Even the PR issue, while real, is not something relevant to these characters. Bismuth, Rose, and Steven aren't the kind of people to factor in publicity when deciding what is right.
Fine. Let's just discuss morality.
I believe:
1. Abandoning Homeworld to protect only Earth is immoral.
2. Permanently bubbling a gem is far more harmful and immoral than shattering them. It's cruel and unusual punishment.
3. Leaving your enemies alive to give them another chance to kill your allies and end your cause is inherently immoral.
4. Sacrificing your allies' lives to protect your enemies is immoral.
As such, I believe that Bismuth had the moral high ground everywhere.
1. Protect nothing. Bismuth would've destroyed everything, Earth and Homeworld included.
2. The gems it happened to didn't seem to mind much, apart from some minor disorientation. Besides. they could've been returned to their side after peace was achieved. You know, as is standard practice regarding war prisoners.
3. Considering just how strong the containment is, this is a non-issue. You might as well kill all mahogany farmers to protect your leaders from falling pianos.
4. Bismuth rebelled. She was no longer an ally.
Then we disagree inherently. You believe that shattering a gem is inherently evil and permanently bubbling them is usually justified.
I believe that permanently bubbling a gem is inherently evil and that shattering them can be a good thing an that avoiding shattering them can be inherently evil.
As such, claiming that Bismuth was immoral is utterly ridiculous to me.
EDIT:
This is straw-manning.
1. The one who destroyed everything was Rose and her policies.
2. We haven't seen any gems that it happened to. We only saw gems who were temporarily bubbled.
3. The containment has been shown to be breached, so calling it a non-issue is a lie. In addition, again, prior to containment is still a thing.
4. Rose was the one who decided to harm her allies. She was the enemy of the Crystal Gems. It was Bismuth who was their ally.
edited 20th Jul '17 5:33:38 AM by Sereg
You're ignoring this point made by Kayeka:
Not only is that a real possibility that should be taken into account, but its potential benefits are too great to dismiss. Think about it; if the Crystal Gems had decided to shatter Peridot after capturing her (instead of poofing and bubbling her), then they never would have found out about the Cluster, and the entire earth would have been torn asunder.
edited 20th Jul '17 5:51:02 AM by TyeDyeWildebeest
No beer?! But if there's no beer, then there's no beef or beans!3. Leaving your enemies alive to give them another chance to kill your allies and end your cause is inherently immoral.
Even if you have a point that it's more moral to kill an enemy than let them live to fight another day, is it really more moral to shatter them in mind, body, and, soul when you can effectively achieve the same thing by putting them to sleep indefinitely, barring outside interference (as mentioned before, the only time we've seen escapes the bubbled Gem didn't do it of their own accord)
edited 20th Jul '17 5:59:38 AM by sgamer82
It is not a real possibility. Bubbled gems keep the same mentality, so they stay exactly as anagonistic no matter how long you keep them.
There are other options besides hunting down and executing every Homeworld loyalist, which is the only thing Bismuth would have accepted even if you don't want to bubble them.
2. Permanently bubbling a gem is far more harmful and immoral than shattering them. It's cruel and unusual punishment. 3. Leaving your enemies alive to give them another chance to kill your allies and end your cause is inherently immoral. These two seem mutually exclusive, since 2 can prevent 3 without having to shatter Gems. Plus the indications are that Gems aren't conscious when bubbled, so it being "more harmful" falls flat. Especially given what we've seen of the And I Must Scream nature of a shattered Gem's/Gem Shard's condition. Even if you have a point that it's more moral to kill an enemy than let them live to fight another day, is it reallymore moral to shatter them in mind, body, and, soul when you can effectively achieve the same thing by putting them to sleep indefinitely, barring outside interference (as mentioned before, the only time we've seen escapes the bubbled Gem didn't do it of their own accord)
You obviously did not understand 2. I consider permanently bubbling someone to be crueller and more evil than shattering them.
![]()
But the shattered gems aren't dead. I mean, even if you ignore the Cluster and the fusion experiments, you still have episodes like Frybo and Secret Team that show that gem shards have, at the very least, a partial consciousness and they can form various body parts.
edited 20th Jul '17 7:33:33 AM by Sedorna
But they're not actually dead when they're shattered. They're very much a live and in a pretty fair amount of agony, even when they're ground into dust as the gem scroll showed. There's no true cessation of consciousness
If anything bubbling them is closer to actually killing them like you would an organic being. Then they're poofed and in stasis.
Oh really when?1. The ones destroying everything were the Homeworld Gems.
3. The Quartzes in the Zoo seem to be unpertubed for thousands of years. Besides, you're arguing that because bubbling isn't a perfect solution, then shattering is the way to go. But you seem to think shattering is preferable to keeping the gems alive and bubbled.
4. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Honestly, I think the main point of disagreement are values that the main characters, Rose, and the people of this thread that are arguing with you do not share with you. You seem to hold values closer to Bismuth's, although I wouldn't say they are the same because I think you'd have different reasons for your values. I think talking about what should be done without confronting the values directly will probably lead to people talking past each other.
edited 20th Jul '17 7:40:46 AM by Victin
edited 20th Jul '17 7:46:38 AM by sgamer82

I'm not really a podcast kind of guy, but for those who do listen to it, can you provide cliffnotes on anything interesting revealed in them?