|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 3, 2010 6:05:30 GMT
You have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support your theories to the contrary either, I should point out. How do I prove that the comic has never shown Surma professing her love for Reynardine which was a lie? The whole point is that it has never been shown. Hard to prove a negative. So if I have on one hand a page that shows the ACTUAL events, in which Surma NEVER says anything to Renard to lead him on and in fact makes it a point to not say anything at all to his advances (which most guys would take as a hint that the feeling was in fact NOT reciprocated) and I have on the other hand Anja hesitantly and with trepidation answering a question that was phrased in Annie's words, not her own, I'm going to take the historical record over the Ben Kenobi answer any day of the week and twice on Tuesday. Precisely, you can't prove a negative. You have also not proved anything whatsoever by bringing up that page, which does show her leading him on (and her not directly confirming his question does NOT make a difference here, she clearly knew he was falling for her and only pushed him further along that path with her comments about 'reynardine' stealing hearts). On the one hand, we have your firm insistence that Surma must not have deliberately tried to trick Rey because she didn't say anything in the comic that we saw. You can't possibly know what her state of mind was based only on your reading of an ambiguous (not really, but for the sake of argument I'll run with this now) set of panels in the comic. As a result, you can't make the argument that she had no bad intentions based on it. On the other hand, we have testimony from a credible witness confirming that she did intend to trick him into a romantic relationship. You are trying to claim that our witness is lying based on her phrasing of her answer. This witness has not lied in the past, to our knowledge, and has no motive to lie here. Furthermore, the phrasing 'well... yes' is undeniably affirmative language. You are also trying to claim that the witness has faulty, inadequate or otherwise unreliable knowledge of the events that took place. If that is the case, then the ENTIRE flashback scene is questionable too, since this witness is who that flashback obviously and unquestionably came from.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Nov 3, 2010 6:20:49 GMT
This explains a lot. So... she resigned after this failure and... gone in exile (or self-exile?) after it ended so wrong? Then both leaving to never return and falling out with Eglamore makes sense. Well that was kind of an unexpected little bomb... I mean it's one thing for Renard to love Surma and want to woo her, is a bit of another thing for Surma to actually play off that. Well... That's saddening. I was really hoping for something less cruel from Surma. Hopefully this is an inaccurate interpretation of the past. So far this narration skips subtle, but most important details. Is there a reason to assume Surma didn't think Renard just expressed general admiration or played... hmm... "Jolly Elfsberry"? If she saw it's deadly serious (literally) for Renard , it would not be that surprising when instead of being distracted he got Coyote's powers - which she tried to prevent - because of her games. If she understood that he " fell desperately", trying to pick his interest and lead him on was playing with fire and not friendly to him. But if she didn't - why not? It's fun. This also could make the whole incident as bad for her as the realization that she set Renard up much worse than planned. One more reason to run away. This definitely seems to put Paz's estimation of the court back into the "naive" bin. It also firms my belief that Annie, et al., are doing the right thing by not bringing Jeanne's plight to the attention of the establishment. "The difference between common-sense and paranoia is that common-sense is thinking everyone is out to get you. That's normal - they are. Paranoia is thinking that they're conspiring." I mean, neither Surma should have accepted such ideas from anyone easily, nor anyone would know before her. She was working in the field. Moreover, she was the Court's Medium - officially the most qualified person as far as the non-combat interaction with the Wood's creatures is concerned. That is, we see an individual's judgment and decision here. If not... something has gone horribly wrong even before this incident - and i don't mean Diego. That's only about estimating of the situation, without the assumption that she acted like that on someone else's plan... to be fair, if she was the Court medium she may not have had a choice in the matter. Ha-ha. What? Think how it looked for specific people, not spots on maps. Suppose she won't really take offence, but mention it to Eglamore?.. So who wants to be the one asking? Pull straws? ;D And if she disagrees, what they could do about it? Remove a good medium to gamble on the next one, while upsetting relations with the Wood and enraging Eglamore, all at the same time? Go on. Anything more, and a hour later Renard wouldn't be the Court's main problem. They simply had nothing half as bad as messing with their medium, their champion, a valkyrie and a few resourceful people who won't shut up and nod either. Maybe Eglamore was told to kill him. Then Surma broke up with him and did this instead! Who, Eglamore? He could simply heed her and say their medium is the expert who knows what she talks about while they're fumbling pencil-pushers. And let's not kid ourselves; there is no letting him down easy. [...] If you can think of one, feel free to let me know. +1. He's still a good pal whose feelings and dignity she wouldn't want to hurt, so if Surma misjudged how serious Renard was about it flattering "you're cool too, haha" non-committal would be at least understandable, even if she didn't need to keep his attention away from Coyote.
