Unpopular TM opinions you have

[Deathhappens]

No, I said in motivation he's more evil. Hitler had some half-cocked idea about strengthening humanity by killing anybody who didn't match up to his lofty goals. Iskander's end goal is literally just waging war.


"I am in charge and if you disagree you can die" is the tagline of every dictator on the planet.


Again: Completely wrong. He's going to war because war. He's going to conquer because there are people there to conquer. And no he doesn't care about what happens after the war, he left their own people in charge, put some rules of his own in place, then went toward his next war.


To this day I think the most disturbing and despair-inducing thing Urobuchi did was to make Iskander as likeable as he is.


Yep, but to be fair it did end with him throwing a minor hissy fit and going "Nah m8 talk to the hand I don't care about your opinion any more lalalalala".

Ok, I think at this point the most I can muster is "no u".
You're flat out wrong about his motivation and actively ignoring evidence to the contrary. There's nothing to debate here.

[Zurvan]

If only that standpoint was realised sooner

but then again, thats not how things are done right

[Deathhappens]

The idea that war (either an unjust war, as defined by the specific author, or the act of warfare itself) is something to be condemned isn't a modern one, and wasn't new even by the standards of Ancient Greece. "Lysistrata", "Peace", "Trojan Women", "Republic"... Heck, "The Persians" can easily be read as a condemnation of war.

You can pretty much add all of Aristophanes' comedies there. I think "Acharnes" is the most pointed one after "Peace", personally. "Trojan Women" on the other hand is more of an exploration of the tragedy of war rather than an anti-war work in itself. And the reason for that is that, precisely, "might makes right" WAS the prevailing mindset of its time. Why aren't we condeming Leonidas for all the cruel practices the Spartans used in order to field the strongest infantry in Greece?

Are you somehow under the impression that conquering the world would have no victims?

Are you misunderstanding my point or misrepresenting it on purpose? I clearly said that his war would cause victims. The quote was a response to Seika's assertion that

I suggest that the reverse is true. He takes by force as a default; he accepts peaceable tribute if it happens to fall into his lap.

which is manifestly untrue.

- - - Updated - - -

If only that standpoint was realised sooner

but then again, thats not how things are done right

Debating for the sake of debating can be fun, but only when people actually respond to each other's points.

[Zurvan]

Debating for the sake of debating can be fun, but only when people actually respond to each other's points.

thats not how things are done right

.

[Seika]

And the reason for that is that, precisely, "might makes right" WAS the prevailing mindset of its time.

Was it?

δίκαια μὲν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρωπείῳ λόγῳ ἀπὸ τῆς ἴσης ἀνάγκης κρίνεται, δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.

ἧι μὲν δὴ νομίζομέν γε, χρήσιμον μὴ καταλύειν ὑμᾶς τὸ κοινὸν ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ τῷ αἰεὶ ἐν κινδύνῳ γιγνομένῳ εἶναι τὰ εἰκότα καὶ δίκαια.

ὅμως δὲ πιστεύομεν τῇ μὲν τύχῃ ἐκ τοῦ θείου μὴ ἐλασσώσεσθαι, ὅτι ὅσιοι πρὸς οὐ δικαίους ἱστάμεθα.

Even the Athenians at the height of their Thucydidean imperial arrogance concede that their might doesn't make right; just that it makes them win.

[LegalLoliLover]

More like carrot and stick. Despite the Simas being the "bad guys" during the 3 Kingdoms period, they managed to cause Zhuge Dan's rebellion to implode by showing mercy to the rebels who surrendered. They showed that same level of mercy to Liu Shan, invalidating Jiang Wei's subsequent rebellion.

[SpoonyViking]

Why aren't we condeming Leonidas for all the cruel practices the Spartans used in order to field the strongest infantry in Greece?

Because he's not the topic of the discussion, nor one of the main characters in a narrative which (at least its animated adaptation) frames him in a positive light.

The quote was a response to Seika's assertion [which] is manifestly untrue.

Is it? "Hey, you proud heroes who accepted being summoned specifically because you have a wish to fulfill, want to drop everything and serve me?" Such effort at captivating them, much wow.

[Imperial]

We're not talking about Leonidas because whataboutism is a logical fallacy.

