[Skyfall]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

All of the above is really no more than a fallacious appeal to emotion. Izumi irks you so therefore she is just plain wrong?

No, Izumi irks me because she is plain wrong, and I find arguments in her favor mostly stemming from empathy towards her/their stressful situation, with the follow-up logic being tailored to suit that particular goal (which would exactly be an appeal to emotion). Which is why I allowed myself to call some of those assumptions arbitrary (like the "acknowledgment" one) - because I honestly feel that instead of a neutral examination of the facts and naturally following them to their conclusions, supporting Izumi's position can only be achieved the other way around - choosing a goal to reach, and then interpreting all clues in a manner that's tailored towards said goal.

So indeed, I can understand emphasizing with Izumi and her position as head of countermeasures during a time when fecal matter is hitting the rotor, but I simply reject the notion that her accusation of Mei holds ground on detached logical basis. Understanding where someone is coming from and actually validating said position are two different things.

Which is where I suppose our differences might be well be coming from - I am indeed looking at the situation from an outsider's "god's view" perspective, and judging based on that, while your position seems to be more of that her situation and actions are emotionally understandable. That I can agree with, and I certainly wouldn't want to find myself in her shoes, but at the same time I don't believe the relevant information available to her for an objective assessment of the situation is all that different from us. Which is why I see her actions as influenced by her emotion (her seemingly general dislike of Mei + overall stress of the situation + general human need to have a tangible outlet for their frustration) more than they should be, which is why can't see her actions as "correct", even if they are "understandable"

The second example was during Kouichi's daydream of dancing with Mei. He had such a silly grin on his face that Mochizuki and Teshigawara couldn't help but notice him — at a time when Kouichi was supposed to be "non-existent". Wouldn't this count as acknowledgement? Again, apparently not.

The thing about Chibiki's thoughts on the efficacy of the ostracism counter-measure is that even he does not know why it does or does not work. It may be because of all the little cases of accidental acknowledgement that went unnoticed. Then again, maybe not. The truth is, no one knows. The students are just trying their best to make it work.

Thing is, Koichi's experiences as "nonexistent one" aren't really indicative of anything. Since we don't know whether the phenomenon can actually be stopped once started (in fact I seem to remember someone saying they can't be, though I don't remember if it was Chibiki, Mei or someone else), they were shooting in the dark to start with there. It was a desperate move because they have no other, so I don't know how high they believed to be their chances of success - not high, I'd wager.

Technically Teshigawara already broke it when he apologized to Koichi, but then he has always been reluctant about keeping Koichi in the dark, even when it concerned only Mei, and Mochizki is largely in a similar boat. Coupled with the questionable usefulness of ignoring Koichi to start with, I don't find it too weird they couldn't help it at times. Especially Teshigawara was prone to making "accidents" in this regard from the start, even when their countermeasure was supposedly working, so he has established himself as someone who was lax about it from the start. And it's not like anyone actually saw him/them doing any of that, so there is no one to accuse them of anything in the first place.

Besides that, I highly doubt simply looking at the person would do the trick - if that were the case, the countermeasure would have never worked at all, because it's literally impossible for all students to keep the person out of your sight for the whole school year as long as he actually attends the same class. That would essentially be the same as merely thinking about said person being enough to break the spell (It's brain that processes optical input after all), which can't be the case for obvious reasons.

No, it can only work if it requires an actual interaction related to said person, something that acknowledges his existence to the outside world beyond the confines of your own mind. Interacting with said person directly is a given cause for failure ... I guess even mentioning him in a conversation is. But someone simply catching a glance of him being a cause for failure would have prevented the countermeasure from being discovered in the first place.

The first example is during a test, when we the viewers could clearly see that exam papers had been distributed to the "non-existent" Mei.

Simply putting down a sheet of paper on all desks in a class doesn't necessarily mean a case of interaction with the "ignored one" though - it's not like the papers are labeled with names, or that someone came up and gave it to her. Back in school it was a fairly standard practice to have sheets of paper distributed on all desks in a class before a test, irregardless of how many people were actually present or even in the class to start with, so this one didn't seem particularly odd to me.

The thing about Chibiki's thoughts on the efficacy of the ostracism counter-measure is that even he does not know why it does or does not work. It may be because of all the little cases of accidental acknowledgement that went unnoticed. Then again, maybe not. The truth is, no one knows. The students are just trying their best to make it work.

No one knows indeed, and while I am obviously speculating here (and perhaps some 'undiscovered' cases of someone failing to uphold the countermeasure indeed fall in the "no one knows" category), fact still remains that such cases are generally being accounted for, implying that they -do- happen, are acknowledged (it's not like anything else besides an acknowledgment of the "nonexistent one" can be a cause), and thus aren't unheard of.

What I believe the 50% unknown hint at, which I believe is the overriding purpose of this information piece, which is something I have been saying since episode 5, is the potential for "Another" to be someone outside the class, within the same two degrees of bloodline separation that the curse effects. In which case ignoring someone in class wouldn't be of much use, but Chibiki has been so focused on class 3 specifically that he may have missed the potential for that possibility, which is why he doesn't even mention it, and instead can only shrug in defeat at the unknown causes for failure. It can't be arbitrary, there has to be a method to the madness, and I very much doubt half the times it doesn't work solely because a failure to ignore wasn't found out.

Originally Posted by Dengar

The problem is, would you be able to kill the extra, provided you are their classmate and have known them for a long time, or at least feel like you've known them for a long time?

By 'you', I mean anyone reading this.

Hm, an interesting question, and I doubt it's something people can truly answer with certainly without having experienced such a situation. That said, it wouldn't have been the first time when people kill in perceived self-defense, or those close to them. Thing is, simply the moral question of killing someone who is technically alive (for the moment) isn't the only thing balancing the decision here - on the other side you have your own potential life, and the lives of your family members. Of course, there is a chance you and your own family might get out just fine. But they might also not. Your best friend could die. Your lover, if he/she happens to be from the same class could die. Someone will die.

For an added "temptation", there is also the fact you won't have to answer for, or explain your actions to anyone. Everyone will forget the "Another" existed. You won't be accused of anything, held responsible for anything. You can do it and get away scot-free. The only limiting factor is your conscience/morality, but it gets soothed by the fact you can tell yourselves you are actually saving lives by doing so. And it's not even a "real" sacrifice - the "Another" can't be saved, it's an existence that will cease to exist at the end of the year anyway, and won't be remembered by almost anyone. The "death" of Another is assured in either case. The lives hanging in the balance can still be saved.

That said, for me personally, I think it would largely depend on the circumstances of who the Another is. If it turned out to be my lover ... no, I'd imagine I couldn't do it. I know I don't really care for "greater good" to the extent I would sacrifice something dear to me for it. Even if the "greater good" consists of lives of actual humans here. Though this again depends on whether I have close friends in the class - that could make the situation murky again.

If the Another turned out to be a random classmate though, one which I have never really been all that close with - indeed, I imagine I could be able to do it. Not for the "greater good" (though it would turn out like that anyway, so I get the props for that either way!), but to secure my own life, that of my family and that of my friends. It wouldn't be pretty, but I would do it, and I imagine would be able to get over it reasonably well.

Now the more interesting question is: could you do it if you had a way to know, for sure, that you and your family, along with your friends/potential lover in the class won't be struck by the calamity. Could you do it solely for the sake of classmates you sort-of know but never really interact with ? Especially if the Another turns out to be someone close to you? That I do not know.