Fate/Zero - Episode 16 Discussion / Poll

[Touko]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

Um, would you please kindly point out which part of my post shows this "shounen logic"?

For one, your need to find a "proper" justification for bloodshed and violence.

The decision to shed blood occurs first. A proper justification is stuck in later to legitimize the violence.

Your terrorist is someone else's Divine Warrior.

Your "war lacking justification" is someone else's "righteous battle". Remember history is written by the victor, and you are not guaranteed to be the victor.

[Ithekro]

Actually, history is not always written by the victor. It is written by the survivor.

Case in point, The Bible. How much of that is written from the point of view of the losing side and the conquored peoples? How often it it used to show "why" the Jews lost time after time?

Second point, the American Civil War. How much of the history of that war is written by Southerners? Quite a lot actually. Notice how much respect several Confederate Generals and other officers get in many texts. How the names of battles change depending on who writes the history of it. How justifications differ depending on who wrote it.

The "victor" does not allows write the history books. It just seems that way.

[Touko]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Actually, history is not always written by the victor. It is written by the survivor.

Case in point, The Bible. How much of that is written from the point of view of the losing side and the conquored peoples? How often it it used to show "why" the Jews lost time after time?

Second point, the American Civil War. How much of the history of that war is written by Southerners? Quite a lot actually. Notice how much respect several Confederate Generals and other officers get in many texts. How the names of battles change depending on who writes the history of it. How justifications differ depending on who wrote it.

The "victor" does not allows write the history books.

"Bible", "case and point for history".

Lol.

[mAc Chaos]

Originally Posted by Touko

For one, your need to find a "proper" justification for bloodshed and violence.

The decision to shed blood occurs first. A proper justification is stuck in later to legitimize the violence.

Your terrorist is someone else's Divine Warrior.

Your "war lacking justification" is someone else's "righteous battle". Remember history is written by the victor, and you are not guaranteed to be the victor.

dat moral relativism

If you want to get into real world logic, then it's technically not a war because it's not a conflict between two nations with governments.

It's just a bunch of people running around killing each other. Couldn't you just wave your hands and say "it's a war" for pretty much anything and justify all sorts of heinous acts?

Also, I don't think Kiritsugu is that restrained. It's true that he didn't demolish the hotel with everybody inside it when he could have, but he was also basically thinking, "Man, I got soft," which suggests that beforehand he WOULD have done exactly such a thing.

But what would have been so wrong if everybody fought in the Grail War the way Saber and Lancer did?

[Touko]

Originally Posted by mAc Chaos

dat moral relativism

If you want to get into real world logic, then it's technically not a war because it's not a conflict between two nations with governments.

War is not restricted between nations and governments. It can be simply between different factions.

It's just a bunch of people running around killing each other. Couldn't you just wave your hands and say "it's a war" for pretty much anything and justify all sorts of heinous acts?

Also, I don't think Kiritsugu is that restrained. It's true that he didn't demolish the hotel with everybody inside it when he could have, but he was also basically thinking, "Man, I got soft," which suggests that beforehand he WOULD have done exactly such a thing.

It is showing the goodness in him. He was taking a risk here. By trying to save thousands, he put to risk his chance of saving billions (his wish upon the Grail).

But what would have been so wrong if everybody fought in the Grail War the way Saber and Lancer did?

Because battlefield is not a place for romanticism, you are risking your grandiose gestures not being returned.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Touko

"Bible", "case and point for history".

Lol.

There are scholarly points to The Bible, as events after King Soloman can be cross-referenced in other nations histories. The point is the writting style used to look at those events was done by the rabbi at different times to "justify" their losses (they almost never spend time justifying victories). Particularlly when the Jews were enslaved and later scatted following the fall of their Kingdoms. While "divine intervention" is used from time to time as well as the standard "lack of faith" or "breaking God's laws", there is subtext of political reasoning and blame put on the crown or on the high priests...depending on which faction wrote that part of the book.

Meaning that the survivors (and losers in this case) are the ones that wrote the histories of their own people. There are text from the ones that won those wars, but they didn't particularly endure. The Losers survived, and thus they wrote the history books.

That doesn't change the fact that they lost.

How much history is written by the losing parties in wars since the days when peoples were not wiped out? Where nations did not disappear from the world? How many histories of Napoleon are written by Frenchmen? How many histories of the Vietnam War are written by Americans (we lost, remember). When a peoples survive the war, they can write about it. It is up to time to see if their version survives or not. It is also up to time to see which side gets more press. Because sometimes the losers are the survivors in the long run.

