one thing i never got about the story
seita and setskue were two orphan children, didnt the government had some sort of a solution for orphans? especially ones that had parents who were in the army at the time?
shareI'm sure the solution was for them to stay with other relatives. Unfortunately, they were essentially kicked out.
Let's be bad guys.
Unfortunately, they chose to leave.
shareYes. They left after terrible treatment.
Let's be bad guys.
Yes, they left.
Beggars can't be choosers. As war refugees, accept your place in society.
It's almost as if the little kids didn't fully understand the scope of their actions.
Hmm. If only there were some adults in their lives who did understand and help them cope properly instead of treating them like parasites and not like the frightened, displaced children they were. Yeah, I guess that's too much to ask of a fellow human being. To treat their family with some sympathy.
Let's be bad guys.
They may not understand the specific consequences, but they understood it was "wrong" specially within the context of Japanese society.
Does it matter whether they thought it was slightly wrong or very wrong? They knew full well they were violating "proper" behaviour.
And the punishment is death.
No. They were scared children thrust into someone's home who didn't seem to care for them.
And the punishment is death.
No. Not even in Japanese society in the 40's.
Let's be bad guys. share
Indeed, but they nonetheless chose to do the "wrong" thing. Hence, their punishment.
Death is the punishment for poor decisions during wartime in any society at any time in history.
Yes. If only they had adults to show them how to behave like decent people.
Death is a consequence. Not a punishment implemented by some abstract society.
Let's be bad guys.
They did.
That is what my sentence said. I did not say the punishment came from society, obviously society did not murdered the children.
They didn't. The aunt treated them like parasites. That's traumatizing for a child to hear from a relative.
So then who inflicted the punishment? A punishment is something that is handed out, so to speak. So who gave the children their death punishment?
Let's be bad guys.
Presumably their parents.
Life. Reality. The Universe. Whichever term you prefer. Just as when you do hiking in the forest alone, sometimes the punishment is death.
Life. Reality. The Universe. Whichever term you prefer.
None of the above since things don't believe in the concept of punishment.
Let's be bad guys. share
The choice of words does not matter. The concept is that you will suffer the consequences of your actions, whatever you chose to deem this mechanism.
shareIt does matter. A punishment is something that is handed down for a transgression.
A consequence is not inherently a punishment.
Let's be bad guys.
So you agree wholeheartedly with my position, but merely dislike the specific choice of words?
Come on, have some balls. If you disagree with my position, fight over the merits of it rather than hiding behind wordplay.
I've already thoroughly refuted the "merits" of your position. It's ridiculous to expect scared, displaced children to be as rational as adults or that they were punished on some karmic scale. Which I've pointed out repeatedly.
Come on, have some basic comprehension skills. If you're going to make a point, at least use the correct terms.
Let's be bad guys.
My terms are entirely acceptable. Support your position that it is not.
I do not expect children to be as rational as adults. I simply point out that if they behave poorly, they should expect the consequences of this, up to and including death.
Not acceptable; incorrect. Unless you can show what sentient, sapient being handed down their punishment.
they should expect the consequences of this, up to and including death.
And as I pointed out, that is ridiculous.
Also, I'm pretty sure you don't know what word play is if you think that's what this is.
Let's be bad guys. share
And that is your position, one which advocates forgiveness and generous amounts of second chances. I disagree. There is simply no feasible way you can prove your opinion is factually right, because it is precisely that, an opinion.
I disagree. In the English language, we use words in a metaphorical sense all the time. I consider this entirely acceptable. I mean, what is your end game here? You intend to repeatedly state that words must be literally used, and I repeatedly state that they need not be, and whoever wins is the one who repeats it the most? If so, let me get started first. Have prepared a standard template reply below.
Template Summary: PreachCaleb got owned arguing on the merits of our disagreement, and is now resorting to arguing over semantics instead. His position is that the word "punishment" should be defined strictly as being administrated by a person and that metaphorical usage of it as being the negative consequences of your own actions is unacceptable.
There is simply no feasible way you can prove your opinion is factually right,
True, but I did prove yours was ridiculous.
whoever wins is the one who repeats it the most?
Clearly, that's your position since you've been repeating the children were punished ad nauseam. A stance no one agrees with.
Believing children "punished" with death for being scared and making a wrong decision being just is trolling at best.
In the English language, we use words in a metaphorical sense all the time.
Let's be honest, that's not what you were going for.
PreachCaleb got owned
 Adorable.
Let's be bad guys. share
I did prove yours was ridiculous ... A stance no one agrees withSo... unpopular opinions are inherently wrong then? What proof do you have that my opinion is wrong?
