*SPOILERS* The shot that killed My Love for Anime

[proEuphie]

Those weren't my personal thoughts, you stupid troll. Try to keep up.

Both Code Geass and Gundam 00 raise the question of whether or not its okay for peace to be attained by violent means. Do the ends justify the means? Is it okay for one to blow up an entire city to attain peace? Is it okay for a private military organization to violently intervene in conflicts or start ones of their own (e.g blowing up a building containing an organization the promotes war) to obtain peace? Its not that hard to grasp, honestly.

Those where general hypothetical questions, not my own views on the subject. I didn't give my thought on those questions, so your little point is a moot one. Nice try, though troll.

The way you wrote about the question or conundrum not only left no clue as to your thoughts and feelings about it, but also gave not the slightest hint that you might think it was a silly little question that you are convinced you know the answer to. Your words gave the impression that it was possible that you might perhaps consider it a puzzling matter -- which of course is not the same thing as saying that your words gave the impression that it is certain that you consider it a puzzling matter.

Anyway, for the benefit of anyone who might possibly be interested, I explained my point of view on that conundrum.

[proEuphie]

No I'm not. As I have told you on MANY occasions, Euphemia is not a unique character by any sense of the word. Pacifistic princess? Sunrise has done that character many times. It doesn't help that she looks almost exactly like Lacus Clyne (and even has the type of relationship as Lacus Clyne). Euphemia represents a Sunrise archetype; she's not a unique character. Yeah, you can be a Euphemia fan based on the character itself (something that you really didn't pay attention to until after her death), but there is a line between being a devoted fan and a whiny little fangirl disguised as a troll.

So I wrote in post # 191 that you are confusing the character that Euphemia HAS with the character that she is and this is how you replied in post # 192?

Let me quote my post # 191:

You confuse the character that Euphemia HAS with the character that she IS. Calling her open minded, kindhearted and innocent to a fault is only correct if Euphemia is some kind of supernatural manifestation or personalization of those traits, thus making her far more important, and her death a much more terrible loss to the world, than anyone has ever suggested before.

The important thing about real and fictional people is not their personalities but their identities. For example, if someone that you knew died, would you be comforted by being told that his or her personality was measured to be personality type 57B 29, and there are 34,705 other living people in the world with personality type 57B 29 who are just like him or her? No, you would mourn the loss of his or her identity and self.

A person's identity is everything that he or she has ever experienced, thought, felt, and done. A person's personality is the probability that he or she will behave in a certain way in a certain situation. It is incorrect to say "the character that Euphemia is: open minded, kindhearted and innocent to a fault". That is merely her personality (and a very good one). The character that Euphemia is in the anime is the person who has experienced, thought, felt, and done everything that she did in the anime (and off screen).

The character of Euphemia inNoN probably shares the vast majority of her past experiences with the Euphemia in the anime. But their experiences that are shown in the anime and the manga are probably different in significant ways.

Here I clearly made a distinction between a person's personality, or behavior pattern, and his identity, everything he has done and experienced and felt and thought. And I clearly stated that his identity was much more important than his personality in making him an individual person, or a different fictional character than other fictional characters.

Suppose that there was meeting of a bunch of children who all had exactly the same personality type according to psychological tests. After the meeting, would the mothers just pick up any random child to take home, since they all had exactly the same personality type, or would they pick the individual child that they had shared so many past experiences with?

For the same reason, people may like or dislike the personalities of various fictional characters but they tell them apart by their fictional biographies, everything that the viewers remember them having said and done. It is their fictional biographies which makes them separate characters.

As another example in my post # 182 I wrote:
I don't care how evil the bad guys are, although sometimes it would be nice, for a change, to see bad guys who were nice and good-natured but happened to be indoctrinated in evil beliefs. Like for example, a kind, gentle, easygoing, evil Nazi who couldn't stand killing people but believed he had a sacred duty to rid the world of Jews and so had to force himself to take part in massacres. In real life there were a lot more nice evil Nazis like that than the arrogant, nasty, sadistic evil Nazis in World war II propaganda movies.

But in post # 184 you wrote:

Wouldn't that contradict your whole "those that don't go against the 'evil' order that they serve deserve to die" thing? Sure, he's a "nice" Nazi, but he's still killing Jews like everybody else, with the same mindset as everyone else (why does him being a nice person excuse the whole genocide thing?), which, according to what you have JUST been saying in the last couple of posts, intention does not excuse the action (just because he had "good intentions" does not excuse his killing of Jews; you JUST said that to us). And since you never made a distinction between real-life Nazis and those portrayed in propaganda movies, you just sound like a hypocrite now (as always).

Clearly you did not get my point that people with radically different personality types might be equally good or evil, and that a person might be much more good or evil than another person with the same personality type.

I suppose if I added few more adjectives and wrote about nice, kind, gentle, easy-going, evil, vile, disgusting Nazis and arrogant, nasty, sadist, evil, vile, disgusting Nazis you would get my point that nice, kind, gentle, easy-going people can be just as evil, vile, and disgusting as arrogant, nasty, and sadistic people if they have been taught the same evil ideology and unjustly kill as many people.

I can imagine a movie in which a small Allied unit faces a small German unit in World war II and every character is paired with another character in the other unit who has an almost totally identical personality. But the Germans are all evil because they have just come from a massacre of civilians while the Allied soldiers are all good because none of them as ever yet massacred anybody and probably none of them ever will. That would make the point that the audience could love one person and hate another person who has the same personality type as the first one if the first one did only good or reasonably acceptable deeds due to the ideology he had been taught and had accepted while the other had done at least one vile and loathsome evil deed due to the ideology he had been taught and had accepted.

So I hope you see that a fictional character's identity (what he has done and experienced) can be far more important in making the audience like or hate him than his personality.

And Euphemia's unique identity is far more important to me than her personality in making her an unique character that I like.

But in your reply in post # 192 you say:

As I have told you on MANY occasions, Euphemia is not a unique character by any sense of the word. Pacifistic princess? Sunrise has done that character many times. It doesn't help that she looks almost exactly like Lacus Clyne (and even has the type of relationship as Lacus Clyne). Euphemia represents a Sunrise archetype; she's not a unique character.

