AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-03-02, 09:15   Link #22121
erneiz_hyde
Indifferent
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
Hi all, it's been a long time. I pretty much avoided this thread after ep.8 but I missed you guys anyways, and found that the thread is still going strong. So, sorry if I get to ask too many questions, but please let me in the thread again for a bit. Some comments from me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirozaki View Post
I'm sorry, that's wrong on so many levels.
An army's not a bunch of homicidal maniacs running rampage on foreign ground.
Their duty's not to kill as much enemies as possible, but to protect innocents and re-establish order where it has been lost, even if it means resorting to force (At least from my understanding).
Psychologically speaking they don't go away unscathed either. War veterans shooting themselves after returning from a war is not a rare occurrence, Sherry's analogy might not be that off after all.
Let's see your opinion after you read the actual WW2 history of what the German, French, Japanese, British, Russian, US, or pretty much every country's army did to their adversary (or even allies) for the prosperity of their nation.

I agree that killing is (borrowing Renall's reference: in universal ethical principle) fundamentally wrong no matter what kind of sugarcoating was used.
Spoiler for bla bla yada yada:


Getting back on topic, from what I get Sherry speaks as if there is only one real-killer of this Rokkenjima Accident and the guy did this in cold blood (my definition of cold blood: "oh my, did I just kill the guy? oh hell, let me put another bullet to his brain to make sure." or something similar).
Question is, is there an indisputable proof that this is the case? Does it really have to only have one culprit? Couldn't it be that everyone(not technically everyone, but hell) killed each other due to paranoia (the Italian-Japanese massacre that Kinzo survived from is an example EDIT:and perhaps a good analogy to the truth as well!) and it just happened that Eva(and Battler who escaped) was the last survivor?
__________________
erneiz_hyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 09:42   Link #22122
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight View Post
Bear in mind, to elaborate on what LyricalAura is saying, they're not exactly saying this is the case for "Rokkenjima Prime", but Meta-Battler doesn't have access to such a world, and neither does Ange. It's gone and only magic can recover information from that blind spot. Meta-Battler can't provide any information his writer doesn't actually know.
That's true. It's also irrelevant to my point, which is that it's morally right to provide information about R-Prime if you are in R-Prime and have any knowledge of events that transpired there. Meta-Battler presumably does not, so he's under no obligation to tell anything. But he's also obligated not to constitute an impediment to Ange-Prime's search, assuming there is any relationship at all between ANGE and Ange-Prime (and certainly that much is debatable, but it seems to be there in some form).

Battler's happy story is certainly preferable to a heartless or cruel one. It's more respectful. However, he's not simply presenting that story on its own, but as part of an agenda he's become invested in. My issue is that I don't believe this is any more right than Beatrice trying to martyr herself, or Erika trying to frame someone, or Bern trying to "find" the most painful half-truth possible. His motives are better, but his actions are equally motivated by bias. And that aside, he only really cares about what Ange knows and how Ange feels and reacts. See the Nanjo Jr./Kumasawa's Son/Boat Captain/Hypothetical Gohda's Mom problem. Suppose Kawabata wants to know what he could have prevented, to ease his guilty conscience about not returning on the 5th? I don't think Battler really cares about that, which would be fine, if he didn't seem to be taking a position that would tangentially deny Kawabata's right to search.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde View Post
Question is, is there an indisputable proof that this is the case? Does it really have to only have one culprit? Couldn't it be that everyone(not technically everyone, but hell) killed each other due to paranoia (the Italian-Japanese massacre that Kinzo survived from is an example EDIT:and perhaps a good analogy to the truth as well!) and it just happened that Eva(and Battler who escaped) was the last survivor?
No, there isn't. Nor is there any proof of any crime. However, it is possible, or even probable, that this proof may still exist somewhere. The people who want to seek it are not all bad people - which is some people's argument here, that ep8 does not suggest this, though I'm unsure that I agree with that - and their desire to seek the truth for the right reasons (justice, closure, etc.) is morally upright.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 09:48   Link #22123
UsagiTenpura
Echo of Noise
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
Send a message via Skype™ to UsagiTenpura
Quote:
Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde View Post
Let's see your opinion after you read the actual WW2 history of what the German, French, Japanese, British, Russian, US, or pretty much every country's army did to their adversary (or even allies) for the prosperity of their nation.
Let us not forget like... all the wars since the beginning of human civilizations, humanity's been around doing senseless rampage for a really long time now. I suppose there are idealistic scenarios for a war, but when you give the power to kill to people and tell them they can use it, they most likely will. Still I really agree with that. Refreshing to see that not everyone has a hero like worship of the west in WW2.

