I am sorry, I cannot accept this. Having your existence erased and your memories robbed is an act of violence. Violence doesn't just constitute physical abuse.
And this is why you will never be able to understand why the game, or this show, makes sense; you have no ability to think beyond your own moral code and point of view.
I understand that erasing someone from existence or robbing memories from someone IS an act of violence, to me and most people I hope. This would be the common viewpoint from most people in our culture, in our race, and in our world. But we aren't dealing with our culture, race, or even our world here.
Even outside TV shows, anime, cartoons, etc, in the real world people cannot accept other people's moral and cultural differences, a point of pride for me is to be understanding of other people and culture's different moral values and points of view. Also note, I said understanding of moral differences, this doesn't mean I consider these differences to be personally acceptable by my own moral codes, I just get that I was raised to believe differently then the other party.
An example: (Pulled from TV Tropes: "Blue and Orange Morality.")
Spoiler for People who care to read:
"This is a good example of just how incomprehensible the Americans and the Japanese were to each other during WWII: Americans thought the Japanese must be crazy for committing mass suicide attacks and finding death preferable to surrender, while the Japanese thought Americans must be crazy for being willing to dishonor themselves by surrendering. The best example is seppuku, the old Japanese practice of ritual suicide in order to regain one's honor. In western thought suicide is considered the ultimate act of cowardice (or in religious cases, a sin).
Japan, and to a lesser extent the rest of the world, could not comprehend why America would frequently engage in expensive and often casualty-filled rescue missions. The Japanese didn't even know what to make of this practice, because it showed a great deal of courage and honor on the part of the rescuers, but they still didn't understand why they were risking and sacrificing their lives for cowards who couldn't be bothered to die honorably. Even America's allies didn't get the rationale behind endangering and outright sacrificing the lives of the many for the lives of the few. Really the United States as a whole was just uncomfortable with the idea of condemning anyone to die. "
The Japanese and Americans here are similar to you and Tet. You both have your own belief on how things should be, and while I can't say with certainty if Tet would find your beliefs weird, you certainly find his to be abhorrent, and it's incomprehensible to you as to why the acts in this show are not considered violence.
Tet's morals are not the same as yours, they are not the same as mine, I personally agree with your opinion, however, our opinions are completely irrelevant here, only Tet's is as he is the one who decides how everything works.
This is the second possibility Sora came out with and he concluded that it was the right one, but he imagined another possibility first (that he excluded) which is what I was talking about.
Perhaps there was some mishap in the way the anime handled it or the translation I've seen, but the material I've watched implies: If hypothesis 1 is true (the game is impossible to win), then it was cheating and the elves could win by exposing it.
And since this didn't happen Shiro and Sora excluded this possibility.
Actually that's exactly what it is, as the definition of a game, and definition of "cheating" is basically what happens.
Remember when Sora said "If we can't even win then it's can't even be considered a game". Thus to play a "game" to a "gamers eyes" aka [ ]-Tet, it must be possible to win.
If the game seems winnable and is not, that that's foul play, and thus cheating. And Under the oaths if you can expose it, then it's your win.
It's quite a simple to get because Tet is after all the God of Games.
And this is why you will never be able to understand why the game, or this show, makes sense; you have no ability to think beyond your own moral code and point of view.
I understand that erasing someone from existence or robbing memories from someone IS an act of violence, to me and most people I hope. This would be the common viewpoint from most people in our culture, in our race, and in our world. But we aren't dealing with our culture, race, or even our world here.
Even outside TV shows, anime, cartoons, etc, in the real world people cannot accept other people's moral and cultural differences, a point of pride for me is to be understanding of other people and culture's different moral values and points of view. Also note, I said understanding of moral differences, this doesn't mean I consider these differences to be personally acceptable by my own moral codes, I just get that I was raised to believe differently then the other party.
An example: (Pulled from TV Tropes: "Blue and Orange Morality.")
Spoiler for People who care to read:
"This is a good example of just how incomprehensible the Americans and the Japanese were to each other during WWII: Americans thought the Japanese must be crazy for committing mass suicide attacks and finding death preferable to surrender, while the Japanese thought Americans must be crazy for being willing to dishonor themselves by surrendering. The best example is seppuku, the old Japanese practice of ritual suicide in order to regain one's honor. In western thought suicide is considered the ultimate act of cowardice (or in religious cases, a sin).