Here you regress from incorrectly considering a character to be his personality and not his identity to even more incorrectly considering a character to be his fictional archetype.

Your first argument would seem to lead people to expect that children would not know (and perhaps greatly resent) the difference between their dead mother and their new stepmother if their father married a women with a personality a lot like his first wife. And we all know that would be an inaccurate expectation.

Your new argument would seem to imply that children would not notice (and perhaps resent) the difference between their dead mother and their new stepmother even if she had a totally different personality, merely because she was now filling the same role as their mother had filled. And we all know that would be an inaccurate expectation.

Your previous argument would tend to imply that if a bomber's tail gunner was killed in action and his replacement had exactly the same personality the rest of the crew would not notice or care about his death. And we all know that would be an inaccurate expectation.

Your new argument would tend to imply that if a bomber's tail gunner was killed in action and his replacement had a totally different personality the rest of the crew would not notice or care about his death because his replacement filled the same military role. And we all know that would be an inaccurate expectation.

And it is the same with fictional characters. The existence of other people with the same personality type or filling the same social role or the same story archetype does not compensate for the loss of an individual fictional character.

[proEuphie]

In post # 185 I wrote:

After Cornelia was cut off and many of the Britannians were killed by the landslide, someone ordered the troops on the other side of the mountain to come to her assistance. Euphemia and her officers were probably aware of that and probably gave the order. But they knew that Cornelia and other survivors would be in danger for several minutes until the reinforcements arrived, and wanted to do something to help in the meantime.

So the officers said they must move the G1 to help Cornelia (despite it probably being too slow to arrive in time). And Euphemia said that they couldn't, because a field hospital was ahead and the place where they gathered the civilians from the area.

Euphie may have feared that the G1 would crush some of the people ahead. She may have feared tha the JLF would shell the G1, endangering the field hospital and the civilians. She may have feared that whoever started the avalanche would send another one against the G1, sweeping away thousands of civilians gathered into the area.

Then Euphie may have remembered that her officers had probably helped Cornelia plan the Saitema Ghetto Massacre in "Get Cornelia" and were too ruthless to care about possible collateral damage. In any case she added that besides, Cornelia had ordered her not to move.

In that kind of situation people usually give their main reasons first and then add reasons that they think will mean more to the other parties.

In post # 187 wolfgirl 90 replied:

In addition to the fact that Cornelia told her not to move any.

As I said in post # 185, in an unplanned discussion of a course of action people tend to give the reasons they care about first and then think of reasons that they think will mean more to the other parties.

Since Euphemia objected to moving the G1 forward through the field hospital and the area where the civilians had been collected, I deduced that the only reason she would use the presence of the field hospital and the civilians ahead as an argument not to more the G1 was a belief that moving the G1 would endanger the hospital personnel and the civilians. So I listed three possible reasons why moving the G1 might have endangered the people ahead:

Euphie may have feared that the G1 would crush some of the people ahead. She may have feared that the JLF would shell the G1, endangering the field hospital and the civilians. She may have feared that whoever started the avalanche would send another one against the G1, sweeping away thousands of civilians gathered into the area.

The key word is "MAY". Again, this the logical fallacy of "begging the question". You are using your OWN assumption of Euphemia and her actions to prove your point. That doesn't work here. Its one thing to present them as a hypothesis but not to present them as fact. Try again.

Euphemia certainly believed that the presence of people ahead of the G1 was a strong reason not to move it forward. Does any reason other than fear for the safety of the hospital personnel and the civilians suggest itself as a reason not to move the G1 in an attempt to rescue Cornelia? And of course I don't know why Euphemia would have believed that moving the G1 might endanger the field hospital and the civilians, I merely suggested three possible reasons that occurred to me.

In post # 185 I wrote: Then Euphie may have remembered that her officers had probably helped Cornelia plan the Saitema Ghetto Massacre in "Get Cornelia" and were too ruthless to care about possible collateral damage. In any case she added that besides, Cornelia had ordered her not to move.

In that kind of situation people usually give their main reasons first and then add reasons that they think will mean more to the other parties.

And wolfgirl90 replied:

Again, the key word is "MAY".

And it is true that Euphemia might not have remembered anything that she knew obout the officers she was speaking to. But it is equally true that in emergencies, when discussing what to do, people tend to give the reasons they care about first and then remember reasons that might mean more to the people that they are trying to persuade.

Whatever you say. Personally Euphemia might have been wasting time by putting her personal convictions above her sister's orders (its not as if they were in conflict with each other, so why bother). But, again, whatever.

Why bother? Because Euphemia probably didn't remember her sister's orders until after she blurted out her reasons for opposing moving the G1.

When it comes to Narita, that doesn't really show Euphemia's "won't power" (hehe..."won't power"; yeah whatever, troll). She could easily be parroting her sister. There are two sides to it: she couldn't move because the G1 was the field hospital AND she couldn't move because her sister told her NOT TO MOVE. This shows that she either has strong morals, can follow order from her sister or both. However, it doesn't exclusively prove your point because it also proves mine.

Euphemia, parroting her sister in THAT situation?

Suppose that Euphemia, who would instantly rush into danger to save strangers, was afraid of the danger of moving the G1 through the civilians ahead in an attempt to rescue her sister and other Britannians because some of the civilians ahead might be hostile enough to throw Molotov cocktails at the G1. In that unlikely case, would Euphemia be parroting the brave and fearless Cornelia?

And if, as I believe, Euphemia was reluctant to charge ahead to rescue her sister because that might endanger the civilians ahead, would that be parroting her sister?

Remember the Saitema Ghetto massacre in "Get Cornelia", where the ghetto residents were massacred until the terrorists hiding in the ghetto and Zero came out of hiding to try to stop the massacre?

If Cornelia wanted to get at the terrorists she should have given them tempting targets to attack and as soon as the terrorists took one of her baits tracked them with all the military spy gear she had back to the individual buildings they used as their headquarters (there couldn't have been too many with thirty-foot doors for nightmares) and destroyed those buildings with missiles, artillery, or bombing. No doubt it would have been evil to endanger many ghetto residents that way but much less evil than starting a large-scale massacre.

If Cornelia wanted to get Zero she should have remembered the time Zero appeared to rescue someone falsely accused of murdering Clovis, and had some innocent and popular Japanese person arrested on charges of being Zero in the hope of causing the real Zero to intervene. That also would have been much less evil than a massacre.