[biodude711]

War
Noun:A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

[Touko]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

There are scholarly points to The Bible, as events after King Soloman can be cross-referenced in other nations histories. The point is the writting style used to look at those events was done by the rabbi at different times to "justify" their losses (they almost never spend time justifying victories). Particularlly when the Jews were enslaved and later scatted following the fall of their Kingdoms. While "divine intervention" is used from time to time as well as the standard "lack of faith" or "breaking God's laws", there is subtext of political reasoning and blame put on the crown or on the high priests...depending on which faction wrote that part of the book.

Meaning that the survivors (and losers in this case) are the ones that wrote the histories of their own people. There are text from the ones that won those wars, but they didn't particularly endure. The Losers survived, and thus they wrote the history books.

That doesn't change the fact that they lost.

How much history is written by the losing parties in wars since the days when peoples were not wiped out? Where nations did not disappear from the world? How many histories of Napoleon are written by Frenchmen? How many histories of the Vietnam War are written by Americans (we lost, remember). When a peoples survive the war, they can write about it. It is up to time to see if their version survives or not. It is also up to time to see which side gets more press. Because sometimes the losers are the survivors in the long run.

If the loser survived in the long run, they are then not the loser in the grand scheme of things.

In other words, they are the winners writing the history.

The losers, they won the battle, but lost the long term war.

[Ithekro]

"The grand scheme of things" does not make the phase "History is written by the victors" correct. That is only true if the losers are destroyed and thus never write about it.

The chances of others reading the histories written by the losers is less common, but it does not mean those histories are not written.

Sometimes the loser is a hero of legend. They won a lot, but lost in tragedy. Their people dead...their cities gone. But their legend remains.

Their people lost. Some of them do not exist anymore. Yet we have their histories, written by themsleves as oppose to by their enemies. Histories written by the survivors of the losing party there were written before they vanished from history. Becoming tales told either by the victors, or by third parties that discovered these histories later. Some of these tales are only known because the losers wrote them down someplace to be discovered later. They still lost and they are all still quite dead.

Some could say that might have been the case for Saber in this series. In the end she lost everything. Her Kingdom, her peoples, practically her life. Yet her legend remains. Legends of the victors that became losers...still lost.

[Touko]

You are derailing.

Need to tow your cartridge back on topic.

Kiritsugu.

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by Touko

For one, your need to find a "proper" justification for bloodshed and violence.
The decision to shed blood occurs first. A proper justification is stuck in later to legitimize the violence.

Your terrorist is someone else's Divine Warrior.

Your "war lacking justification" is someone else's "righteous battle". Remember history is written by the victor, and you are not guaranteed to be the victor.

oh, I see. OK, then please kindly point to me where I stated that we need "proper" reasons for war.
No, I'm not kidding. I don't remember ever having stated that.

[chaos_alfa]

What was the book Tokiomi gave Rin?

[LunarMoon]

Originally Posted by biodude711

War
Noun:A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

Ironically, I find the actions performed by Kiritsugu in the Grail War, to be less unsavory than those performed between nations. In a war between nations, the atrocities committed will often be committed against involuntary draftees and conscripted soldiers. In the Grail War, everyone entered the conflicted, knowing full well that they were entering a fight to the death. My sympathy is more likely to lay with the conscripts in a national conflict, than with someone like Kayneth or Sola.

Originally Posted by mAc Chaos

But what would have been so wrong if everybody fought in the Grail War the way Saber and Lancer did?

It's not wrong but it's unrealistic to hold those expectations. You might as well look at the civilian casualties accrued in any given war and say, "What would be so wrong if we all lived in peace"? It'd be nice, but it's not going to happen. Ever.

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by chaos_alfa

What was the book Tokiomi gave Rin?

If I remember correctly, it was the thing that gave the Servant status on screen in game. I don't think it had much significance other than that ...

[Jin Kizuite]

After having spent the whole evening at work after watching this episode I've had alot of of time being unhappy pondering on this episode.

And my conclusion is that I am truly and utterly disgusted at having sullied my mind seeing this. I'm sure there were other ways this scenario could of ended, especially when you have such a plot device as a contract curse. All three deaths depressed me greatly. No amount of comedy/moe/romance animes this night is gonna cleanse my mind.

I won't be sleeping easy for the rest of the week. 1/10