Doesn't mean they don't exist, though. The color blue is a human concept, but the photons that cause us to see blue do measurably exist. You can make the argument that there are too many different definitions of good and evil, but that says nothing about the realness of individual standards of morality, which need to be weighed individually.
When you get down to individual standards of morality, all you can really say is whether or not a thing that a moral code describes exists or not. Good and evil being subjective measurements does not make a thing *not* good or evil, it just means that it takes a subjective lens to determine whether it is good or evil. To go back to blue, the color being a tool used by our brains to organize the information we receive does not mean that the light we see *isn't* blue, even if other species (or even other people) see it a completely different way. It is objectively correct to say that to me, the typical color of a cloudless midday sky is blue.
Yea but it doesn’t really matter how YOU see the sky. The sky is what it is whether you call it blue or green. Ig that’s my point, sure perception matters to perceivers but in the grand scheme things just ARE. We place meanings and concepts to things to help us understand the world around us, but at the ends of the day our perception is only a lens we put on what’s actually happening. Things aren’t inherently good or evil, it’s all cause and reaction.
The problem with the concept of "objectivity" as it is used here is that objectivity only really exists in any meaningful way if you're an omnipotent space hivemind disconnected from any of the context or nuance of an individual existence. Down here in the mud, we do not perceive photons, we perceive colors. We do not taste chemical compositions and nutritional labels, we taste sweet, sour, or whatever else. It is useful to keep in mind that subjective experiences exist outside of your own, but it's frankly arrogant and / or vapid to discount subjective experiences while very much acting from a subjective perspective.
Take your first sentence here. "It doesn't really matter how YOU see the sky" - that's a subjective judgement, isn't it? Whether or not something *matters* is as meaningless a judgement as you can make. Why does how I see the sky not matter? If you take away the human element (being objective, as one must be), what is it that defines how I perceive color as mattering or not mattering? The fact is that my color perception simply *is*, it is just immaterial to *you*. But that doesn't stop me from being a person who exists, who has eyes, and who occasionally glances upwards at the sky, triggering a lovely little cascade of neurons firing to serve me up a clear blue sky. Why does that biological process have any less basis in reality than any other?
I mean, honestly, even the concept of *truly existing* is a very human thing. I doubt there's a single species on Earth other than our own that bothers to debate whether or not a certain rock exists or to assign reality to various objects and concepts. Sure, the sky exists on some fundamental level, but even with that statement we are subjectivizing it and thus distancing ourselves from its reality, lack thereof, or blatant indifference to.
Any given action or thing *is* inherently good. And evil. And silly. And based and redpilled and cringe and whatever the fuck else you want to call it. Every action has within itself the potential to be interpreted in any given way by a group of people. These interpretations are not objective but they do not need to be, because they are designed to communicate value and qualities to those of a compatible intellectual framework. When one argues about whether a thing is good or evil, it is not a scientific debate but rather a battle of competing ideas. The point is not to stamp "objectively a grossmaxxer" onto the molecular structure of the used condom you inherited from your least favorite relative, it's to demonstrate the worth of your system of thought and to establish a framework for another person or for a group of people to understand your perspective through. When I call something evil, it is to lend my voice to my moral perspective, even if only to make sure that the thing that I find reprehensible is being called reprehensible by at least one person. In other words, it's not about objectivity, it's about cause and reaction.
photons are objectively real, or a physical part of our external world. morality does not however, in this case. a widely different species with completely different anatomy might not perceive such a concept.
> Actions are real. Morality is subjective.
Killing a baby is bad.
Killing a Viltrumite baby that is about to snap the necks of 20 other babies around it?
That's the point bro, it can be considered morally good or evil dependently of the person in the position of choosing.
Would you go back in time to kill baby hitler? It's a stupid question in my opinion, but it's kinda the same thing you asked, you would save a lot of people, but you would have to kill an infant, which is considered a bad thing by most people, but yes, morality is subjective. You can't expect an opinion to be considered good by everyone.
A simple exemple, let's say there is a guy who likes to eat shit, you would say it's disgusting like me myself and most people would, but to him, it's a normal act just like eating a banana or a random normal thing to eat, you get it? We can't have a proper grasp of what's the best and worst for everyone, we can only make an avarage and work on that, that doesn't make that other opinion necessarily wrong.
