Saike Mata Shite mo - Vol. 12 Ch. 110 - Last Action Hero (3)

[icekatze]

The writing here is pretty brilliant, and I gotta hope that the translation is getting the author's intent across.

It's noteworthy that he doesn't say that all oracle holders should lose their oracles, only that if he had to choose between all or nothing, nothing is the better choice.

I suspect his reason for choosing to give up his own oracle has more to do with being tired of it. He's now years older, mentally, than Mikan. If he wants to live a life on her level as a peer, giving up his oracle is the obvious choice. He got his oracle and did all of those retries for the purpose of not losing Mikan, but if he keeps going, he'll end up losing her by default.

 

[pip25]

@CursedLight
Please help me with my ignorance and mention at least some of those cases where bans worked out just fine
(Nuclear weapons are not banned, by the way, at least in the sense that the countries that have them could use them, they're just luckily not stupid enough to do so. The treaty intended to ban them was not signed by any country that actually has these weapons, and the treaty intended to keep other countries from acquiring them has been proven laughably ineffective over the years.)

 

[CursedLight]

@pip25 Nuclear bombs are banned in the sense that you can't make one or buy one.

 

[pip25]

@CursedLight
You can't make a nuclear weapon in your garage because you lack the sufficient technological means to do so, not because they are "banned". Also, they are tricky not just to make, but to maintain - thank goodness, too, because after the fall of the Soviet Union not a lot else kept these things from appearing on the black market.
But honestly, comparing oracles to nuclear weapons seems a bit overblown to me to begin with.

 

[CursedLight]

@pip25
*sigh*
If you want you can compare with grenades and more traditional bombs :/

 

[TakeiDaloui]

Basically the biggest danger is that the kids with them will not know self control. Imagine one with the simply ability to create fire for example. If he got mad and used it, the kid probably isn't thinking of the danger it would cause to others. Yet it's still dangerous. And there would be no way to prevent them from using it either, because it's an innate ability.

 

[kwendy]

@CursedLight Classification exist so that we can dififrentiate child stool and supernova, since they are both material existances. You're not gonna claim child stool is a gas giant, aren't you?

 

[Tactless]

It's easier to think of oracles as killswitches. If a child suddenly got the ability to make someone die just by thinking about killing them, there's no easy way to reverse the decision (because reversing a mistake doesn't absolve the consequences of making that mistake in the first place). Johann was unable to secure an undo Oracle (like Saike's) to justify the irresponsibility he's aiming to inflict on the world. The moment he made Saike his enemy was the moment his own goal collapsed from its own hypocrisy.

 

[CursedLight]

@kwendy
Yes ?
I agree with the statement but fail to see the point you're trying to make against what i said here :/

 

[kwendy]

@CursedLight Comparison individual weapons to nukes is as incorrect as comparing piece of furniture to planetoid.

 

[CursedLight]

@kwendy Again with your arbitrary "individual" weapons.

What you say doesn't make much sense.
How is comparing a weapon with another weapon "as incorrect as" comparing a furniture with a planet ?
The intellectually honest statement would be "as incorrect as comparing a furniture with another furniture" (ex : bed and chair)

I also fail to see how "X weapon is more deadly than Y weapon so if X weapon were to disappear, you wouldn't have the same story. " is an incorrect comparison. :/

 

[kwendy]

@CursedLight How is comparing one object with mass with another object with mass not intelelctually honest?
Even if, do you think american firearm bearing rights activists are advocating for WMD ownership?

 

[CursedLight]

@kwendy
"How is comparing one object with mass with another object with mass not intelelctually honest?"
If i say one is heavier than the other i compared them. :/
But i'll correct what i said earlier, comparing a furniture with a planet is correct depending on what's the comparison. For example, it'd be correct to say "this planet is bigger than this furniture".

"Even if, do you think american firearm bearing rights activists are advocating for WMD ownership?"
No i don't think they do, which is exactly my point. :/

And again, i fail to see how "X weapon is more deadly than Y weapon so if X weapon were to disappear, you wouldn't have the same story. " is an incorrect comparison.
You're welcome to say to me why it's incorrect. :/

 

[kwendy]

@CursedLight Your initial quote is

Another argument saike could've gone with is that in the same way you can "replace oracles with guns", you can replace oracles with nuclear nukes.

You can't.

 

[CursedLight]

@kwendy
I fail to see how "X weapon is more deadly than Y weapon so if X weapon were to disappear, you wouldn't have the same story. " is an incorrect comparison.
You're welcome to say to me why it's incorrect. :/

I'm starting to wonder if you're playing dumb or not understanding the argument, given you've ignored the above 2 times :/
(EDIT : actually, there's an easy way of knowing that, what do you think is my argument ?)

 

[kwendy]

@CursedLight Because of a scale that changes impact on surrounding drastically and obviously is hyperbole. The whole point of comparison disappears.
Your point is that single shared trait in classification allows you to substitute one concept with another for comparison purposes.

 

[CursedLight]

@kwendy
Ignored for the 3rd time i see. :/
And yeah, you didn't get the argument. Great. :/

 

[kwendy]

@CursedLight Blame your lack of comprehension. Also it's you messing with me or mixing me with someone else you were conversing at the same time.
1) You suggested replacement of guns with nukes in Saike's analogy.
2) I objected, argumenting it with different scale of subjects on question
3) You claimed that both subjects share common trait (they are weapons)
4) I answered with comparing your analogy to comparing furniture to cosmic objects.
5) Here you arbitrary brought some very poorly phrased equasion that has nothing to do with matter in hands.
Is your "X weapon is more deadly than Y weapon so if X weapon were to disappear, you wouldn't have the same story. " the same as "Another argument saike could've gone with is that in the same way you can "replace oracles with guns", you can replace oracles with nuclear nukes."? There are several things wrong here. In fact, one of the statements have almost nothing to do with the other.
6) I brought initial quote because you seem to be going off-topic or failed to express yourself properly.
_
Here. I structured whole conversation for you,

 

[Varler]

It feels bad that this great series is coming to an end. (I'm guessing, I haven't looked at raws or anything.)

 

[CursedLight]

@kwendy Given what you say next, rather blame your lack of reading comprehension. :/

1) "You suggested replacement of guns with nukes in Saike's analogy."
"another argument"
"another argument"
Do i talk about Saike's analogy at all ? Or do i talk about "ANOTHER ARGUMENT saike could've gone with" ?
(plus, where exactly is saike talking about guns in his analogy ? He's just talking about fire and oracles....)

2) Which i agree because it's the point. :/
3) Yes.
4) Where while at first i said it wasn't intellectually honest, i've corrected myself and said that depending on what you're comparing, it's okay.
5) Given that you misunderstood what i said, i understand you don't see the link.
6) And you seem to not being able to read. I wasn't modifying Saike's argument and analogy, i was telling he could've used another one, that i then wrote.

So, Johann say that "Even without oracles, crime can still happen. Ultimately, it's the same story if you replace the word oracles with guns"
There's something wrong and dumb with that argument, how to show it ?
Answer : "Even without oracles, crime can still happen. Ultimately, it's the same story if you replace the word oracles with nuclear bombs"

Now like you said (and i said in my repeated line i gave you), the argument i gave is obviously wrong, after all, nuclear bombs are obviously far more deadly than oracles. So if you were to get rid of them, you wouldn't get the same story. Yes crime would still happen but to say that crime would be the same, whatever the weapons you have is wrong.

Basically the argument is "No, you wouldn't get the same story if you replaced oracles with guns (because one is deadlier than the other)".
The answer serves to show the flaw in Johann's argument in an extremely obvious way.