|
|
|
Post by Max on Nov 3, 2010 6:55:10 GMT
I think this holds a record for the longest page discussion thread. Dang.
|
|
|
Post by bnpederson on Nov 3, 2010 7:39:10 GMT
I think this holds a record for the longest page discussion thread. Dang. Heh. To be fair, it pretty much consisted of: "Man, Surma was a bitch there." "No she wasn't!" "Yes she was!" "Nuh uh." "Yuh huh!"
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 3, 2010 8:09:24 GMT
How do I prove that the comic has never shown Surma professing her love for Reynardine which was a lie? The whole point is that it has never been shown. Hard to prove a negative. So if I have on one hand a page that shows the ACTUAL events, in which Surma NEVER says anything to Renard to lead him on and in fact makes it a point to not say anything at all to his advances (which most guys would take as a hint that the feeling was in fact NOT reciprocated) and I have on the other hand Anja hesitantly and with trepidation answering a question that was phrased in Annie's words, not her own, I'm going to take the historical record over the Ben Kenobi answer any day of the week and twice on Tuesday. Precisely, you can't prove a negative. You have also not proved anything whatsoever by bringing up that page, which does show her leading him on (and her not directly confirming his question does NOT make a difference here, she clearly knew he was falling for her and only pushed him further along that path with her comments about 'reynardine' stealing hearts). On the one hand, we have your firm insistence that Surma must not have deliberately tried to trick Rey because she didn't say anything in the comic that we saw. You can't possibly know what her state of mind was based only on your reading of an ambiguous (not really, but for the sake of argument I'll run with this now) set of panels in the comic. As a result, you can't make the argument that she had no bad intentions based on it. On the other hand, we have testimony from a credible witness confirming that she did intend to trick him into a romantic relationship. You are trying to claim that our witness is lying based on her phrasing of her answer. This witness has not lied in the past, to our knowledge, and has no motive to lie here. Furthermore, the phrasing 'well... yes' is undeniably affirmative language. You are also trying to claim that the witness has faulty, inadequate or otherwise unreliable knowledge of the events that took place. If that is the case, then the ENTIRE flashback scene is questionable too, since this witness is who that flashback obviously and unquestionably came from. Well Christ, Hal, if you're going to say that things were clear when they weren't, if you're going to say things are undeniable when they are, when you're going to say that I said things that I didn't, and that I meant things that I didn't, when you're going to say things are obvious and unquestionable when clearly they aren't obvious and they are questionable, then I guess you can assert whatever absolute reality you want and reject any other reality out of hand. Which if that works for you in your world, that's fine, but I'm sure as hell not going to continue to try to have a rational conversation with someone like that.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 3, 2010 8:15:07 GMT
Precisely, you can't prove a negative. You have also not proved anything whatsoever by bringing up that page, which does show her leading him on (and her not directly confirming his question does NOT make a difference here, she clearly knew he was falling for her and only pushed him further along that path with her comments about 'reynardine' stealing hearts). On the one hand, we have your firm insistence that Surma must not have deliberately tried to trick Rey because she didn't say anything in the comic that we saw. You can't possibly know what her state of mind was based only on your reading of an ambiguous (not really, but for the sake of argument I'll run with this now) set of panels in the comic. As a result, you can't make the argument that she had no bad intentions based on it. On the other hand, we have testimony from a credible witness confirming that she did intend to trick him into a romantic relationship. You are trying to claim that our witness is lying based on her phrasing of her answer. This witness has not lied in the past, to our knowledge, and has no motive to lie here. Furthermore, the phrasing 'well... yes' is undeniably affirmative language. You are also trying to claim that the witness has faulty, inadequate or otherwise unreliable knowledge of the events that took place. If that is the case, then the ENTIRE flashback scene is questionable too, since this witness is who that flashback obviously and unquestionably came from. Well Christ, Hal, if you're going to say that things were clear when they weren't, if you're going to say things are undeniable when they are, when you're going to say that I said things that I didn't, and that I meant things that I didn't, when you're going to say things are obvious and unquestionable when clearly they aren't obvious and they are questionable, then I guess you can assert whatever absolute reality you want and reject any other reality out of hand. Which if that works for you in your world, that's fine, but I'm sure as hell not going to continue to try to have a rational conversation with someone like that. Do whatever you want, I'm just stating my case.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 3, 2010 9:05:57 GMT
Holy Fish on a Stick, Jayne and Casey are REALLY determined to some how create a secondary, non-jerk response for what we've been shown. Jayne ADDS words to Anya phrasing, despite what the actual comic says. And Casey is denying anything that might contradict them even though there's evidence that, YES Surma did do a scummy thing to Renard. We don't have the full reason behind it, but at the same time, she did effectively (If not completely) lead him on into thinking there was something when there probably wasn't.