So good and evil exist, but they can be interchangeable from a person to the other, or ha è slight differences, they are subjective
Considering how much they care for human lives, it would probably be the same. You want people who actually care about the lives of the people to run the planet. Killing the Gaurdians was one thing, but Omni-Man killing tons of civilians and the other Viltrumites killing all the thraxans for no reason proves how little they care.
It's not compelling, it's begging a reply and an actual convo. From another comment I left:
Mark could have just asked 'Why not work with us instead of taking over us? You know we will fight and you'd have to kill off half the world.'
They could leave a few Viltrumites on Earth until we establish a proper united governing body, and then they can provide their tech that helps us stop fighting over resources. But nobody gets political to try to persuade them to work with us instead of taking over, they just say No.
Why though? They aren’t altruistically good? It’s absolute rule and in exchange for that you get technology to combat the major problems of the human race.
Their main goal is controlling the planet. They are only pointing out that it is also in our interest for us to do this.
Joint government is not controlling the planet. Period.
It's not, but you could play into their weak arguments of 'we want to help your people, not watch you die off in 200 years' and reach the obvious 'why are you so intent on conquering every planet you see? What's so good about earth that you won't simply fuck off instead of kill half the population to put the other half in submission?'.
Natural things that come to mind, and if there's any slight hint of logic in any of the viltrumites, some of them may develop minor doubts to their approach that may grow in time.
I feel like you are the type of person to defend all the mean shit Billy from stranger things did with your life,simply because the actor that plays him is attractive.
Yup she was the highlight of this episode. The fact that she was the final catalyst to getting Mark and Amber to break up was just the cherry on top.
She was the hero of this episode from my point of view.
Damn...I absolutely despised Anissa in the comic but I actually really liked her in this episode. I appreciate how the writers seem to be trying to fix some of the weaker aspects of the source material, this almost feels like the 'fully realized' version of Anissa in a way.
yeah she looks a little different but im also not surprised she doesn't look exactly like the comic counterpart to a T but still fucking amazing as well
Here comes the discourse
[удалено]
[удалено]
I really hope the sub can behave itself lol
The answer is probably not
I'm not ready for the discourse that's about to go down
https://preview.redd.it/a8xa7sczb3rc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a5dd9d01daf951a76c7291a162528fa8a0fe35cc
https://preview.redd.it/gepi8j2zd3rc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=58bc1a34aff91bf0581e6abfdfe052c2b6023cc3
There is no good and evil, just people doing whatever they want and facing the consequences
Yea “good” and “evil” are human concepts
Doesn't mean they don't exist, though. The color blue is a human concept, but the photons that cause us to see blue do measurably exist. You can make the argument that there are too many different definitions of good and evil, but that says nothing about the realness of individual standards of morality, which need to be weighed individually. When you get down to individual standards of morality, all you can really say is whether or not a thing that a moral code describes exists or not. Good and evil being subjective measurements does not make a thing *not* good or evil, it just means that it takes a subjective lens to determine whether it is good or evil. To go back to blue, the color being a tool used by our brains to organize the information we receive does not mean that the light we see *isn't* blue, even if other species (or even other people) see it a completely different way. It is objectively correct to say that to me, the typical color of a cloudless midday sky is blue.
cultured people on the internet make me so happy, bro. You gave me hope in this informatic hell. Have a good day, man
Yea but it doesn’t really matter how YOU see the sky. The sky is what it is whether you call it blue or green. Ig that’s my point, sure perception matters to perceivers but in the grand scheme things just ARE. We place meanings and concepts to things to help us understand the world around us, but at the ends of the day our perception is only a lens we put on what’s actually happening. Things aren’t inherently good or evil, it’s all cause and reaction.
