Trigun

>put in a position where 2 of his friends will die if he doesn't pull the trigger
>his body is forcibly held in position to pull the trigger
>the dude he's about to kill is warped psychopath too with incredibly overpowered capabilities
>STILL cries about it
I like Vash but he was being a bit of a faggot there.

Vash is an literal traumatized child, being autistic about his morals is the only thing that keeps him grounded, when in reality he's only doing it for Rem

>>155190079
Why wasn't it explained why Vash was born out of time?

>muh Rem
Also you'd think after existing for over 100 years and being wounded as he was he's not going to be very sane.

>>155191020
He's another living being regardless of whether or not that person is "evil" or not. I suspect future humans would view "psychopath" as a disease to be cured rather than put to death for.

>>155190079

Yes

That's what makes him an interesting character and what makes the narrative work

DA BEST GUNFIGHTER EVAR wouldn't be interesting without that restriction

File: Knives1.jpg (44KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x480px

What was his name, /a/

>>155193552
EMIYA

>>155190079
I got very drunk once and attacked one of my friends. I don't remember doing it but but I was literally suicidal for about 3 months afterwards due to the feelings of personal betrayal. It was like some very important part of my identity had been killed.

Personal morals are a big deal to those who have them.

>>155190079
>Muh rem, muh humanism, muh peace and love.

Vash wouldn't be such a tragic character without said autism.

>>155193552
Unlimited Blade Works.

>>155193552

Lots of Blades

>>155190079
Trigun remake by bones/madhouse collaborating WHEN? It's long overdue, even if the OG anime is a much better effort than 2003 FMA.

>>155193766
I want it and at the same time I fear what it will bring
>fujoshits spamming pictures
>Knives dindu nuffin
>animeonlys missing the point
On the production side
>new seiyuu cast

>>155193766
What is Badlands rumble?
Yea it was less then desired, but still its something after 10 years

>>155193979
>>155193766

Would it be a remake of the original anime or would we get Maximum? I hated how the insurance ladies were barely characters at all in the manga.

>>155194045
They also looked like men because Nightow can't draw people without prominent chins and gargantuan shoulders.

>>155193552
spoons

>>155194045
I was bothered by how two Plant girls from Earth never got to talk with Vash/Knives. I like the manga, but if a remake anime ever gets made, someone has to rewrite it into a more coherent story.

Is Nightow gay?

File: 1419781183432.png (541KB, 778x845px)

541KB, 778x845px

>>155193552

>>155194406
Nah. He's Christian

>>155194848
That's just making it more suspicious.

File: Wolfwood_Punisher.jpg (58KB, 449x287px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 449x287px

>>155190079
t. Wolfwood

>>155195286
No, Wolfwood actually admired Vash for it.

>>155195307
they had their share of disagreements

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP8JN9nmxmo

>>155195433
Of course they did. But that doesn't change that Wolfwood wasn't happy with who he was.

>>155193260
No one really cares if you're a psychopath. They care if you break the law. You don't get "put to death" for having it.

>>155195473
True but at the end of the day, Vash's way of thinking was never fully compatible with his.

>>155193552
>Name a kid knives
>Be surprised when he turns into a psycho.
Rem should have named him Ed or something.

>>155190079
I considered Vashes no killing rule to be the same kind of insanity as Legatos/kives' Kill em' all attitude. Vash is an insane person.

>>155197217
I agree Knives is a fucking retarded name but we can do a lot better than Ed. What about an uncommon name that people would still know how to spell like Nate?

>>155190079
Don't question character, question the author.

>>155198135
>I agree Knives is a fucking retarded name but we can do a lot better than Ed.
Tfw my name is Archangelo.

Anti-killing protags in combat situations are always pure cancer, literally the only reason to have them is to induce the worst kind of forced drama. If a MC goes around casually killing the badguys then everything is lighthearted and fun.

>>155198396
The difference with Trigun is that Vash is canonically wrong.
The narrative points it out time and time again, that he is in the wrong.
That makes Vash a special case.

>>155198337
Religious parents or hippy parents?

>>155198498
Dad thought that it sounded cool. Everyone calls me Angie, Angelo or Archie anyway.

>>155190079
He's strong enough to do it this way, so why shouldn't he if that's what he wants?
Not edgy enough for you?

