554457
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2018
- Messages
- 74
that last page tho XD
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- May 16, 2018
- Messages
- 546
I am gonne be so damn happy when Tanjirou finally send Azaka's head into the air.
Mad Tanjirou is the best Tanjirou.
Mad Tanjirou is the best Tanjirou.
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
- Messages
- 1,823
"Destructive Kill: War Style" Good lord some of this shit doesn't translate well.
Anyways, there is a middle ground between Tanjirou and what'shisdemonface. The weak die, it's how we get evolution and advancement. If the weak didn't die to the strong we'd be stuck on cable TV or ruling monarchies. However, leaving everyone to do die is chaotic and counter productive, it closes possible opportunities. On the other hand, unilaterally protecting the weak leads to corruption and stagnation, re:antivaxxers & devoutly religious or hereditary diseases. Protecting the stupid weak hurts us as well, just later down the road. Pretending either of them are entirely right is just stupid. My hippy side is coming out, balance is key.
Anyways, there is a middle ground between Tanjirou and what'shisdemonface. The weak die, it's how we get evolution and advancement. If the weak didn't die to the strong we'd be stuck on cable TV or ruling monarchies. However, leaving everyone to do die is chaotic and counter productive, it closes possible opportunities. On the other hand, unilaterally protecting the weak leads to corruption and stagnation, re:antivaxxers & devoutly religious or hereditary diseases. Protecting the stupid weak hurts us as well, just later down the road. Pretending either of them are entirely right is just stupid. My hippy side is coming out, balance is key.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2018
- Messages
- 1,324
@Yautja So by your logic, you will kill the weak ones that you deem useless. Who give you the right to judge other people? You never know how a weak person will turn out in the future. They may be weak now but they can become strong. Even people with diseases and disability can contribute to society. The weak even the useless ones have the right to live. We are not wild animals. We are human. I wholeheartedly side with Tanjirou in this. In my opinion, the people that need to die are the ones that don't value life and have no moral, I don't care how strong or intelligent they are.
Your middle ground is just as stupid and cruel as Akaza's.
Your middle ground is just as stupid and cruel as Akaza's.
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
- Messages
- 1,823
@Yautja Except the point you made was that certain categories of "weak" people should be killed, or don't deserve to live. That just turns it into the whole "strong survive, weak die" thing except you're redefining what qualifies as strong and what qualifies as weak. It's like the judgment of Solomon. The middle ground is bullshit and doesn't exist. The fact that you advocate culling anybody at all makes you just as bad as Akaza.
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
- Messages
- 1,823
@danime91
Except I didn't. Another annoying person who responds to month old comments appears, anyways, go back to English class, and then reread what I've said, because what you've deigned sure as hell isn't it. It's a pathetic straw-man that you want to believe I said to make your petty argument seem reasonable. I didn't even specify people or living things as "the weak" and I sure as hell didn't fucking say people should be killed or didn't deserve to live, you inbred sandwich. So "the fact" that I advocate culling people, isn't a fucking fact, it's slanderous lie made up by an illiterate moron. There's a reason I spoke about abstracts like monarchies and TV in addition to moronic ideas such as devout religion and antivaxxing.
Also, only a fucking idiot dictator wannabe says "The middle ground is bullshit and doesn't exist". Take your straw-man and go fuck him, because god knows no one else has the patience to put up with your bullshit lies.
Except I didn't. Another annoying person who responds to month old comments appears, anyways, go back to English class, and then reread what I've said, because what you've deigned sure as hell isn't it. It's a pathetic straw-man that you want to believe I said to make your petty argument seem reasonable. I didn't even specify people or living things as "the weak" and I sure as hell didn't fucking say people should be killed or didn't deserve to live, you inbred sandwich. So "the fact" that I advocate culling people, isn't a fucking fact, it's slanderous lie made up by an illiterate moron. There's a reason I spoke about abstracts like monarchies and TV in addition to moronic ideas such as devout religion and antivaxxing.
Also, only a fucking idiot dictator wannabe says "The middle ground is bullshit and doesn't exist". Take your straw-man and go fuck him, because god knows no one else has the patience to put up with your bullshit lies.
@Yautja
Wow, this is still going. Well, regardless of what's been said up till now, a fundamental problem with your argument is how you defined evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with notions of "strong vs weak", it's situational. It's adaptions and changes which happen over generations according to the specific situation that the group is in, hence many "strong" species die or evolve to become "weaker" simply by happenstance. Further, evolution is a continuous occurrence and will happen regardless of what you do, just in different directions with you controlling the environment which the group is undergoing evolution in.