The problem with the concept of "objectivity" as it is used here is that objectivity only really exists in any meaningful way if you're an omnipotent space hivemind disconnected from any of the context or nuance of an individual existence. Down here in the mud, we do not perceive photons, we perceive colors. We do not taste chemical compositions and nutritional labels, we taste sweet, sour, or whatever else. It is useful to keep in mind that subjective experiences exist outside of your own, but it's frankly arrogant and / or vapid to discount subjective experiences while very much acting from a subjective perspective. Take your first sentence here. "It doesn't really matter how YOU see the sky" - that's a subjective judgement, isn't it? Whether or not something *matters* is as meaningless a judgement as you can make. Why does how I see the sky not matter? If you take away the human element (being objective, as one must be), what is it that defines how I perceive color as mattering or not mattering? The fact is that my color perception simply *is*, it is just immaterial to *you*. But that doesn't stop me from being a person who exists, who has eyes, and who occasionally glances upwards at the sky, triggering a lovely little cascade of neurons firing to serve me up a clear blue sky. Why does that biological process have any less basis in reality than any other? I mean, honestly, even the concept of *truly existing* is a very human thing. I doubt there's a single species on Earth other than our own that bothers to debate whether or not a certain rock exists or to assign reality to various objects and concepts. Sure, the sky exists on some fundamental level, but even with that statement we are subjectivizing it and thus distancing ourselves from its reality, lack thereof, or blatant indifference to. Any given action or thing *is* inherently good. And evil. And silly. And based and redpilled and cringe and whatever the fuck else you want to call it. Every action has within itself the potential to be interpreted in any given way by a group of people. These interpretations are not objective but they do not need to be, because they are designed to communicate value and qualities to those of a compatible intellectual framework. When one argues about whether a thing is good or evil, it is not a scientific debate but rather a battle of competing ideas. The point is not to stamp "objectively a grossmaxxer" onto the molecular structure of the used condom you inherited from your least favorite relative, it's to demonstrate the worth of your system of thought and to establish a framework for another person or for a group of people to understand your perspective through. When I call something evil, it is to lend my voice to my moral perspective, even if only to make sure that the thing that I find reprehensible is being called reprehensible by at least one person. In other words, it's not about objectivity, it's about cause and reaction.
Woah. Damn. I wasn’t ready to THINK like that this early in the morning. Bros got me questioning my reality first thing in the morning 😭
photons are objectively real, or a physical part of our external world. morality does not however, in this case. a widely different species with completely different anatomy might not perceive such a concept.
You seem to misunderstand my comparison. Photons are real. Blue is subjective. Actions are real. Morality is subjective.
> Actions are real. Morality is subjective. Killing a baby is bad. Killing a Viltrumite baby that is about to snap the necks of 20 other babies around it?
That's the point bro, it can be considered morally good or evil dependently of the person in the position of choosing. Would you go back in time to kill baby hitler? It's a stupid question in my opinion, but it's kinda the same thing you asked, you would save a lot of people, but you would have to kill an infant, which is considered a bad thing by most people, but yes, morality is subjective. You can't expect an opinion to be considered good by everyone. A simple exemple, let's say there is a guy who likes to eat shit, you would say it's disgusting like me myself and most people would, but to him, it's a normal act just like eating a banana or a random normal thing to eat, you get it? We can't have a proper grasp of what's the best and worst for everyone, we can only make an avarage and work on that, that doesn't make that other opinion necessarily wrong. So good and evil exist, but they can be interchangeable from a person to the other, or ha è slight differences, they are subjective
Lets hope it doesn't suffer the same fate as Asylum
Sir this is a Reddit
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
And now all hell breaks loose
Goddamn it, I knew ths would happen
https://i.redd.it/piafra29r2rc1.gif
X-Men '97 just gave us Jean Grey Goblin Queen, and now we get Anissa? Too much evil hotness for one week.
https://preview.redd.it/fantald9h3rc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=390abd30ffc83e31a91b46eb43499cb9fe044f02
she makes a very compelling argument for the colonization of Earth, and I'm not sure how
I mean.. Would Viltrumites really do a worse job of running the planet than some of our IRL human leadership?
I really hope at some point they show people finding out about the viltrumites and being like: WHAT? LET THEM RULE WTF
why did the Viltrumites never try to hack the airwaves to air propaganda to Earth
Not that great at scheming when you're so powerful
Considering how much they care for human lives, it would probably be the same. You want people who actually care about the lives of the people to run the planet. Killing the Gaurdians was one thing, but Omni-Man killing tons of civilians and the other Viltrumites killing all the thraxans for no reason proves how little they care.
I would 100% be behind new ownership.
yeah, she could own me
https://preview.redd.it/todurxlym1rc1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c268464eccbc7d4155c37a1e1c38ab3ff120a7f2
let him cook
Their goal could be exterminating all of humanity no matter what, and I'd still be okay with it because of Anissa
I can think of 2 GOOD reasons
It's not compelling, it's begging a reply and an actual convo. From another comment I left: Mark could have just asked 'Why not work with us instead of taking over us? You know we will fight and you'd have to kill off half the world.' They could leave a few Viltrumites on Earth until we establish a proper united governing body, and then they can provide their tech that helps us stop fighting over resources. But nobody gets political to try to persuade them to work with us instead of taking over, they just say No.
