[Zolda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

Sugarcoating implies that sugar is only on the outside, like the garnish on a dish. However, a dish needs to be delicious in both taste and presentation. The opposite problem is also true, that a dish with good taste will be dismissed if the presentation is weak or lacking. While there's some truth to the phrase, "don't judge a book by its cover", I also believe that the book has an obligation to itself to have a cover that properly represents the quality of its content. Ideally, constructive criticism should give advice for improvement, while using tact to make the person more receptive and likely to act upon it. Unfortunately, Kugimiya decided to serve Houtarou a dish with neither taste nor presentation, so it's totally worthless. Malnutritious even, as he expresses no actual intent to make Houtarou a "better" Gotchard, like Mesnick said above.

The statements "don't judge a book by its cover" and "appearance matters" are both correct. The conundrum of life. Haha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

We've been told that Isaac is "merely" an AI with artistic language. However, you know what else can be defined as AI? Something that's both artificial and intelligent? Chemies! There are already parallels with HumaGears, considering the "tools or comrades" argument. I feel like Isaac's outputs are a little too quick and independent for the few inputs he receives from Sabi, especially in this episode, which makes me wonder if there's some alchemy involved, not only conventional programming.

This makes sense, yet it still doesn't close the logical gap. If Isaac is actually an alchemically-enhanced AI, then Sabimaru as its creator should've had total control and knowledge in how it'd behave. So, if Isaac's strange behavior has been due to his inadequate programming/alchemy skills (although he's shown as very skilled in both fields), then at least he should've been aware that what he made could've been a faulty product. Isaac could be a proto-Chemy of some sort, hence why it behaves more random and uncontrollable than what he thought it'd be. Or, someone secretly tampered with Isaac and altered his alchemical programming to include spying and psychological manipulation activities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

A character who commits mostly bad deeds for non-malicious reasons is called an antivillain. They may see themselves as heroes and appear sympathetic in their motivations, but their actions still align them with the villain side of the morality axis. Whether they can be swayed to the side of heroism depends on how conflicted they feel concerning their moral beliefs. In Gentoku's case, he was originally a total villain, until the increasing Hazard Level dispelled the brainwashing effect of nebula gas and he turned antivillain then hero. Moral alignment exists in a state of flux, with many variables mixing to encourage or force change.

I concur. A friend of mine joked that antiheroes and antivillains were heroes and villains with thicker makeup.

Ethical alignment can also be static. In this case, the antiheroes' and antivillains' true selves, motivations, and ethical alignments are often masked by their actions. A person's ethical alignment can be anywhere within the ethical axis (completely benevolent or completely malevolent), yet when put into context, his actions often result in outcomes that don't necessarily align with his ethical alignment, or even result in outcomes that are the complete opposite. A person with good intention can create a bad outcome, and vice versa. A text should be interpreted within a context. Very often, the context matters more than the text itself.

Stories often initially show a character as a hero or a villain, and then gradually reveal his true self through conflicts and choices he has to make. One of my favorite (anti)villains is Ozymandias from Watchmen (2009), who was revealed near the end of the story to be the mastermind of the plot of the film. His motivation was pretty simple and selfish and often categorized as villainous, yet when put in the context of the story, the final outcome that resulted from his actions did prevent the greater catastrophe. Another character with static ethical alignment is Takatora Kureshima/KR Zangetsu from KR Gaim, who was initially shown as a ruthless villain/manipulator, then was gradually revealed as anti-villain, then anti-hero, then hero. His motivation was actually as heroic as Kouta's, yet when its put into the context of his limited knowledge about Helheim, he was forced by situation to take extreme measures that to an outside observer did look villainous.

Like I stated in the previous paragraph, the age-old adage "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" doesn't exist for no reason. I strongly believe that the true direction of a person's moral compass is mainly determined not by what he thinks is right or wrong, but what is right or wrong in a particular context. Outcome must also be taken into account to determine the direction of a person's moral compass. In other words, risk is an inherent, inseparable component of ethics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

In general, Lewis spoke about this even earlier in the last book about Narnia: ?If you do good in the name of evil, then you serve good. If you do evil in the name of good, then you serve evil.

This. This quote pretty much sums up my points above about the relationship between ethics and risk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

I would easily recommend these episodes just for the cute Tomoko/Ryusei interactions.

Yeah. There was something very genuinely charming and chill about Fourze. Everything, from the characterizations, to the interactions between the characters, to the conflicts, to the humor, felt genuine without even trying. It was probably because it didn't take itself too seriously. I believe that Fourze is the Napoleon Dynamite of the KR franchise, haha.