Cross Effects - Sign Up, Discussion Page

[Cherry Lover]

Actually Hakuno HAD BEEN in danger, she was not in danger and Archer admitted threatening Shirou almost restarted the fight. Had Hakuno been in danger in that immediate moment Satoshi would not have played devil's advocate as he had.

Doesn't matter, he still made the attempt and Archer didn't know he wouldn't do it in the future. So he decided to make damn sure that he didn't. He did admit he took it a bit far, but Satoshi's reaction to it was way over the top.

Satoshi made a bad bluff and as soon as Connor finds Archer Archer will know as much.

I dunno if that makes it sound better, though....

and Connor is doing what he has been asked, he doesn't know that the characters are preoccupied. If they are he'll just return and say as much. No harm.

Yeah, I guess, although Forest is likely to take it badly....

with Rin my point is again it is mistakes on both sides that cause the issue. This is why neither side archer and Rin or Satoshi and Sakura are outright right or wrong.

No, true, but Rin did already admit her side to Kiyoshi. Also, Sakura was, I think, probably more responsible than Rin, mainly because she took what Rin said about heroic spirits far more literally than it was intended or than just about anyone else did.

Satoshi is not wrong for confronting archer he is wrong for the way he did so, big difference. And it was again a bluff after he played devil's advocate.

I think that defending MoS Shirou after what he did came off rather badly to just about everyone, honestly.

OK, I don't think you get WHY the CG's are deployed. They're deployed because if they aren't, the world is screwed. When they kill, it is to save lives. If they don't kill these people, the world as we know it fucking ends. These people aren't innocent. Those around them maybe, but the people that they're deployed to destroy most certainly in the sense of humanity, are not.

The people directly responsible for the calamity may not be innocent, but CGs don't kill only them, they kill everyone in the vicinity "just in case".

And dammit, do I HAVE to bring out this argument again?

Imagine you have a subway. There's five people down the line on the track, and one next to you. The lever is on the tracks, and the train is coming. You only have one second to react, and can't trip the lever yourself. However, if you push the man next to you onto the tracks, you'll save those five people by forcing the train to switch tracks or stop.

So, you can either watch five people die, or kill one yourself.

Whichever you choose, you are responsible for a death. Now, which one is the most morally correct. State your answer.

Honestly, neither answer is unambiguously correct, and doing either would not be morally wrong in general. However, I would not consider you to be responsible for the deaths of the five people if you did not act, since you did nothing to kill them and could not have saved them without killing someone else.

As far as I am concerned, lives do not weigh on a scale. People are not directly comparible, my life is not equatable to yours. Therefore, saying "saving five people by killing one is always morally right" is just not valid. If those five people are Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Gaddafi, I'd say that you're definitely better-off letting them die....

[Arch-Magos Winter]

To specify the experiment, you have no idea who those five people are. You have no idea who this man in front of you is. Assume you cannot make any moral judgement on any of the possible dead.

So Mike, your answer indicates that you're what I like to call a justifier. You try and justify your action as correct and disassociate any negative effects your action has.

And the point is that whatever your answer, in the end someone will die because of your choice. You can save many, or one. How you save them though, is through action or inaction, reflects on you. The reason why you do it is even more important.

[lantzblades]

Yes but mike that still means Satoshi is only mostly wrong, which is what I've been saying from the very beginning. He is wrong but it's not the same thing as threatening to kill Archer without a prompt, a trigger is a trigger and that should be respected and understood. Archer threatened mos and Satoshi responded, badly but it was a response not an action but a reaction.

as for defense of Shirou devils advocate is what it is. Defending something or someone when you don't want to. It looks like a mob versus one guy, Satoshi defended him because it was the fair thing to do, had it just been Shirou and Archer Satoshi wouldn't have interjected other than to stop them killing each other.

more responsible doesn't matter mike, because in the end both sides have responsibility for the mess.

that's all I'm saying, it's not solely my characters faults.

they get their apologies in the shortest order I can. But I'm more concerned about Ryoko's attitude because frankly Connor demanded nothing, he asked a polite question and magically he's somehow a terrible person.

