Character starts spitting shallow philosophies about human nature and society out of fucking nowhere

>Character starts spitting shallow philosophies about human nature and society out of fucking nowhere
>Anime makes out like that completely out of place and weird monologue is super deep and cool

>Character brings up Schrödinger's cat

People tend to do that.
It's a habit that I've been cruising on for decades now. Everybody I know thinks i'm super smart and all I'm doing for it is shit out meaningless pseudo intellectual garbage.

I still love Koizumi's version of the strong anthropic principle. Sue me.

Almost like anime is made by half-educated Japanese nerds or something

>character espousing Nietzsche as if he's objectively correct

>it's ok to kill humans because humans kill animals
>protag has no comeback besides ITS WRONG
>sentience is never mentioned

I don't think that making philosophical or ''deep'' speeches is a problem, it's just that so many of them look extremely out of place and weird in some anime, it's like the writer wanted to put a message or philosophy in his work but didn't figured out how to do it in a organical way, thus decided to make a character sperg it out for him regardless of context or build up.

>Character is Schrodinger's cat

This is exactly why I never take anime seriously

Not anime are cringe like that though

>Villain makes long entry level philosophical speech that lays out his motivations and reasons for acting
>Protag has no rebuttal

I find funny that in most shonens the MC is generally BTFO by the villain in terms of arguments and only win against him because of brute force. This is the way of shonens telling us that winners are the ones who decide what's right and wrong regardless of logic.

>writer clearly knows nothing about what he's writing about

>character claims to be an "imaginary'' number

>he keeps going anyway
>it works

True but those are a dime a dozen. Even Gits had cringe dialogue that seems to just be pasted on for the sake of 'deep philosophical meaning'

>character is a girlish number

GitS is actually a good example of the OP, I was thinking about other titles. By my experience this is mostly recurring in shonens.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that ''that" scene was stupid

GitS was great for its subtlies above all

>shounen
yep

>its a show about cute girls doing cunt things
>bring up genocide

>winners are the ones who decide what's right and wrong regardless of logic

Is that wrong?

>its a show about cute girls doing cunt things
>cunt things
>cunt
not sure if intentional

from my "school of thought'', yes

To be honest, that's a more important lesson than 'muh principles'.

>Character starts spitting shallow philosophies about human nature and society out of fucking nowhere
>the other character tells him that he should stop and that he's pretentious

Only if you believe in moral relativism

>support character suddenly starts flaunting philosophies that clash with MC's "ideals''
>dies next episode
>MC dedicates rest of his life to uphold said philosophies

are you saying 8man is not deep ?

>Forcing your view on others using power and brute forces is a better lesson than teaching principles and values

>adult character still holds a grudge against the other one for something that happened when they were 7-8 years old

Oh man, i remember a manga about this girl that could make inanimate things live or some shit. There was like a 10 chapter long explanation about how it works and it was essentially schrodingers cat and quantum gibberish. It was awful

Actually, winners deciding whether something is right or wrong regardless of anything else is basically saying that right and wrong don't actually exist or are all in the same, which is moral relativism at its finest.

Sapience, not sentience. All animals have sentience. Sapience is the one which allows for judgement and higher level thinking.

You're right. I meant to put "don't" in that sentence.

>All animals have sentience

I disagree.

>judgement and higher level thinking
You overestimate humanity. Maybe a few really smart people can do that, but most humans are essentially unusually skilled animals.

It worked in log horizon, existentialist archer elf is based.

I'd call you edgy, but it's an overused buzzword which has lost its meaning so I'll just call you a dumbass.

The lesson that your principles and values don't mean shit if you can't defend or enforce them is a very important lesson.

there's certain kind of irony in reading comments like this on Sup Forums of all places

>Character questions if they have the natural right to kill someone who was just following their nature
>Friend says "no shut up though, think about it when you're not fighting someone who's nature is KILLING EVERYONE."

Even people that you probably would consider retarded or whatever are better at adapting and learning than any other animal on earth. In terms of physical capacities, instincts or senses we humans are pretty underdeveloped compared to most animals. High level thinking, judgment and ability to adapt are our biggest advantages over other species.

>who was just following their nature

If they then kill them the MC was also just following their nature though.

That's why he agrees with it though.

>implying nips believe in rights
rights is an exclusively american philosophy and a recent one at that. the rest of the world can have a conversation about morality without having to invoke this childish concept

Anybody have the pick of everyone in the train thinking something along the lines of, "I'm the only person here who really thinks, the rest of these people are drones."

Fits so damn well to this post.

True, but the lesson should be that principles and values should be enforced by both arguments and strength, not just strength.

