Remove ads

Mami Said Knock You Out, a Yuma Quest (PMMM)

Would you be interested in having a Discord server for Mami Said Knock You Out?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 38.9%

  • No

    Votes: 22 61.1%
  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
Reader mode
SVS said:
No, I was talking about Chungus and I being two halves of the same entity, going by the earlier train of thought proposed by Rorb which posited that Chungus was a stage in the life of Homura based on his user avatar.

So it breaks down like this- Chungus has Chiaki as his avatar. Chiaki is amnesiac Homura. Homura becomes Akuma Homura, therefore, Chungus is amnesiac Akuma Homura. But I too have Homura as my user avatar, which means that I too am Homura and all that comes with being Homura.

Now, if we've already established that Chungus is Akuma Homura, then following the above chain of logic, Akuma Homura is the god of Nutella. But, based on my user avatar, I am also Akuma Homura, and so if I speak out against Nutella, which we have already established is part of Akuma Homura's domain, then what does that make me? What does it make a deity that speaks out against something which another part of themselves rules over? I don't think deities can be considered heretics for speaking out against their own teachings, and even if you're a nonbeliever I'm not quite sure you can call a deity an infidel either.

Of course, this whole shebang falls apart the second you consider that Rorb's logic is wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ah, I see. Apologies for the misunderstanding. In that case, you are not guilty of this particular heresy.

Technically, if there is someone who claims to be deity, and you don't recognize them as such, then the same terms apply to that alleged deity as to any other being. So a deity can be an infidel to some. In your case, any non-Madokamist that does not recognize you as a deity could still reasonably call you an infidel for not worshipping their... object of worship.

If you are a believer in a deity, and said deity speaks out against some part of your beliefs, then logically it's you who are wrong, and you should update your beliefs. Of course, as with everything, there may be exceptions - perhaps you have reason to believe the deity isn't telling the whole truth. It all depends on what relationship the believers have with their deity.

Surely Rorb couldn't be wrong, I mean, last I checked, I was indeed a personification of the Roman Republic, so it checks out.
 
Slayer 10321 said:
What is a Chungus? But a miserable pile of Nutella.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fool that you are, for there is nothing miserable about Nutella! There is only happiness, you ignorant FIEND! And do not think that video game references shall help your cause, for I have not played that game and thus derive no enjoyment from seeing it referenced!
 
SVS said:
Now, if we've already established that Chungus is Akuma Homura, then following the above chain of logic, Akuma Homura is the god of Nutella. But, based on my user avatar, I am also Akuma Homura, and so if I speak out against Nutella, which we have already established is part of Akuma Homura's domain, then what does that make me? What does it make a deity that speaks out against something which another part of themselves rules over?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Akuma Homura has a familiar with t he main purpose of throwing rotten fruit at herself.

It may be a fetish
 
Onmur said:
A fetish for punishment, maybe. IIRC, all the dolls throw tomatoes at Homura whenever she's being dishonest.

Poor Homu just has it out for herself.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's no coincidence that Homu and Hug both start with the same letter...
And hope, and hell, and maybe this is symbolic but also maybe not
 
Onmur said:
Another thing that starts with H is "Hello there this is the hundredth time I meet you for the first time."

Coincidence? :thonk:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But you know what doesn't start with H?
Success. Save. Solution. Salvation. Madoka.

tapkomet said:
You know whose name also starts with an H? Can't be a coincidence, Homura is literally Hitler!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You should know that with that comparison, you're just inviting someone else to come along and say "And you know who else did nothing wrong?"
 
tapkomet said:
Well to be fair to Hitler, he did sacrifice his life to kill one of the most cruel dictators in history...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That seems like a cheap cop-out, and if we follow that train of thought to its logical conclusion, does that also make the blood clot that killed Stalin a hero? What about the old age that killed Castro? Does killing a dictator automatically make you the good guy? Even if you're a non-anthropomorphic entity such as suicide, an aneurism, or old age? What even is a "hero"? Can there even be heroes in the modern era? Which Emiya was right about heroes after all?

Lord Chungus said:
But he also murdered the man who killed Hitler! In cold blood! :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This brings up another point; what is it to be "evil"? Does killing someone automatically make you evil? What if by killing that person, you are preventing the death of another? Or more? How many people must someone have the potential to kill before killing them is justifiable? Was Batman right about being unable to reduce the number of killers in the world by killing a killer? What if you kill two killers? How many killers do you have to kill before you can say that you have done a net positive for the world? And what if you kill yourself afterwards, finally reducing the number of killers to zero? What does that make you then?
 