Japan, and to a lesser extent the rest of the world, could not comprehend why America would frequently engage in expensive and often casualty-filled rescue missions. The Japanese didn't even know what to make of this practice, because it showed a great deal of courage and honor on the part of the rescuers, but they still didn't understand why they were risking and sacrificing their lives for cowards who couldn't be bothered to die honorably. Even America's allies didn't get the rationale behind endangering and outright sacrificing the lives of the many for the lives of the few. Really the United States as a whole was just uncomfortable with the idea of condemning anyone to die. "
The Japanese and Americans here are similar to you and Tet. You both have your own belief on how things should be, and while I can't say with certainty if Tet would find your beliefs weird, you certainly find his to be abhorrent, and it's incomprehensible to you as to why the acts in this show are not considered violence.
Tet's morals are not the same as yours, they are not the same as mine, I personally agree with your opinion, however, our opinions are completely irrelevant here, only Tet's is as he is the one who decides how everything works.
Back when Shana Final aired, I was one of those who says the Crimson Denizens aren't evil. They eat humans because that's what they are, they are no more evil than a cat eating mice. If anything, I have a loose definition what constitutes a moral act, so I am a bit offended when people say I can't think outside of my own moral code.
People (or Gods for that matter) are free to assign any moral value to any act. BUT you don't get to redefine what the act itself means. You don't get to say you're a Pacifist then proceed to nuke everyone in the room because your definition of "murder" is "giving bread to others". Absurd, I know, but that's how I feel about Tet's laws. Someone mentioned his laws aren't some lawyer bullshit, and I agree. It's even worse than that.
The Oath doesn't state that violence will never occur. It just stops you from going around killing people for the lulz. If there is consent from both parties however they can do whatever they want. So as you pointed out earlier yes it's possible for murder games to occur and yes it's probably possible to blackmail or otherwise coerce people into such a thing and as far as the story goes that remains a glaring plothole.
Getting the Elves help ultimately is to prevent the Warbeast from cheating through magic. Yes, they're a technological race, but only the Imanity has zero affinity with magic and cannot use them. Warbeast is ranked at 14, so they had to be able to use magic, no matter how minuscule.
The last thing Blank needed is that tiny bit of magical interference that can decide between victory or defeat.
The Oath doesn't state that violence will never occur. It just stops you from going around killing people for the lulz. If there is consent from both parties however they can do whatever they want. So as you pointed out earlier yes it's possible for murder games to occur and yes it's probably possible to blackmail or otherwise coerce people into such a thing and as far as the story goes that remains a glaring plothole.
Based on what? If that were the case, why would the bandits from episode 1 not do that instead of a normal game? By all accounts, no, you cannot use violence.
Based on what? If that were the case, why would the bandits from episode 1 not do that instead of a normal game? By all accounts, no, you cannot use violence.
because they still need to get the agreement of the other party.
__________________
Higurashi: Its a bit like watching a trainwreck, except you keep getting to see different trains wrecking with roughly the same passengers, into a variety of different objects. Also, the trains are driven by monkeys. On LSD.
I should probably mention though, putting Tet's BS-erry aside, this explanation regarding the power of the Oath itself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kukuru
Spoiler for length:
One of the theories [ ] tested on the oaths is that it's does not have any power in-itself, and actually scales down.
If you try to make a game where you had to do the impossible. Even if you play the game, it would not happen.
Thus [ ] needed a " activator" as well as a "make it permanent".
Say let's do a game in discboard. If I win you have to build me a car. If you win I have to build you a plane. you can play the game, everything will follow through, but you will not get a car or I get a plane, because it is beyond our power. Though you might get some scrap heap called a plane/car.
I think if you made a bet of "If I win you have to let me kill you" won't work, because the the power require to let someone kill might be lacking, but have to be changed to "If I win I own your existence" might allow a killing to happen, with a 2nd command of sucide.
Makes enough sense to me. I get why Fii and Jibril has to cast magic for the game to work, while OTOH Werebeasts who're low on magic can erase memories by themselves.
Back when Shana Final aired, I was one of those who says the Crimson Denizens aren't evil. They eat humans because that's what they are, they are no more evil than a cat eating mice. If anything, I have a loose definition what constitutes a moral act, so I am a bit offended when people say I can't think outside of my own moral code.
