Heaven's Feel Movies

[Orivaa]

Tsk tsk. I said "discuss", not "declare".

Do you then believe that there exists a non-trivial number of flawless humans?

It isn't relevant to the point, which is that the capacity of doing something bad doesn't make you flawed. Whether or not 99.9999% of people are flawed doesn't factor into it, because the point of debate is whether mere agency in the world automatically makes you flawed.

All right but why did this supposedly “good” person write a buzzfeed list called “thirty best ways to beat up a baby without alerting child protective services, step one move to Japan”? Seems pretty shady to me.

Who says they did?

I mean if you ask me all this fucking navel gazing and philosophizing is a pretty big character flaw, all you need is a gut check, if someone says to you “hey I’m a master of this [absolutely fucking horrifying thing] but don’t worry my morals would never allow me to misuse it” and your response is “naw dawg that’s fucked up right there” then it’s a flaw

"Excelling" at something is generally speaking comparative. A top-of-the-line basketball player will still miss a ton of shots, but he still "excels" at basketball because the standard are regular people, whom he is way, way better than.
Like I said earlier, there is a near infinite potential for malice in the world. There are billions of ways for you to be cruel. Because of that, there must be something awful that you're as much better at than the average person as a pro basketball player is at basketball compared to the average person. You don't have to know it and you don't have to have done it, ever. You don't have to enjoy the act, just like Shirou excels at archery despite not finding any joy in it.
Yet, that makes you flawed?

snip

snip

^This guy gets it.

[Mcjon01]

Anybody who excels at anything put in thousands of hours of practice to get there; I don’t have any secret serial killer talents because talent is a myth

[Wandering Swordwoman]

Him excelling at killing something
Good at: using sharp tools
Flaw: psycopath
He kill people because he is psycopath, not just because he is good at using sharp tools

[Mcjon01]

He’s good at killing because he’s good at killing
Killing people is the skill
A guy who whittles a lot is not good at killing, don’t be so reductionist

[Wandering Swordwoman]

Talent at something just mean he can become better in shorter time than people with no talent at that something

[Mcjon01]

Talent at something just mean he can become better in shorter time than people with no talent at that something

That’s just the result of skill overlap and hidden training, as long as there are no disabilities people are all basically the same outside of body frame

[Wandering Swordwoman]

He’s good at killing because he’s good at killing
Killing people is the skill
A guy who whittles a lot is not good at killing, don’t be so reductionist

He is good at killing because he is good at something but he do it for killing people

Not because he is" good at killing people just because yeah.... He is good at it"
You make it too simple. You need to see the person why he does it at it than just "yeahh... Just because he is good at it"

- - - Updated - - -

That’s just the result of skill overlap and hidden training, as long as there are no disabilities people are all basically the same outside of body frame

Then why there are people that can become better than the other even though they have the same amount of training?

[Mcjon01]

Well no because no matter what he’s good at his first kill is going to be messy bad, and subsequent kills will be better until eventually he’s good at killing because murder is a skill set all it’s own and developing it takes practice
Your argument is like saying you can be a major league pitcher because you’re good at juggling, it’s nonsense

- - - Updated - - -

He is good at killing because he is good at something but he do it for killing people

Not because he is" good at killing people just because yeah.... He is good at it"
You make it too simple. You need to see the person why he does it at it than just "yeahh... Just because he is good at it"

- - - Updated - - -



Then why there are people that can become better than the other even though they have the same amount of training?

Unless they literally lived the exact same lives they don’t have the same training

[Wandering Swordwoman]

I'm saying that there are other factors that he is good at than just "he is good at killing people"
There are some skills that related to it so you are good at it than just "he is good at it, because he is good at it"
Now I ask you, what makes people good at killing others?
Good martial arts (not always, most of them don't have it unless you are special unit)
Good in using weapons
Good in timing and precision
Good in hiding your presence
Has sufficient strenght
These skills are very related to kill people and those skills also need to be practiced too so they can become good at it
The killer has some of the skills above and he can use it for something else but he use it to kill people because of his flaw, lack of emphaty, inconsiderate to others
Saying he is good at killing just because he is good at it won't do

[Mcjon01]

I’m not saying a killer is good at killing “just because,” I’m saying that synthesizing all those disparate skills into a tangible result is itself a skill that requires training and experience

[Altima of the Gates]

That Sakura art is actually pretty disturbing if have seen Lost Butterfly and know what those candies represent...

Perhaps, but no comment on Alter? If they were going with that, her having just red liquid she is licking up should evoke similar dread.

[Deathhappens]

It isn't relevant to the point, which is that the capacity of doing something bad doesn't make you flawed. Whether or not 99.9999% of people are flawed doesn't factor into it, because the point of debate is whether mere agency in the world automatically makes you flawed.



Who says they did?



"Excelling" at something is generally speaking comparative. A top-of-the-line basketball player will still miss a ton of shots, but he still "excels" at basketball because the standard are regular people, whom he is way, way better than.
Like I said earlier, there is a near infinite potential for malice in the world. There are billions of ways for you to be cruel. Because of that, there must be something awful that you're as much better at than the average person as a pro basketball player is at basketball compared to the average person. You don't have to know it and you don't have to have done it, ever. You don't have to enjoy the act, just like Shirou excels at archery despite not finding any joy in it.
Yet, that makes you flawed?