>>155197217
I'd take Knives Millions over Valentinez Alkalinella Xifax Sicidabohertz Gumbigobilla Blue Stradivari Talentrent Pierre Andry Charton-Haymoss Ivanovici Baldeus George Doitzel Kaiser III

>>155199220
Killing an aggressor is tonally mute, killing innocents is somewhat edgy, not killing an aggressor is advanced tier maximum edge.

>>155199220
Not everyone he spares is guaranteed to learn.

>>155199234
Fuck.

>>155199359
>edge means shit I don't like
OK buddy.
>>155199379
And? He does what he wants, yeah some people probably die indirectly because of his actions but that's true of every single thing we ever do, so who cares.

>>155198457

Wrong is a bit of a blunt way to put it. The show paints his ideals as noble, and paints him as noble for continuing to stick to them even after they fail him.

It just also shows that they can't always be maintained in every situation. I'd say it's an important message of the show, in fact, that you have to stick to your ideals even after you stumble, and even when they're absolutely impossible and you have to betray them, you should go right back to trying to stick to them whenever you can.

>>155199359
>killing innocents is somewhat edgy
T. Psycho.

File: legato.jpg (54KB, 483x244px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 483x244px

what the fuck was his problem?

I'm no moralfag myself, if someone threatened my life or someone I cared about I'd kill them on the spot, but I do understand where he's coming from. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as an ideal which can be applied to everyone you meet, you have to realize that everyone must be treated individually. That's not hypocrisy, it's just logic. If someone treats you well, you treat them well. If someone tries to fuck you over, you respond accordingly. Makes sense to me but most people seem to have an absolute attitude of "everyone has to be saved" or "everyone has to die". You can't save everyone, but that doesn't mean you can't try to save the people you want to save.

>>155190079
>expecting any character in an anime, let alone the MC, to not be autistic about anything

>>155199744

That's good advice to live by and all, but what if you believe in something so strongly that you're willing to give up your life? Some things are greater than our individual lives, some things worth dying for.

File: Kant.jpg (76KB, 700x525px)

76KB, 700x525px

That Vash's friends were being threatened is morally irrelevant. Killing another person is always the wrong thing to do.
If they had died in that situation, Legato would bear the full moral responsibility for it.

>>155199507
>Badguy gets killed and MC is totally fine
Everything goes smoothly, the proceedings are simple and easygoing and you're back to goofing off in no time
>Badguy gets killed but the MC is broken up about it
The incident is over but the tone has taken a darker turn with a slight edge
>Badguy doesn't get killed but there is no robust legal system to imprison him
Tone doesn't take a hit but in the back of your mind you are wondering how many people the MC is responsible for killing by letting these guy go
>Badguy forces MC into an ultimatum where he has to kill him or else someone else will die
Whether MC kills the badguy or not the edge of the ensuing turbulence and drama in this situation will cut your head clean off, darker than any grimdark created by conventional methods

>>155199870
The only things that I believe in are people I care about. My ideals are "protect the people I personally care for, and defend them from anyone or anything that threatens their safety, no matter who or what is threatening them". If no one threatens them, I won't do anything to anyone. But if the entire world decides someone I care about needs to die, then the entire world is my enemy. Now that's all assuming that I lived in some world that required me to do that, but I don't, and there isn't actually anyone in my life. But if I did, hypothetically, that's what I would do.

>>155200229
When it comes to choosing between wrongs, it's right to choose the better wrong.

>>155200357

The only right thing is to choose neither.

>>155200384
That's the wrongest choice, as it leaves both hostages to die.

Right, wrong, whatever. If someone tries to kill someone else, they forfeit their right to not be attacked.

>>155200496

You act like they just die for no reason. They are murdered by an aggressor, which makes the aggressor the one committing the wrong, not you.

>>155200384
In the context of that one scene in particular he couldn't. And that was the whole point of Legato's set up. To make him be the direct cause of an enemies death or to make him the indirect cause of the death of 2 friends (or 1 friend since it was Livio he held hostage).

>>155200576
But you could have saved one.
You chose not to.
Every choice you make is your responsibility.

>>155200595

It's been year since I've seen the anime so I don't recall the scene, but if Legato set it up so that others would die then Legato is the one committing immoral actions.