Quote:
Getting back on topic, from what I get Sherry speaks as if there is only one real-killer of this Rokkenjima Accident and the guy did this in cold blood (my definition of cold blood: "oh my, did I just kill the guy? oh hell, let me put another bullet to his brain to make sure." or something similar).
Question is, is there an indisputable proof that this is the case? Does it really have to only have one culprit? Couldn't it be that everyone(not technically everyone, but hell) killed each other due to paranoia (the Italian-Japanese massacre that Kinzo survived from is an example EDIT:and perhaps a good analogy to the truth as well!) and it just happened that Eva(and Battler who escaped) was the last survivor?
It's not a really popular opinion in these boards, but I think ep7's tea party showed us how that worked. From the moment one accidental death occurs, everyone else's death might be ensured. I believe it is the result of confusions and misunderstandings. After all Ryuukishi wrote Higurashi. Should we find a Takano like cold blooded murderer, we'd still learn enough about her to actually sorta understand her. Tho I prefer to avoid the idea that Rokkenjima is the result of a Takano v2.0.
UsagiTenpura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 09:56   Link #22124
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsagiTenpura View Post
Let us not forget like... all the wars since the beginning of human civilizations, humanity's been around doing senseless rampage for a really long time now. I suppose there are idealistic scenarios for a war, but when you give the power to kill to people and tell them they can use it, they most likely will. Still I really agree with that. Refreshing to see that not everyone has a hero like worship of the west in WW2.
I think you have a very cynical outlook on the "sense" that motivates violence and warfare. It is certainly a terrible thing, but rarely is it "senseless."

And this is coming from someone very much morally opposed to war under any circumstances. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to generalize that people who act violently had no sensible or explicable reason for their actions (though I disagree with the conclusions they draw as to its necessity), and I certainly wouldn't suggest that they lack any form of discretion (as "senseless rampage" implies that people engaged in warfare don't really care who or what they destroy).
Quote:
It's not a really popular opinion in these boards, but I think ep7's tea party showed us how that worked. From the moment one accidental death occurs, everyone else's death might be ensured. I believe it is the result of confusions and misunderstandings. After all Ryuukishi wrote Higurashi. Should we find a Takano like cold blooded murderer, we'd still learn enough about her to actually sorta understand her. Tho I prefer to avoid the idea that Rokkenjima is the result of a Takano v2.0.
Don't you think that's just a little bit absurd? Oh sure, maybe there's an accident, and maybe one or two people wind up getting shot in a struggle. Terrible tragedy, no question.

Are you honestly saying this would inevitably lead to mass murder of the rest of the island (there's going to be people who have no idea what's going on) or an attempt by someone to blow the whole thing up? Nobody would stop and say "You know what? This is insanity. Three (or whatever) people are dead, but this has to stop right now. No one else needs to be affected by this." I think that's more disrespectful to the memory of the dead than anything. It suggests most of the people on the island had no conscience or discretion.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 10:13   Link #22125
UsagiTenpura
Echo of Noise
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
Send a message via Skype™ to UsagiTenpura
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
I think you have a very cynical outlook on the "sense" that motivates violence and warfare. It is certainly a terrible thing, but rarely is it "senseless."