[Cherry Lover]

To specify the experiment, you have no idea who those five people are. You have no idea who this man in front of you is. Assume you cannot make any moral judgement on any of the possible dead.

Doesn't change my answer. Neither choice is morally wrong.

As for what I would do, I am honestly not sure. I genuinely do not see either choice as right, because murdering innocent people is wrong, full stop, but in general saving more people does make sense as a practical thing.

If it was someone I knew being pushed, though, I would not do it, without a doubt.

So Mike, your answer indicates that you're what I like to call a justifier. You try and justify your action as correct and disassociate any negative effects your action has.

No, it indicates that I don't follow your Utilitarian bullshit, and also don't think that morality is absolute in all cases, or that it is impossible to have a decision where there is no right anwser....

And the point is that whatever your answer, in the end someone will die because of your choice. You can save many, or one. How you save them though, is through action or inaction, reflects on you. The reason why you do it is even more important.

No, I am responsible for my own actions, not those of others. If I can save someone without harming anyone else then I should do so, but if I cannot then I bear no responsibility for them not being saved.

Yes but mike that still means Satoshi is only mostly wrong, which is what I've been saying from the very beginning. He is wrong but it's not the same thing as threatening to kill Archer without a prompt, a trigger is a trigger and that should be respected and understood. Archer threatened mos and Satoshi responded, badly but it was a response not an action but a reaction.

It was a response, yes, but it was an entirely unjustified one given what MoS Shirou had done. If I accidentally bump into you in the street and you turn around and shoot me in the leg, you're still in the wrong 100% even though there was a trigger.

as for defense of Shirou devils advocate is what it is. Defending something or someone when you don't want to. It looks like a mob versus one guy, Satoshi defended him because it was the fair thing to do, had it just been Shirou and Archer Satoshi wouldn't have interjected other than to stop them killing each other.

That still makes Toshi come off rather badly, though. Rider in particular did not appreciate it one bit.

more responsible doesn't matter mike, because in the end both sides have responsibility for the mess.

that's all I'm saying, it's not solely my characters faults.

Perhaps, but I think they were mostly responsible, especially in Toshi's case.

But I'm more concerned about Ryoko's attitude because frankly Connor demanded nothing, he asked a polite question and magically he's somehow a terrible person.

Well, she's Rin's daughter, she's tired and she didn't know Connor knew Kiyoshi.

[lantzblades]

Also I want to correct something I just realized Alice was accusing my characters of.

Satoshi did not threaten to kill Archer for protecting Hakuno. He threatened to kill him for killing mos Shirou. There is a huge difference in the intent and meaning there.

[lantzblades]

Again mike % of blame when not 100% doesn't mean anything. Both parties are responsible. No matter how much. And there's saving lives and making friends and Satoshi always puts the former ahead of the latter. It was more important to save Shirou's life than to make friends. A life once gone rarely gets a second chance.

[Cherry Lover]

Also I want to correct something I just realized Alice was accusing my characters of.

Satoshi did not threaten to kill Archer for protecting Hakuno. He threatened to kill him for killing mos Shirou. There is a huge difference in the intent and meaning there.

Yeah, I think we all got that....

Again mike % of blame when not 100% doesn't mean anything. Both parties are responsible. No matter how much. And there's saving lives and making friends and Satoshi always puts the former ahead of the latter. It was more important to save Shirou's life than to make friends. A life once gone rarely gets a second chance.

Well, sure, but MoS Shirou himself never thought of that when he murdered Sakura or attempted to kill Hakuno, so why the hell should Rider or Archer?

[Arch-Magos Winter]

Well, sure, but MoS Shirou himself never thought of that when he murdered Sakura or attempted to kill Hakuno, so why the hell should Rider or Archer?