SVS said:
That seems like a cheap cop-out, and if we follow that train of thought to its logical conclusion, does that also make the blood clot that killed Stalin a hero? What about the old age that killed Castro? Does killing a dictator automatically make you the good guy? Even if you're a non-anthropomorphic entity such as suicide, an aneurism, or old age? What even is a "hero"? Can there even be heroes in the modern era? Which Emiya was right about heroes after all?



This brings up another point; what is it to be "evil"? Does killing someone automatically make you evil? What if by killing that person, you are preventing the death of another? Or more? How many people must someone have the potential to kill before killing them is justifiable? Was Batman right about being unable to reduce the number of killers in the world by killing a killer? What if you kill two killers? How many killers do you have to kill before you can say that you have done a net positive for the world? And what if you kill yourself afterwards, finally reducing the number of killers to zero? What does that make you then?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I shall impart this wisdom unto you, as taken by the Holy Book of Lord Chungus:

 
SVS said:
That seems like a cheap cop-out, and if we follow that train of thought to its logical conclusion, does that also make the blood clot that killed Stalin a hero? What about the old age that killed Castro? Does killing a dictator automatically make you the good guy? Even if you're a non-anthropomorphic entity such as suicide, an aneurism, or old age? What even is a "hero"? Can there even be heroes in the modern era? Which Emiya was right about heroes after all?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well it's a classic death redemption story, realizing the error of your ways and doing something heroic at the end.

Though on the other hand, killing Hitler's killer as well is rather damning, too. I dunno where it leaves him compared to Homura.
SVS said:
This brings up another point; what is it to be "evil"? Does killing someone automatically make you evil? What if by killing that person, you are preventing the death of another? Or more? How many people must someone have the potential to kill before killing them is justifiable? Was Batman right about being unable to reduce the number of killers in the world by killing a killer? What if you kill two killers? How many killers do you have to kill before you can say that you have done a net positive for the world? And what if you kill yourself afterwards, finally reducing the number of killers to zero? What does that make you then?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Definitely not "automatically". For a clear-cut example, a policeman who shoots a criminal holding people hostage (and saving the hostages) is clearly heroic, not evil.

Batman is a fool whose insistence on non-killing cost many their lives and sanities as the villains he takes down always break out again, and they move with impunity, knowing Batman won't kill them.
 
tapkomet said:
Well it's a classic death redemption story, realizing the error of your ways and doing something heroic at the end.

Though on the other hand, killing Hitler's killer as well is rather damning, too. I dunno where it leaves him compared to Homura.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, but Hitler also killed the man who killed Hitler's killer, thus redeeming him again.

tapkomet said:
Definitely not "automatically". For a clear-cut example, a policeman who shoots a criminal holding people hostage (and saving the hostages) is clearly heroic, not evil.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

But what about context and motivation? Suppose the policeman only took the job because he wanted to exercise his power and authority over others and cares nothing for the common man whom he is sworn to protect, and in killing the hostage-taker, he is only acting out of a desire to kill legally? Yes, he may be doing an heroic act, but is an heroic act committed under evil pretenses really heroic? And if it is, what is it then that makes heroism; the means, or the ends?

tapkomet said:
Batman is a fool whose insistence on non-killing cost many their lives and sanities as the villains he takes down always break out again, and they move with impunity, knowing Batman won't kill them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This, I won't fight you on. Batman is a tool trying to compensate for the fact that he was unprepared for the death of his parents by trying to over-prepare for literally everything else. Superman is much better, both as a person and as a cape hero.
 
Last edited:
SVS said:
But what about context and motivation? Suppose the policeman only took the job because he wanted to exercise his power and authority over others and cares nothing for the common man whom he is sworn to protect, and in killing the hostage-taker, he is only acting out of a desire to kill legally? Yes, he may be doing an heroic act, but is an heroic act committed under evil pretenses really heroic? And if it is, what is it then that makes heroism; the means, or the ends?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The action is heroic, regardless of the motivation, and I think generally actions are more important than inner thoughts for determining someone's moral worth.

Consider also that if someone really wants to kill, there's plenty ways to do it illegally. If our hypothetical policeman has an innate desire to inflict bodily harm, but decides to only do so in legal circumstances, then he's successfuly channeled his cruel leanings into noble actions, which is perhaps even more praiseworthy than innately wanting to help people all along.