And this is coming from someone very much morally opposed to war under any circumstances. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to generalize that people who act violently had no sensible or explicable reason for their actions (though I disagree with the conclusions they draw as to its necessity), and I certainly wouldn't suggest that they lack any form of discretion (as "senseless rampage" implies that people engaged in warfare don't really care who or what they destroy).Don't you think that's just a little bit absurd? Oh sure, maybe there's an accident, and maybe one or two people wind up getting shot in a struggle. Terrible tragedy, no question.
Well the reason to start up a war might not be senseless, tho I'll never believe in a war for a grandiose cause... Humans start wars not causes. But once the war begins, a lot of what happens is indeed senseless. Genocide, murder of defenseless people, rape, pedophilia, mutilation, torture, humiliation, etc are all things that comes directly with war. They are pretty senseless acts done by humans. The "green light" that is the cause to fight a war (which I'll never going to believe anyway, humans do things for mostly emotional reasons, they then find ways to justify these emotions in a rational light) doesn't matter much once the war started.

Show me a war where only soldiers killed each others and we'll talk about the possibility that a war isn't senseless.

However since the very beginnings of civilization conflict nearly always arose due to lack of ressources and/or territory for a given number of people. But that's like saying that the people who destroys stuff in a riot actually do it for the reasons the manifestation actually started (before it turned into a riot).

You're the one who seems to be taking appart the "war planning" and "war result" as two seperate things, and that "war" is a word that should only apply to "war planning" and not the actual reality of it?

Quote:
Are you honestly saying this would inevitably lead to mass murder of the rest of the island (there's going to be people who have no idea what's going on) or an attempt by someone to blow the whole thing up? Nobody would stop and say "You know what? This is insanity. Three (or whatever) people are dead, but this has to stop right now. No one else needs to be affected by this." I think that's more disrespectful to the memory of the dead than anything. It suggests most of the people on the island had no conscience or discretion.
Tons of money, tons of money problems, everyone already suspicious of each other and trying to backstab each other beforehand. People playing tricks with letters and threatening to murder everyone (tho if that happened or not is debatable I guess). Disguises, entirely fake people (Shkanontrice thing), incredible secrets coming out of the light (Battler's birth, Kinzo's incest, Yasu's likely lack of breast, Kinzo's hidden death, etc), lots of guns, explosives, and then accidental deaths.

I am not saying everyone's death was inevitable (since anyway everyone didn't actually die, only nearly all of them) but that's certainly not a pretty formula to ensure a peaceful 2 days. I guess it's like Rosa in arc 2 in the end, sure she went sorta overly crazy (and is overly suspicious as well), but with the situation you couldn't have really blamed her if she had shot Genji unable to bear her fears anymore. I mean you might've done so morally, but you can't possibly claim that when everyone dies around you, you remain calm and trusting of everyone, and that if you have weapons, things will necessarily go smooth.

Last edited by UsagiTenpura; 2011-03-02 at 10:29.
UsagiTenpura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 10:16   Link #22126
erneiz_hyde
Indifferent
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
Aura Twilight have countless times brought out examples of why some things are better left unknown and I agree with him generally, but I also get Renall's position on seeking justice or closure.

I do wonder though, if one really seeks justice, whose head will the hammer of justice fall on? All the suspects are dead, and everyone aside from Ange is portrayed as treating the matter as some sort of amusement or simply doesn't care enough to ask for closure or both. Ultimately what good will it bring in exposing the truth in cases like this?

also,
Quote:
Originally Posted by renall
Are you honestly saying this would inevitably lead to mass murder of the rest of the island (there's going to be people who have no idea what's going on) or an attempt by someone to blow the whole thing up? Nobody would stop and say "You know what? This is insanity. Three (or whatever) people are dead, but this has to stop right now. No one else needs to be affected by this." I think that's more disrespectful to the memory of the dead than anything. It suggests most of the people on the island had no conscience or discretion.
or, they are freaking paranoid like Keiichi was in onikakushi (eh, ignore the virus thingy, point is, paranoia is a lot greater force to be reckoned with). And even then, it is still a terrible tragedy. Edit: what usa said.
__________________
erneiz_hyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 10:37   Link #22127
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde View Post
I do wonder though, if one really seeks justice, whose head will the hammer of justice fall on? All the suspects are dead, and everyone aside from Ange is portrayed as treating the matter as some sort of amusement or simply doesn't care enough to ask for closure or both. Ultimately what good will it bring in exposing the truth in cases like this?
The fact that no one but Ange seems to be seeking closure does not mean that (1) none of them would be happier if they had it (Nanjo's son clearly would), and (2) they don't deserve to have it if they don't ask for it.