>>155200662

I could have committed an immoral action, but chose not to.

It's fiction for god's sake, you snuff a thousand dune coons in the latest FPS and forget about it. All of that human life mumbo jumbo need not apply, MC should just take the easy way and snuff a baddie where he sees them for great justice.

>>155200699
You did commit an immoral action, by standing by and intentional inactivity as a person died that you could have saved.

>>155200665
That's the thing this post was referring too >>155191020, how Vash's reaction to a situation that couldn't have played out any differently was over the top.

>>155200735
I couldn't, because killing is something I can't do. Simple.

>>155200739

Still, the one who set it up is the one doing the immoral things, not the people trapped in the situation.

>>155200785
>Simple.
And the rich man says "donating is something I can't do". Sure, the beggar died, but it's not his fault. Because he couldn't have given him any bread for free.

You are just trying to wiggle out of responsibility, but it's just not that "simple".

I don't think he's crazy, I think we're the crazy ones for solving everything with bullets.

>>155200804
Correct. Choosing your best option out of a set of bad choices does not make you a bad person.
But choosing the worst option does.

>>155200785
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg16u_bzjPE

>>155199645
Got raped, now he is edgy.

All these pacifists answer this question: How do handle a short term problem of a fucking psychopaths killing people you love in a world where the justice system is a joke and rehabilitation hasn't been invented yet?

Keep in mind psychopaths breed more psychopaths by their actions (i.e people suffering traumatic experiences tend to become batshit crazy themselves.)

>>155200837
It's all subjective, but if you base your morality on "killing is something I shouldn't do" then it really becomes a non-issue. No other arguments matter then.

>>155200957
I'd just do what needs to be done, but I still know that it's wrong.

File: Batman-15[1].jpg (25KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 620x349px

I get that killing people isn't cool and ought to be avoided for more humane options but did he have to be so fucking autistic about it?

>>155200982
>if you base your morality on "killing is something I shouldn't do" then it really becomes a non-issue.
No, it doesn't.
It gives you an answer to the question as to what you should do, but it doesn't negate the issue.
You can choose to abstain from dirtying your own hands, but ignoring the fact that you are in fact making a choice is highly irresponsible and immoral.
That's the entire nature of Vash's suffering. Because he can see the consequences of his inaction and he knows that more people may die because he refuses to pull the trigger. But he just can't kill people.

>>155200926
Now put the 90% on the second track and see how their answers change.

>>155200957

Who am I to decide who gets to live and who gets to die? If I start killing people because I don't like their actions, how am I any better than them? Furthermore, where does it end? If I kill one man because I disagree with him then it makes no difference morally if I kill ALL the men who have a different opinion than me. The only thing to do is live a good and moral life and by my actions attempt to persuade others to do the same.

>>155201051
>No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does, but Vash's morality is more complex than that so he suffers. I was mostly talking about my own outlook.

>>155201110
You are turning a moral discussion into a "do you want to die?"
What are you trying to accomplish?

>>155201130
>Yes, it does,
You are still making a choice, and that is an important fact. Don't ignore it.

>>155201175
Not him but you are presenting a black and white moral argument and he is rejecting the framing and then you're circling back to "But it's black and white! Why can't you understand that?"

>>155200515
Now you can go back to Texas, kiddo.

>>155201161
When someone else's life is the currency you're going to use to make decisions, it's very easy to take the high road. Now let them have some skin in the game and you'll see them for what they are.

>>155201116
>Who am I to decide who gets to live and who gets to die?

You are a rational being that wants two things 1) Safety of himself and 2) Safety for his kin and social group. This is in built in everybody as a human being. Using this assumption this guy is in direct opposition of what you, as a human being, wants to do.

This isn't a question of "grey morality" in my opinion, this is a question of conflict resolution, and in the end these guys get it: >>155201021
>>155201051

>>155201231
Not quite.
I'm pointing out that a moral problem exists even if he has made his choice already.
I don't care which way he chooses. I am irritated at his refusal to acknowledge that there is even a problem.

File: hard life.jpg (144KB, 1412x1080px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1412x1080px

The problem in this show was mostly that all of Vash's enemies were horrible villains with literally zero redeeming qualities. They were all vicious murderers (at least the ending baddies after him).