Also, careful of how you advocate for a balanced position. Most of the time, people do so by looking towards the middle of the arguments made or the groups making them. However, an actual balanced position has to be made in regard to the situation the arguments are about, regardless of what the arguments are. Said arguments are usually not on extreme opposite ends of the spectrum and an argument in the middle of them is also skewed. Also note that the arguments might not be talking about the same thing or they may be able to coexist. Even in the examples that you bring up of weakness, those groups don't universally fail in all areas and may find something unrelated to their stated failings to excel in, thus appearing "strong" and propagating. Rather than advocating for balance, I suggest advocating for objectivity. Balance tends to be in terms of peoples opinions, which could just be wrong overall, while objectivity puts focus on the actual occurrence. You can't completely divorce what you say from your opinions but you'll be more accurate if you focus on what occurs and not build an opinion based on what two sides are saying.
Wow, this is still going. Well, regardless of what's been said up till now, a fundamental problem with your argument is how you defined evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with notions of "strong vs weak", it's situational. It's adaptions and changes which happen over generations according to the specific situation that the group is in, hence many "strong" species die or evolve to become "weaker" simply by happenstance. Further, evolution is a continuous occurrence and will happen regardless of what you do, just in different directions with you controlling the environment which the group is undergoing evolution in.
Also, careful of how you advocate for a balanced position. Most of the time, people do so by looking towards the middle of the arguments made or the groups making them. However, an actual balanced position has to be made in regard to the situation the arguments are about, regardless of what the arguments are. Said arguments are usually not on extreme opposite ends of the spectrum and an argument in the middle of them is also skewed. Also note that the arguments might not be talking about the same thing or they may be able to coexist. Even in the examples that you bring up of weakness, those groups don't universally fail in all areas and may find something unrelated to their stated failings to excel in, thus appearing "strong" and propagating. Rather than advocating for balance, I suggest advocating for objectivity. Balance tends to be in terms of peoples opinions, which could just be wrong overall, while objectivity puts focus on the actual occurrence. You can't completely divorce what you say from your opinions but you'll be more accurate if you focus on what occurs and not build an opinion based on what two sides are saying.
Double-page supporter
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2018
- Messages
- 1,823
@Meridis
Second, evolution has nothing to do with strong and weak? Someone clearly ignored what the fuck I was talking about. Good straw-man. Talking about how "weak" things die and that creates the groundwork for evolution and advancement is not the same thing as saying evolution simply favors the strong.
Third, someone clearly doesn't know what a contradiction is or what my argument was considering the sentence that followed your objection of my use of the word evolution. Not to mention an interesting neglect to mention that I used to word advancement in tandem with it.
Fourth, no shit. Nothing I said contradicts the continuous nature of evolution, both the biological and general definitions or would imply I did.
First off, saying a balanced position has to made in regards to a situation, regardless of the arguments, is nonsensical. There's no balance if you're looking at just the situation, there's nothing to balance. Balance requires two or more things to compare. So I don't know if you misspoke, but what you wrote is illogical.
Second, where did I say a middle ground is literally half way in between two arguments? Without that, your presumptions and sentence falls apart. Middle ground is just a compromise, a point of agreement, an alternative between two positions. And why exactly do you get to decide which arguments are extremes and just how opposing or extreme they are. There are a boat load of assumptions there and I hardly see why you're the one to make them and that generalization.
Third, if they're not talking about the same thing, I would been advocating looking for the middle ground. And if you're talking in generalities, I don't see why you're so patronizingly explaining something stupidly obvious. As for the coexisting, no shit. Now that's a really patronizing thing to explain.
Fourth, no shit Sherlock. I never said they did, and I never meant literal, definitional weakness. I was using examples of a combination things that are generally outdated, have better alternatives, stupid, stagnate and literally weak.
Fifth, I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive or how that isn't what I was doing. Next, this a case of two unrelated things. Balance and objectivity sure ain't fucking alternatives to each other, and speaking as if they are is nonsense. "Instead of chicken, I prefer Ford trucks", is basically what you're saying.
Sixth, another ridiculous presumption. How about lifestyle; exercise, social life, recreation? Or time management? How about in skill sets? How about in just about fucking anything? "Balance tends to be in terms of people's opinions". What a stupid sentence. Even if it we keep it strictly to the confines of "balance between two positions", that's a stupid fucking comment to make. As for the follow up, complete nonsense. The irony in that the guy who saw fit to talk on how two things may not be related ends up speaking like this about two completely fucking unrelated things is palpable. Word. fucking. Soup. Putting aside your stupid comment on balance being in regards to peoples opinions, both peoples opinions can be wrong, I agree. How you jump from that to objectivity and focusing on the situation when what we're talking about is two opposing views is nonsensical, a ridiculous false dichotomy of two things that aren't even alternatives / opposites. Someone has been spending too much time on r/philosophy.