(Of course, that's only for this one action. Policemen who use their status to unjustly inflict bodily harm are horrible)
SVS said:
This, I won't fight you on. Batman is a tool trying to compensate for the fact that he was unprepared for the death of his parents by trying to over-prepare for literally everything else. Superman is much better, both as a person and as a cape hero.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Mm, not the issue I have. Batman's preparation for everything is very smart and logical, but it seems one thing he's never prepared for is his defeated foes resurfacing, repeatedly.
 
tapkomet said:
Mm, not the issue I have. Batman's preparation for everything is very smart and logical, but it seems one thing he's never prepared for is his defeated foes resurfacing, repeatedly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I disagree. I see his need to prepare for everything as a mechanism he uses to cope with the death of his parents. He was unprepared for their death, and so now he's compelled to prepare for everything under the sun so that something like that never happens to him again. Just the same way that his refusal to kill stems from the death of his parents. He may have justifications for the both of them, but ultimately they both stem from the death of his parents.

But I think we can both agree that the real problem with Batman is the writers. They either have an editorial mandate to constantly have the Joker one-up himself every time he appears because the fans have such a massive boner for edgelord psychopaths, or the writers themselves have massive boners for edgelord psychopaths and don't realize that they've inadvertently created a monster that constantly makes people question "Why hasn't anyone just fucking shot him yet?"

Remove the Joker from the equation, or even just handle him, the police, and the Gotham legal system in a more competent manner, and suddenly Batman's desire not to kill becomes much less harmful overall to Gotham's populace. Still harmful, yes, but not nearly as much.
 
SVS said:
I disagree. I see his need to prepare for everything as a mechanism he uses to cope with the death of his parents. He was unprepared for their death, and so now he's compelled to prepare for everything under the sun so that something like that never happens to him again. Just the same way that his refusal to kill stems from the death of his parents. He may have justifications for the both of them, but ultimately they both stem from the death of his parents.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't quite see your point here. The fact that some of Batman's behavior stems from the death of his parents isn't ethically right or wrong, nor, I believe, does it make him inherently more or less interesting as a character. It explains his actions, but surely one could imagine a character that is very prepared for everything, but is willing to actually stop the threat for good.
 
tapkomet said:
I don't quite see your point here. The fact that some of Batman's behavior stems from the death of his parents isn't ethically right or wrong, nor, I believe, does it make him inherently more or less interesting as a character. It explains his actions, but surely one could imagine a character that is very prepared for everything, but is willing to actually stop the threat for good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The point originally was that I agreed with you about Batman being at fault. The death of his parents crippled him, and has caused him to take up two coping mechanisms, being a desire to prepare for every situation, and an unwillingness to kill. However, no matter how much he prepares, he still seems to be caught off-guard when, say, the Joker kills a thousand people in a gas attack because the writers needed to squeeze in an appearance by the Joker in order to sell issues. This, obviously, would not have happened without his unwillingness to kill problematic villains, and despite his constant state of preparedness, he never seems to prepare for the eventuality that a villain he failed to kill will come back to kill again.

In hindsight, I suppose I could have made the connection more obvious the first time I brought it up.
 
SVS said:
The point originally was that I agreed with you about Batman being at fault. The death of his parents crippled him, and has caused him to take up two coping mechanisms, being a desire to prepare for every situation, and an unwillingness to kill. However, no matter how much he prepares, he still seems to be caught off-guard when, say, the Joker kills a thousand people in a gas attack because the writers needed to squeeze in an appearance by the Joker in order to sell issues. This, obviously, would not have happened without his unwillingness to kill problematic villains, and despite his constant state of preparedness, he never seems to prepare for the eventuality that a villain he failed to kill will come back to kill again.

In hindsight, I suppose I could have made the connection more obvious the first time I brought it up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ah, I see your point, I just think that just because these are both coping mechanisms doesn't mean they are inextricably linked. If Batman was only crazy prepared, but actually killed extremely dangerous villains, he'd be an extremely effective hero (and would be perfectly ethically justified IMO)
 
tapkomet said:
Ah, I see your point, I just think that just because these are both coping mechanisms doesn't mean they are inextricably linked. If Batman was only crazy prepared, but actually killed extremely dangerous villains, he'd be an extremely effective hero (and would be perfectly ethically justified IMO)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Which is why I feel that the fault ultimately lies with the writers, for writing villains that make the readers question why Batman hasn't either killed them or allowed them to be killed through other means.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top