Furthermore, the setting was supposed to be like an American western, and if you've seen any of those, you know a major theme is how little human lives are worth in the old west. People get brained for cheating at cards or just looking at someone wrong. Trying to inject some sort of moral jesus into this setting is hamfisted and really goes against what fans of westerns are looking for. Just look at the Dollars trilogy and how many people the man with no name killed. He didn't kill for fun, and he only killed bad guys, but there were tons of bad guys who needed a few extra holes in their bodies.

>>155200357
>choosing between wrongs,
My point is that not-killing Legato isn't a wrong.

>>155201261
>Now let them have some skin in the game and you'll see them for what they are.
It's still retarded putting personal drives into a question of morality.
I am ideologically opposed to the idea of vengeance or even legal sentences which I consider to be just constitutional vengeance.
But if you kill my family, do you think I'll have the self-control to not at least punch you in the face?

Humans are more than their urges. Stop turning this argument ad absurdum.

>>155201294
>You are a rational being that wants two things 1) Safety of himself and 2) Safety for his kin and social group

False assumption. I stated previously that there are things greater than my life and I stand by that.

>This is in built in everybody as a human being. Using this assumption this guy is in direct opposition of what you, as a human being, wants to do.

Appeal to nature fallacy. What is built in to me as a human being is not necessarily a morally good thing. Nature has no moral weight so morality cannot be judged on whether something is natural.

>>155201360
Unless it means killing people.

>>155201255
Please, don't associate me with those fags. They just say that shit because they can't wait for an excuse to kill people. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I just said, if you attack someone else without the excuse that you are defending another person, you willing give up your right to not be attacked.

>>155201416
>>False assumption. I stated previously that there are things greater than my life and I stand by that.
So you are not a rational being, okay discussion ended.

>Appeal to nature fallacy. What is built in to me as a human being is not necessarily a morally good thing. Nature has no moral weight so morality cannot be judged on whether something is natural.

Never appealed to nature, there is no part of my post that I implied "Nature = Good". I was just describing the general nature of the human species and arguing what they're rational response to conflict (which cannot be solved through non-violent means) would be.

I'll concede that you are not rational and there fore you are able to make outlier claims of pacifism.

>>155201440
If Vash hadn't killed Legato, the only one who would have killed people in that scene would have been Legato.

>>155201575
And if the workers on a nuclear power plant just go on vacation and leave the stupid plant to just go critical it won't be the workers that kill people.
It will be the power plant.

You are retarded.

Evil is situation based.
In todays society the greatest evil one can commit is take the life of a fellow human being, because that way you rob them of everything.

However, I firmly believe every human in existence is able to take a life if the situation calls for it, through own survival, rage or sorrow. Whatever the motive, if the situation turn so severe, everyone will succumb and attempt to end it.

We see it in several psychological expermients, Zimbardos prison experiment is one of the most famous, the other is Milgrams obedience experiment.
These experiments, show humans who themselves claim to be completly incapable of doing harm to a fellow human, soon abandons those ideals in the face of authority or group consensus.

You can claim not being able to take a life, but wait until you become a father and some fuckwit rapes your daughteru and kills her in cold blood, and before you know it you are in a room with him, you and a gun. Or any other equal perverted scene, then we will see.

>>155201556
>that one anon that always has the bad grace to sperg out when everybody is pretending to act like adults

>>155201556

The general response of humans is irrelevant. What is or is not moral is not based on what others would do, or what a human being would do in nature.

Resorting to insults is not a good way to get your point across, by the way.

>>155199234
lol

>>155201621
Leaving breathing human is different from a power plant.

>>155201669
The only difference is that you are killing somebody in one case. In both cases, you are choosing to kill innocent people through inaction. And that is what you need to accept.

>>155201625
I agree with you, and I'd definitely kill a guy who raped and killed my daughter, but I don't get the whole "dad hates all guys who fuck his daughter". If I had a daughter, I'd just hope that she was happy. If she chooses to fuck some dude, I'll just wish for grandchildren. I can't be assed to care about the sexual life of anyone besides my own wife/girlfriend/lover.

>>155201359
>and really goes against what fans of westerns are looking for
they could go look for another story then

>>155201294
>one is me and another is anon I'm arguing with
Pretty funny.

