The next day Suzaku was brave enough to fight Lelouch. Then, minutes later, when Kallen fired a machine gun at Euphemia and Suazku, Britannian soldiers in their armor rushed up to shield Euphie (and Suzaku) and Suzaku did not move to hide behind Euphie or get in front of her to shield her. A day or two later in the next episode Lelouch saw Suzaku fighting bravely against the Chinese invasion.
And Lelouch was not shown being surprised that Suzaku was fighting bravely. Therefore his previous experience with geass commands that were vague about the actions to be performed and about the time period to carry out those commands probably showed him that when the geassed person's mind or the mind of some hypothetical geass intelligence interpreted the vague instructions the person would be made to carry them out for minutes, or hours or days and then just stop. If Lelouch omitted to give precise instructions the geass would only make the person obey the vague instructions for a while and then stop, and if Lelouch didn't like it too bad.
So a command to "Kill the Japanese" or "Kill all the Japanese", which are the English versions that I have seen, could be considered vague. Lelouch did not specify a time period to carry out the command. And he did not specify if he meant to kill all the Japanese in the Fuji Stadium, or all the Japanese in the Special Administrative Zone, or all the Japanese on Honshu, or all the Japanese in Area Eleven, or all the Japanese in the world. And did it mean to kill only all the Japanese who were alive then, or to also kill all the Japanese babies who might be born after the geass command was given?
So Lelouch should have expected that his accidental command was so vague that it would be interpreted as "kill as many Japanese as you can for X minutes or hours and then stop" since it was rather unexpected that a phrase which was part of a longer sentence would even be interpreted as a command at all. Lelouch should have expected that if Euphemia was captured and confined she would soon be released from geass control.
In the second season Suzaku's geass command sometimes resurfaced to make him preserve his life. For example, many fans believe that was why he used F.R.E.I.,J.A. to kill millions of people.
This can be explained as the geass command having a lot of strength in the first few minutes or hours and controlling Suzaku and making him cowardly cowardly, and then losing strength until it can no longer make him cautious, and then sometimes briefly regaining strength at rare intervals for some unknown and no doubt highly technical geass reason.
So Euphemia should have been controlled by her geass command for only minutes, or hours, or days and then stopped, and Lelouch should have expected that. And the second season evidence indicates that her geass command may have regained control of her from time to time.
Why would Euphemia have to be imprisoned for the rest of her life? What if wars started up again soon after the second season and in one of them the Japanese were exterminated by their enemies? If that horrible atrocity happened one little good thing would come of it, Euphemia could be released now that there were no more potential victims.
Or what if she was told that the Japanese were wiped out by the giant earthquake and tsunami of 2019? She would be released from her geass and might or might not fall back under its control if she later learned that the Japanese were still alive.
If Britannia conquered the world and Euphemia became Empress of Britannia the Japanese would have to keep their survival secret from her. I imagine that maps would show ocean where Japan had supposedly sunk under the sea in 2019 and a nearby land of Wa, or Area 22. Whenever people were sent to or came from Japan Euphemia would be told that they were sent to or came from Wa. The news would rarely show footage from WA, and never of recognizable Japanese people or places -- with all the recent destruction in Japan there wouldn't be too many landscapes Euphemia would recognize as being Japanese anyway. And so on and so on.
The aides, staff, and officials of most leaders tend to keep them in the dark about a lot of things anyway, for much less idealistic reasons than preventing possible genocide. And perhaps Euphie would spend most of her time in third world areas of Asia and Africa, supervising and inspecting massive efforts to alleviate poverty and disease, and wouldn't pay too much attention to affairs in the more prosperous parts of her empire such as Wa.
And if Euphemia survived Jeremiah's geass canceler would become available in just a year and might be use to cure Euphemia so she wouldn't have to be confined anymore.
And as I wrote above, Euphemia's geass command probably would have lasted just a few minutes or hours or days anyway.
And my thread "Did Euphemia Escape From Her Geass Command Before Lelouch Shot her?" shows that Euphemia almost certainly defeated her geass command in the sickbay of the Avalon and also earlier right before Lelouch shot her.
Did you see my posts # 105, 140, and 144?
Last edited by proEuphie; 02-16-2010 at 01:25 AM.
Pro.... you scare me...
The seven stakes of purgatory! ^^ Good thing to know that they will be the last thing you see before you die. ^^
Since Euphemia could have been stopped just as fast, just as easy, and just as safely by capturing her as by killing her, she was not one of those persons who have to die to save others. She was killed for no good and decent reason, and no evil reason that I can see.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)