| microwave234 wrote: | ||||||
|
Nickelodeon (ended 2008)
| microwave234 wrote: | ||||||
|
I don't see how you could possibly bring up Azula's mental state here. This isn't a moral sums-game, it's about what happens during the Agni Kai. And when Azula fired at a spectator, she violated the rules and forfeited victory in the Agni Kai. That's not to say it precluded her from success after that point, but in the end, she was subdued anyways, so I'm not really sure how you could in any way purport the events of the battle to endorse the claim that Azula 'beat' Zuko. Do you see my point?
As far as the whole 'honor doesn't matter' thing, it does and I'll explain why. If any of you are familiar with the precepts of war, there are certain things that do and do not occur. War sanctions exist regarding certain things (e.g., use of toxis gasses) that no one violates, even the Nazis of WWII. In almost all conflicts, violent and non violent, basic standards for conduct exist in order to determine a 'victor'. Agreed? An Agni Kai is one of those conflicts, much like dueling, in which the contestants are honor bound to adhere to the rules. Pragmatism may rule the world in general, but not necessarily in specific instances of combat. I won't debate that Azula's shot wasn't a shrewd and effective move. But it annulled any chance of her victory. See?
An example: Have any of you seen Gladiator? If the emperor kills Russel Crowe after inflicting a mortal wound before the fight, does he win? Absolutely not. He kills Crowe, but he doesn't beat him. Please try and make sense of this before you try to refute my point once more.
| rgc19 wrote: |
| An example: Have any of you seen Gladiator? If the emperor kills Russel Crowe after inflicting a mortal wound before the fight, does he win? Absolutely not. He kills Crowe, but he doesn't beat him. Please try and make sense of this before you try to refute my point once more. |
Actually, as a keen student of Roman History, the Emperor would have won the fight, and with full honor. The Roman sense of "honor" was... twisted, to say the least.
| Axrendale wrote: | ||
Actually, as a keen student of Roman History, the Emperor would have won the fight, and with full honor. The Roman sense of "honor" was... twisted, to say the least. |
OK, point taken, but I'm not talking about their 'twisted' version of honor and victory, I'm talking about how we (the audience of ATLA) perceive victory in this fight.
| rgc19 wrote: | ||||
OK, point taken, but I'm not talking about their 'twisted' version of honor and victory, I'm talking about how we (the audience of ATLA) perceive victory in this fight. |
It may have more relevance than you think. We have no idea whatsoever what the rules of an Agni Kai, or how the Fire Nation "honor" system works, and what it applies to, and what it's effects are. How we feel doesn't alter anything.
| Axrendale wrote: | ||||||
It may have more relevance than you think. We have no idea whatsoever what the rules of an Agni Kai, or how the Fire Nation "honor" system works, and what it applies to, and what it's effects are. How we feel doesn't alter anything. |
Not how we feel, but our rational evaluation of the events that we witness (even if they're fictional). I say rational because a lot of people on here are huge Azula fans and will try to justify and glorify everything she does (that's why I tried to use a different analogy). As far as 'not knowing the rules of the Agni Kai', I will agree that no concrete rules were declared or explained, but I think we all got the sense that this was a duel steeped in the tradition of the order of the Samurai or something like that (at least that's how I read it).
Why am I even arguing about this? Why should I pick fights with a bunch of fans who are probably unwilling to relinquish their opinion despite my protestations? I'll tell you why. I think that our concept of 'fairness' and 'victory' are instrumental concepts to our roles as parts of society, and I think that the debated fictional situation holds implications for our reality. In short, I think that the way you respond to and consider this situation is important from a moral standpoint.
(not necessarily directed towards Axrendale)
*ROFLs with laughter*
My friend - you will be hard pressed indeed to find anyone, even an Azula fan, who in any ways thinks that what she does, in the finale and out of it, is in any way "morally justifiable".
We're just people infatuated with Azula's awsomeness - most of us don't give two hoots about the honor side of the argument - all we care about is Azula being acknowledged as having won the fight - dishonorably, honorably - who cares? That's the case with me anyway, and as such, I dedicate most of my arguments on this subject to the technicality of rules.