A good point, but I want to stress that MoS Shirou honestly did nothing wrong with his choice. Something you need to realize Mike is that Sakura really wasn't someone who deserved to live from a magus or even practical perspective. She was risky to keep around. Far far too risky for many.

Considering how things turned out for Shirou in the end either way, I don't blame him for that.

[lantzblades]

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind mike. The cycle has to stop. When everyone becomes a killer then mos stops being a terrible person for ending Sakura's life. Because hey everyone is a killer so it's normal. And about punishment bit that that Sakura mentioned, what isn't clear in the post is that punishment is stuff like pranks and shit, little things to annoy her parents into admitting they've been unreasonable or unfair or sometimes stupid.

[Cherry Lover]

Well, sure, but MoS Shirou himself never thought of that when he murdered Sakura or attempted to kill Hakuno, so why the hell should Rider or Archer?

A good point, but I want to stress that MoS Shirou honestly did nothing wrong with his choice.

Yes he fucking well did. He betrayed and murdered an innocent girl in cold blood on the mere suspicion that she might do something bad later.

Something you need to realize Mike is that Sakura really wasn't someone who deserved to live from a magus or even practical perspective. She was risky to keep around. Far far too risky for many.

Bull fucking shit. Sakura absolutely deserved to live, she is a fucking human being. Stop acting like human lives are nothing more than fucking numbers to weigh up.

And, he has absolutely no fucking right whatsoever to judge another person as not being worthy of life in that way. She had done nothing wrong and was not an immediate danger to anyone, therefore killing her was wrong, full stop.

Considering how things turned out for Shirou in the end either way, I don't blame him for that.

It ended pretty well for him if he saved Sakura....

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind mike. The cycle has to stop.

Well, the fucker should have thought of that before he murdered Sakura in cold blood, shouldn't he?

Sure, I don't generally condone revenge, but the guy just deserves to suffer for what he did to Sakura. Why should the cycle stop on "Sakura gets fucked-over and everyone else is just fucking fine"?

Plus, who is going to avenge MoS Shirou? He killed all his damn family and friends himself....

When everyone becomes a killer then mos stops being a terrible person for ending Sakura's life. Because hey everyone is a killer so it's normal.

Yeah, I think Rider can live with that one.

Plus, he's still a damn danger. How can she or Archer trust that he won't murder someone else?

And about punishment bit that that Sakura mentioned, what isn't clear in the post is that punishment is stuff like pranks and shit, little things to annoy her parents into admitting they've been unreasonable or unfair or sometimes stupid.

Ah, I see.

[lantzblades]

He's already suffering, he needs to be forced into actively feeling that pain and be made to confront what he did. If he breaks he can return to the beginning and with the weight on his shoulders become the hero he wanted to be. Yes Sakura will be dead but mos will never again take a life that way again. He'll always take the high road from then on.

it's far better than killing him.

[Cherry Lover]

Right, so he becomes a hero and everyone is just great except for the poor girl who he murdered in cold blood? Yeah, brilliant ending....

[The Man With All The Cute Boats]

MoS Shirou is the greatest hero

Does kickflips of justice off of herc's rock slab and kills servants left and right

Obtains and immediately disregards bitches

Waifus are for losers

Shinji & Issei harem end go

Stops only when fuyuki is nothing but a fire, with only him and a harem of men as survivors

BEST END

[Arch-Magos Winter]

Oh, it didn't end well for Shirou. At all.

HF Normal Mike? Just as canon of HF True. For that matter at the time, Sakura was the Shadow. They are not separate entities. They are one in the same. Sakura at the time certainly wasn't as human as you make her out to be. Drop your Waifu obsession Mike and realize that she was killing people. A lot of people.

[Bloble]

Arch, it's pointless, and you know it. Asking Mike to change his mind about Sakura is like asking Hitler to change his mind about the Jews.