In "Black Knight" Lelouch wondered why Cornelia hadn't already destroyed the hotel and killed the hostages along with the terrorists, until he deduced that Euphemia must be in the hotel. So if Cornelia was in Euphie's place at Narita she would have changed ahead to save the battle, regardless of how many of her own people in the field hospital she might have endangered, and even more regardless of the civilians.

How could Euphemia possibly be parroting her sister when she spoke of the field hospital and the civilians ahead as reasons not to move the G1?

AND she couldn't move because her sister told her NOT TO MOVE.

Yes, Euphemia COULDN'T move because of her orders. As we all know, it is scientifically impossible for impulsive teenagers to disobey orders. That has never ever happened.

If a competent general like Cornelia has to give military orders to an impulsive teenager it is obviously a good idea to make it more likely that the orders will be obeyed by giving those orders in the presence of the teenager's subordinates who then will be able to remind the teenager of them if necessary. But apparently the officers where not aware of the orders until Euphemia told them about it.

You have accused me of being naive. Isn't it rather naive to assume that a real or fictional person always tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when persuading people to take a course of action? As I remember Cornelia's orders to Euphemia were only mentioned once, as an afterthought by Euphemia when trying to persuade her officers that they mustn't move the G1.

So it is possible that Euphemia made up those orders or simplified them in a way that helped her argument when she remembered them and told her officers about them. That is hardly certain, but your assumption that of course Cornelia actually gave the orders to Euphemia in the exact form that Euphemia said is also hardly certain.

Also, all the "won't power" that this girl supposedly possessed didn't stop her from being controlled by the Geass and murdering thousands of people.

So what?

Probably neither you any any of the people you most respect has enough "wont power" to avoid murdering thousands of people, or someone your love, or committing suicide, or committing treason, or doing something else you consider terrible, if brainwashed with sufficiently advanced methods. Many people who have done such terrible things as I have mentioned spent large periods of their lives believing that it would be impossible for them to ever do such things. But they did become persons capable of doing what they did. Even though nobody set out to deliberately brainwash them into doing those things.

So probably anyone could be brainwashed (with sufficiently advanced techniques) into doing such things that they strongly oppose doing.

And the supernatural power of geass is far stronger than brainwashing.

Hundreds and probably thousands of Britannian soldiers gladly obeyed orders to massacre. And in many cases their officers probably told them that nobody had to slaughter helpless civilians if they didn't want to.

But very few Britannian soldiers would ever have obeyed orders to kill themselves. For most Britannian soldiers an order to massacre was not very horrifying or revolting, while an order to kill themselves would have been very horrifying and revolting and they would not have obeyed it.

An average Britannian soldier might be tens, or hundreds, or thousands of times more likely to obey an order to massacre other people than an order to kill himself. But the soldiers that Lelouch commanded to shoot themselves in the first episode did so without any resistance.

Euphemia resisted her geass command to massacre, which shows that she was tens, or hundreds, or thousands, of times more opposed to massacring people than Britannian soldiers were to killing themselves. And the Britannian soldiers were tens, or hundreds, or thousands of times more opposed to killing themselves than they were to massacring people. Thus Euphemia was opposed to massacring people hundreds, or thousands, or millions, of times more than the average Britannian soldier was.

No doubt you are a lot more opposed to massacring than the average Britannian soldier. Perhaps tens or hundreds of times. Which might make you almost as opposed to massacring as Euphemia might be by the lower estimates. Which means that you have no reason to sneer at the strength of Euphemia's anti-massacre "won't power".

And certainly Euphemia's "won't power" was up to the task at Narita, when in her first unexpected command she overcame a much stronger temptation to violate her ethics than most generals ever face in all their careers, and found a tactically better alternative. Don't sneer at Euphie's "wont power" which was more than sufficient for realistic challenges merely because it wasn't stronger than irresistible supernatural forces (which she did resist for a while).

Perhaps you define strength as doing harm to people against one's ideals because one wills oneself to do so. I think that not doing something one wants and wills to do because it violates one's ideals is also a kind of strength, and one that is in far too short supply.

Again, your opinion. I honestly think that Euphemia was politically inept, naive to a fault and ignorant of certain socioeconomic principles. That usually happens to characters who are pacifists. And this is Sunrise, so Euphemia is not a unique character; she's basically a carbon copy of Lacus Clyne and a much weaker version of Relena Peacecraft. I never really liked pseudo-pacifistic characters.

So why was Euphemia politically inept? What socioeconomic principles was she ignorant of? How was she naive to a fault?

Do you dislike pseudo-pacifistic characters because of the pseudo, the pacifistic, or both?

[proEuphie]

delete

[wolfgirl90]

Again, another post that really took a short amount of time despite its length. It will be interesting to see when this thread is closed for length. By the way, you know you're still off-topic, right? In your OWN thread? Just letting you know.

Here I clearly made a distinction between a person's personality, or behavior pattern, and his identity, everything he has done and experienced and felt and thought.

I know you made a distinction, however, your distinction (execution wise) doesn't work (again, you are assuming that everything that you speculate is true in order to prove your point; that's a logical fallacy). One's behavior pattern is PART OF, rather than distinctive of, their identity. True, Euphemia and Lacus Clyne do not do the exact same things or say the same things; their fictional biographies set them apart, that much is true. However, when it comes to certain behaviors, there is not that much setting them apart. They are different characters in and of themselves, however, they both come from the same mold.

Clearly you did not get my point that people with radically different personality types might be equally good or evil, and that a person might be much more good or evil than another person with the same personality type.

Believe me, I got your point. However, you had just finished telling me and the other people here that intentions do not excuse the actions of a person (e.g just because Allelujah and Celestial Being meant well doesn't excuse their killing of people). However, almost immediately after that, you said that it would be nice to see a bad guy who was nice and had a good nature, such as your kind, gentle, easy-going, Nazi, which contradicts what you JUST said (according to you, his intentions and attitude do not excuse what he was doing, making him just as evil as the other Nazis).

And Euphemia's unique identity is far more important to me than her personality in making her an unique character that I like.

