TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Steven Universe

Go To

Sereg Since: Jun, 2010
#51276: Jul 20th 2017 at 8:27:08 AM

.. Mercy is letting them live,you have your definitions muddled up

That is not what “mercy” means. “Mercy” means refusing to punish people as much as they deserve. Letting them live is punishing them more than they deserve. If I didn’t believe in mercy, I’d be supporting torture of the HW gems, like my dad would.

Shattered gems being conscious and in agony is an unconfirmed fan theory. And there is evidence against it, such as statements by Pearl. Even if it were true, the merciful option would not be bubbling, but chemically degrading the gems to nothing.

Bubbled gems are in an artificial coma. Doing something like that to someone is just horrific, IMO.

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.

1. And leaving them alive makes you guilty of the same destruction. 2. The Quartzes in the zoo were conscious. Not in an artificial coma. I do think keeping them alive and bubbled is worse than shattering them as I consider torture worse than killing and I consider bubbling torture. Four is about the fact that letting murderers live isn’t treating them equally at all. Because it is saying that evil people should be kept alive and nicer people should be murdered.

But you’re right about the values thing. I figured that out. Thanks for pointing it out as I was struggling to.

Since when have Gems been the kind of Death Before Dishonor types one would likely have to be for that statement to be true? They've been shown to be militaristic, sure, but they aren't samurai who'd rather commit seppuku than live with defeat.

Killing someone is the least cruel punishment you can give them. Putting them in an artificial coma is one of the most horrifically cruel things I can think of.

LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#51277: Jul 20th 2017 at 8:40:56 AM

Well there's a lot of warping the situations and context here, and illogical rationales, without any real explanations, but I'll take a crack.

1. Abandoning Homeworld to protect only Earth is immoral.
How so? That was never a war they were going to win, they barely got lucky that things went as well with Earth. Going by the cold, militaristic "pragmatism" you're espousing I'd think you'd realize that. Better to live and protect those you can, than to die and end up protecting no one.

2. Permanently bubbling a gem is far more harmful and immoral than shattering them. It's cruel and unusual punishment.
It really isn't. There's no indication that the bubbled gems are in any pain, and it comes with the implicit chance of being released on way or the other, again. You have to be deliberately twisting the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" for it to fit. It's completely the golden means fallacy that because one solution isn't perfect, you might as well go with something that is objectively worse than it. And whether shattering constitutes death, or something worse, for gems, it is objectively worse than shattering them for reasons I've already outlined.

3. Leaving your enemies alive to give them another chance to kill your allies and end your cause is inherently immoral.
You do realize by that logic a lot of war crimes suddenly become moral right?

4. Sacrificing your allies' lives to protect your enemies is immoral.
Except there was no talk about sacrificing allies at all. You seem to be working under the impression that by not shattering everyone they fought, is equivalent to Rose telling her people to just let themselves be shattered themselves. That is clearly not the case. You're also assuming that just because they tried not to shatter, it means they never did. I don't why.

Your entire argument seems based on you just digging in your heels on this "killing your enemies is always more and practical" and defending it to a ridiculous degree.

edited 20th Jul '17 8:43:49 AM by LSBK

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#51278: Jul 20th 2017 at 9:05:17 AM

[up] There's also one factor I didn't catch being mentioned, though that may be because it possibly doesn't apply here: one reason prisoners are taken and shown good treatment is because it encourages the other side to do the same thing. You'd be a lot less inclined to be taken alive or take your enemies alive if you knew your capture or defeat was a guaranteed death sentence.

Also

Killing someone is the least cruel punishment you can give them. Putting them in an artificial coma is one of the most horrifically cruel things I can think of.
Putting someone into a coma in which they will not age nor have any conscious memory of the time spent in said coma, as demonstrated on screen, that they can be awakened from at potentially any time with no ill effects shown besides lost time is more cruel than shattering their body in such a way that either they completely cease to exist or else there's a non-zero chance they'll suffer in a state of agony for basically all of eternity, neither of which is known to be reversible?

I legitimately do not see how that logic works.

Sereg Since: Jun, 2010
#51279: Jul 20th 2017 at 10:07:55 AM

Well there's a lot of warping the situations and context here, and illogical rationales, without any real explanations, but I'll take a crack. 1. Abandoning Homeworld to protect only Earth is immoral. How so? That was never a war they were going to win, they barely got lucky that things went as well with Earth. Going by the cold, militaristic "pragmatism" you're espousing I'd think you'd realize that. Better to live and protect those you can, than to die and end up protecting no one.