In fact, those two are the only ones denying it against evidence to the contrary.
Wow.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 10:50:31 GMT
Holy Fish on a Stick, Jayne and Casey are REALLY determined to some how create a secondary, non-jerk response for what we've been shown. Jayne ADDS words to Anya phrasing, despite what the actual comic says. And Casey is denying anything that might contradict them even though there's evidence that, YES Surma did do a scummy thing to Renard. We don't have the full reason behind it, but at the same time, she did effectively (If not completely) lead him on into thinking there was something when there probably wasn't. In fact, those two are the only ones denying it against evidence to the contrary. Wow. Yup! I'm sympathetic towards Surma and Anja. I won't declare them jerks until I know more. And I added words to convey how I understood it. If I just used the exact same words, what difference would that convey? Edit: Oh and you'll notice maybe that I'm not denying Surma did something bad... not sure you saw that...
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 10:53:03 GMT
I think this holds a record for the longest page discussion thread. Dang. Heh. To be fair, it pretty much consisted of: "Man, Surma was a bitch there." "No she wasn't!" "Yes she was!" "Nuh uh." "Yuh huh!" Actually most of it was intended to show people can do something bad for a good reason, like lying or tricking someone. Not saying that's what happened but lets not judge until we know more. If none of that made sense, go ahead and consider them all jerks. I can't stop you. /shrug
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 11:32:34 GMT
Shorter version: If you do something bad but for a good enough reason, you aren't a jerk.
Surma did something bad, but may have had a good enough reason.
Arghh...I feel like I have to use little words now so you'll understand me. You are not children and I have no intention of treating you as such.
If you still don't understand this, I can't help you.
|
|
|
Post by paxjax123 on Nov 3, 2010 11:57:24 GMT
If you do something bad but for a good enough reason, you aren't a jerk. Sounds familiar.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 12:34:11 GMT
If you do something bad but for a good enough reason, you aren't a jerk. Sounds familiar. to what?
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 12:42:11 GMT
If someone wants to jump off a building because they feel they are a complete loser and no one loves them, and the truth is, they have no family or friends or prospect of a decent job, do you lie and deceive them, just to prevent them from jumping?
"Yes, you are utterly worthless... try not to hit anything important on the way down."
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 12:46:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 3, 2010 12:52:09 GMT
Appropriate that you brought up Nixon, since a lot of the problem with the Watergate affair stemmed more from the cover-ups of the initial break-in than the break-in itself - the consequences of the original bad deed mushrooming.
And a lot of the things that the Court has done seem to be similarly consequences of the original trouble - their trying to "tame" the inhabitants of the Wood, which led to the forest-folk being angry and aggrieved at the Court. If they hadn't antagonized the inhabitants of Gillitie, the Founders wouldn't have felt the need to murder Jeanne, and Surma's generation wouldn't have felt the need to trap Renard.