We can hardly throw salt on Seika's claims when her source fu has consistently proven so strong. She's citing the exact moments he expounds upon his tyrannical way of doing things.

[forumghost]

Is it? "Hey, you proud heroes who accepted being summoned specifically because you have a wish to fulfill, want to drop everything and serve me?" Such effort at captivating them, much wow.

Also the part where when they say no he goes "Well I guess I'll have to beat you up until you either Accept or Die then."

[jennajayfeather]

When I first watched Zero the banquet of kings left me with very conflicted feelings. Iskandar is a positive, optimistic character but I think people are confusing that with being a "good person." He wasn't meant to be a saint and wasn't written as one. His story of influencing Waver was where he got to shine, and why it ended as happy as it did. Waver's important here because Iskandar was meant to be the one to guide him.

[SpoonyViking]

δίκαια μὲν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρωπείῳ λόγῳ ἀπὸ τῆς ἴσης ἀνάγκης κρίνεται, δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.

ἧι μὲν δὴ νομίζομέν γε, χρήσιμον μὴ καταλύειν ὑμᾶς τὸ κοινὸν ἀγαθόν, ἀλλὰ τῷ αἰεὶ ἐν κινδύνῳ γιγνομένῳ εἶναι τὰ εἰκότα καὶ δίκαια.

ὅμως δὲ πιστεύομεν τῇ μὲν τύχῃ ἐκ τοῦ θείου μὴ ἐλασσώσεσθαι, ὅτι ὅσιοι πρὸς οὐ δικαίους ἱστάμεθα.

Fuck me, I think I get the gist, but I don't even know where to begin with this. Is it something like "Destruction is considered useful, to be in danger is fair and just, but we don't believe in divine mercy or that we're righteous"?

- - - Updated - - -

When I first watched Zero the banquet of kings left me with very conflicted feelings. Iskandar is a positive, optimistic character but I think people are confusing that with being a "good person." He wasn't meant to be a saint and wasn't written as one.

I don't know. I can only judge the anime, but he seems to be consistently framed positively by the narrative.

[Zurvan]

Which is why its important to use your brain for things

[SpoonyViking]

Which is why its important to use your brain for things

Certainly, but when talking about textual intent, we rely on the text.

[jennajayfeather]

I don't know. I can only judge the anime, but he seems to be consistently framed positively by the narrative.

He was framed as being selfish & even considered himself a tyrant. Sure, his antics were hilarious, but that doesn't change the fact the first thing he did was literally steal books & damage the property.

[Zurvan]

Certainly, but when talking about textual intent, we rely on the text.

not exactly what I'm suggesting either

[Iceblade44]

Also the part where when they say no he goes "Well I guess I'll have to beat you up until you either Accept or Die then."

Well it’s not like he was using the threat of battle influence to join him though? He from the get go he wanted to fight all 7 Servants at once because he thought that be fun, he’s not beating them up for them to join him, he’s beating them up because he’s a Hero and they think fighting to be fun. The only time that can be said of him wanting to change a persons mindset by fighting would be with Artoria but that was more “stop being stupid by being a martyr” then “join me or die”. Even then though before he does fight anyone he literally invites them to talk first so that they could be pals instead of enemies. And I mean anyone, including Assassin. He always extends a hand if not friend panipat then one of sportsmenship. Though only he didn’t do was to Caster and that makes sense since the only time he saw of Caster was when they saw his lair or when he went full kaiju. Now I’m not saying that Iskandar extends his hand because he doesn’t want to fight or sees it as a better alternative to fighting, no he loves fighting. But he still does it though because really if there’s anything to be said about Iskandars character is that he’s honorable and just good natured to people, you never really ever see actually hate someone from just anger, even with Saber he was more moved because he felt pity for her then hated her.

[forumghost]

I think the real problem with Iskander's speech, (and the reason he comes off as 'winning' the Debate) is because Saber's arguments against him are shot down and dismissed without discussion.

Like, he goes on this hammy rant and Saber is just like "B-b-b-but that meeeeaaaan". The narrative acts like she's being childish and her counterpoints are poor, when... no, she's actually right. So his arguments seem unopposed, because Saber is a strawman, and Gil isn't debating, he's just there to laugh at Saber and Alex.