Just so you know (since you have forgotten), I don't critize you for liking Euphemia. I can understand why people like her. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of a character (I just personally do not like her). HOWEVER, coming here and whining about her death is the issue that I have with you, to the point where I see you as a troll who doesn't really deserve any respect from me. I can't do anything about her death. And you can't either so long as you are wasting time here. Every post you make here is another that could have been made to Sunrise regarding this matter. Sunrise doesn't go around checking random forums, so if you plan to bring your anger and "sadness" to their attention, you are going to have to contact them directly (again, I hope you know Japanese and Japanese business etiquette). What do you expect us to do about her death?

Here you regress from incorrectly considering a character to be his personality and not his identity to even more incorrectly considering a character to be his fictional archetype.

Okay, first all, I never made the distinction between what a person did as their identity or their behavioral pattern as their identity. What I said was that if someone like Euphemia for her PERSONALITY, then they will like Nightmare of Nunnally. If they only liked her for her ACTIONS, then they won't. I never said anything about identities, so this entire thing is moot.

Second, Euphemia does indeed represent an archetype present in many Sunrise productions: the pacifistic Princess/Influential Rich Girl. Sure, people can fundamentally tell these fictional characters apart, but Euphemia plays a role that many girls have played before. Euphemia plays the same role as Lacus Clyne and Relena Peacecraft (their is a girl on Gundam 00 who does the same thing, but again, I am not going to tell you how it is). Sunrise does this ALL THE TIME! From the emotionless, fighting-for-a-cause young man (Heero Yui, Setsuna F. Seiei, etc) to the pacifistic soldier willing to fight to his friends and what he believes in (Kira Yamato, Suzaku Kururugi, etc). There is even a well-known archetype called "Char Clones", where, in almost every Gundam series, (including the non-Gundam series of Code Geass) there is character that fills the role of Char Aznable from the original Gundam series and acts almost (and sometimes looks) exactly like him (e.g Zechs Merquise, Mu La Flaga, Rau Le Creuset [DUUUUUH!!], Graham Aker, Schneizel el Britannia, etc).

Because of this, while I do make a distinction between the characters themselves (e.g such as liking Relena more than Euphemia, despite them being fundamentally the same), I do recognize that they fill the role that Sunrise has given them.

And it is the same with fictional characters. The existence of other people with the same personality type or filling the same social role or the same story archetype does not compensate for the loss of an individual fictional character.

I did not say that it did (irrelevant conclusion again), however, this causes a problem on your part. I don't know what "compensation" you expect to receive, but again, for every long-winded post you make here is another one that could have been to Sunrise. And as long as you never achieve any contact with them, you are basically wasting time or just whining for no reason.

In order for Euphemia to "come back to life" (which is never going to happen, just so you know) and do all those things you expect her to do, something about her HAS to change. They can't keep her as the same character because it was her naivete that got her into trouble in the first place. Just like in Nightmare of Nunnally, this needs to come out in order for Euphemia to succeed with the SAZ, and in order to do that, the events leading up to her initial appearance need to change in order for the events to diverge. According to your standards, this will change the character, we have a problem here, don't we?

[proEuphie]

reply to post # 186 xXPainfulSmilexX

See my post # 203.

[IcePriestess]

Sorry, I will not read the whole bible you wrote, but when I saw it, I was like OMG. I knew you were doing this 3 months ago, but the fact that you're still doing it now amazes me.
Anyway the thing I noticed when I was rewatching the whole Code Geass is the fact:
(I'm sorry if it was already mentioned)...
How long was Euphemia a Britannia princess? Japan was attacked like 8 years ago(it's not accurate) and Lelouch was in there then. So why did Euphemia started acting on her own only when she found out Lelouch was Zero and Nunally was alive? The thing that I'm concerned about is "Why the hell didn't Euphemia care for Japanese people earlier"? If she loved them that much, she could have done something 8 years ago... Well if not eight years ago(she was a child about the same age as Lelouch) then at least 3 or 2 years ago... I'm just getting the impression that , ProEuphie, your beloved Euphemia didn't care for japanese people at all and the only reason she did that "Established Area of Japan" was because of Lelouch and Black Knights. She didn't give a damn about the suffering of people earlier.
Of course you'll find something to counterattack me with, but sorry if it's another bible, I'm not going to read it. Please make yourself clear with a couple of sentences.

[wolfgirl90]

Sorry, I will not read the whole bible you wrote, but when I saw it, I was like OMG. I knew you were doing this 3 months ago, but the fact that you're still doing it now amazes me.
Anyway the thing I noticed when I was rewatching the whole Code Geass is the fact:
(I'm sorry if it was already mentioned)...
How long was Euphemia a Britannia princess? Japan was attacked like 8 years ago(it's not accurate) and Lelouch was in there then. So why did Euphemia started acting on her own only when she found out Lelouch was Zero and Nunally was alive? The thing that I'm concerned about is "Why the hell didn't Euphemia care for Japanese people earlier"? If she loved them that much, she could have done something 8 years ago... Well if not eight years ago(she was a child about the same age as Lelouch) then at least 3 or 2 years ago... I'm just getting the impression that , ProEuphie, your beloved Euphemia didn't care for japanese people at all and the only reason she did that "Established Area of Japan" was because of Lelouch and Black Knights. She didn't give a damn about the suffering of people earlier.
Of course you'll find something to counterattack me with, but sorry if it's another bible, I'm not going to read it. Please make yourself clear with a couple of sentences.

Well, its important to keep things in perspective. Japan was attacked by Britannia during the Second Pacific War, in 2010 a.t.b; Euphemia was born in 2002 a.t.b, making her 7 years old when Japan was attacked. So needless to say, there was nothing much that she could do about it (Cornelia however is a full 11 years older than Euphemia, so we can only imagine where she was at the time).

Euphemia has always been a Princess of Britannia (her status doesn't change until she voluntarily gives it up), however, until her appearance in the fifth episode (in 2017 a.t.b), she has been living in Pendragon the whole time (unlike her sister who has been a bunch of places since joining the military). Because of this, she is a bit ignorant of the deeper things that are going on around her (she is naive to a fault).