>>155201399
>Humans are more than their urges.
Is survival not an urge? You are willing to kill one to save many - the psychopathic 90% who are willing to sacrifice others.
Ultimately, what I take issue with is how you cheapen individual human life simply because the 'collective' demands it. Sign your life away if you want but if you enforce your choices onto other, expect resistance.

>>155201789
>not wanting to keep your cute daughter to yourself and use her for hand-holding
Look at that degenerate.

>>155192563
it was.
he's not human.
he's a "plant" and they have a much longer lifespan than humans.

>>155201651
>Resorting to insults is not a good way to get your point across, by the way.

I'm not resorting to insults. You literally quoted me saying

>You are a rational being that wants two things
>False assumption

That's literally, what just happened here.

>the general response of humans is irrelevant. What is or is not moral is not based on what others would do, or what a human being would do in nature.

It literally is, like "text book definition this is how everyone defines the terms" literally. I think our miscommunication comes from the fact that we're not defining our terms in the same way. So I'll rip out some definitions

continued

>>155193552
Naivazu

>>155201928

The false assumption was that I wanted those things, not that I was a rational being, anon.

>>155201879
Anon means that even though it is morally a better choice, he's just an animal and probably wouldn't be able to do what he thinks is right, but he still thinks that it's what we should do.

>>155201905
What's the point of having kids if you can't give them a better, freer life than your own was?

>>155201879
>You are willing to kill one to save many
Yes, and while I would hope to be part of the many, morally it would still be the right choice even if I were the minority and even if I were hoping that whoever was in the position to make the choice, opted to save me instead of the majority. Even in that position of course I would still know that it would be right for me to die to save the many.

>you cheapen individual human life
Am I?
I don't see how.

>if you enforce your choices onto other, expect resistance.
I consider sacrificing the few to be a better infliction on humanity than to watch the majority die. I'll probably meet with less resistance than you, too.

>>155201928
>>You are a rational being that wants two things
>>False assumption
Nice reading comprehension.

>>155201799
Are there a lot of works with a similar setting to Trigun? I can't really think of any though I haven't watched a ton of anime or read a ton of manga.

>>155201987
>freer
Why? I feel free enough already.
>better
What's better than cute incest?

>>155202067
There's no such thing as a limit to freedom. Incest in real life simply isn't my thing. Not that I would ever have kids even if I did meet someone I loved, there's no real reason to create new people when they don't exist.

File: 1474077386264.jpg (76KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 720x960px

>>155201970
My mistake then. Are you arguing about your morals or the morality of human beings in general?
If you're arguing about your own personal morality then like I said the discussion is ended. If you're arguing about morality in general you have to factor in the end game of the general human population. let me itemize my argument before it becomes overly long

1. Humans is to avoid pain, and maximize pleasure.
2. Human beings find pleasure in relationships and autonomy.
3. Belligerent agent that cannot be reasoned with threatens pleasure.
4. Running is not an option, discourse is not an option.

Question: What is the most logical thing to do?

In a hedonistic/natural framework, the moral thing to do is obvious.

>>155202266

>Humans is to avoid pain, and maximize pleasure.

Incorrect. This is the viewpoint of a hedonist, not any sort of natural state of man. Your premise is flawed from the start.

>>155199527
I'm guessing he means it's passé in an anime setting. It's still "nuttin' personell, kid" tier of edge.

>>155190079
This is why Kenshin was the superior anti-killing protagonist.

>>155201726
The workers would be the ones who put the other people in danger in the first place unlike Vash.
A more analogous situation would be if someone unconnected to the power plant recognized that it was a disaster waiting to happen.
Do you think it is immoral not to donate your money to people in need?
How responsible do you feel about people who starve to death due to poverty, compared to if you had stolen their food/money?

>>155202343
>This is the viewpoint of a hedonist, not any sort of natural state of man.

Incorrect scientific study shows that organisms move towards beneficial stimuli and move away from negative stimuli. I can cite this if you want.

File: Smug Legato.png (1MB, 1420x1080px)

1MB, 1420x1080px

He a good boy. He dindu do nuffin.

>>155202404

So you're saying that moving toward beneficial stimuli is a moral thing to do? I don't understand.