As an aside, I personally consider honor and morality to be two completly seperate things, and the latter is often a decidedly bent case. Pragmatism also plays a large part, but you have heard my opinion on that before.
| rgc19 wrote: |
| I don't see how you could possibly bring up Azula's mental state here. This isn't a moral sums-game, it's about what happens during the Agni Kai. And when Azula fired at a spectator, she violated the rules and forfeited victory in the Agni Kai. That's not to say it precluded her from success after that point, but in the end, she was subdued anyways, so I'm not really sure how you could in any way purport the events of the battle to endorse the claim that Azula 'beat' Zuko. Do you see my point? As far as the whole 'honor doesn't matter' thing, it does and I'll explain why. If any of you are familiar with the precepts of war, there are certain things that do and do not occur. War sanctions exist regarding certain things (e.g., use of toxis gasses) that no one violates, even the Nazis of WWII. In almost all conflicts, violent and non violent, basic standards for conduct exist in order to determine a 'victor'. Agreed? An Agni Kai is one of those conflicts, much like dueling, in which the contestants are honor bound to adhere to the rules. Pragmatism may rule the world in general, but not necessarily in specific instances of combat. I won't debate that Azula's shot wasn't a shrewd and effective move. But it annulled any chance of her victory. See? An example: Have any of you seen Gladiator? If the emperor kills Russel Crowe after inflicting a mortal wound before the fight, does he win? Absolutely not. He kills Crowe, but he doesn't beat him. Please try and make sense of this before you try to refute my point once more. |
| Axrendale wrote: |
| *ROFLs with laughter* My friend - you will be hard pressed indeed to find anyone, even an Azula fan, who in any ways thinks that what she does, in the finale and out of it, is in any way "morally justifiable". We're just people infatuated with Azula's awsomeness - most of us don't give two hoots about the honor side of the argument - all we care about is Azula being acknowledged as having won the fight - dishonorably, honorably - who cares? That's the case with me anyway, and as such, I dedicate most of my arguments on this subject to the technicality of rules. As an aside, I personally consider honor and morality to be two completly seperate things, and the latter is often a decidedly bent case. Pragmatism also plays a large part, but you have heard my opinion on that before. |
Not trying to rekindle that debate we had on the SC thread. I don't care what you think of Azula's tactics. I acknowledged myself that they were 'shrewd and cunning', or something like that. I'm not saying that you can't find SUCCESS by such means. I'm saying you can't find VICTORY. I'm not here to preach about morality. Does anyone else understand the difference between success and victory and the distinctions I've tried to make?
| rgc19 wrote: | ||
Not trying to rekindle that debate we had on the SC thread. I don't care what you think of Azula's tactics. I acknowledged myself that they were 'shrewd and cunning', or something like that. I'm not saying that you can't find SUCCESS by such means. I'm saying you can't find VICTORY. I'm not here to preach about morality. Does anyone else understand the difference between success and victory and the distinctions I've tried to make? |
We understand you. We simply blatantly disagree. You see honor and morals as being critical to this "victory" of yours. In the end however, it all depends on what your "conditions of victory" really are. Which leads back to my pragmatism argument...
| ThisCrazyGuy wrote: |
| I respect other people's opinions, I really do, but Azula DID actually win the battle... As has been mentioned MANY TIMES before, if the Lightning had actually physically hit Katara, then it would be a different story... |
| Axrendale wrote: | ||||
We understand you. We simply blatantly disagree. You see honor and morals as being critical to this "victory" of yours. In the end however, it all depends on what your "conditions of victory" really are. Which leads back to my pragmatism argument... |
As far as the whole 'it didn't hit Katara' idea, that's irrelevant to me. Azula could have fired and missed wide, but there's still intent. By firing on a bystander, she gains an unfair advantage. I don't care if you think this action is 'cool' or 'awesome', it violates the specific conditions for victory. THus, victory is denied.
| rgc19 wrote: | ||||||
As far as the whole 'it didn't hit Katara' idea, that's irrelevant to me. Azula could have fired and missed wide, but there's still intent. By firing on a bystander, she gains an unfair advantage. I don't care if you think this action is 'cool' or 'awesome', it violates the specific conditions for victory. THus, victory is denied. |
Not really. Rules and regulations accomplished, it all comes down to what your conditions of victory are. And that leads back to my pragmatism argument.
Do we really have to keep going over and over on this argument? I wouldn't mind it if anyone had anything new to contribute, but we've gotten to the point where both sides are just repeating things that they've said over and over again since the start.
| Axrendale wrote: | ||||||||
Not really. Rules and regulations accomplished, it all comes down to what your conditions of victory are. And that leads back to my pragmatism argument. Do we really have to keep going over and over on this argument? I wouldn't mind it if anyone had anything new to contribute, but we've gotten to the point where both sides are just repeating things that they've said over and over again since the start. |
Yeah I'd agree to a moratorium on this subject. I didn't bring it back up again to argue with you really, but with some other users. The only reason I kept repeating myself was because others refused to acknowledge the debate (not you). In the end I personally see a difference between victory and success, while others may not. That's really just what I was getting at. This wasn't the same debate we had on the SC forum.
No we didn't get anywhere in terms of changing opinions, but I wouldn't call this argument a waste. Hopefully it provoked thought (or rabid fanboyism) and discourse. So yeah I'll let this die.
| Jackson5050 wrote: |
| Azula is indubitably the best character on the show...end of discussion. |
QFT,
anyways I wonder if she ever came back from el mental institution will she be her old evil nasty self or changed?