She wanted to change the way things were once she saw with her own eyes what was going on; Lelouch and Nunnally being alive added to that (it became one of her main reasons for change, but not the only one). Unfortunately, again due to her naivete, she decides to start the SAZ based on wanting to live a peaceful life with Lelouch and Nunnally, rather than thinking of the much bigger picture (how the Japanese would feel about what she was doing). We are indeed talking about a royal member of the conquering nation giving back a stadium-sized piece of land. Even if you take the largest stadium in the world and use all of its space as territory, that's still only about 0.000547% of Japanese land (that's not a drop in the bucket; its really a spit in the face).

Euphemia's naivete was what got her into trouble. She had the best intentions in the world (she certainly cared), but she didn't understand what the Japanese were truly fighting for.

[xXPainful SmilexX]

reply to post # 186 xXPainfulSmilexX

See my post # 203.

Hm? What?
Sorry I ask questions, I just only say things when I know exactly what the other person is talking about, and you lost me.

[Wicked Eden]

Euphy wasn't stupid. Her naivety stemmed from the fact she was a royal princess. She was no were near the intense naivety of (sorry) Princess Marina Ismael of Gundam 00. I mean, her errant pacifism wasn't too bad, until the event in which A-Laws was attacking the house that Katharon was hiding out in. Claus was badly injured, and trying to cover her, Shirin, ind a bunch of small children's escape. Once outside Shirin hands Marina a gun to protect the children with once the split up. She wouldn't take it. I guess the orphans weren't worth shedding some blood over. I guess killing people who just willingly murdered 60,000 civilians is wrong. I know it wasn't the A-Laws fault, it was Ribbons' fault. But Marina and the other Katharon members had no way of knowing that.

[xXPainful SmilexX]

Euphy wasn't stupid. Her naivety stemmed from the fact she was a royal princess. She was no were near the intense naivety of (sorry) Princess Marina Ismael of Gundam 00. I mean, her errant pacifism wasn't too bad, until the event in which A-Laws was attacking the house that Katharon was hiding out in. Claus was badly injured, and trying to cover her, Shirin, ind a bunch of small children's escape. Once outside Shirin hands Marina a gun to protect the children with once the split up. She wouldn't take it. I guess the orphans weren't worth shedding some blood over. I guess killing people who just willingly murdered 60,000 civilians is wrong. I know it wasn't the A-Laws fault, it was Ribbons' fault. But Marina and the other Katharon members had no way of knowing that.

Seconded. Euphy wasn't half as dumb as Nunnally.

[proEuphie]

Hm? What?
Sorry I ask questions, I just only say things when I know exactly what the other person is talking about, and you lost me.

In post # 185 I discussed Euphemia at Narita. You replied to it in post # 186 and wolfgirl90 replied to it in post # 187. My post # 203 is a reply to post # 187 but it also applies to things you wrote in post # 186, and thus you might be interested in what it says.

[proEuphie]

Sorry, I will not read the whole bible you wrote, but when I saw it, I was like OMG. I knew you were doing this 3 months ago, but the fact that you're still doing it now amazes me.
Anyway the thing I noticed when I was rewatching the whole Code Geass is the fact:
(I'm sorry if it was already mentioned)...
How long was Euphemia a Britannia princess? Japan was attacked like 8 years ago(it's not accurate) and Lelouch was in there then. So why did Euphemia started acting on her own only when she found out Lelouch was Zero and Nunally was alive? The thing that I'm concerned about is "Why the hell didn't Euphemia care for Japanese people earlier"? If she loved them that much, she could have done something 8 years ago... Well if not eight years ago(she was a child about the same age as Lelouch) then at least 3 or 2 years ago... I'm just getting the impression that , ProEuphie, your beloved Euphemia didn't care for japanese people at all and the only reason she did that "Established Area of Japan" was because of Lelouch and Black Knights. She didn't give a damn about the suffering of people earlier.
Of course you'll find something to counterattack me with, but sorry if it's another bible, I'm not going to read it. Please make yourself clear with a couple of sentences.

You don't know, since it is never stated, what Euphemia might have done about the various types of suffering of the Japanese, other Numbers, Britannian commoners, and other people throughout the world (not all of which was caused by Britannia) in the last few years before the series (when she was aged about thirteen to sixteen), or how what she did compared to the maximum and minimum amounts that she could have done, so you really don't have much evidence for your statement.

And you could compare the behavior of the Britannian army under Cornelia's command at the Saitema Ghetto Massacre in "get Cornelia" with its behavior under Cornelia's command at the Battle of Narita when Euphemia was present (see posts # 185, 186, 187, and 203 in this thread) and when Euphie had only a slight suspicion that Lelouch was Zero.

[Wicked Eden]

Seconded. Euphy wasn't half as dumb as Nunnally.

Yeah, her whole "You're a murderer, Lelouch! So to get back at you I'll

 

kill millions

logic was more than just stupid. It was retarded.

[kimi no kioku]

Yeah, her whole "You're a murderer, Lelouch! So to get back at you I'll

 

kill millions

logic was more than just stupid. It was retarded.

Lol. This is off topic, but, Nunnally was moronic. She was a hypocrite. Euphy was much smarter than her and Marina Ismail.

Anyway, proEuphie dear, are you finished ranting yet?

[wolfgirl90]

In case you didn't notice (since I have been doing this for a while), I am going to shorten your posts to the bare minimum. Stuff I feel like responding to because I think they are funny. Also, have you contacted Sunrise about your little "Bring Euphemia Back to Life" idea? No? So you are still wasting time, yes? Okay, whatever. So you are still going to respond to this long post with a longer post without talking to Sunrise, wasting more time? Okay, whatever.

Does any reason other than fear for the safety of the hospital personnel and the civilians suggest itself as a reason not to move the G1 in an attempt to rescue Cornelia?

YES! Because her sister told her NOT TO MOVE! Sure, she had her own personal reasons for not wanting to move but at THE SAME TIME, she was ORDERED not to move. Because of this, you can't really say that she didn't move because of her personal reasons because she ALSO didn't move because her sister told not to. "We mustn't! The field hospital is here, along with all of the evacuated civilians. Besides, the G-1 is the main command center. The Viceroy ordered us not to move under any circumstance." That is what Euphemia said.

How could Euphemia possibly be parroting her sister when she spoke of the field hospital and the civilians ahead as reasons not to move the G1?

