bonesiii

It was also around this time that characters truly began to suffer--gone were the brave and diverse Matoran of Mata-Nui, no, upon transforming into Toa it was as though they'd lost their old personalities completely--and still feel this. The Toa Mahri to me seem flat and uninteresting. Now I will admit that I have not read any of the books, but I going back to my first point, I don't think someone should have to read all the books simply to feel like there's a real character, rather than a generic hero.

I've seen a few other people make this personality accusation, albeit before it was including the books. Frankly I don't think that's what it is -- I think it's that we didn't get that much characterization before, and so we often filled in the gaps with our own ideas, but now that the story is actually delving into those characters more, it isn't lining up with what we had imagined. Understandable, but also unavoidable. One good example would be Kongu's humor, which Screenguy and I once debated -- he saw Kongu as totally serious, with no sense of humor until 2006. But I was able to show that there were several hints that he did have a sense of humor, we just never saw it until now.

This refers to two things, one, the construction of the sets, while having a definate shakeup in 2007, has been growing more and more generic. Two piece body, plus head, plus limbs.

Well, yes -- this is on purpose, because most fans prefer a quick build so they can get on to the roleplaying. Remember Bionicle tried the more complex builds with sets like the Rahi in 2001 and beyond, and they sold poorly. Technic fans largely weren't into this story-driven line, but roleplayers were, and they want sets designed to play well, more than be a super-interesting build.

For that to happen, you have to make the builds somewhat formulaic.

The pieces seem to be growing ever larger ESPECIALLY in larger sets--now I am not at all advocating for a return to the "Technic" style of the 2001 Rahi, nor the Bahrag. I'm asking for a between-ground.

Nothing wrong with asking for that. I have agreed before that a minimal amount of such things, like a gear on one out of six Toa for example, might be a good experiment. Just remember such a thing would be a risk that likely -would- result in lower sales. And we've had in-between grounds before anyways; gears in sets that otherwise were action figury, like the Metru. Yet the gears still seem to have harmed the sales, and definately were still major complaints.

Toy/Story

 

I believe that BIONICLE has a fascinating story, a story in many ways WEIGHED DOWN by the toys. While some of the toys are simply amazing, the fact that we have to constantly 'mutate' or otherwise change previously known Toa or 'create' them from somewhere is frustrating.

That would be one of those downsides I was talking about. No way around it, so personally I don't see the point in worrying about it. It's just something you get used to, accept, because if not for the toys, the story never would have existed in any form so that fact is something we can be grateful towards.

Now I understand that LEGO is a play company, but I feel that the STORY should be at the forefront--Throwbots and Roboriders were good toys, but were utterly defeated by a lack of story.

If the story neglects its purpose, though, to sell the sets, Bionicle risks going away, and then there is no story. It's not just a play company, it's a toy company. The purpose of the story, as I see it, is to provide inspiration for play, yes, but play with the toys. That's why, I think, roleplayers ended up as the main fanbase. Not that surprising really.

Obviously that is never going to produce Lord of the Rings. But as long as you keep that in mind and enjoy Bionicle for what it is -- a story designed for toys -- you can enjoy it for what that means -- a story designed for fun.

At least I can -- perhaps I shouldn't imply I'm speaking for all here. I dunno. But it works for me.

And now I feel that in many ways BIONICLE is fallling into the same trap, wherein Greg is forced to adapt sets into the story, rather than deciding

"This is where we feel the story should go, could you create _____?" Which I feel would be a far superior structure.

With what goal in mind? Remember, again, the purpose has always been to sell the sets. Set design is really best done by those whose talents and experience is in that category. You point out a true downside -- the set designers aren't necessarily that great at story. But realize your suggestion would simply create a different problem, and a more serious one -- story writers aren't experts at toy design.

So I don't see that this qualifies as a "trap" -- because now that the set designers have been using that expertise and research to improve the sets towards what most fans want, sales are going up.

Again, that is going to affect the story to a degree. On the other hand, Greg has often said that the story team does give ideas to the set designers. Toa Lhikan is a case in point. And really, IMT the story team is doing an excellent job at taking what the set designers give them and making a fascinating, rocking fun story out of it.

Technology:

 

BIONICLE, in my eyes always walked a fine line. Mysterious and fantastical, yet tempered with the obvious technology of the world (I mean, they're bio-mechanical)...yet with the advent of Metru Nui we began to move away from that and technology began to rise to the forefront, gone were the trials of seeking for the mystical Kanohi masks--here you could simply create them as you pleased

That's not an accurate description, IMO. In the story, never have I seen anyone "simply creat[ing masks] as [they] pleased". Vakama was the only one that could do that, and most of the time he couldn't. The one mask we saw him making, the Vahi, was a source of frustration constantly, and even that was perhaps more a curse than a blessing.