>The rest of the world
Not even Sup Forums believes that garbage, what with Sweden, Britain, and India being meme machines on how lethally passive they are.

Persona 4

>writer tries to write an intelligent character
>writer isn't very intelligent

American ''philosophy'' about rights was heavily inspired by the french revolution.

...

What's the point of arguing with someone you kill?

>character brings up some baby food science subject
>oh wow amazing sugoi desu
It also happens in both real life and online. People who know a tiny bit about the subject act like they're god-spawn. Fuck I hate pseudo-intellectuals and it's getting worse every year.

8man actually wasn't autistic because his whole deal was that he was almost a genius at being able to read people and understanding social phenomena despite the fact that he is a loner. He also had logic thrown in to back up his claims.

belief in natural rights isn't what would've saved sweden from the maxism. one can and should stand up for themselves without necessarily believing that they're entitled to something.

on the contrary, feelings of entitlement or being deserved something is what breeds passivity, since it creates the expectation that society must comply with what you're entitled to and it's not your own job to look out for yourself. ever seen those sovereign citizens youtube videos? you can almost taste the amount of shock and surprise they're experiencing, it's like they can't even comprehend how someone can possibly violate their rights

So he's a DELUSIONAL autists then.

>MC presents his point
>Villain presents his and btfo of MC
>MC has no rebuttal, so he uses his fists to prove his point
That's the equivalent of someone beating the shit out of you in real life because you defeated him in an argument.

>promises made at the age of 7 hold relevance 20 years after

That's the way it should be user.

The MC does not beat up the villain because the villain btfo the MC in the argument, but because the MC has to defeat the villain to foil his plot.

I can see how you'd interpret it as the MC resorting to fists in the argument, but it's more like the MC tries to talk down the villain and fails, so the MC has to resort to forcefully stopping the villain.

Sentience just means they can feel/experience, this includes simple protofeelings like pain, pleasure, fear and the like. By that definition almost every relatively complex multicellular organism is (by all measures that we can find) sentient. Unless you have another working definition for sentience I can't see how you can disagree with that.

You don't have to think that you are above other people to say that though. He's correct in his general sentiment that humans overestimate their own abilities and how different they are from other life on this planet.

>Makes the right call every time
>solves everyone's problems
>gets 3 girls waiting for the dick

Yeah a real delusional retard.

>Know some random bit of trivia from a news story or something and use it in a discussion
>Wow user you are so smart!
I swear I have no idea if most people are retarded or just disingenuous as fuck.

you can't tell if an animal is sentient or not. In fact you can't tell if other people are sentient or not. This is an issue - you can't assume they are sentient.
sapience doesn't imply you should give them higher moral judgement. You wouldn't eat a mongoloid, even though they aren't sapient (same with a baby- here you could make the counterargument that they could become sapient). Thus sapience isn't a characteristic that excludes them from your moral group. A better question is if the animals can suffer, which is a very hard question.

Might makes right. If you're not strong enough to defend your ideals they are inherently wrong.

There is no working definition for intrinsic sentience, sentience can only be defined in the context of empathy. The only reason you even believe you're talking to a sentient being right now is because of your empathy, you can think I'm mad or baiting or retarded only because your brain is tricking you into thinking I have a mind.

>Rights aren't a major part of every modern ethical structure
What the fuck am I reading?

It's more likely than you think.

Empathy is a lie.

We only act acceptably out of fear of consequence. Without fear we'd just unironically slaughter each other just for how they look or act.

Fear controls the masses; not empathy.

You are like little baby, trapped in your right realism zeitgeist because you were born in america, unable to base their existence in anything. You didn't come to believe in rights out of examining your own moral intuitions, you were fed the "we have rights" meme and swallowed it without even chewing.

Nice fallacy

Had you been talking about ancient civilizations and barbarians, then yes I would agree. But culture and technology and the previous failures of civilizations has proven to us that mutual respect and cooperation leads to a longer and more prosperous survival as a mass.

Hey Sup Forums, I don't wanna make my own thread for this but I was wondering where can I go for the Sup Forums sings? I remember there was a page but I lost it at least a year ago and now I can't find it. Could an user please show me the way? Thanks!

Most of the world lived through cruel rulers for thousands of years.

Rights are a lie born by accident. The only "rights" that exist are the strong rule the weak and the weak exist to serve and die for the strong.

>be in US
>Teaching math class "2+2=4"
>student disagree "2+2=7" he says
>discussion happens
>Shithead pulls a gun shots teacher
>student is right redefines math and becomes a scientist

That's wrong, empathy exists and governs most people's actions. The reason I don't murder that retarded kid that keeps pressing the door buzzer because he forgot his keys and can't enter the building isn't because I'm afraid I'll get caught, it's because I'll feel bad about it afterwards and won't be able to sleep at night like a normal person.

