Sasaki and Peeps (light novel)
DO NOT discuss the source material beyond this episode. If you want to discuss future events or theories, please use separate threads.
DO NOT ask where to watch/download this episode or give links to copyrighted, non-fair use material.
DO NOT troll/bait/harass/abuse other users for liking or disliking the series/characters.
DO read the Anime Discussion Rules and Site & Forum Guidelines.
DO NOT ask where to watch/download this episode or give links to copyrighted, non-fair use material.
DO NOT troll/bait/harass/abuse other users for liking or disliking the series/characters.
DO read the Anime Discussion Rules and Site & Forum Guidelines.
Reply to WatchTillTandava
RobertBobert said:
Well, such an approach would effectively destroy any abstract areas of human experience and the concept of analysis as such, since the absence of indisputable assessments does not negate the ability to make reasonable assessments as such. For example, should we stop thinking that pizza and ice cream are delicious because there are people who don't like pizza and ice cream, and the whole idea of food preferences is very subjective?
These are indeed opposite extremes, since in the first case people establish dogmas and deny the possibility of a different opinion, and in the other they deny the possibility of meaningful opinion due to the inability to define dogmas.
Well, such an approach would effectively destroy any abstract areas of human experience and the concept of analysis as such, since the absence of indisputable assessments does not negate the ability to make reasonable assessments as such. For example, should we stop thinking that pizza and ice cream are delicious because there are people who don't like pizza and ice cream, and the whole idea of food preferences is very subjective?
These are indeed opposite extremes, since in the first case people establish dogmas and deny the possibility of a different opinion, and in the other they deny the possibility of meaningful opinion due to the inability to define dogmas.
Well, I think a bit of the miscommunication or what might be lost in translation here kind of centers on how we might view the pizza and ice cream example. Despite being moral relativist and postmodernist, I would never deny the factual existence of other people's opinions on any given issue (the fact that they have those opinions is self-evident) or their right (my view of it as being a right) to have them or, in most contexts, express them. Just because I don't subscribe to a universal morality it doesn't mean I don't very much hold my own views on a wide range of subjects - political, religious/spiritual, and more specific/small-time personal ethical ones. I just recognize their inherent subjectivity. Even the most strongly-held, passionately-felt ones. Likewise, I don't think there is anything wrong with you either holding or expressing a different view from my own on the age & sex/romance issue, or any other conceivable issue. I just disagree with it. It's not that I don't acknowledge it as another point of view, even an understandable one, which exists, even if rival/opposing to my own.
So on the pizza and ice cream example, I happen to like both pizza and ice cream, but if I didn't, I would have no problem with you thinking or saying pizza and ice cream are delicious. I would take more issue if you tried to have it codified as a universal absolute truth and fact and then set about trying to convince or impose the view by force on everyone else. The same is true with anything.
| @WatchTillTandava This is the problem, or one of the problems, of moral relativism. Instead of a more reasonable moral subjectivism, where you simply deny the undeniable dogmatic nature of morality, relativism simply invalidates it by saying "well, there are different opinions, so your opinion doesn't matter" or even "no opinions matter." This is a return to the nihilism and ideological cynicism of the 19th century, when people, instead of trying to challenge moral dogmas, simply rejected morality as such. This, as expected, gave moralists an excellent weapon for defending dogma, since people are always ready to question restrictions, but not completely abandon them altogether. That is why eras of complete freedom are steadily replaced by eras of return to traditions and vice versa. |
 |
RobertBobert said: This is the problem, or one of the problems, of moral relativism. Instead of a more reasonable moral subjectivism, where you simply deny the undeniable dogmatic nature of morality, relativism simply invalidates it by saying "well, there are different opinions, so your opinion doesn't matter" or even "no opinions matter." This is a return to the nihilism and ideological cynicism of the 19th century, when people, instead of trying to challenge moral dogmas, simply rejected morality as such. This, as expected, gave moralists an excellent weapon for defending dogma, since people are always ready to question restrictions, but not completely abandon them altogether. That is why eras of complete freedom are steadily replaced by eras of return to traditions and vice versa. Yes, that's one of the long-running and popular/common critiques of this branch of philosophy. I've heard it all before and just disagree, probably owing to wanting different things out of life/the world/the future. I would adjust the wording however of saying something like "Well, there are different opinions, so your opinion doesn't matter" or "No opinions matter". That would never be my understanding or phrasing of it. It's not that "your opinion doesn't matter". It matters a great deal. It matters the world. To you. As my own does to me. Beyond that, it's a very different story. |
Reply to WatchTillTandava
RobertBobert said:
This is the problem, or one of the problems, of moral relativism. Instead of a more reasonable moral subjectivism, where you simply deny the undeniable dogmatic nature of morality, relativism simply invalidates it by saying "well, there are different opinions, so your opinion doesn't matter" or even "no opinions matter." This is a return to the nihilism and ideological cynicism of the 19th century, when people, instead of trying to challenge moral dogmas, simply rejected morality as such. This, as expected, gave moralists an excellent weapon for defending dogma, since people are always ready to question restrictions, but not completely abandon them altogether. That is why eras of complete freedom are steadily replaced by eras of return to traditions and vice versa.