I’m not going by cold, militaristic pragmatism at all. If I was, I’d be advocating torture of prisoners for information, booby trapping and releasing prisoners, using prisoners as hostages etc. Again, I’m speaking about morals. Morally, the fact that they weren’t going to win doesn’t stop it from being evil to avoid trying.

2. Permanently bubbling a gem is far more harmful and immoral than shattering them. It's cruel and unusual punishment. It really isn't. There's no indication that the bubbled gems are in any pain, and it comes with the implicit chance of being released on way or the other, again. You have to be deliberately twisting the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" for it to fit. It's completely the golden means fallacy that because one solution isn't perfect, you might as well go with something that is objectively worse than it. And whether shattering constitutes death, or something worse, for gems, it is objectively worse than shattering them for reasons I've already outlined.

It isn’t objectively worse, as I consider shattering them to be less cruel to them than bubbling them. The fact that they aren’t in ain doesn’t change the fact that you are putting them in a coma, depriving them of everything they have, while still keeping them around. It’s like sensory deprivation (which is torture). It isn’t a golden means fallacy as a golden means fallacy is saying that the middle road is always the best. The middle road isn’t the best. It causes disaster. Killing is an extreme, but it’s the best method.

3. Leaving your enemies alive to give them another chance to kill your allies and end your cause is inherently immoral. You do realize by that logic a lot of war crimes suddenly become moral right?

If that was the only logic involved, yes. I’m saying that shattering gems is the correct action from every angle.

4. Sacrificing your allies' lives to protect your enemies is immoral. Except there was no talk about sacrificing allies at all. You seem to be working under the impression that by not shattering everyone they fought, is equivalent to Rose telling her people to just let themselves be shattered themselves. That is clearly not the case. You're also assuming that just because they tried not to shatter, it means they never did. I don't why. Your entire argument seems based on you just digging in your heels on this "killing your enemies is always more and practical" and defending it to a ridiculous degree.

It is equivalent to telling her people that they have to be shattered. Because it is telling them to refrain from protecting themselves from shattering.

The problem is that you consider shattering evil. I don’t. You also don’t consider bubbling evil. I do.

There's also one factor I didn't catch being mentioned, though that may be because it possibly doesn't apply here: one reason prisoners are taken and shown good treatment is because it encourages the other side to do the same thing. You'd be a lot less inclined to be taken alive or take your enemies alive if you knew your capture or defeat was a guaranteed death sentence.

A guaranteed death sentence from your enemies is a rety good deal. Much better than bubbling. Bubbling isn’t showing good treatment. It’s showing cruel treatment.

Also Killing someone is the least cruel punishment you can give them. Putting them in an artificial coma is one of the most horrifically cruel things I can think of. Putting someone into a coma in which they will not age nor have any conscious memory of the time spent in said coma, as demonstrated on screen, that they can be awakened from at potentially any time with no ill effects shown besides lost time is more cruel than shattering their body in such a way that either they completely cease to exist or else there's a non-zero chance they'll suffer in a state of agony for basically all of eternity, neither of which is known to be reversible? I legitimately do not see how that logic works.

I consider lost time to be one of the cruelest tortures there is. Cession of existence means zero suffering, so it's the nicest bad thing that could happen to you.

AdricDePsycho Rock on, Gold Dust Woman from Never Going Back Again Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Rock on, Gold Dust Woman
#51280: Jul 20th 2017 at 10:10:06 AM

This entire conversation is disturbing.

Have you any dreams you'd like to sell?
LSBK Since: Sep, 2014
#51281: Jul 20th 2017 at 10:11:35 AM

[up][up]That last point is just something I'm going to have to disagree with you on (well, even more so than everything else), especially with a race like the Gems, who we still don't know if they even have a natural end to their lifespan.

edited 20th Jul '17 10:16:43 AM by LSBK

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#51282: Jul 20th 2017 at 10:14:38 AM

And, again, non-zero chance of eternal agony takes the "perk" out of dying.

edited 20th Jul '17 10:19:44 AM by sgamer82

RhymeBeat True colors from Eastern Standard Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: In Lesbians with you
True colors
#51283: Jul 20th 2017 at 10:16:36 AM

Also Sereg torturing for information doesn't actually work so there's no pragmatic purpose of torturing people.

edited 20th Jul '17 10:17:18 AM by RhymeBeat

The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#51284: Jul 20th 2017 at 10:20:42 AM

[up] Admittedly, my first thought there is "you say that like it matters" re: pragmatic torture

RhymeBeat True colors from Eastern Standard Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: In Lesbians with you
thatother1dude from Land of the Ill, Annoyin' Since: Jan, 2001
#51286: Jul 20th 2017 at 10:23:03 AM

LSBK beat me to some of these point, so I'll play some of my responses off his.