Seventh, and thank god, finally, I've never read a more pretentious, yet incoherent sentence. For the first part, no shit. And the second part, what an illogical and stupid sentence. If we're talking about this specific case in the manga, if we're not looking at the two sides, then there's nothing to compare and no middle ground to be made and no objectivity to be had because we wouldn't be having this discussion or talking about what the balance in between those two positions are. Nothing would be occurring, ergo, illogical. If we're talking in general, what a fucking presumptions and stupid sentence. This sentence was one of the most grammatically correct, yet violently incoherent messes I've ever read.
I didn't know MangaDex turned into an unironic r/iamverysmart. Jesus fucking Christ, the next time I'm accused of being verbose, I'll point to this comment; I've never, ever, read a comment in English that read so much like a foreign language. This is what fucking happens when you use words and speak on topics that you don't understand.
Yea, no. First off, I didn't define evolution.
Second, evolution has nothing to do with strong and weak? Someone clearly ignored what the fuck I was talking about. Good straw-man. Talking about how "weak" things die and that creates the groundwork for evolution and advancement is not the same thing as saying evolution simply favors the strong.
Third, someone clearly doesn't know what a contradiction is or what my argument was considering the sentence that followed your objection of my use of the word evolution. Not to mention an interesting neglect to mention that I used to word advancement in tandem with it.
Fourth, no shit. Nothing I said contradicts the continuous nature of evolution, both the biological and general definitions or would imply I did.
If I were to ever point to a group of words of some pseudo-intellectual bullshit peacocking, this would be the example. Deciphering this word soup, pseudo-intellectual bullshit is ridiculous.
First off, saying a balanced position has to made in regards to a situation, regardless of the arguments, is nonsensical. There's no balance if you're looking at just the situation, there's nothing to balance. Balance requires two or more things to compare. So I don't know if you misspoke, but what you wrote is illogical.
Second, where did I say a middle ground is literally half way in between two arguments? Without that, your presumptions and sentence falls apart. Middle ground is just a compromise, a point of agreement, an alternative between two positions. And why exactly do you get to decide which arguments are extremes and just how opposing or extreme they are. There are a boat load of assumptions there and I hardly see why you're the one to make them and that generalization.
Third, if they're not talking about the same thing, I would been advocating looking for the middle ground. And if you're talking in generalities, I don't see why you're so patronizingly explaining something stupidly obvious. As for the coexisting, no shit. Now that's a really patronizing thing to explain.
Fourth, no shit Sherlock. I never said they did, and I never meant literal, definitional weakness. I was using examples of a combination things that are generally outdated, have better alternatives, stupid, stagnate and literally weak.
Fifth, I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive or how that isn't what I was doing. Next, this a case of two unrelated things. Balance and objectivity sure ain't fucking alternatives to each other, and speaking as if they are is nonsense. "Instead of chicken, I prefer Ford trucks", is basically what you're saying.
Sixth, another ridiculous presumption. How about lifestyle; exercise, social life, recreation? Or time management? How about in skill sets? How about in just about fucking anything? "Balance tends to be in terms of people's opinions". What a stupid sentence. Even if it we keep it strictly to the confines of "balance between two positions", that's a stupid fucking comment to make. As for the follow up, complete nonsense. The irony in that the guy who saw fit to talk on how two things may not be related ends up speaking like this about two completely fucking unrelated things is palpable. Word. fucking. Soup. Putting aside your stupid comment on balance being in regards to peoples opinions, both peoples opinions can be wrong, I agree. How you jump from that to objectivity and focusing on the situation when what we're talking about is two opposing views is nonsensical, a ridiculous false dichotomy of two things that aren't even alternatives / opposites. Someone has been spending too much time on r/philosophy.
Seventh, and thank god, finally, I've never read a more pretentious, yet incoherent sentence. For the first part, no shit. And the second part, what an illogical and stupid sentence. If we're talking about this specific case in the manga, if we're not looking at the two sides, then there's nothing to compare and no middle ground to be made and no objectivity to be had because we wouldn't be having this discussion or talking about what the balance in between those two positions are. Nothing would be occurring, ergo, illogical. If we're talking in general, what a fucking presumptions and stupid sentence. This sentence was one of the most grammatically correct, yet violently incoherent messes I've ever read.
I didn't know MangaDex turned into an unironic r/iamverysmart. Jesus fucking Christ, the next time I'm accused of being verbose, I'll point to this comment; I've never, ever, read a comment in English that read so much like a foreign language. This is what fucking happens when you use words and speak on topics that you don't understand.
Similar threads