Justice can exist without punishing anyone. Speaking the truth and identifying the guilty and the innocent (if anyone is guilty or innocent) is an end of justice unto itself.
Quote:
or, they are freaking paranoid like Keiichi was in onikakushi (eh, ignore the virus thingy, point is, paranoia is a lot greater force to be reckoned with). And even then, it is still a terrible tragedy. Edit: what usa said.
How do you know that they were? They had financial problems, sure, but maybe they weren't as panicky about them as the stories suggest. Isn't that also possible?

Basically, what makes you think these people would be predisposed to allow a situation to spiral out of control just because of one thing? Maybe they wouldn't behave that way. How can we know?
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 10:52   Link #22128
erneiz_hyde
Indifferent
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
How do you know that they were? They had financial problems, sure, but maybe they weren't as panicky about them as the stories suggest. Isn't that also possible?

Basically, what makes you think these people would be predisposed to allow a situation to spiral out of control just because of one thing? Maybe they wouldn't behave that way. How can we know?
I can't know for sure, does that make my prediction wrong?
__________________
erneiz_hyde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 11:05   Link #22129
UsagiTenpura
Echo of Noise
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
Send a message via Skype™ to UsagiTenpura
Quote:
Basically, what makes you think these people would be predisposed to allow a situation to spiral out of control just because of one thing? Maybe they wouldn't behave that way. How can we know?
I don't get the point you are trying to make with that statement. Even Erika knew that finding the gold would bring on quite a show. Natsuhi nearly shot Eva right in arc 1 in front of everyone. Later she expelled Maria/Nanjo/Kumasawa/Genji from the study, and in arc 2 Rosa did something similar to Battler. Anyway I won't bother to list them, arguably the entire serie is showing us nothing but that. Hell in arc 3 after 6 people were found dead, Rosa and Eva were pointing guns at each other over gold. Right in arc 1, when Maria read the letter at the dinner, everyone's reaction was pretty much a panicking mess. Even Kyrie pointed out that if they hadn't acted that way they could've gotten information out of Maria that is now lost. Anyway this wouldn't stop.

So these might not be reliable, of course (if you're willing to discard everything from all of Umineko as unreliable except that people died on Rokkenjima, and maybe even that?). What are you suggesting then, that we should simply not even imagine what transpired on Rokkenjima? That we have to "put all the sins on one person" akin to what Higurashi's main point was to tell us this is a wrong way to perceive things?

Edit:
Quote:
From the moment one accidental death occurs, everyone else's death might be ensured
Perhaps you read that sentence as "Everyone's death is ensured" and wanted to point out we can't be 100% certain of it? That's the only thing I can think of as your possible point, sorry if this is wrong.
UsagiTenpura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 11:13   Link #22130
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the truth is the only fair way to assess the behavior of the people involved. Otherwise, it's equally valid for me to claim "the people on the island were morally upstanding individuals who would never have murdered for money, and if an accident occurred, would not have attempted to kill anyone."

Remember that the events in the message bottles and subsequent stories are just that, stories. It's not clear if the writer of the message bottles actually believed the adults to be unstable money-hungry psychopaths, or if she was simply writing a mystery story in which people behave suspiciously to generate tension. Alternately, she could simply have been entirely wrong about how people will behave when the chips are down. She does seem to think people rise to their higher natures under pressure though; witness Rosa's breakdown at the end of ep2. If Rosa were a tense money-hungry bitch, would her entire character arc in that episode be realizing "The money isn't important; Maria is what matters to me?"

Anyway, we take that information - given to us by biased sources who may not even be trying to give us "the facts" in the first place - and we run with it. What if we're wrong? What if the speculators on R-Prime are wrong? Only a few people know for sure what people "would" have done under the circumstances, and only two of them know what they did do.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 11:45   Link #22131
kittylyoko
Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
^Weren`t some soldiers who refused to take part in torture camps killed. So some had no choice


One another note.... saying that there is no justified reason for someone to be killed is very idealistic.
I`m to sleepy to explain my reasons at the moment...
__________________
kittylyoko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 11:58   Link #22132
UsagiTenpura
Echo of Noise
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
Send a message via Skype™ to UsagiTenpura
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the truth is the only fair way to assess the behavior of the people involved. Otherwise, it's equally valid for me to claim "the people on the island were morally upstanding individuals who would never have murdered for money, and if an accident occurred, would not have attempted to kill anyone."