That was never a war they were going to win, they barely got lucky that things went as well with Earth. Going by the cold, militaristic "pragmatism" you're espousing I'd think you'd realize that. Better to live and protect those you can, than to die and end up protecting no one.
It wasn't even just inability to fight all of Homeworld. It's been repeatedly emphasized that you can't help someone when they don't want to be helped. Rose didn't think that decimating Homeworld's populace and destroying their way of life to impose her own would be helping.

There's no indication that the bubbled gems are in any pain, and it comes with the implicit chance of being released on way or the other, again.
Sereg was specifically talking about "permanent bubbling", but that's conceptually impossible. The conflict with Homeworld will inevitably, permanently end (nevermind that the Crystal Gems' could have already released their prisoners from the first war a long time ago). The worse that can happen to a bubbled gem is that release takes so long, they become a Fish out of Temporal Water. And even using the Breaking Point, they'd inevitably take prisoners anyway (non-combatants, gems that surrendered, those taken alive for information) to whom the same issue applies.

And even if shattering instead of bubbling was a mercy, that is clearly not what Bismuth thought.

It's completely the golden means fallacy that because one solution isn't perfect, you might as well go with something that is objectively worse than it.
I think you mean the nirvana fallacy.

3. Leaving your enemies alive to give them another chance to kill your allies and end your cause is inherently immoral.
It's only "inherently" immoral if you assume that victory for your cause and safety for your allies always justifies your enemy's suffering and death, no matter how skewed the numbers or their reasons for opposing you.

4. Sacrificing your allies' lives to protect your enemies is immoral.
This is why I emphasized that Bismuth saw Homeworld gems' lives are "not just pragmatically, but morally" less valuable. Bismuth's argument for using the Breaking Point was not "It will prevent more deaths than it causes in the long run.", it was "They're not us, so their lives are worth less than ours." and "Their cruelty justifies ours."

Holding the lives of your country/group/tribe as inherently more valuable than those of others is a universal political reality, but it's not moral in the slightest.

Sereg Since: Jun, 2010
#51287: Jul 20th 2017 at 10:24:01 AM

Yeah, I wouldn't trust it either. But I'm opposed to torture on principle, even though my dad isn't.

Now, feel free to disagree with me, but if you say things like "Bismuth was objectively morally wrong", it's an insult to those who agree with her.

EDIT:

LSBK beat me to some of these point, so I'll play some of my responses off his. That was never a war they were going to win, they barely got lucky that things went as well with Earth. Going by the cold, militaristic "pragmatism" you're espousing I'd think you'd realize that. Better to live and protect those you can, than to die and end up protecting no one. It wasn't even just inability to fight all of Homeworld. It's been repeatedly emphasized that you can't help someone when they don't want to be helped. Rose didn't think that decimating Homeworld's populace and destroying their way of life to impose her own would be helping.

Well, that's where I disagree. I say it would be helping, and by not trying it, she is resonsible for their evil.

There's no indication that the bubbled gems are in any pain, and it comes with the implicit chance of being released on way or the other, again. Sereg was specifically talking about "permanent bubbling", but that's conceptually impossible. The conflict with Homeworld will inevitably, permanently end (nevermind that the Crystal Gems' could have already released their prisoners from the first war a long time ago). The worse that can happen to a bubbled gem is that release takes so long, they become a Fish out of Temporal Water. And even using the Breaking Point, they'd inevitably take prisoners anyway (non-combatants, gems that surrendered, those taken alive for information) to whom the same issue applies. And even if shattering instead of bubbling was a mercy, that is clearly not what Bismuth thought. .

The war ending doesn't make the prisoners any easier to release at all. They still think it's their duty to kill the first Crystal Gem they see the instant they are released and still support the crushing of the Crystal Gems on principle, because they have identical mindset. I consider turning someone into a Fish out of Temporal Water to be inherently more evil and cruel than killing them, bubbling someone permanently is totally possible if they get accidentally destroyed prior to release (which is exactly what will happen, unless they get accidentally released and cause disaster that the bubbler would then be responsible for). As for what Bismuth thins, that is still unclear and irrelevant to the point that Rose claimed the moral high ground while doing something more evil, so I say she has no right to that claim.

It's completely the golden means fallacy that because one solution isn't perfect, you might as well go with something that is objectively worse than it I think you mean the nirvana fallacy.

It isn't that fallacy either, because I consider shattering inherently better than bubbling even if a perfect solution does exist.