This is the problem, or one of the problems, of moral relativism. Instead of a more reasonable moral subjectivism, where you simply deny the undeniable dogmatic nature of morality, relativism simply invalidates it by saying "well, there are different opinions, so your opinion doesn't matter" or even "no opinions matter." This is a return to the nihilism and ideological cynicism of the 19th century, when people, instead of trying to challenge moral dogmas, simply rejected morality as such. This, as expected, gave moralists an excellent weapon for defending dogma, since people are always ready to question restrictions, but not completely abandon them altogether. That is why eras of complete freedom are steadily replaced by eras of return to traditions and vice versa.
Yes, that's one of the long-running and popular/common critiques of this branch of philosophy. I've heard it all before and just disagree, probably owing to wanting different things out of life/the world/the future. I would adjust the wording however of saying something like "Well, there are different opinions, so your opinion doesn't matter" or "No opinions matter". That would never be my understanding or phrasing of it. It's not that "your opinion doesn't matter". It matters a great deal. It matters the world. To you. As my own does to me. Beyond that, it's a very different story.
| @WatchTillTandava Well, this one way or another stems from this formulation of the question, since relativism denies the very possibility of correct or incorrect reasonable conclusions from moral issues. As if we invited an agnostic to solve religious disputes between atheists and believers. He would simply say "well, the religious question is simply incomprehensible by rational means of knowledge, so it is meaningless." But judging by your answers, I would venture to suggest that this is more about free will and thought than about any moral relativism. But okay, it looks like we went too far off topic and just started a philosophical forum instead of discussing the episode itself :D. |
|
| Now I want to try pickled plums. This episode was pretty fun. @RobertRobert @WatchTillTandava This topic is stupid and has nothing to do with the show really. Moral relativism is poorly definedwhenever someone talks about it since it can mean many things so it isn't a useful term it includes various ideas but one consistent idea is unquestionably true how conditions of an environment a moral standard is formed is merely based on the conditions there at any given time and generally a culture acts only within it's ability at any given time which many factors influence as does hold true individuals conditions as well and one cant assume just because something changed means it inherently changed for the better or worse. It also would include how you can not give an objective value to something abstract like morality and at best you can only compare one thing with another as being more or less moral relative to something related but not moral or immoral. It basically is less judgmental form of morals that doesnt prevent exploring the philosophy of ethics. Ive yet to see a single person who actually thinks literally anything and everything is good or that clearly bad illogical arguments for something are as valid as highly entailed and rationalized ones (if they realize it is a bad argument). Rather it appears to be a different approach to morals than a moral in itself and more about trying to understand other people's positions rather than focus on judging them at face value because you cant change truly change other people anyway rather they change themselves when the conditions are different. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
Although that's what I love about anime and all storytelling generally, as well as seeing, hearing, and reading others' reactions to it. It can be a prompt to think and talk about virtually anything in existence, even going off on wild tangents and in unforeseen directions, which makes life more interesting to me. traed said: Moral relativism is poorly defined whenever someone talks about it since it can mean many things so it isn't a useful term it includes various ideas but one consistent idea is unquestionably true how conditions of an environment a moral standard is formed is merely based on the conditions there at any given time and generally a culture acts only within it's ability at any given time which many factors influence as does hold true individuals conditions as well and one cant assume just because something changed means it inherently changed for the better or worse. It also would include how you can not give an objective value to something abstract like morality and at best you can only compare one thing with another as being more or less moral relative to something related but not moral or immoral. It basically is less judgmental form of morals that doesnt prevent exploring the philosophy of ethics. Ive yet to see a single person who actually thinks literally anything and everything is good or that clearly bad illogical arguments for something are as valid as highly entailed and rationalized ones (if they realize it is a bad argument). Rather it appears to be a different approach to morals than a moral in itself and more about trying to understand other people's positions rather than focus on judging them at face value because you cant change truly change other people anyway rather they change themselves when the conditions are different. Yes, if one had to describe it in a short and succinct way to cut through to the essence I would actually say that this sums it up perfectly; or at least my understanding of it and my own use for it. Despite not being a communist, I'm also someone who subscribes to the materialist conception of history, so to me it's just something which fits hand in glove. And in line with the school of thought and personal thought process it spurs on, I have my own material basis for why I as an individual would be someone who would hold or be inclined to be naturally sympathetic to that worldview, so. |