And then we get the IH scene, where, well:

Saber was shaken to her core. It wasn’t the strength of the Noble Phantasm that she was afraid of, it was the fact that such a Noble Phantasm had de-stabilized her beliefs. It shook the beliefs that she held in pride.
This flawless cooperation…
This bond with subjects that became a Noble Phantasm...

It was something that the idealistic King of Knights pursued for her whole life, yet even to the end, it was something she could not obtain.

So yeah, the entire scene was framed to have Iskander 'win' the debate (which he does by basically shouting over the top of anyone that objects to him), it's what that scene was about really- to make Saber doubt herself. It's the first of the big moments leading up to her breakdown and the decision that the problem was her at the end of Zero.

Of course, if she'd stopped to think about it and realised that Iskander's army wasn't the Looney Tunes cast that the Knights of the Round were, she might not have felt so bad about it.

[Iceblade44]

He was framed as being selfish & even considered himself a tyrant. Sure, his antics were hilarious, but that doesn't change the fact the first thing he did was literally steal books & damage the property.

Yeah Iskandar is kinda wierd because he’s sorta good naturedly yet inherently selfish at the same time. Like he has one wish and he will do anything to achieve and he has no qualms from just taking what he desires. But at the same time he feels sympathy with people, he encourages them, make them feel like better people. He can see the types of behaviors that hurt the people that follows them and thus try to stand against them so they could change, and whould go out of his way saving people even if that would cripple the chances of his dream, like he did with only powering IH with his own mana or cutting his charge of Gordius Wheel short to save Waver. It’s kinda stuff like that which makes it hard to put Iskandar in one camp or another because really he shows examples of doing both at the same time.

[jennajayfeather]

Yeah Iskandar is kinda wierd because he’s sorta good naturedly yet inherently selfish at the same time. Like he has one wish and he will do anything to achieve and he has no qualms from just taking he desires. But at the same time he feels sympathy with people, he encourages them, make them feel like a better person. He can see the types of behaviors that hurt the people that follows them and thus try to stand against so they could change, and whould go out of his way saving people even if that would cripple the chances of his dream, like he did with only powering IH with his own mana or cutting his charge of Gordius Wheel short to save Waver. It’s kinda stuff like that which makes it hard to put Iskandar in one camp or another because really he shows examples of doing both at the same time.

Yeah I was keeping that in mind. He did say a king must show both good & evil, so having both worlds is consistent with his character.

[Iceblade44]

I think the real problem with Iskander's speech, (and the reason he comes off as 'winning' the Debate) is because Saber's arguments against him are shot down and dismissed without discussion.

Like, he goes on this hammy rant and Saber is just like "B-b-b-but that meeeeaaaan". The narrative acts like she's being childish and her counterpoints are poor, when... no, she's actually right. So his arguments seem unopposed, because Saber is a strawman.

And then we get the IH scene, where, well:




So yeah, the entire scene was framed to have Iskander 'win' the debate (which he does by basically shouting over the top of anyone that objects to him), it's what that scene was about really- to make Saber doubt herself. It's the first of the big moments leading up to her breakdown and the decision that the problem was her at the end of Zero.

Of course, if she'd stopped to think about it and realised that Iskander's army wasn't the Looney Tunes cast that the Knights of the Round were, she might not have felt so bad about it.

I don’t know, Iskandars army had all types of colorful individuals in it, mostly Iskandar himself being a source of trouble. I think that something to note about Saber losing that arguement is that we already know that Saber is in the wrong, that was her main conflicts with Shirou. But it’s also important to note that even with the differences of how they ruled, what set Iskandar off the most was that Saber regretted her way of life and wanted to change it, even if that would bring a price to herself. He saw more of a problem that even long past the destruction of her kingdom she was still a slave to it after death and is continually fighting to change a result that has already come to past(though that of course is him being unaware to her circumstances and her contract). I mean looking at his voice line to her in GO, he’s perfectly fine with Saber their since she has accepted what she did and no longer regrets it. So yeah Saber is acting like a child there, we know she’s acting like a child because that isn’t her as King but as Artoria, which we know is the source of her wishing to change Camlann even when she knew it would happen. Iskandar finds Artoria’s way of kingship to be disagreeable yeah, but he finds her wish to change her fate to be offensive, which SN corroborates. That is why Artoria is supposed to be in the wrong in that arguement.