Remember that the events in the message bottles and subsequent stories are just that, stories. It's not clear if the writer of the message bottles actually believed the adults to be unstable money-hungry psychopaths, or if she was simply writing a mystery story in which people behave suspiciously to generate tension. Alternately, she could simply have been entirely wrong about how people will behave when the chips are down. She does seem to think people rise to their higher natures under pressure though; witness Rosa's breakdown at the end of ep2. If Rosa were a tense money-hungry bitch, would her entire character arc in that episode be realizing "The money isn't important; Maria is what matters to me?"

Anyway, we take that information - given to us by biased sources who may not even be trying to give us "the facts" in the first place - and we run with it. What if we're wrong? What if the speculators on R-Prime are wrong? Only a few people know for sure what people "would" have done under the circumstances, and only two of them know what they did do.
It's possible that this is all wrong. Any information that would thin out the possibilities would lead to being closer to the truth, yet we won't ever be able to find the truth. If we do find it we'll never be able to be certain it is the truth.

I even considered the possibility of a Takano like killer. It could be a stupid accidental explosion as well. Maybe Gohda accidently put some horrible chemical in his food and everyone died of poisoning. The oven was left running and eventually lead to the explosion, somehow, while Eva was out like in arc 3 to find the gold.

If we're to rule out uncertain/unreliable "facts" as things we cannot use to make a theory about what really happened, then I do not think we have a single element left.

So I guess I'm trying to go by a likely scenario. To me the most plausible theory of what "happened" was said by Kyrie in arc 7 tea party. In short that the money and the bomb together would ensure that they wouldn't leave as "one big happy family". I just don't think it only applies to greed, but mostly the fear of other's greed. Then the pain of losing a close one once things begin could spin things easily out of control.

I don't think it's far fetched. Assuming the gold and the bomb are true elements, and that many among them comes across that information, Rokkenjima actually feels like a social experiment.
UsagiTenpura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 12:12   Link #22133
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
The thing is, there could be facts, in the world of R-Prime. We don't know them, and we can't go looking for them, because we're not characters in the world of its story. So from our perspective, we're stuck.

But within the world, it's certainly Ange's right to move on and not worry about what happened. But it's also the right of individuals who want to uncover the truth (or at least want to try) to be able to do it. That's the long, circuitous multi-page argument we've been having: Whether it's acceptable for characters like that - whether any actually exist in the world - to do it.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 12:35   Link #22134
UsagiTenpura
Echo of Noise
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Yesterday!
Send a message via Skype™ to UsagiTenpura
Quote:
But within the world, it's certainly Ange's right to move on and not worry about what happened. But it's also the right of individuals who want to uncover the truth (or at least want to try) to be able to do it.
Well then I fully agree with these statements. I'm not too sure on what ground they could be opposed.
UsagiTenpura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 14:08   Link #22135
haguruma
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 29
Send a message via ICQ to haguruma Send a message via MSN to haguruma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherringford View Post
You think that self defense is the same thing as murder.
You misunderstood what I wanted to say yet again.
I am merely saying that killing is killing, no matter what your motive is you still erase a human life with all it's consequences and saying that it is good just because you saved your own life appears terribly selfish.
Do you think the family and friends of that person killed in self-defense won't suffer, grief or hate you, just because you were excused by law to commit that act of killing?

I just think it's wrong to say that somebody becomes inhuman and unfit to be loved and forgiven, just because he or she has killed somebody in a way not excused by law.
What I criticise is your interpretation of having and loosing humanity. The act of murder should of course be punished, but somebody with an excuse to kill can as much be human as somebody without.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall
The fact that no one but Ange seems to be seeking closure does not mean that (1) none of them would be happier if they had it (Nanjo's son clearly would), and (2) they don't deserve to have it if they don't ask for it.