WatchTillTandavaFeb 13, 3:36 AM
| Episodes are getting worse and worse art/animation wise, and also with the plot I'm wondering how low it will go |
| Another bad episode. The setup with the Psychics, Isekai and Magical Girls have potential, but this show just has too many flaws. Just this episode: Wasn't Sasaki happy to have enough money to drink coffee in a refined cafe now? How is he suddenly broke this episode? And how hard can it be to sell genuine gold? And that is one of many plotholes that don't make me confident this show can get anything out of the complex setup. Characters aren't particularly interesting either. And it's chaotic too. At this point, I doubt I'll see any improvement here, so I'll drop it now. 4/10. |
| Another fine episode. |
 |
| Sasaki being scouted by magical girl Futari Shizuka to become his understudy, while she can read him well, she wants to be part of the Bureau...which he allows. For now, Shizuka is treated like a spy like how Sasaki is, being surveyed within the Bureau, though sex is of no exception between males and females. That said, the umeboshi pickled plum that Sasaki brought back from Shizuka, brought a smile to Akutsu's gayish face, though the interview with Shizuka will go on. Though the secret with Peeps, Shizuka manages to catch a glimpse of it, though she doesn't think much of it as much as a front for Sasaki to comply with. And if she's going to "stay" in his place, he needs to be extra careful with surveillance. With Peeps's introduction to Shizuka, the interview goes on, though him wanting to drop Shizuka onto Akutsu's hands, he fails because the Bureau's hierarchy is unlike the norm, so instead, getting a promotion having her under his wing...it's too bad that he has one more person to manage now, being on the same level as Hoshizaki. A drink between fellow new co-workers, the latter still feels deeply concerned, and as thanks from before, gives him rolled omelet...that is still given to Shizuka anyways. A loli and a fellow colleague...Sasaki has many on his hands. |
 |
| Shizuka is definitely my favourite so far. I know the series has a harem element so romance will never happen but if it did Shizuka would be the best fit out of them all. Being of age helps the most lol. Also I think this might be the first time I've seen someone in anime just say "I'm gay" XD. I dont watch yaoi series and basically just watch wholesome romances/slice of life stuff so this is a first. |
| Yuritopia FTW!!!!!!!!! BANZAI TO YURI !!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Soo that miko-like psychic decided to betray her own organization, left it hard, just to feed her curiosity over our middle-aged man Sasaki? Not to mention she's a double digit loli baba? Now that's brings me into the table again! Chief section also makes me chuckle. His claim as a gay really on point. No sekuhara, just him doing the authority checks. Dayum with Hoshizaki-chan while tasting that plum really nice to see. Rieri nailed it hard with the voice act there. Now since Futari joined the gang, Pee also needs to share his identity because the tender meat can drool him easily. Sasaki real world part can't stop being a mess one after another. But at least this little sol section can heal me a while, thanks to the young girls farce that can't stop being overattractive toward our middle-aged man, Sasaki. Looking forward to see their deal with the magical pink girl tho, and then Otonari-chan for the last as well. Perhaps.... |
 Hide and seek is the best offline games on this fatamorgana-called-world-thing. Please comment nicely. I am newbie here. I'm level  on mal-badges. View my badges  |
| Why do all the women fall in love with Sasaki so quickly?? The boss is hilarious. |
As a wise man once said, "No one hates anime more than anime fans"  |
| lol Sasaki becoming a harem master all of a sudden |
| Shizu joins Sasaki after growing interested in him. Pickled plums = tender meat. The chief really went all out throwing strays at Sasaki and Hoshi regarding the surveillance cameras in their living quarters.   |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Sasaki to Pii-chan Episode 4 Discussion ( 1 2 )LunyRem - Jan 26 |
64 |
by Endl8ss
»»
Nov 18, 8:13 AM |
|
Poll: » Sasaki to Pii-chan Episode 1 Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 )KANLen09 - Jan 5 |
181 |
by Ambeon
»»
Nov 15, 12:53 AM |
|
Poll: » Sasaki to Pii-chan Episode 12 Discussion ( 1 2 3 )KANLen09 - Mar 22 |
106 |
by Cersil
»»
Oct 9, 12:56 PM |
|
Poll: » Sasaki to Pii-chan Episode 11 DiscussionLunyRem - Mar 15 |
47 |
by Cersil
»»
Oct 9, 12:11 PM |
|
Poll: » Sasaki to Pii-chan Episode 7 Discussion ( 1 2 )Aversa - Feb 16 |
52 |
by Cersil
»»
Oct 9, 7:55 AM |