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Nov 3, 2010 13:43:15 GMT
When Coyote split the Court from the Forest..? (in a way too serious tone): ...with His Mighty Paw! The situation shifted entirely in subsequent pages, and I don't doubt something of that nature will happen with this newest revelation. Or simply: it's Gunnerkrigg. Tom hasn't loss any of his power when it comes to splitting audience about his characters. He can't: the audience eagerly holywars over anything, nevermind how shifty the ground under a battlefield is. So anyone want to take a guess as to what the thing they're working on is? Resembles vacuum hardware, like an experimental mini-accelerator or very tricked-out deposition device. Can't look at this page without an involuntary search for familiar components. ;D That depends on your definition of what a person is. I would say that anything capable of Minsk disagrees disagreeiz. Because it's loaded, that's why. So, as a Chinese zen monk would say, Mu. A question is always loaded. Unless you just personally ensured it's empty and didn't let it out of your sight. Also, what would say a Japanese Zen monk? "You're immature, bebebe! " "Maturity is a treason to Friend Computer!" Sorry, it's just too much fun. ;D I was just thinking, what are the odds that Rey is in Annie's bag in the first panel? Minimal, but the thought is fascinating, yes.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Nov 3, 2010 17:23:55 GMT
I don't know definition of the word "wrong" that is consistent with the words "still should have done it". The way I understand it, there are three possible moral judgments:
1) Morally forbidden: Something which, morally, you must NOT do. (e.g. hurting innocents for the lolz of it) 2) Morally obligatory: Something which, morally, you are OBLIGATED to do. (e.g. make sure your children don't starve to death) 3) Morally permissible: Something which you're morally allowed to do, but you aren't obligated to do. (e.g. enjoy an icecream)
Now as shorthand we tend to use "morally right" for possibilities (2) and (3) while we keep "morally wrong" just for possibility (1).
But even so I can't think of any definition of the word "wrong" which can coincide with the idea that he *should* do it anyway.
Forgiveness or restitution is another thing altogether: it's a valid option to say that he'd be wrong to steal the medicine, but you would forgive him. Likewise it's a valid option to say that he'd be *right* to steal the medicine but he should also turn himself in to the police and make restitution. You just can't combine wrong with should, the way you did.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Nov 3, 2010 17:32:13 GMT
And to offer my more specific opinion:
What Surma did wasn't a "bitch" move, or a "jerk" move, or a "hussy" move, or even a "mean" move. She didn't do it for the fun of it, or without regard for the consequences, so it can't be labelled based on words assigned to schoolyard bullies or to the randomly inconsiderate.
What she did was a calculated *enemy* move of deceit. It can be as much justified or non-justified as any other hostile preemptive move of war. She deceived an enemy asset and lured it into captivity.
It may have been right or wrong, in regards to purpose and/or consequences and/or means, but let's not trivialize it by calling it "bitchy" or "mean" or "jerkish" or any other such word. It was a military enemy maneuver; and it must be judged the way you'd judge a spy sent to trick and/or seduce enemy personnel.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 17:42:59 GMT
I don't know definition of the word "wrong" that is consistent with the words "still should have done it". The way I understand it, there are three possible moral judgments: 1) Morally forbidden: Something which, morally, you must NOT do. (e.g. hurting innocents for the lolz of it) 2) Morally obligatory: Something which, morally, you are OBLIGATED to do. (e.g. make sure your children don't starve to death) 3) Morally permissible: Something which you're morally allowed to do, but you aren't obligated to do. (e.g. enjoy an icecream) Now as shorthand we tend to use "morally right" for possibilities (2) and (3) while we keep "morally wrong" just for possibility (1). But even so I can't think of any definition of the word "wrong" which can coincide with the idea that he *should* do it anyway. Forgiveness or restitution is another thing altogether: it's a valid option to say that he'd be wrong to steal the medicine, and you would forgive him. Likewise it's a valid option to say that he'd be *right* to steal the medicine but he should also turn himself in to the police and make restitution. You just can't combine wrong with should, the way you did. there were two choices: His sentence is the second choice, said in reverse order: "Maybe stealing it was wrong and he should make restitution, but he still should have done it?" Rewritten: He should have done it and he should make restitution because stealing it was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Nov 3, 2010 17:51:59 GMT
jayne, I undestand what he wrote : and what I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to me. If he SHOULD have done it, it means he was morally obligated to do it, and therefore it was NOT wrong to do it.