3. Leaving your enemies alive to give them another chance to kill your allies and end your cause is inherently immoral. It's only "inherently" immoral if you assume that victory for your cause and safety for your allies always justifies your enemy's suffering and death, no matter how skewed the numbers or their reasons for opposing you.

Death yes, suffering no.

4. Sacrificing your allies' lives to protect your enemies is immoral. This is why I emphasized that Bismuth saw Homeworld gems' lives are "not just pragmatically, but morally" less valuable. Bismuth's argument for using the Breaking Point was not "It will prevent more deaths than it causes in the long run.", it was "They're not us, so their lives are worth less than ours." and "Their cruelty justifies ours." Holding the lives of your country/group/tribe as inherently more valuable than those of others is a universal political reality, but it's not moral in the slightest.

That wasn't what either Bismuth or myself were saying at all. I'm saying that shattering them isn't cruelty in the first place and refusing to kill an enemy just because you are squeamish is inherently criminally negligent and thus evil. I agree that valuing your own above others is evil, but Rose did that anyway by abandoning Homeworld. it was Bismith who valued those beyond her clique by trying to sto Homeworld.

edited 20th Jul '17 10:41:43 AM by Sereg

Victin Since: Dec, 2011
#51288: Jul 20th 2017 at 10:55:39 AM

The worse that can happen to a bubbled gem is that release takes so long, they become a Fish Out of Temporal Water.

I considered that, but with what we've seen so far I don't think gems can suffer from that. Or maybe they can, I don't know. Gems are already used to living thousands of years, and even Bismuth's mind isn't blown to insanity when she discovers what happened while she was bubbled out. I'd think the worst a gem could suffer is pretending that everything is normal, or failing to grasp how everything changed, seeing how their society enforces that in order to keep the status quo.

Well, that's where I disagree. I say it would be helping, and by not trying it, she is resonsible for their evil.

That's victim blaming. Rose is as much a victim of her actions as everyone else. Rose is not in a position of power over Homeworld to be held responsible over their actions, and even if she were, stipulating death penalty for any dissidence has been criticized ever since the time of Draco the lawgiver.

Now, feel free to disagree with me, but if you say things like "Bismuth was objectively morally wrong", it's an insult to those who agree with her.

And saying Rose is evil isn't?

I agree that valuing your own above others is evil, but Rose did that anyway by abandoning Homeworld. it was Bismith [sic] who valued those beyond her clique by trying to sto Homeworld.

Rose "started a rebellion to prevent my people from destroying this planet full of defenseless aliens" Quartz?

Also, valuing your own above others isn't inherently evil. How you go about that is what makes it good or evil or whatever.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#51289: Jul 20th 2017 at 11:01:13 AM

[up]Lapis experienced the Fish out of Temporal Water scenario. Though that only demonstrated that, by now, any Gem on Earth would, regardless of bubbling.

Sereg Since: Jun, 2010
#51290: Jul 20th 2017 at 11:06:25 AM

That's victim blaming. Rose is as much a victim of her actions as everyone else. Rose is not in a position of power over Homeworld to be held responsible over their actions, and even if she were, stipulating death penalty for any dissidence has been criticized ever since the time of Draco the lawgiver.

She's responsible for their actions for refusing to try and stop them. Her lack of power is irrelevant.

Now, feel free to disagree with me, but if you say things like "Bismuth was objectively morally wrong", it's an insult to those who agree with her. And saying Rose is evil isn't?

Well, I consider everyone evil (Bismuth included), but I never said Rose was "objectively" morally wrong. Just that I agree with Bismuth.

I agree that valuing your own above others is evil, but Rose did that anyway by abandoning Homeworld. it was Bismith [sic] who valued those beyond her clique by trying to sto Homeworld. Rose "started a rebellion to prevent my people from destroying this planet full of defenseless aliens" Quartz? Also, valuing your own above others isn't inherently evil. How you go about that is what makes it good or evil or whatever.

Rose "decided that her rebellion was only supposed to protect her own planet and the others can get screwed over for all she cares" Quartz, yes.

And yes, I consider valuing your own above others to be inherently evil as it's discriminatory.

EDIT:[up] And bubbling is forcing it upon others.

edited 20th Jul '17 11:08:15 AM by Sereg

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#51291: Jul 20th 2017 at 11:08:32 AM

I can't help but think there's a very big case of Blue-and-Orange Morality or something very close to it going on here. Because I sincerely don't see where you're coming from with all this, Sereg.