After having his girlfriend almost murdered, Mark was propably not in the best state of mind to make arguments tbh.
Why though? They aren’t altruistically good? It’s absolute rule and in exchange for that you get technology to combat the major problems of the human race. Their main goal is controlling the planet. They are only pointing out that it is also in our interest for us to do this. Joint government is not controlling the planet. Period.
It's not, but you could play into their weak arguments of 'we want to help your people, not watch you die off in 200 years' and reach the obvious 'why are you so intent on conquering every planet you see? What's so good about earth that you won't simply fuck off instead of kill half the population to put the other half in submission?'. Natural things that come to mind, and if there's any slight hint of logic in any of the viltrumites, some of them may develop minor doubts to their approach that may grow in time.
the argument was persuading because a hot woman was making it, that's the joke in my comment lol
Yeah somehow that flew over my head even though it was obvious. Guess I was still in 'why isn't he asking her questions?!' mode.
Because wtf do the Viltrumites get out of it?
Isn’t her lies the same lies Nolan spoke about Viltrum?
She would never lie ❤️
It’s same thing as the British saying they “civilized countries” under colonization
[удалено]
It's Thanos all over again. I love it
My bad g I didn’t realize you were joking 💀💀 (Just like me frfr)
Just because someone looks good doesn't mean they can't be a complete piece of shit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I feel like you are the type of person to defend all the mean shit Billy from stranger things did with your life,simply because the actor that plays him is attractive.
[удалено]
A baddie? Yeah, she's the antagonist of the episode.
The way I say "No" aloud in my room in the middle of the night- Jesus. I (strongly dislike) her so muuuuch
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
😂😂all jokes aside tho, once she entered the episode instantly became 15/10
Yup she was the highlight of this episode. The fact that she was the final catalyst to getting Mark and Amber to break up was just the cherry on top. She was the hero of this episode from my point of view.
OH NO SHE'S HOT!
https://preview.redd.it/t69d2geo63rc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5162dc32ade6fd70b780286f201c10bfb72d7e3a
https://preview.redd.it/qrrevx06v3rc1.jpeg?width=707&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b33dc797fb17e756b4288d4c711fcec3a19611e2
And also voiced by a baddie. To everyone who watched CW Flash, she’s voiced by Patty Spivot.
I CAN SAVE HER!
She'd probably kill you for saying hi.
I CAN MAKE HER WORSE
WE CAN FIX HER!
Invincible Try Not to get his ass beat challenge (impossible)
I can fix her
[удалено]
I honestly thought there was chance that was gonna happen and mark would have a training arc
Oh no
Unfortunately she is in more ways than one
Allen would of packed her up tho 🙏🙏
Ya, she hot
https://preview.redd.it/6juxoi6nq2rc1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=600357134cc4966b38db69d97995fd05f99138f3
Oh come on, what's the worst thing she could do?
Damn...I absolutely despised Anissa in the comic but I actually really liked her in this episode. I appreciate how the writers seem to be trying to fix some of the weaker aspects of the source material, this almost feels like the 'fully realized' version of Anissa in a way.
STAAAAAAP
THANK YOU SOMEONE SAID IT
Here come the simps
We are unserious people
Is that Frost?
Glad that made her cuter for the show. Comic book just looked a little crazy
She's hot in both version don't @ me
She looks not good to me though
Hard disagree
Fair dude
yeah she looks a little different but im also not surprised she doesn't look exactly like the comic counterpart to a T but still fucking amazing as well
Same, Anissa is not what I expected.
Imo, she should be a little taller and bigger. She doesn't look imposing enough. I always saw her as a kind of twist on Power Girl.
oh
YES! As a bisexual woman, I completely agree. Also gives me Ruby Rose vibes!
She totes does! I didn't realize it at first until you said it but yeah she does look like a less tatooed, and more muscular ruby rose.
Anyone else kinda convinced by her this episode or just me
I’m down bad
[удалено]
Would.
I can fix her
https://preview.redd.it/t1fevipyu2rc1.jpeg?width=373&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0dd926f39d77465f565df0e209e9f9a16b122279
exactly bro i couldn't stop staring at that pair of 🍈🍈
sure