People (or Gods for that matter) are free to assign any moral value to any act. BUT you don't get to redefine what the act itself means. You don't get to say you're a Pacifist then proceed to nuke everyone in the room because your definition of "murder" is "giving bread to others". Absurd, I know, but that's how I feel about Tet's laws. Someone mentioned his laws aren't some lawyer bullshit, and I agree. It's even worse than that.
Spoiler for MAOR Debates!:
The problem with the Crimson Denizens example, and though it is a good example, it doesn't apply in this argument. There were Denizens who were genuinely evil and ate humans because they enjoyed inflicting pain and suffering, there were those who only ate because they had to in order to survive, and then there were those who ate humans simply cause like you said, humans are their food source. There is no difference in point of view or cultural differences here. The humans involved, the evil denizens, the good ones, and the neutral ones all have the same understanding of morals.
The Evil ones understand it's wrong and don't care. The Good ones understand it's wrong but it would be equally wrong to expect them to die instead of eating. and the third party just did cause it comes natural to them. Blue and Orange morality only applies when two or more sides are so morally different that there is absolutely no grounds to compare good/evil or anything else between them and that's what is happening here between you and Tet. Tet's ideals are so completely different from yours that you cant understand why he doesn't consider what happened to be violence.
Your example, marked in bold, doesn't apply either as every word in the dictionary has multiple entries, even Violent and Violence have multiple meanings, and these meanings are different between each person and culture. The problem with the definition of Violent and Violence is that it isn't a concrete object, take Cat for example. A cat is a cat, no matter what country you are in, no matter what language you speak, no matter what your morals are, a cat is still going to be a cat because that's what it is. Now matter if it's a small cat or a big cat, a slow cat or a fast cat, it's still a cat. Now take Violence, what color is it? What's it taste like? Can you touch it? If you can what's it's texture?
The problem with violence is that each person defines it according to their own point of view:
A young girl walking home one evening sees two guys duking it out in a field, she asks herself, "Why do people have to be so violent these days?" and carries on. After she's gone the two guys finish their brawl, one guy stands up first and helps the other guys up and says "Come on buddy, let me go buy you a drink." They're friends, though they were hitting each other earlier they. What was "violence" to the young girl, was "fun" to the two guys.
By the way, I'm not trying to disrespect your opinion or moral codes or anything else like that. I am in fact having fun with this debate.
because they still need to get the agreement of the other party.
That's hard to say, because oaths don't contradict other oaths that we know of so far. They only work together.
A "violence game" might be possible, but it would take a high level of magical squirming to get around it, aka Jibril's game is not actual death, but simulated death, and it's not even a "death" it's a "unable to continue".
A simple murder game would definitely run into troubles, since it violates a lot of other oaths, and you can't really have that. Even with the consent of both parties.
It maybe that a murder game simple won't happen, as it'll get "null"ed. AKA a winner can't be made, and becomes a draw.
Just because you have consent doesn't mean it truely is consent, as there are some checks involved, usually on the mental level.
The problem with violence is that each person defines it according to their own point of view:
A young girl walking home one evening sees two guys duking it out in a field, she asks herself, "Why do people have to be so violent these days?" and carries on. After she's gone the two guys finish their brawl, one guy stands up first and helps the other guys up and says "Come on buddy, let me go buy you a drink." They're friends, though they were hitting each other earlier they. What was "violence" to the young girl, was "fun" to the two guys.
This is actually in accordance with my point. In my view, in this example what's different between the girl and the two guys is the value attached to the violence ("violence is bad" vs "violence is fun"), not the definition of violence is self. You can get a bit into more details like types of violence etc, but the bottom line is what differs is the moral value attached to them, not the definition. You can also get double standards by applying different values on a similar/same thing this way.
I don't see what the problem with a so-called "murder game" would be, given mutual consent. Of course there's a pretty simple reason why you wouldn't see it very often. Eventually, you're going to end up with only one guy willing to give that consent. Everyone else who was willing to give that consent lost (ie: was killed), and the odd new willing psycho that pops up now and again would likely not last their first encounter with a Flügel.