Justice can exist without punishing anyone. Speaking the truth and identifying the guilty and the innocent (if anyone is guilty or innocent) is an end of justice unto itself.
I admire your believe in justice, but let's just agree to disagree on the basic effectivness of collective justice for an individual.

While of course the state, courts and the law itself does prescribe that somebody has to be told the truth in a case like this, one could as well reverse your argument. Just because telling the truth is considered right, it does not mean that anyone of the relatives would be happy to know it (even in the case of Nanjo's son you can't say if he wouldn't just kill himself over the truth...if it became known he could probably quit being a physician).

You are talking about closure, but it does not always work for everybody.
Of course uncertainty is terrible, but truth can hurt just as much. There is no reason why we should believe that the truth couldn't destroy any of those people...especially when we consider how many people it already destroyed in the course of the story.

The problem is that your idea doesn't leave the people the freedom of choice, you are forcing them towards truth because you consider it the best option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AuraTwilight
But hey, you think you know more about criminal justice than an actual lawyer, so whatever.
I think some people here misunderstood my position here.
Maybe because I was clumsy in formulating it, maybe because I'm not jumping in on the "The truth is always best" bandwaggon...I personally don't know and I don't care to do any more than try to explain it.

I just wanted to point out that there are diferences between criminal justice and individual justice, and that I disagree with the notion brought up by Renall that there is something like an inherent morality in telling the truth.
Telling the truth is considered to be right, because it helps to construct a functioning system in which several people can live together, yet there is nothing ethical in supporting that system. If everything is out in the open collisions of interest can be avoided, which is why telling the truth does not only assist the community but also the individual.
Maybe it is because I don't believe in god or any form of higher plan that guides us. I find the notion of morality and depravity or good and evil in itself to be highly antiquated from a modern point of view.
I just find it strange for a lawyer, someone with academic insight, to believe in something like an inherently good action.
haguruma is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 14:30   Link #22136
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by haguruma View Post
I just find it strange for a lawyer, someone with academic insight, to believe in something like an inherently good action.
Why is that difficult to believe? My personal morality and my professional obligation are not necessarily one and the same. I advance positions all the time that are beneficial to my employer which I may or may not agree with (or at least have no opinion on). The mere fact that I do so does not mean I fully support it, it's just the nature of the work.

If you think every defense lawyer out there believes, truly believes, that all of his clients are innocent... well, heh. You can't afford to eat if you only take clients you genuinely believe aren't guilty (and even then, 99% of the time the ones you "truly believe" aren't guilty in fact are).

A meta-trial - a real one, not a show trial like the end of ep5 - would make for a pretty fascinating setting in the Umineko context. Put Kyrie on trial. Put George on trial for being skeezy. Put Beatrice on trial for crimes against fiction.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 14:44   Link #22137
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by haguruma View Post
You misunderstood what I wanted to say yet again.
I am merely saying that killing is killing, no matter what your motive is you still erase a human life with all it's consequences and saying that it is good just because you saved your own life appears terribly selfish.
Well you're simply wrong. By definition it is a defense, it is a counterclaim, when you're in self defense. That is a justification.

Quote:
Do you think the family and friends of that person killed in self-defense won't suffer, grief or hate you, just because you were excused by law to commit that act of killing?
Do you think the person who killed in self defense doesn't feel the same way about the people sympathizing with the person who attempted to murder him? From his perspective that's the same as saying "he should have murdered you why didn't you let him?". Let's leave it at that because this is getting very off topic and you simply aren't explaining yourself well.
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 14:57   Link #22138
haguruma
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Germany
Age: 29
Send a message via ICQ to haguruma Send a message via MSN to haguruma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherringford View Post
...Which comes down to "self defense is selfish!" which is inarguably stupid. The moment someone tries to kill you, they give you permission to kill them. That's how it works, legally and morally.
They might give you the legal right to do so, but if you honestly believe that killing is an immoral act, why does it suddenly change it's conotation just because of the action which another took towards you.
I wouldn't say that killing in self-defense should be punished by any means, but the act in itself does not change, which your phrasing implies.