Considering that I was talking about Cornelia's WORDS and not her actions, I do not know how you came to the much broader conclusion that I was talking about Euphemia imitating Cornelia actions (even a five year old knows that parrots are known for imitating words). Euphemia's orders were not to move. Therefore, she could easily be parroting (as in verbally repeating something without understanding) her sister as she could be showing her own personal convictions (showing her "won't power" as you would say).

You are not wrong but you are not right either.

So it is possible that Euphemia made up those orders or simplified them in a way that helped her argument when she remembered them and told her officers about them.

The thing about cartoons is that you can only work what has been given to you. There are a lot of things that we don't know about Euphemia, but those things do not matter so long as we don't know about them. Euphemia is not real; I can't treat her like a human. Because of this, I can only assume that Euphemia is telling the truth unless proven otherwise, since, for the sake of entertainment, she is only saying what Sunrise wants her to say (because of Cornelia's attitude, it makes sense for her to tell her sister not to move). Now you have the burden of proof to show me that Euphemia would lie (and it must be proof from the cartoon). Otherwise, your point is moot.

Euphemia resisted her geass command to massacre, which shows that she was tens, or hundreds, or thousands, of times more opposed to massacring people than Britannian soldiers were to killing themselves.

This is true. HOWEVER, this didn't stop her from ultimately doing it.

While Euphemia's resistance to the Geass shows how she was against the very idea of killing the Japanese, I can't praise her just for that (Nunnally also resisted the Geass and for the same amount of time).

Which means that you have no reason to sneer at the strength of Euphemia's anti-massacre "won't power".

Well, the main reason that I am "sneering" is because, well, I don't respect you nearly enough to take what you say with any sort of seriousness (why do I care what a troll says?). I understand what you are saying, really I do, but unfortunately for you, I don't care. I used to take you seriously, understanding your concern (not agreeing, but understanding). However, you have drifted into troll territory; whether you accept this or not is up to you.

So why was Euphemia politically inept? What socioeconomic principles was she ignorant of? How was she naive to a fault?

Do you dislike pseudo-pacifistic characters because of the pseudo, the pacifistic, or both?

Euphemia, before being introduced to us, had been living a relatively sheltered life in Pendragon (which is normal for a princess). She has received only so much of an education and most likely never had any sort of experience leading any number of people (again, normal for a princess); she even admitted that she didn't enjoy serving as Sub-Viceroy. She is politically inept because she has little experience in politics. Socioeconomics is tied to this. She understands what Britannia has done to the Japanese only to a certain extent; beyond that, she is clueless. And Euphemia is naive to a fault because her naivete is what gets her into trouble even when she has the best of intentions. The biggest would be the SAZ. She created it for the Japanese with the intention of living in peace with Lelouch and Nunnally the way they used to. However, giving back approximately 0.000547% of conquered land, land the Japanese fought and died for, doesn't seem much of peace offering to the Japanese. Euphemia is not aware of what the Japanese feel; it probably never crossed her mind.

When it comes to pseudo-pacifistic characters, I don't like them because of both the "pseudo" and the "pacifism". Its one thing to be pacifistic when you are not being attacked (e.g not wanting people to fight each other when they are not fighting you), but its another to not want to fight even when you (and others around you) are being attacked. For example, just like Wicked Eden said, Marina Ismail didn't take a gun that was supposed to be used to defend herself and a group of orphans (she was concerned about HER feelings, rather than the lives of the orphans themselves).

The "pseudo" also irks me. Pacifists don't like fighting; they don't want to fight and don't want others to fight. However, there are people who have these ideals (Euphemia) and even classify themselves as pacifists (Relena) but are either seen fighting (participating, leading, etc) or even acknowledging that fighting is necessary (which wouldn't be too bad except for the bloody battles that occur). Euphemia is against fighting, but has participated in no less than 2 battles and Relena...let's not get started on her hypocrisy.

However, again, I simply do not like Euphemia; I mean, there is really nothing that you can do to change my overall opinion about her. Just like how you do not like Lelouch, I simply do not like Euphemia. And that's fine with me. No problem there. However, this little tirade of yours is making me care less and less about Euphemia (if I cared at all). If you want something changed about the series, talk to Sunrise about it; don't whine here (again, each post you make here is one that could have been made to Sunrise).

[proEuphie]

We are indeed talking about a royal member of the conquering nation giving back a stadium-sized piece of land. Even if you take the largest stadium in the world and use all of its space as territory, that's still only about 0.000547% of Japanese land (that's not a drop in the bucket; its really a spit in the face).

Euphemia's naivete was what got her into trouble. She had the best intentions in the world (she certainly cared), but she didn't understand what the Japanese were truly fighting for.

What sources describe the size of the SAZ?

So you really believe that 200,000 people would apply to reside in a political area consisting only of a stadium small enough that most of the seats were filled by all 200,000 applicants, or possibly by a much smaller subset of them? I doubt that even tenement apartments could be built for 200,000 under the seats of a stadium that seats only 200,000 people (let alone one which seats much fewer people).

Would they be willing to live elsewhere under the same old Britannian rule and commute to work in freedom in the stadium? Many Japanese are dedicated to their jobs and would work long hours, especially if their workplace was the only place where they had a lot of freedom, but they would be worried about their family members still living in the ordinary administrative zones of Japan.

And how could a stadium profitably provide the tens of thousands of jobs necessary to support 200,000 people? I can imagine a stadium providing hundreds or even a few thousand jobs, but not the 25,000 to 100,000 jobs necessary to support 200,000 people.

But apparently there was a convincing plan to provide jobs for the inhabitants of the SAZ.

We know that 200,000 Japanese applied to live in the SAZ but not how many more or less than 200,000 people it had room for. If there were about 50,000,000 to 200,000,000 living Japanese the SAZ might have been designed to hold 100,000 to 10,000,000 people or about 0.005 to 0.1 of the total Japanese population.

Since I didn't notice any high-rise buildings the SAZ should have had an area of several square miles if it was meant to hold a population in the hundreds of thousands.

So I think that the assumption that the Zone consisted only of a stadium is probably an error of some kind. For example, hypothetical signs at the stadium during the opening ceremony saying "Welcome to the Special Administrative Zone" might mark the temporal instead of the spatial limits of the Zone.