Guys, the "violence" issue is quite irrelevant. Do you know why? The exact wording of the Oath in question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ten Oaths
All bloodshed, war, and pillaging is forbidden.
Hooray for literal readings! Violence is not equal to bloodshed. The term you should be focusing on is bloodshed. Since there was no blood shed, there is not a single problem with the existence and memory erasure. Sure, it brings up some questionable morality issues, but nope, not against the rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craxuan
Getting the Elves help ultimately is to prevent the Warbeast from cheating through magic. Yes, they're a technological race, but only the Imanity has zero affinity with magic and cannot use them. Warbeast is ranked at 14, so they had to be able to use magic, no matter how minuscule.
The last thing Blank needed is that tiny bit of magical interference that can decide between victory or defeat.
It has been confirmed that the Werebeasts are unable to use magic at all. They can detect magic, and have superior physical abilities, but no magic.
Actually that's exactly what it is, as the definition of a game, and definition of "cheating" is basically what happens.
Remember when Sora said "If we can't even win then it's can't even be considered a game". Thus to play a "game" to a "gamers eyes" aka [ ]-Tet, it must be possible to win.
If the game seems winnable and is not, that that's foul play, and thus cheating. And Under the oaths if you can expose it, then it's your win.
It's quite a simple to get because Tet is after all the God of Games.
It's a god of games but certainly not the god of fair games.
If a game is impossible to win the parties involved can simply refuse to play it, and I don't think that being duped into thinking that a game is winnable when it is not is any more deceiving than how Sora duped Steph with the Rock Paper Scissor Game (he basically bypassed the rule that both parties must agree on the equal value of the bets).
Moreover it doesn't fall under a strict definition of "cheating", because cheating implies that some rule must be broken, if Tet wanted that games had to be winnable he should have made a specific rule about it.
Like I said before "Tic Tac Toe" is impossible to win when the parties involved have a basic understanding of the mechanics, and yet nobody in our world consider it a cheating game or do not consider it a game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kukuru
A simple murder game would definitely run into troubles, since it violates a lot of other oaths, and you can't really have that. Even with the consent of both parties.
Well the game that Sora and Kamiru played involved something even worse than death in my opinion, but I guess it's a good way to go around the rule that forbids murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolzorz
Guys, the "violence" issue is quite irrelevant. Do you know why? The exact wording of the Oath in question:
However the thieves in episode 1 said: "At least let us punch you once!" which means they normally cannot.
I think that what actually prevents violence is the second rule. Since no one agrees to be hurt without a valid reason as soon as someone wants to hurt them a "dispute" situation arises and it must be resolved through a game.
This also explains why Shiro could hit Sora since she has his "permission".
So basically violence beside robbery, war and murder are possible but only if the parties involved agree to them. And this is why the game that we have seen in this episode doesn't break any rules.
The only thing that I still don't understand is why did it have to involve "existence" when it could simply involve memories for Sora's practical ends and why did it have to affect other people's memories and senses too.
I think that what actually prevents violence is the second rule. Since no one agrees to be hurt without a valid reason as soon as someone wants to hurt them a "dispute" situation arises and it must be resolved through a game.
This also explains why Shiro could hit Sora since she has his "permission".
So basically violence beside robbery, war and murder are possible but only if the parties involved agree to them. And this is why the game that we have seen in this episode doesn't break any rules.
The only thing that I still don't understand is why did it have to involve "existence" when it could simply involve memories for Sora's practical ends and why did it have to affect other people's memories and senses too.
It's actually a combination of both the first and second oaths. The second oath states that all conflicts must be resolved through games - robbing is obviously a conflict since there's a conflict of interest. Now, another matter to think about is if the game involves punching... Since we still have no clue what happens if you break an oath, I suppose they wouldn't want to risk shedding blood if they punch too hard. There is also the matter of both parties agreeing to playing a punching game.
The first rule, however, is a blanket ban on bloodshed, war and pillaging, no matter if you are playing a game or not (at least, this is how I interpret it). This is indeed relevant here since the argument was about how there could be violence (no matter how you define violence) in Sora vs Kurami's game. The point here is that there is no explicit oath saying that there can't be violence - there just can't be bloodshed. The second oath is already satisfied by their conflict being settled by a game. Thus, we are in agreement that no rules were broken this episode.