In my case, for example, given the choice of Bubble or Shatter, and seeing them in the terms I outlined previously, I would accept bubbling in a heartbeat because neither version of the alternative seems appealing.

edited 20th Jul '17 11:14:24 AM by sgamer82

Sereg Since: Jun, 2010
#51292: Jul 20th 2017 at 11:11:34 AM

I that's the case, fie. But don't pretend that Rose was "obviously morally superior to Bismuth" just because you can't understand the point of view of those who agree with Bismuth.

sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#51293: Jul 20th 2017 at 11:18:29 AM

[up] If that's directed at me, I'm doing no such thing. Hell I'm not even sure you are agreeing with Bismuth. You're taking it a lot farther than she ever seemed to. My statements have been directed exclusively at the opinions you yourself have expressed because they're honestly nonsensical to me.

edited 20th Jul '17 11:26:11 AM by sgamer82

Victin Since: Dec, 2011
#51294: Jul 20th 2017 at 11:21:25 AM

@sgamer82: That's a good counter example, but Lapis was almost shattered and then put into a mirror for a few thousand years. Also, instead of trying to understand what was going on (which, considering her experiences just before and during her "stasis", I think is reasonable), because what is there that matters but Homeworld? But, again, good point.

@Sereg: Well, you can agree with Bismuth as much as you want, but I don't think you can speak for everyone that agrees with Bismuth. I'm not even convinced you and Bismuth agree on the subject for the same reasons.

thatother1dude from Land of the Ill, Annoyin' Since: Jan, 2001
#51295: Jul 20th 2017 at 11:33:51 AM

if you say things like "Bismuth was objectively morally wrong", it's an insult to those who agree with her.
As for what Bismuth thinks, that is still unclear and irrelevant to the point
If what Bismuth thinks is irrelevant, why do you still claim to agree with her?

And her justification was explicitly based on benefit to the Crystal Gems and their cause.

Steven: Shattering Gems... wouldn't that make us the same as Homeworld?
Bismuth: Of course not! We'd be shattering them for the sake of our cause, to protect our allies, our friends, to free all Gems from Homeworld's tyranny!

Bismuth: How could you value the gems of our enemies more than our own?
Bismuth did not thinking shattering gems was more merciful than bubbling them, mostly because that's complete nonsense.

SalFishFin Since: Jan, 2001
#51296: Jul 20th 2017 at 11:54:39 AM

Alright here's the thing.

When a Gem takes enough damage, she retreats into her gem, right? Then she comes back after some time, depending on how or if she reimagines herself.

Putting her gem in a bubble isn't forcing her into a coma, it's extending the coma that she naturally goes into. It is not torture, because she feels nothing, is aware of nothing, even the passage of time- as noted by the fact that Peridot, upon reforming, continues speaking as though Garnet had never poofed her.

If you honestly believe that artificially extending the stasis that is a natural part of the species' healing process is inherently immoral, especially in comparison to literally shattering someone's mind into fragments - Frybo explicitly has Pearl say that shards are at least partially conscious, and the mini-clusters at least have enough presence of mind to sense that other Gems are around- I don't know what to say to you.

Sereg Since: Jun, 2010
#51297: Jul 20th 2017 at 12:05:13 PM

If you honestly believe that artificially extending the stasis that is a natural part of the species' healing process is inherently immoral, especially in comparison to literally shattering someone's mind into fragments - Frybo explicitly has Pearl say that shards are at least partially conscious, and the mini-clusters at least have enough presence of mind to sense that other Gems are around- I don't know what to say to you.

Yes, I do.

And on that note, it seems that there is no point in further discussion.

But if I'm mistaken and you still want to discuss with me, let me know.

SonOfSharknado Love is Love is Love Since: Oct, 2013 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
Love is Love is Love
#51298: Jul 20th 2017 at 12:06:08 PM

What the hell is this conversation? How is this even an argument? We've seen what shattering is. It is literally a fate worse than death. In what world, in what concept, is that somehow morally superior to bubbling?!

My various fanfics.
Sereg Since: Jun, 2010
#51299: Jul 20th 2017 at 12:09:05 PM

I consider bubbling to be a fate worse than death. I am unconvinced shattering is (and if it is, it's irrelevant, as it's something that every gem is guaranteed to experience, whereas bubbling is a torture you are enforcing upon them that they would otherwise never have to experience).

Prowler I'm here for our date, Rose! Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
I'm here for our date, Rose!
#51300: Jul 20th 2017 at 12:12:45 PM

[up] Uh... at what point has it ever been stated, even tacitly, that every Gem will experience shattering?


Total posts: 63,336
Top