^This guy gets it.

So you're denying that humans have an inherent nature whatsoever, then, flawed or otherwise. Next question: Absent any inherent conditions, how do you define the state of "being human" as distinct from any number of other bipedal tool-using mammals?

- - - Updated - - -

I also want to take part in the subdiscussion about what makes a skillset more than its individual component skills but that'll have to wait until my next toilet break.

[Orivaa]

Anybody who excels at anything put in thousands of hours of practice to get there; I don’t have any secret serial killer talents because talent is a myth

Sure you do. As do I. We just don't know, and likely never will, because we won't do anything with them.

Talents are not a myth. It's true that you can cultivate talents by extensive training, and some talents are so sought-after and their use popularized (for example, basketball) that in order to excel you realistically have to put in thousands of hours of training, simply due to the standards being higher. But that doesn't mean that we all start as zero, blank slates, and suck at absolutely every conceivable thing until we specifically start training them.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're denying that humans have an inherent nature whatsoever, then, flawed or otherwise.

We are for all intents and purposes flawed, but it's not an ironclad rule. I don't think either of us will ever meet someone without a flaw, but there's no reason such a person couldn't exist.

Next question: Absent any inherent conditions, how do you define the state of "being human" as distinct from any number of other bipedal tool-using mammals?

Did I say something about "being human" at some point? Or is it unrelated and you're just asking out of curiosity?

[Rokudaime]

This is such a weird position to have, if you ask me. There is a near infinite potential for malice and evil in the world. Everyone, and I mean everyone, is capable of doing something bad, and capable of doing some bad thing very well. Yet, they could be the nicest person in the world, who've never, ever hurt anyone or anything. An absolute paragon of virtue. Yet, the mere fact that it's a possibility, no matter how infinitesimally small, that they could go against their morals and personality, and do something bad well, means that they are a flawed person to you? Their actions don't matter at all, their personality doesn't matter at all, the mere fact that they have consciousness and agency in this world condemns them, in your eyes?

Now you're putting words in my mouth, though I'm assuming it's only because you misunderstood me. I said that the fact that someone excels at something vile can be both bad and a flaw. I did not say that the fact that someone excels at something vile automatically makes them bad. I was referring to the talent itself and the fact that it can be a bad situation, and can lead to bad consequences. I didn't say that the fact that there is a chance that they coulde decide to act on their awful talent makes them bad (unless they actually decide to use that talent of course). I said that a vile talent is in itself inherently bad and flawed. The talent. Not the person. Some talents can cause harm indirectly even without the one possessing the talent actively trying to use it, and regardless of their intentions. Such a talent would be bad, and obviously also flawed. However, although it doesn't necessarily make them bad, a useless talent that can only cause harm is still a flawed talent, therefore excelling at such a talent is a flaw. They possess a flawed talent. They possess something that is flawed. Obviously that has to mean that they are flawed. Not bad, but flawed, sure. Saying that someone can possess something flawed without being flawed makes no sense. If they were perfect they wouldn't have any flawed talents, only good and useful ones. Also, are you seriously saying that humans aren't inherently flawed? That's like saying that people have the potential to be perfect. That's a pretty lofty and idealistic claim and belief, my man. One without any kind of empirical evidence that will ever be possible to fully prove, I might add (how convenient. Kind of like religion in that regard). On the other hand, as you well know, based on all the shit that goes on in the world, and how many despicable people there are, there are absurd amounts of things that suggest the opposite is true: That people are inherently flawed. If you want to ignore all of that, and just blindly believe that people are inherently not flawed, based on nothing but lofty idealism and faith, then go ahead. I base my beliefs on history, science, and what I can observe.

[Deathhappens]

Sure you do. As do I. We just don't know, and likely never will, because we won't do anything with them.

Talents are not a myth. It's true that you can cultivate talents by extensive training, and some talents are so sought-after and their use popularized (for example, basketball) that in order to excel you realistically have to put in thousands of hours of training, simply due to the standards being higher. But that doesn't mean that we all start as zero, blank slates, and suck at absolutely every conceivable thing until we specifically start training them.

- - - Updated - - -



We are for all intents and purposes flawed, but it's not an ironclad rule. I don't think either of us will ever meet someone without a flaw, but there's no reason such a person couldn't exist.




Did I say something about "being human" at some point? Or is it unrelated and you're just asking out of curiosity?

No but since you're not explaining your position I'm extrapolating from what you did say. In this case, it seems I gave too much credit, because you're evading the question altogether. Are all humans flawed, or not (and hence flawless humans exist)? Which is it?

- - - Updated - - -

Mind you, I'm not gonna start a rant whatever you pick, I'm just curious to see how you think.

[hayate]

Ufotable Cafe celebrates Valentines Day with limited pictures for Sakura, Rin, Ilya, and Saber Alter.

That sexy Alter chocolate licking...

Dang it, ufotable, you really fulfill Saber's VN description of her appearance.

[GarlandGreene]

That's not chocolate, those are Bahsaka's tears.

[mewarmo990]

only 1 more week til I get to see it yassssss

[Wandering Swordwoman]

for people who still have problem with the truck fight
I hope this answer your question

[Toa of Gallifrey]

Can't believe he survived getting disemboweled. Guess he had someone else put guts on him.