Quote:
Originally Posted by Kylon99
The problem is you're thinking of normal people and how normal people define death. You need to think from Beatrice's point of view instead and how she defines death, especially death for 'furniture.'
|
That's the most idiotic thing I've seen posted all last sentence. Do you understand what "ordinary meaning" is, and why convention is important in understanding terms?
"Dead" means a particular thing, unless we have been conditioned to believe that a different meaning applies. It is not a "clever trick" to use a word that differs from the ordinary meaning of the word. Semantics are important because red text made them important. No matter what status you use, it has to be clear that its application has a certain meaning.
That's an egregious sin unto itself, but Ryukishi does himself one worse by using "dead" in a singular statement to refer to five individuals,
three of whom use an entirely different definition of "dead" from the special one he intended. Do you suppose, hmmm, just maybe, that this was
intentional in order to confuse someone who assumes - as all rational normal people do - that when a person uses a single term to describe a set, the same meaning applies to all of the entries in that set? Because under normal circumstances, doing otherwise is a mark that the writer
is insane.
It's excessive syllepsis. "The lightbulb and my grandmother are dead." It's only cute when it's a poetic turn of phrase. It doesn't belong in technical language. Although now I have an idea for a forgery character who composes poetry entirely in red text.
Example of the problem:
The door is the only way to get in and out of the room. The door is locked. The door was locked from the time before the victim was murdered up until he was discovered. During that time, the door remained absolutely locked, with no exceptions! Incidentally, and unknown to you as the reader, I have chosen to define the word "locked" to mean "made out of wood." But only for
this door. If I say a different door was "locked," I actually mean it was locked, not made of wood. The solution to this murder is that the killer opened the door, killed the victim, and left through the door, which remained made of wood the whole time.
There is nothing even remotely honest about this. But okay, let's say Ryukishi acknowledges that. He changes the ep3 First Twilight red to "no longer exist." Even so, we now have the problem that the special rule used to exempt Shannon and Kanon from permanent death applies to everyone else equally. We can posit that, somehow, Genji remains alive. This is an inescapable problem that arises from trying to be too clever. "Dead" doesn't mean "dead" in one instance, therefore we cannot know with any degree of certainty that it doesn't mean that in
every instance. Ergo,
nobody ever biologically dies. How can I possibly assume otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyZone
Although... to be fair It was never said that Kanon was dead to begin with. So maybe this part would still be possible in some way... but as AT said, the EP6 solution would have to be VERY twisted, to work without ShKanon(Trice)
|
Actually this is the only fair interpretation, Shkanon or otherwise. Kanon didn't die. Beatrice merely outlined the means by which he
didn't die, all of which are true, because he wasn't dead. This works just fine regardless of the status of Kanon as an existence.
Had every implementation been this carefully fact-checked, it'd actually function as a concept. It'd just be
stupid, which it still is, just stupid and not also broken.