I would say the top 10% of the population are intelligent enough to plan and get away with murders, but they don't murder for that reason.

One can't truly prove anything is real though, but to a certain degree you have to begin to assume things building upon previous assumptions. In that way I see the data that we have suggests that according to the definition of sentience I used (that most complex animals have capacity to feel) as convincing.

Empathy is different from ascribing agency and will. I don't have to have feelings, nor empathy to believe that there is still agency and such things in other creatures.

You need to have empathy in order to define agency and free will of other creatures. A true psychopath doesn't see you as anything other than a machine.

Inferior people aren't worthy of "empathy".

Numbers are inherently just symbols.

>Having guilt for killing the mentally ill

The only reason to not kill the mentally ill is fear of jail. If that fear didn't exist I would kill as many helmet wear drooling dipshits as possible.

The weak exist to serve and if they can't, they deserve to die.

>Modern moral systems are based on rights
>everything is relative you stupid american you are so stupid, like a little baby

Wow that's great and all, except that wasn't the bone of contention. It doesn't matter if I believe in them or not, it's a provable fact that modern moral and legal systems are based around the concept of rights.

See above.

This is actually true, except you and I are both one of those animals

Empathy is innate, it's not a decision. You can be trained out of it, but otherwise you're empathetic by default. You would still feel bad if you murdered an innocent retard.

Sup Forums - Edgy & Pseudo Intellectual

>Inferior people
When is a person inferior?
>weak exist to serve
why?

who hurt you user? Why are you so edgy?

Why would this user want a weak person serving? That's inefficient.

I'd say sentience is the ability to feel and aquire non trivial (as defined by me) emotions and knowledge.

With you take out the fear of consequence, most people would still not murder someone if It had no pragmatic benefit in doing so.

About empathy, we do have It, otherwise people would feel nothing seeing someone being brutally murdered, seeing someone in a terrible situation, or any like that.
>empathy exists and governs most people's actions.
Actually, what governs most people's actions is incentive and influence. If people had more incentive and influence to kill someone than to not do it, you can be sure they would do it. Which does not mean empathy doesn't exist of course.

>(as defined by me)
good one lad. top-tier rethoric

>>Modern moral systems are based on rights
A goo goo gaa gaa baby.

>it's a provable fact that modern moral and legal systems are based around the concept of rights
o rly

I would also add that you shouldn't make fun of relativism if you can't base the existence of rights on anything. I would love nothing more than to be a moral absolutist and join a holy crusade for mankind, such a thing would give my life meaning and purpose, but the sad reality is that relativism only exists because of a collective failure to establish this exact thing. You can engage in moral posturing all day but it's your fault relativism exists.

Judgement isn't exclusive to humans, and higher level thinking is an arbitrary idea concieved by humans.

If you take*

I disagree. I can understand, or to at least a degree conceptualize many ideas I can never truly personally experience or know intuitively (for instance many of the basic ideas of theoretical physics). In that same way even a person who is unable to empathize would likely (at least in our society) come across the idea that others have agency and feelings. Even if they never come to believe it, they can at the very least understand it as a abstract concept and act accordingly.

Empathy doesn't solve problems. Retards/the ignorant are annoying and deserve to die.

I'd kill the mentally challenged if they annoyed me enough. Humans kill inferior creatures for food. There's nothing wrong with purging people with inferior genes out of humanity,

>You wouldn't eat a mongoloid

Empathy provides a natural punishment to hurting people by making you feel guilty and stressful afterwards, therefore it's also in your best interest not to hurt people on purpose. There is no need to choose between selfishness or selflessness, the two go hand in hand, by living a good life you benefit from not being a piece of garbage.

HOW ABOUT YOU STEP UP YOUR FUCKING GAME, SENPAI

>Multiverse theory
>I can turn into any version of myself
>My mom gave birth to me
>I have half of my mom's DNA
>So my mom is part of me too
>So i can turn into my mom
>If i can turn into my mom i can turn into my mom's granpa granma granpamama
>And then i can turn into everyone because everyone is related
>And then i can turn into God

> I can understand, or to at least a degree conceptualize many ideas I can never truly personally experience or know intuitively
This is tantamount to explaining color to a blind man form birth. A purely intellectual understanding of empathy doesn't amount to empathy, and without empathy sentience can't be defined. And how would such an abstract "understanding" even look like, and why would you even call such a thing understanding? A psychopath can parrot platitudes about feelings and agency but they wouldn't understand it.

Living a "good" life can also mean living an empty life.

I'd rather exterminate thousands of people out of pettiness than try to improve myself and still be a loser for all eternity.

...