>>155202404
>>155202343
Same guy, addendum: human beings are natural creatures and follow the natural laws. What can be generalized from watching other organisms can be applied to human

>>155202396
>The workers would be the ones who put the other people in danger
No, that would be the one who built the power plant.
The workers are just there to keep it under control. Just like Vash is carrying weapons to keep himself and others safe.

>Do you think it is immoral not to donate your money to people in need?
I think it's a complicated subject, but I no longer have the energy to go deeper into it because I will go to bed in a few minutes.

>>155202373
What was the difference in how their approaches went (asides from how Kenshin actually succeeded in having zero kills)?

>>155202373
Kenshin's anime is awful though

File: 1484890141671.jpg (79KB, 583x1024px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 583x1024px

>>155202435
You can reduce my argument to that, yes. But in the complexity of human beings: Living a fulfilled life is moral, agents that willingly impede on that right is immoral. The moral thing to do would be to remove the impeding agent.

>>155202519
That's hedonism.

I've actually been tempted to do a Vash run in Fallout NV for a while now but it just seems so daunting.
I assume he'd use That Gun

>>155202493
He never valued his vow over his friends, and I would say he technically killed Shishio.

>>155202519

That's just pure hedonism. All you want is to be fulfilled and nothing else seems to have any moral weight to you. You seem unable to even understand that others might value something more highly than the own pleasure and even their own life.

>>155190079
>killing people isn't cool and ought to be avoided
fuckin pussy, if you were my kid id beat the shit out of ya

>>155202537
>>155202566
Hence I asked that anon if we're talking in general or for the specific people who are different. In general human action has been ordered by hedonism. We like friends, family and our safety because they are pleasurable and much of human history has been, in some way, related to maintaining friends, family and safety so I would argue that the hedonist moral structure is by far the most practice moral system.

>>155202795

Hedonism isn't a practical moral system, it's a self destructive moral system. There are things in this world far, far more pleasurable than anything your family and friends can provide. If the only thing you care about is pleasure then you will end up alone in your mom's basement jerking off to anime porn every day.

File: maslow-pyramid.jpg (26KB, 502x369px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 502x369px

>>155202885
>Hedonism isn't a practical moral system
It is. A hedonist won't jack off in his mom's basement because that would lead to displeasure (just go to r9k or jp). If you refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, every single thing there brings pleasure AND leads to a fulfilling life. Pic related.

>>155203067
>every single thing there brings pleasure

You fundamentally misunderstand what Maslows hierachy of needs actually represents and means to an individual.

Let's take one example from the lowest level of needs - food. It is not necessarily true that 'food' brings pleasure. You could subsist of a bland and disgusting diet but it would nonetheless keep you alive and allow you to work on the other 'needs'.

Achieving ones 'full potential' could be a destructive process. A person pushing themselves to the limits so wrecking themselves in the process. But they would still have in the process seen the highest that they could realise in doing do.

File: __meryl_stryfe_trigun__e4700932ca647f99309d63efa08ac5e1.jpg (84KB, 431x750px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 431x750px

>>155203067
Long story short, curving back into the thread:

In Trigun people are trying to live their normal lives, an agent is interrupting them. In my opinion removing that agent is not immoral. What would be immoral is allowing that agent to continue. If there were none lethal ways to go about it then it killing them is immoral. But the only way to stop them is to change their minds or imprison them, and I don't think that was possible for a majority of the bad guys. Imagine the insurance girls trying to ccapture knives. Just imagine.

>>155203067

If I'm a hedonist, why should I spend all day working and self improving when I can just jerk off for the simple pleasure of it? What do I care for your "self actualization" bullshit when and orgasm is just a few minutes away? What do I care for prestige or feelings of accomplishment when I can gain all the satisfaction I need with a quick jerk?

That hierarchy is utterly unrelated to hedonism. Follow that chart if you want to live a good life, I seek only a pleasurable life.

>>155203203
>Let's take one example from the lowest level of needs - food. It is not necessarily true that 'food' brings pleasure. You could subsist of a bland and disgusting diet but it would nonetheless keep you alive and allow you to work on the other 'needs'.

You are incorrect. Our tongues are wired to enjoy things that are good for us and find things that are bad for us disgusting. Sugars/carbohydrates, proteins, minerals etc. Evolution made those things pleasurable for us because they are necessary to live.