Template Summary: PreachCaleb got owned arguing on the merits of our disagreement, and is now resorting to arguing over semantics instead. His position is that the word "punishment" should be defined strictly as being administrated by a person and that metaphorical usage of it as being the negative consequences of your own actions is unacceptable. share
So... unpopular opinions are inherently wrong then?
And where did I say that? Please, only read the words I use. Not the ones you've made up.
Let's be bad guys. share
I did prove yours was ridiculous ... A stance no one agrees withHow then can a opinion be factually wrong then? Unless by ridiculous, you merely mean unpopular.
Template Summary: PreachCaleb got owned arguing on the merits of our disagreement, and is now resorting to arguing over semantics instead. His position is that the word "punishment" should be defined strictly as being administrated by a person and that metaphorical usage of it as being the negative consequences of your own actions is unacceptable. share
No, by ridiculous, I mean its actual meaning:
ri·dic·u·lous
rəˈdikyələs/
adjective
deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd.
See what I mean about you needing to know what words mean? I'll make it easier if that's still confusing for you:
Ridiculous =/= "factually wrong."
Again, focus on what I actually write, and not the random words that pop up in your head.
PS: Opinions are factually wrong all the time. Unless you think the people who believe the earth is only 5000 years old aren't factually wrong?
Let's be bad guys.
And how did you prove that then? What is your proof? Go on.
Template Summary: PreachCaleb got owned arguing on the merits of our disagreement, and is now resorting to arguing over semantics instead. His position is that the word "punishment" should be defined strictly as being administrated by a person and that metaphorical usage of it as being the negative consequences of your own actions is unacceptable.
I'm not going to copy and paste all my posts. Don't be lazy. Just go back and read them. Carefully this time. Without making up words in your head that aren't there.
Let's be bad guys.
Right, right. No proof then. That is what I thought.
Template Summary: PreachCaleb got owned arguing on the merits of our disagreement, and is now resorting to arguing over semantics instead. His position is that the word "punishment" should be defined strictly as being administrated by a person and that metaphorical usage of it as being the negative consequences of your own actions is unacceptable.
Never read anything I actually wrote, I see. That is what I thought.
Let's be bad guys.
True, but I did prove [emphasis mine] yours [opinion] was ridiculous.Ah, a gutless coward then.
Template Summary: PreachCaleb got owned arguing on the merits of our disagreement, and is now resorting to arguing over semantics instead. His position is that the word "punishment" should be defined strictly as being administrated by a person and that metaphorical usage of it as being the negative consequences of your own actions is unacceptable. share
Hey dumbass it was obvious the other poster was using hyperbole.
It's impossible, but I will do it--The Walk.
No, he just can't read carefully.
Let's be bad guys.
And you remain a gutless coward, who cannot rebut me, no?
sharelol. No balls to reply to my actual post? Instead doing a sneak reply to PreachCaleb's post to avoid having to face me. Mine, mine, so many gutless cowards around.
shareGirls! Girls! You're both pretty! OK?
shareDo have some balls, instead of hiding behind wordplay. If you were confident of your position, you wouldn't have had to argue over semantics.
You know full well that our disagreements are not factual, but rather differing opinions. You will never be able to prove that death is too harsh, because how harsh to be is inherently not factual.
Seita clearly did not understand that he had done anything wrong, no matter how much you insist that he should have.
You are simply refusing to accept the story as it is told. Saying that starvation was a suitable punishment for making a childish misjudgment is cruel.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
Cruel, but just.
And in any case, accurate. Which is more important in my view.
OK, I see. You're just a troll trying to show your rear end.
jj
"I can't BELIEEEEEVE you're such a geese!"
No valid rebuttal. Who is the troll?
shareYou seriously have a lack of self-awareness and empathy. Just sit back for a moment and consider the possiblity that you are wrong.
shareObviously, you and the others are clearly in the wrong.
My position is that there are real mean bastards in the world, and that people are legally entitled to be mean bastards (if not otherwise engaged in illegal acts). If you take the opposing position, then clearly you are in the wrong. Kindness is not a legal obligation.
I can smell your fedora from here.
shareAhhh... another gutless moral coward without the ability to back up his position.
Run along, then, little boy. Run along.
You really are one morally bankrupt individual, aren't you?
shareNot from this specific thread, no.
If you are capable of reading, you will understand that the main point of contention is whether people are entitled to not extend generous aid. They very clearly are so entitled (legally).
Therefore, if you choose to do dangerous acts, don't expect others to save your ass. They likely will not. And you will die (within the wartime context of this film).