[006]
lavendermintrose
Current Version
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
(don't mouse-over the
to:
(don\'t mouse-over the \"one\" potholes to see what the works are unless you want spoilers - this is in parts 10-11 out of 12-13 in both of them).
[[Literature/TheSagaOfDarrenShan One]] treats it more like reincarnation - particularly since time-travel is involved. The two characters knew each other before the first one died, and the second one was created from his corpse long after. They meet when the new version gets his memories back, so he\'s sitting next to himself, but he can\'t be in two places at once, so they have to decide which one gets to live, and which returns to death. It\'s clear everyone in the situation thinks of them as two separate characters.
[[Anime/{{K}} One]] treats them as the same person. It helps that there\'s no time travel involved, and there\'s only one of him at a time. He\'s an immortal, incredibly powerful figure, memory-wiped and body swapped into an ordinary high school student. I was thinking about him and the way he acts early on, amazed at how he \'\'really thinks\'\' he\'s just an ordinary high school student... and then I thought of this paradox - one could say that at that moment, he \'\'is\'\' an ordinary high school student. Imagining if someone had told him his true/original identity before his memories returned. It would just freak him out. He wouldn\'t feel made-whole, he would feel broken. And when he gets his memories back, he tells his companions, \"I may be (old name), but I\'m still (new name). Nothing\'s really changed.\" It\'s not really clear which he sees himself as. [[spoiler: He returns to his original body, and apparently he goes by his original name, but that could be because his original body is German and the body he was borrowing - and his new name - are Japanese...]]
... I guess I tend to take the Buddhist view on this - it is what it needs to be, the x of ten years, twenty years, etc. ago isn\'t the same as the x of today, but why does it need to be? Kinkakuji is Kinkakuji, and it\'s magnificent whether it\'s new or old. Though I doubt modernists would accept its claim to the term \"new\"...
But what do you think?
[[Literature/TheSagaOfDarrenShan One]] treats it more like reincarnation - particularly since time-travel is involved. The two characters knew each other before the first one died, and the second one was created from his corpse long after. They meet when the new version gets his memories back, so he\'s sitting next to himself, but he can\'t be in two places at once, so they have to decide which one gets to live, and which returns to death. It\'s clear everyone in the situation thinks of them as two separate characters.
[[Anime/{{K}} One]] treats them as the same person. It helps that there\'s no time travel involved, and there\'s only one of him at a time. He\'s an immortal, incredibly powerful figure, memory-wiped and body swapped into an ordinary high school student. I was thinking about him and the way he acts early on, amazed at how he \'\'really thinks\'\' he\'s just an ordinary high school student... and then I thought of this paradox - one could say that at that moment, he \'\'is\'\' an ordinary high school student. Imagining if someone had told him his true/original identity before his memories returned. It would just freak him out. He wouldn\'t feel made-whole, he would feel broken. And when he gets his memories back, he tells his companions, \"I may be (old name), but I\'m still (new name). Nothing\'s really changed.\" It\'s not really clear which he sees himself as. [[spoiler: He returns to his original body, and apparently he goes by his original name, but that could be because his original body is German and the body he was borrowing - and his new name - are Japanese...]]
... I guess I tend to take the Buddhist view on this - it is what it needs to be, the x of ten years, twenty years, etc. ago isn\'t the same as the x of today, but why does it need to be? Kinkakuji is Kinkakuji, and it\'s magnificent whether it\'s new or old. Though I doubt modernists would accept its claim to the term \"new\"...
But what do you think?
Changed line(s) 2 from:
n
(don't mouse-over the
to:
(don\'t mouse-over the \"one\" potholes to see what the works are unless you want spoilers - this is in parts 10-11 out of 12-13 in both of them).
[[Literature/TheSagaOfDarrenShan One]] treats it more like reincarnation - particularly since time-travel is involved. The two characters knew each other before the first one died, and the second one was created from his corpse long after. They meet when the new version gets his memories back, so he\'s sitting next to himself, but he can\'t be in two places at once, so they have to decide which one gets to live, and which returns to death. It\'s clear everyone in the situation thinks of them as two separate characters.
[[Anime/{{K}} One]] treats them as the same person. It helps that there\'s no time travel involved, and there\'s only one of him at a time. He\'s an immortal, incredibly powerful figure, memory-wiped and body swapped into an ordinary high school student. I was thinking about him and the way he acts early on, amazed at how he \'\'really thinks\'\' he\'s just an ordinary high school student... and then I thought of this paradox - one could say that at that moment, he \'\'is\'\' an ordinary high school student. Imagining if someone had told him his true/original identity before his memories returned. It would just freak him out. He wouldn\'t feel made-whole, he would feel broken. And when he gets his memories back, he tells his companions, \"I may be (old name), but I\'m still (new name). Nothing\'s really changed.\" It\'s not really clear which he sees himself as. [[spoiler: He returns to his original body, and apparently he goes by his original name, but that could be because his original body is German and the body he was borrowing - and his new name - are Japanese...]]
... I guess I tend to take the Buddhist view on this - it is what it needs to be, the x of ten years, twenty years, etc. ago isn\'t the same as the x of today, but why does it need to be? Kinkakuji is Kinkakuji, and it\'s magnificent whether it\'s new or old. Though I doubt modernists would accept its claim to the term \"new\"...
[[Literature/TheSagaOfDarrenShan One]] treats it more like reincarnation - particularly since time-travel is involved. The two characters knew each other before the first one died, and the second one was created from his corpse long after. They meet when the new version gets his memories back, so he\'s sitting next to himself, but he can\'t be in two places at once, so they have to decide which one gets to live, and which returns to death. It\'s clear everyone in the situation thinks of them as two separate characters.