Sure the body can be tricked, but the fact remains that the same things you need to survive line up with the same things you find pleasurable.

I'll just call it a day here.

>>155203474

That chart doesn't line up with most of the shit I find pleasurable. Friends? Prestige? Accomplishments? I don't want any of that garbage. Where is jerking off on this chart? Where is watching anime and playing video games? Where is sleeping until need every day?

Your chart is horse shit.

>>155203474
>You are incorrect. Our tongues are wired to enjoy things that are good for us and find things that are bad for us disgusting. Sugars/carbohydrates, proteins, minerals etc. Evolution made those things pleasurable for us because they are necessary to live.
>
>Sure the body can be tricked, but the fact remains that the same things you need to survive line up with the same things you find pleasurable.
Are you really so ignorant when it comes to cooking? The healthiest diets are actually fairly bland and contain way too many veggies and too little salt, meat and oil for most people to enjoy it. You can work around it with spices and good cooking skills, but the most basic healthy diet can be pretty disgusting if you don't know what you are doing.

>>155190079
"YOU KILLED ALL THE PEOPLE!"

He sounded pissed off when he said this and I enjoyed that.

>>155190079
Did Mel Gibson rip off of Trigun?

>>155204041
If you're talking about The Passion of the Christ then yes.

>>155202551
He did come pretty close that one time early in the series for Kaoru's sake.

Trigun is a coming of age story about a man that is about one century old.

>>155203621
this conversation has gone places.

Does Vash die in Maximum?
I've never gotten around to reading it. But I know the part about his hair changing color when he uses his angel arm as it depletes his life force is omitted from the anime.

>>155206287
no.

>>155206350
All right. Thanks.
I'll get around to reading it myself soon. I've been wanting to for years now.

>>155206487
Good luck. Hopefully you'll be soon begging for the reboot that never will be like the rest of us.

>>155191020
Not really. His entire worldview was shattered in that moment.

>>155207731
the new movie was a pleasant surprise

>>155194128
If only. Then someone could walk by when he was a kid and say
>"Hey spork!"

>>155191020
This. Atleast Emiya Shirou could have killed there.

>>155208632
New? It's been out since 2010.

>>155205272
Good way to put it.

>>155206287
Vash doesn't die, but I'm pretty sure Knives did. Some people think he just went elsewhere, but that doesn't go well with the message of the manga.

>>155193552
Sporks

>>155200957
Answer: Become the system you desire, and bind the psychopaths. This means you take full responsibility for their lives though.

>>155212611
Knives lived. He dropped off Vash at an inhabited oasis, and went into hiding because all of earth and the returning space fleet wanted his head.

>>155214030
There's nothing left for him to do at this point other than hanging out with Vash, who's wanted anyway.

>>155210969
I still remember the sticky.

>>155208581
This. He was forced to kill the "spider" to save the "butterfly." Even after it happened, the way he moved forward was by accepting that he "made a mistake" by killing him. That's what makes the climax so satisfying -- Knives is a spider too, but Vash realizes he can save him without sacrificing humankind. And in a similar way, the messages is that even if humanity is destructive and unlearning that eventually things can be made right.

>>155190079
If it's the anime: that's the result of teaching someone "killing is wrong cuz I its wrong". They lack critical thinking and it becomes a dogma.

>>155201359
Trigun isn't particularly a western for fans of westerns. You're right about the villains though. It's mostly just mercenaries or bandits with the occasional psychopath thrown in for good measure. Only a handful ever get anything close to development with Livio being the only one that ever amounts to anything.

>>155201359
If you watch Unforgiven you'll see Clint put a slightly different spin on that.
He didn't kill so many people because they'd got it coming. He did it because he was young and drunk.

>>155190079
In the end he implyed that he would make his own morals from now on, if I understood it correctly

>>155193552
>"Hey, what do you think we should name these bio-engineered nuclear super plant children?"
>"Hmm.. How about 'Vash'?"
>"Oh yeah, that seems like a pretty cool name..."
>"AND 'KNIVES'!"
>"What?? No, what do you want him to grow up to be some psycopathic murdere-"
>"HE WILL BE NAMED 'KNIVES' AND THAT'S FINAL"

>>155208581
That scenarios was too impossibly specific to completely negate his way of thinking in the end.