Saying that Euphemia only wanted to give back 0.000547% of Japanese land is misleading even if that was the correct size of the Zone. Euphemia might have hoped that if the SAZ succeeded it might be enlarged and other SAZs created to spread over most of Japan and possibly be imitated in other Britannian Areas. Euphemia was not a daredevil overconfident teenager like Lelouch eager to change the world with one stroke.

And just how was the SAZ giving back land? That could be interpreted two ways.

One was giving back property, real estate, which had been confiscated by Britannia for some reason, or replacing it with equal property. In that case the applicants to the SAZ would have wanted compensation for property confiscated elsewhere and the SAZ would have contained enough real estate to satisfy them.

The other way was giving back national control of land. But after the Battle of Narita a functioning Area Eleven government was casually mentioned in a meeting. Apparently it was intended to carry out functions which the Emperor considered beneath the dignity of the Britannian government or something. Cornelia suspected that the Japanese government was diverting funds to the rebel groups (I suppose she sent in the dreaded IBAS - Imperial Britannian Auditor Service - to investigate her suspicions).

So apparently the Elevens already had a subordinate government of some kind over most or all of Area Eleven that was partially under their control.

Since the SAZ plan could not have returned independence to the SAZ, the plan was not exactly about returning any land to the national control of the Japanese. But since the SAZ plan promised increased freedoms for its residents they may have been promised a big share in the government of the SAZ, And I suppose that could be considered returning a bit of land to the Japanese. But I got the impression that the SAZ promised personal freedom, not return of land, to the Japanese.

In episode 22 a lot of Japanese expressed a lot of differing views about the SAZ plan. But I don't remember hearing any personal hostility toward Euphemia. The SAZ plan didn't get her into trouble with the Japanese.

The SAZ either would have worked out or else fizzled and ended much more likely in a whimper than in a bang.
If Lelouch had not come to the opening planning to make trouble and start an uprising.

Euphemia's fatal naivete that got her into trouble was not her SAZ plan but trusting in her beloved brother Lelouch enough to ignore the warnings of her advisers concerned with her security and invite the dreaded rebel Zero to a private meeting.

[kimi no kioku]

We are indeed talking about a royal member of the conquering nation giving back a stadium-sized piece of land. Even if you take the largest stadium in the world and use all of its space as territory, that's still only about 0.000547% of Japanese land (that's not a drop in the bucket; its really a spit in the face).

Euphemia's naivete was what got her into trouble. She had the best intentions in the world (she certainly cared), but she didn't understand what the Japanese were truly fighting for.

Weren't the Japanese people happy with the SAZ at first? Until the massacre, they weren't upset. It's not like it was offensive.
Although I could be biased, Euphy was my second favorite character in the series.

Euphemia's fatal naivete that got her into trouble was not her SAZ plan but trusting in her beloved brother Lelouch enough to ignore the warnings of her advisers concerned with her security and invite the dreaded rebel Zero to a private meeting.

Euphy wasn't wrong to believe Lelouch. He really loved her and she knew it. Lelouch was angry and wasn't thinking straight. He would never have killed her if he didn't feel he had to.

[Jimbow]

Why would u name a topic this?
I've seen Code Geass already but what if people were still watching it?
It'd be a pretty big spoiler...

[wolfgirl90]

What sources describe the size of the SAZ?

Here's the SAZ:


Not even joking, the SAZ is literally THAT stadium and that stadium alone. Not the area around it, but THAT STADIUM is the SAZ. I based my approximation of its size simply by using the size of the largest stadium in the world and then being REALLY generous.

So you really believe that 200,000 people would apply to reside in a political area consisting only of a stadium small enough that most of the seats were filled by all 200,000 applicants, or possibly by a much smaller subset of them?

Yes. I mean, what kind of question is that? Some of the Japanese didn't want to fight and only wanted to live their lives in peace; they didn't like Britannia but they didn't want to fight either (that is, not until the massacre). Having the chance to get their names back and have some freedom would be a godsend to them, even if they did live in a stadium.

And how could a stadium profitably provide the tens of thousands of jobs necessary to support 200,000 people?

That's the problem, isn't?

So I think that the assumption that the Zone consisted only of a stadium is probably an error of some kind.

Look at the picture. Not even joking.

Saying that Euphemia only wanted to give back 0.000547% of Japanese land is misleading even if that was the correct size of the Zone.

Misleading only if I actually said that, which I didn't. I didn't say that's what Euphemia WANTED to do, I said that it was what Euphemia DID.

And just how was the SAZ giving back land?

Here's how the SAZ works (or rather, what it was trying to do): The Special Administrative Zone of Japan is a place where the Japanese get their name back (they will be called "citizens of Japan") and have many of their rights and privileges restored. They would basically be ruling themselves as an autonomous region within Britannia (think of Hong Kong).

The other way was giving back national control of land. But after the Battle of Narita a functioning Area Eleven government was casually mentioned in a meeting. Apparently it was intended to carry out functions which the Emperor considered beneath the dignity of the Britannian government or something.

So apparently the Elevens already had a subordinate government of some kind over most or all of Area Eleven that was partially under their control.

Umm...wrong again. What you are referring to (or trying but failing to refer to) are the Six Houses of Kyoto (aka the Kyoto House). This is an organization of Japanese industrialists. They were left in charge of running Japan's industries (not the government; that's Cornelia's job) because Britannia thought that it would be better for Japanese industrialists to run the native industries (who know how to do it and would work amongst themselves) than have Britannia take over. They are not the government.

The Six Houses of Kyoto were actually despised by the Japanese because they saw them as traitors working for Britannia instead of fighting against them. Of course, working with Britannia was only a front; they were really making money to give to rebel groups (notably the Japan Liberation Front).

Then again, you should already know at least THAT much. Didn't you once complain about Kaguya Sumeragi's actions in Code Geass?

But I got the impression that the SAZ promised personal freedom, not return of land, to the Japanese.

It was both stupid.

Euphemia's fatal naivete that got her into trouble was not her SAZ plan but trusting in her beloved brother Lelouch enough to ignore the warnings of her advisers concerned with her security and invite the dreaded rebel Zero to a private meeting.

It was both stupid.