[[Anime/{{K}} One]] treats them as the same person. It helps that there\'s no time travel involved, and there\'s only one of him at a time. He\'s an immortal, incredibly powerful figure, memory-wiped and body swapped into an ordinary high school student. I was thinking about him and the way he acts early on, amazed at how he \'\'really thinks\'\' he\'s just an ordinary high school student... and then I thought of this paradox - one could say that at that moment, he \'\'is\'\' an ordinary high school student. Imagining if someone had told him his true/original identity before his memories returned. It would just freak him out. He wouldn\'t feel made-whole, he would feel broken. And when he gets his memories back, he tells his companions, \"I may be (old name), but I\'m still (new name). Nothing\'s really changed.\" It\'s not really clear which he sees himself as. [[spoiler: He returns to his original body, and apparently he goes by his original name, but that could be because his original body is German and the body he was borrowing - and his new name - are Japanese...]]
... I guess I tend to take the Buddhist view on this - it is what it needs to be, the x of ten years, twenty years, etc. ago isn\'t the same as the x of today, but why does it need to be? Kinkakuji is Kinkakuji, and it\'s magnificent whether it\'s new or old. Though I doubt modernists would accept its claim to the term \"new\"...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The point is people can\'t agree on the definition. Is the military bombing some civilian targets (especially random ones) terrorism? US law says no, it only applies to non-state actors. Others would disagree of course. The page quote is referencing groups in Latin America that the US supported that committed acts like you mention. Yet the government called them freedom fighters, not terrorists. If you want a fictional example, one that immediately comes to mind is Kira Nerys from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. She admits to targeting not just the Cardassian military forces, but random civilians, and actually calls it terrorism. Yet this was to fight a brutal foreign occupation and free her people. I\'d say that\'s very relevant.
to:
The point is people can\\\'t agree on the definition. Is the military bombing some civilian targets (especially random ones) terrorism? US law says no, it only applies to non-state actors. Others would disagree of course. The page quote is referencing groups such as the Contras whom the US supported that committed acts like you mention. Yet the government called them freedom fighters, not terrorists. If you want a fictional example, one that immediately comes to mind is Kira Nerys from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. She admits to targeting not just the Cardassian military forces, but random civilians, and actually calls it terrorism. Yet this was to fight a brutal foreign occupation and free her people. I\\\'d say that\\\'s very relevant.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The point is people can\'t agree on the definition. Is the military bombing some civilian targets (especially random ones) terrorism? US law says no, it only applies to non-state actors. Others would disagree of course. The page quote is referencing groups in Latin America that the US supported that committed acts like you mention. Yet the government called them freedom fighters, not terrorists. If you want a fictional example, one that immediately comes to mind is Kira Nerys from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. She admits to targeting not just Cardassian military forces, but random civilians, and actually calls it terrorism. Yet this was to fight a brutal foreign occupation and free her people. I\'d say that\'s very relevant.
to:
The point is people can\\\'t agree on the definition. Is the military bombing some civilian targets (especially random ones) terrorism? US law says no, it only applies to non-state actors. Others would disagree of course. The page quote is referencing groups in Latin America that the US supported that committed acts like you mention. Yet the government called them freedom fighters, not terrorists. If you want a fictional example, one that immediately comes to mind is Kira Nerys from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. She admits to targeting not just the Cardassian military forces, but random civilians, and actually calls it terrorism. Yet this was to fight a brutal foreign occupation and free her people. I\\\'d say that\\\'s very relevant.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The point is people can\'t agree on the definition. Is the military bombing some civilian targets (especially random ones) terrorism? US law says no, it only applies to non-state actors. Others would disagree of course. The page quote is referencing groups in Latin America that the US supported that committed acts like you mention. Yet the government called them freedom fighters, not terrorists. If you want a fictional example, one that immediately comes to mind is Kira Neris from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. She admits to targeting not just military, but random civilians, and actually calls it terrorism. Yet this was to fight a brutal foreign occupation and free her people. I\'d say that\'s very relevant.
to:
The point is people can\\\'t agree on the definition. Is the military bombing some civilian targets (especially random ones) terrorism? US law says no, it only applies to non-state actors. Others would disagree of course. The page quote is referencing groups in Latin America that the US supported that committed acts like you mention. Yet the government called them freedom fighters, not terrorists. If you want a fictional example, one that immediately comes to mind is Kira Nerys from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. She admits to targeting not just Cardassian military forces, but random civilians, and actually calls it terrorism. Yet this was to fight a brutal foreign occupation and free her people. I\\\'d say that\\\'s very relevant.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The point is people can\'t agree on the definition. Is the military bombing civilian targets (especially random ones) terrorism? US law says no, it only applies to non-state actors. Others would disagree of course. The page quote is referencing groups in Latin America that the US supported that committed acts like you mention. Yet the government called them freedom fighters, not terrorists. If you want a fictional example, one that immediately comes to mind is Kira Neris from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. She admits to targeting not just military, but random civilians, and actually calls it terrorism. Yet this was to fight a brutal foreign occupation and free her people. I\'d say that\'s very relevant.
to:
The point is people can\\\'t agree on the definition. Is the military bombing some civilian targets (especially random ones) terrorism? US law says no, it only applies to non-state actors. Others would disagree of course. The page quote is referencing groups in Latin America that the US supported that committed acts like you mention. Yet the government called them freedom fighters, not terrorists. If you want a fictional example, one that immediately comes to mind is Kira Neris from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. She admits to targeting not just military, but random civilians, and actually calls it terrorism. Yet this was to fight a brutal foreign occupation and free her people. I\\\'d say that\\\'s very relevant.