As to why it involves existence - as Sora said, on the occasion that he loses, Kurami can easily erase his existence and everybody's memory of him, making it an extremely sweet deal for Kurami since she thinks he is an enemy of Imanity. It's basically a bait for Kurami to agree to his rules (since she actually can refuse if she thinks it is too disadvantageous), while conveniently hiding his true intentions of swapping memories - Kurami didn't even discover this until halfway through the game.
Also, personally I think Rule of Cool applies here.
It's actually a combination of both the first and second oaths. The second oath states that all conflicts must be resolved through games - robbing is obviously a conflict since there's a conflict of interest. Now, another matter to think about is if the game involves punching... Since we still have no clue what happens if you break an oath, I suppose they wouldn't want to risk shedding blood if they punch too hard.
The first rule, however, is a blanket ban on bloodshed, war and pillaging, no matter if you are playing a game or not (at least, this is how I interpret it). This is indeed relevant here since the argument was about how there could be violence (no matter how you define violence) in Sora vs Kurami's game. The point here is that there is no explicit oath saying that there can't be violence - there just can't be bloodshed. The second oath is already satisfied by their conflict being settled by a game. Thus, we are in agreement that no rules were broken this episode.
As to why it involves existence - as Sora said, on the occasion that he loses, Kurami can easily erase his existence and everybody's memory of him, making it an extremely sweet deal for Kurami since she thinks he is an enemy of Imanity. It's basically a bait for Kurami to agree to his rules (since she actually can refuse if she thinks it is too disadvantageous), while conveniently hiding his true intentions of swapping memories - Kurami didn't even discover this until halfway through the game.
Also, personally I think Rule of Cool also applies here.
It's important to note The Oaths can't prevent all bloodshed or how else do people have children? Child birth is rather bloody
__________________
Higurashi: Its a bit like watching a trainwreck, except you keep getting to see different trains wrecking with roughly the same passengers, into a variety of different objects. Also, the trains are driven by monkeys. On LSD.
It's important to note The Oaths can't prevent all bloodshed or how else do people have children? Child birth is rather bloody
Clearly I think we have to use some sense here - obviously if I accidentally cut myself while cutting up some vegetables, while blood is shed it wouldn't be breaking an oath, would it? Also, some could argue that natural processes like the breaking of the hymen, menstruation or childbirth are exceptions, or perhaps because it was done under consent (rape wouldn't count, since by definition rape is non-consensual, and would be blocked by the second oath).
Alternatively, since the definition of bloodshed tends to include qualifications such as "the injury or killing of people", I believe that bloodshed with the intention of causing harm to other people is the issue here. Explanation: how it works is because it's aaaaaall magic.
Regardless, the main point (again) is that violence is not explicitly prohibited, rendering the earlier arguments in this thread quite moot.
Regardless, the main point (again) is that violence is not explicitly prohibited, rendering the earlier arguments in this thread quite moot.
This is where the anime kind of messed up because it left out an important discussion regarding the oaths. Yes violence is explicitly prohibited, Sora asked Steph about it. Apparently actions done with malicious intent that would cause harm are basically prevented from being carried out. This is any kind of harm really, so things like theft can't be done since that would harm the person you're stealing from.
This is where the anime kind of messed up because it left out an important discussion regarding the oaths. Yes violence is explicitly prohibited, Sora asked Steph about it. Apparently actions done with malicious intent that would cause harm are basically prevented from being carried out. This is any kind of harm really, so things like theft can't be done since that would harm the person you're stealing from.
“What constitutes as an infringing act is extremely obvious.”
“Ohh. How so?”
“It’s simple. Behavior with 'malicious intent' which goes against the Oaths—will be cancelled.”
……—huh?
“Eh, so like, real-time censorship of the brain?”
“Yes, I guess?”
If so, then I interpret it differently: I think Steph means that what is prevented are actions which: one, convey malicious intent, and two, go against the Oaths. In other words, such actions must fulfil both conditions. Violence, while of malicious intent, does not explicitly go against any oath at all, going by a purely literal reading of course.
Pure physical violence, such as punching and kicking, if they are blocked by the oaths at all (since a punch does not necessarily equal bloodshed), would probably be because they can potentially result in injuries and loss of blood, which is covered under the oaths.
thanks to Patchy ♥
Author