You can't be morally obligated to do something *wrong*. "Wrong" are those things that you are morally *forbidden* to do.
And as I said, restitution is a completely different issue. Both the act of stealing it AND the act of making restitution can be moral obligations. That means both acts are morally right, not that the first act was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 17:58:39 GMT
jayne, I undestand what he wrote : and what I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to me. If he SHOULD have done it, it means he was morally obligated to do it, and therefore it was NOT wrong to do it. You can't be morally obligated to do something *wrong*. "Wrong" are those things that you are morally *forbidden* to do. And as I said, restitution is a completely different issue. Both the act of stealing it AND the act of making restitution can be moral obligations. That means both acts are morally right, not that the first act was wrong. Hmmm... he was morally obligated to (steal the medicine) In this particular case, stealing the medicine is the right thing to do even though in general cases, stealing medicine is the wrong thing to do. Does that sound right... um.. correct?
|
|
|
Post by Aris Katsaris on Nov 3, 2010 17:59:56 GMT
Of course. I can completely agree with this.
|
|
|
Post by evilanagram on Nov 3, 2010 18:03:38 GMT
You realize that no one evaluates an answer to that question based on whether or not you say it's wrong, right? What matters is how you explain your answer.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 18:06:47 GMT
You realize that no one evaluates an answer to that question based on whether or not you say it's wrong, right? What matters is how you explain your answer. pardon?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 3, 2010 18:10:12 GMT
I think that what both Aris and EA are trying to say is that the use of the word "wrong" is too broad and vague to have any significant meaning, when the definition of "wrong" is itself the thing that is being debated. See Aris's three different shades of morality above.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 18:13:28 GMT
I think that what both Aris and EA are trying to say is that the use of the word "wrong" is too broad and vague to have any significant meaning, when the definition of "wrong" is itself the thing that is being debated. See Aris's three different shades of morality above. Which wrong would cover doing something against the law? Edit: Maybe #2? We follow the law because we feel we should.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 18:23:49 GMT
You realize that no one evaluates an answer to that question based on whether or not you say it's wrong, right? What matters is how you explain your answer. I get it! If you were asked that question and you said: "It was the right thing to do" you'd have to explain WHY you think its the correct thing to do. If you say its correct because..."what the hell, just steal it, you won't get caught" you've missed the point of the exercise.
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Nov 3, 2010 18:41:40 GMT
What she did was a calculated *enemy* move of deceit. It can be as much justified or non-justified as any other hostile preemptive move of war. She deceived an enemy asset and lured it into captivity. It may have been right or wrong, in regards to purpose and/or consequences and/or means, but let's not trivialize it by calling it "bitchy" or "mean" or "jerkish" or any other such word. It was a military enemy maneuver; and it must be judged the way you'd judge a spy sent to trick and/or seduce enemy personnel. Treating someone that we currently have no evidence was a threat as some sort of enemy combatant is a bitch move.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 3, 2010 18:43:06 GMT
What she did was a calculated *enemy* move of deceit. It can be as much justified or non-justified as any other hostile preemptive move of war. She deceived an enemy asset and lured it into captivity. It may have been right or wrong, in regards to purpose and/or consequences and/or means, but let's not trivialize it by calling it "bitchy" or "mean" or "jerkish" or any other such word. It was a military enemy maneuver; and it must be judged the way you'd judge a spy sent to trick and/or seduce enemy personnel. Treating someone that we currently have no evidence was a threat as some sort of enemy combatant is a bitch move. We don't have any evidence but why assume they don't?
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Nov 3, 2010 18:45:03 GMT
Because the only aggression we've seen from the forest has been in response to a child smacking their god. Considering the amount of narrative space that has been devoted to the conflict, you'd think something else might have come up by now.
The only other conflict that comes to mind is the hound in Ties, which was trying to leave the court when we were shown it.
Edit: To be clear, I don't really have much of a stake in this branch of the conversation. What concerns me more is that Surma seemingly abused her position not only as a neutral party, but a friend. The question, which may or may not ever be resolved, is whether what seems is what is.
|
|