Weren't the Japanese people happy with the SAZ at first? Until the massacre, they weren't upset. It's not like it was offensive.
Although I could be biased, Euphy was my second favorite character in the series.

Some of the Japanese were upset (namely those that really supported the Black Knights and the JLF) and others were not. Some really just wanted to live their lives in peace without the constant threat of something blowing up (whether it was Britannia doing it or the Black Knights).

Euphy wasn't wrong to believe Lelouch. He really loved her and she knew it. Lelouch was angry and wasn't thinking straight. He would never have killed her if he didn't feel he had to.

I think he was thinking straight (he planned out a relatively complex plan for what he was going to do once he got to the SAZ), but he felt that he had to do something about Euphemia plans and had to do it fast (acceptance of the SAZ would make the Black Knights powerless; refusing it would make them pariahs), which is why he came up with his "Underpants Gnome"-like plan of becoming a martyr.

[Creed_x]

Who cares, it's a character from anime o-o move on.

[kimi no kioku]

Here's the SAZ:


Not even joking, the SAZ is literally THAT stadium and that stadium alone. Not the area around it, but THAT STADIUM is the SAZ. I based my approximation of its size simply by using the size of the largest stadium in the world and then being REALLY generous.

Didn't they say the area "AROUND" MT.Fuji? The Stadium was where the speech was.

Some of the Japanese were upset (namely those that really supported the Black Knights and the JLF) and others were not. Some really just wanted to live their lives in peace without the constant threat of something blowing up (whether it was Britannia doing it or the Black Knights).

All the terrorists were. Everyone else seemed okay with it.

I think he was thinking straight (he planned out a relatively complex plan for what he was going to do once he got to the SAZ), but he felt that he had to do something about Euphemia plans and had to do it fast (acceptance of the SAZ would make the Black Knights powerless; refusing it would make them pariahs), which is why he came up with his "Underpants Gnome"-like plan of becoming a martyr.

I mean his mind wasn't working as well as normal because of how upset he was. I mean, "have her shoot me" isn't very logical.

Why would u name a topic this?
I've seen Code Geass already but what if people were still watching it?
It'd be a pretty big spoiler...

Because proEuphie is a stupid troll and doesn't care. Someone asked the same question and she said "so that way people can be warned of the EVIL of the show."

[wolfgirl90]

Didn't they say the area "AROUND" MT.Fuji? The Stadium was where the speech was.

The area around Mt. Fuji that you are referring to would be Sector F-208, which is located near Mt.Fuji. The SAZ is located within the sector itself, which would be the stadium (every other time they mentioned the SAZ, they showed an empty stadium).

Of course, I'm not sure how big you guys think a stadium is (or can get), but the biggest one in the world (the one I am comparing the SAZ to) is 207 square kilometers big; that's nothing to sneeze at, which is why I was being generous with the size and why the zone being in the stadium is not that far-fetched. That is A LOT of land. Very small compared to all of Japan, but a lot; there are cities that are not that big (even all of Washington, D.C. is not that damn big).

Now, what they were supposed to do with the land after they became autonomous is not made clear (they mentioned some construction and materials were shown, but unfortunately, it never got that far). Although, considering the fact the SAZ failed twice (once with Euphemia and again with Nunnally), it doesn't really matter.

All the terrorists were. Everyone else seemed okay with it.

Which is why I used the word "some".

I mean his mind wasn't working as well as normal because of how upset he was. I mean, "have her shoot me" isn't very logical.

Its logical, but very extreme. I used the term "Underpants Gnome"-like (a la South Park) because his plan made sense up until what was supposed to happen to him (or Euphemia for that matter) after that. Sure, having Euphemia shoot him would make him a martyr and the Japanese would love him. Makes sense. Until you realize he has to actually got shot. I'm just saying the plan made sense; not saying that it was actually a good idea.

Because proEuphie is a stupid troll and doesn't care. Someone asked the same question and she said "so that way people can be warned of the EVIL of the show."

ProEuphie can find evil in anything. She can probably watch Gumby or Domo-kun shorts and find evil somewhere.

[kimi no kioku]

The area around Mt. Fuji that you are referring to would be Sector F-208, which is located near Mt.Fuji. The SAZ is located within the sector itself, which would be the stadium (every other time they mentioned the SAZ, they showed an empty stadium).

Of course, I'm not sure how big you guys think a stadium is (or can get), but the biggest one in the world (the one I am comparing the SAZ to) is 207 square kilometers big; that's nothing to sneeze at, which is why I was being generous with the size and why the zone being in the stadium is not that far-fetched. That is A LOT of land. Very small compared to all of Japan, but a lot; there are cities that are not that big (even all of Washington, D.C. is not that damn big).

Now, what they were supposed to do with the land after they became autonomous is not made clear (they mentioned some construction and materials were shown, but unfortunately, it never got that far). Although, considering the fact the SAZ failed twice (once with Euphemia and again with Nunnally), it doesn't really matter.

I never remember them actually saying it was just the stadium

Which is why I used the word "some".

Okay.

Its logical, but very extreme. I used the term "Underpants Gnome"-like (a la South Park) because his plan made sense up until what was supposed to happen to him (or Euphemia for that matter) after that. Sure, having Euphemia shoot him would make him a martyr and the Japanese would love him. Makes sense. Until you realize he has to actually got shot. I'm just saying the plan made sense; not saying that it was actually a good idea.

Sorry, don't know South Park much. He most likely would have chickened out when she tried to shoot him, lol. He was a little nerd.

ProEuphie can find evil in anything. She can probably watch Gumby or Domo-kun shorts and find evil somewhere.

LMAO.

[proEuphie]

Why did I name the thread with a spoiler?

Because proEuphie is a stupid troll and doesn't care. Someone asked the same question and she said "so that way people can be warned of the EVIL of the show."

I guess I wasn't thinking abut the possibility of anyone who had not seen the entire series and episode 23 seeing the thread title.

Is it possible to rename a thread? If so I could rename it "The Murder in Episode 23" , "Lelouch's Crime", "The evil in episode 23", "The Worst Fictional tv Murder?", "Was it Murder?", "The Shot Which Killed my Love of Anime". "Lelouch, From Hero to Zero" or something else which is not so much of a spoiler.

I think that you are not exactly quoting me and so probably should not have used quotation marks.