Quote:
"HOW DARE YOU KILL MY SON. YOU SHOULD HAVE LET HIM KILL YOU INSTEAD. BECAUSE UH...Actually this is stupid. This is a tragic situation for me, but I can't blame you."
And you don't actually believe that a parent would react that way, would you?!
There is always a way to avoid killing somebody, even though the chances are small. Of course killing an attacker is the easiest and safest method to save yourself, but you could also run away, knock the attacker unconscious or something else not lethal.
Those parents might comprehend why you had to do it, they probably won't officially blame you for it, but I think they would still hate you. And it's understandable, you took the life of their child, who would have remained their child no matter what twisted thing he or she comitted.

Quote:
You have way, way more sympathy for murderers than I've ever seen. Sorry but I'm just not sure that having sympathy is a good thing in this case..
It's not about sympathy, it's looking beyond the deed and searching for reasons, explanations and maybe search a way to understand what drove those people so far.
I would never ask anybody to embrace those people for what they are in that moment of murder, but to say that they turn into animals the minute they do anything like that is equally wrong. And to say that they don't deserve understanding or forgiveness from anybody is basically saying that they shouldn't be treated equally anymore...which is a dreadful thing to say.

Of course it depends on the individual killer.
If we have a deranged maniac, who has gone so far beyond social capabilities in his madness that he can never again function in society without hurting anybody, measures have to be taken. But there is no indication that there ever was such an individual among the suspects in the Rokkenjima-case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Why is that difficult to believe? My personal morality and my professional obligation are not necessarily one and the same. I advance positions all the time that are beneficial to my employer which I may or may not agree with (or at least have no opinion on). The mere fact that I do so does not mean I fully support it, it's just the nature of the work.
Okay, I can respect that. It's not like we agree concerning the moral dimension, but I can at least comprehend how you act concerning such situations.
Like I said, let's agree to disagree.
haguruma is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 16:18   Link #22139
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
Quote:
Battler's happy story is certainly preferable to a heartless or cruel one. It's more respectful. However, he's not simply presenting that story on its own, but as part of an agenda he's become invested in. My issue is that I don't believe this is any more right than Beatrice trying to martyr herself, or Erika trying to frame someone, or Bern trying to "find" the most painful half-truth possible. His motives are better, but his actions are equally motivated by bias. And that aside, he only really cares about what Ange knows and how Ange feels and reacts. See the Nanjo Jr./Kumasawa's Son/Boat Captain/Hypothetical Gohda's Mom problem. Suppose Kawabata wants to know what he could have prevented, to ease his guilty conscience about not returning on the 5th? I don't think Battler really cares about that, which would be fine, if he didn't seem to be taking a position that would tangentially deny Kawabata's right to search.
I agree; but again, Meta-Battler doesn't KNOW those people, or what they've been through. Meta-Battler, assuming he's completely in continuity with his portrayal in past episodes, literally currently exists for Ange's sake. She revived him with her "magic" and his motive from then on was to ensure her happiness. He could very much devolve into a "Maromi" entity if he has to.

Quote:
A meta-trial - a real one, not a show trial like the end of ep5 - would make for a pretty fascinating setting in the Umineko context. Put Kyrie on trial. Put George on trial for being skeezy. Put Beatrice on trial for crimes against fiction.
Umineko Rei: Trial of the Golden Witch.

Also, Sherry and I were talking on AIM, and we realized something about Logic Errors.

THEY DESTROY WHAT DEFINES A PERSON.

Bern lost her faith in miracles; Lambdadelta is no longer certain about anything...

And Battler was saved with the power of magic, and his sanity is maintained by imaginary and dead people. He's only able to escape that hell by giving up on the truth, and is no longer able to differentiate it from fantasies.
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-03-02, 17:08   Link #22140
AuraTwilight
The True Culprit
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Golden Land
Send a message via AIM to AuraTwilight Send a message via MSN to AuraTwilight
I really want to clear up that though hagurama keeps agreeing with me, I don't agree with him. Please don't think he at all represents the angle of points I'm making, guys.
__________________
When the Silent Spirits Cry: An Umineko/Silent Hill crossover fanfiction
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p=4565173&postcount=531
AuraTwilight is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
We use Silk.