[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by MarkS00N

See, here's the difference in our way of thinking...
For me, as long as there are choice to choose, without pressure, it isn't forced, it merely a recommendation...

If a system's recommendations are followed 98% or more of the time, are they still "mere" recommendations? Admittedly, that 98% figure is a hypothetical one, but this narrative is (so far) giving every implication that people typically follow Sibyl's "recommendations".

I think that you, and some others, are downplaying the influence that Sibyl holds over the world of Psycho-Pass.

However you think if one choice is taken away, even if there are still several different choices, than it is forced...

Several different choices? No, just two: Shoot to kill, or don't shoot at all. Those are the only choices that Dominator-users seem to have if the gun shifts to lethal mode.

In any event, your speedometer/Dominator analogy is not a good one for the simple reason that a speedometer doesn't strictly limit choices like this.


As for the whole "POOL with oil and lighter and such condition", you're missing my point there. My point is that Paralyzing shot is probably just as effective a means as negating that situational threat as Lethal shot is.

The person who was raped, her psychological state changed, and that is why her Crime Coefficient went up, in my opinion. Not because (or at least not just because) of the whole pool of oil situation.

But dominator is a gun and much like any gun, 'It can take an unwarranted "Shoot to Kill" approach with certain targets.'

Yeah, but most good marskmen using a normal hand-gun are usually able to shoot to subdue but not kill (shooting someone in the leg, for example, can do this if it's a good shot).

Originally Posted by Dengar

.... Now you're just making assumptions and presenting them as if they were fact.

Asking questions is making assumptions and presenting them as fact?

Not at all. My questions were designed to point out how you are making assumptions and presenting them as facts.

The fact is that we don't know if Akane's employer even had the option of saying "no" to her (i.e. "No, we don't want you for this job position"). So there's no basis for you to write "Nope, it's actually employers who refuse to hire people with anything short of an A rank."

For all we know, employers may have little-to-no say in the matter.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

My arguments in support for the Sibyl System come from this angle. It's easy to dismiss dystopian fiction as something that could never happen in real life. It's much more fun, on the other hand, to imagine how it could have come to pass.

I don't think that the Sibyl System needs to be supported (by argumentation) in order to show how it could come to pass.

The War on Drugs came to pass, but many would argue (correctly, imo) that it's rather indefensible.

And, truth be told, I see some similarities between the Sibyl System and the War on Drugs.

The Sibyl System criminalizes people simply for having dangerous minds/moods, even if they haven't hurt anybody. The War on Drugs criminalizes people simply for using drugs that affect their mind/moods (sometimes in dangerous ways), even if they don't hurt anybody.

The Sibyl System is defended on the basis of how it "promotes healthy living". The same is true of the War on Drugs.

The Sibyl System is seen as a means to prevent serious crime. And you know what? Much the same is true of the War on Drugs.

And just like I would argue that the War on Drugs creates many societal problems (turning otherwise law-abiding drug-users into serious criminal elements due to the effects of incarceration), I can see much the same with the Sibyl System (turning otherwise law-abiding citizens into serious criminals due to how they snap under the weight of the system).

Because, quite frankly, I would be somewhat disappointed if, in the end, all I got from this show is a dystopian view that is a no-brainer to hate.

The War on Drugs is a no-brainer to hate, but it's still there, and it's still causing societal problems every day. If Gen is making social commentary on foolish societal systems that nonetheless enjoy a lot of support, I think there's some value in that.


A big part of the reason why I've argued a lot against the Sibyl System is that I think there's a decent chance that Gen is aiming for a thematic point against societal systems similar to it, and/or that Gen is aiming for a thematic point against the premises behind such systems. Perhaps Psycho-Pass is actually a counter-argument against determinism. One of the most effective ways to argue against a philosophy is to show how, if you take that philosophy to its logical extreme, you get something that almost nobody would actually want.

To a certain extent, this is what Orwell did with 1984 - He shows how if you take the authoritarian propaganda-based nationalism that abounded throughout much of the era that Orwell lived in, and if you take it to its logical extreme, you get a rather chilling dystopia.

Personally, I find this no less compelling than an ambiguous work that just asks questions. In fact, having a narrative that effectively makes a thematic point against a certain prominent philosophy can be very, very compelling, imo.