Obviously Metru Nui was more tech than nature. I'm a little tired of that subject, though. In 2004 we were told that this would be the end of Bionicle, the sky is falling, etc. but Bionicle's sales went up, and now polls are saying 2005 was the worst year ever, with 2004 barely registering, and that was the year all that technology got smashed to bits and the archives were set loose, and Metru Nui became a jungle of Rahi and webs and spiders. So I don't see the argument holding any water anymore.

unfortunately the Piraka and Inika felt that they needed technologically superior weapons in order to combat one another--even in 2007 we see this trait, Toa with high-tech gattling guns?

Boxor.

IMT, I don't agree with being tiptoey about technology in a story about biomechanical beings. If it makes logical sense for the characters to try to get better technology, I want to see them do it. Rather than avoid that for arbitrary reasons that are forced artificially on the story. IMT, IMT, though...

It seems that in many ways BIONICLE has decided to stop walking that line and has sided unconditionally with Technology.

Okay, what about the Kanohi? You brought those up, but the theories about how Kanohi worked before we knew were always about technology. And yet the truth turned out to be basically the "magical" physics of a material, a fantasy material that enables these powers, rather than technology using forcefields, etc. to do it as had previously been theorized.

But again, it's all preference here. I like science fantasy best, so technology amongst fantasy physics appeals to me a lot, and it doesn't have to feel exactly the way 2001 did.

Also, don't forget a lot of this sense of "magic" in 2001 was, again, a perception, not reality. I saw a lot of it manifesting in rumors when I joined in 2003, that surprised me because none of what these popular BZP "rumor theories" said was how I had seen 2001. For example, the idea that the Kanohi were mystical objects of spirituality, or that the Toa were mystical spirits rather than heroes with superpowers, really the whole mysticism idea. There was a mystical feel to 2001 marketing, that I enjoyed, but these material ideas of that literally being what these things were about... they weren't actually grounded in anything Bionicle had done.

They were fan created concepts. And they weren't what most fans out there were apparently thinking, though that often wasn't realized or stated online at the time. There was this feeling that BZP represented the average fan, when in reality it represented the vocal minority. At least that was the sense I got in 2003 -- it's been a relatively new thing that most our active members recognize how unusual we are in the Bionicle fanbase.

While the interesting characters distracted me from it, I now find that what I had hoped wasn't true was indeed--gone are the simple and almost tribal mask shapes, masks that look ancient and powerful, now there are complicated and elaborate designs that obviously have a more technological and futuristic bend to them.

I.e. "coolified."

For example, compare the Faxon of Hahli Mahri to the KauKau of Gali Olda, the difference is astonishing.

Indeed -- to my tastes the Kaukau is mediocre, but the Faxon. The Faxon. Ahhh, now there's a cool design! The merely practical aspects of the Kaukau were my main complaints, and that has been primarly what has been improved (again, IMT).

Now while there is much more that I could nitpick, that's not the point of this entry. I still quite enjoy BIONICLE in many ways and am thankful it continues, and am thankful for all the hard work that LEGO puts into making it, these are just my thoughts on its current state.

In essence, most of these differences are purposeful changes designed to get closer to what most fans are seen as wanting. Now, not saying it's always necessarily what they actually want -- LEGO can certainly be wrong. But this is expected, and it's a good thing, IMO, because LEGO is proving they really do listen to the fans. And, from a logician's perspective, to logic, not just assuming that because they see one post online saying something, it means that's what they should do, etc.

In reverse order:

You guys lost me before you even said anything

 

Edit: How about your next entry be about the orca THE Chief Gremlin raised? Have an interview with it

I'm not sure who I'm going to interview, but I'm definately going to try to get somebody soon. With Binky's departure, ironically Survurlode was dealt a big blow just before that has led to a much better server. But the past few weeks Survurlode's started to make a comeback. I was trying to get ahold of Gollaga, but he's an elusive guy. I wanted to ask him what he knows about the One Refresh, and also about his favorite brand of cheese puffs. If I can't get him, I might be able to find the Orca. Of course, I don't speak whale, so... yeah.

Argh! I. Hate. Typos.

 

... And blame Survurlode and his THE Chief Gremlin.

 

 

The shrunken heads example was based upon certain Papuan and Amazonian tribes who use(d) the shrinking-head philosophy in their daily lives. Surely you would know about such tribes, if you listened to your teachers.

 

In the examples you listed, you have to pay attention to conflict, since that's where any question of good and evil come in. With the shrunken head thing (wherever that is, man ), what do those with the least shrunken heads think? Do they see practical reasons this idea is seized upon by the society? Or is it arbitrary, selfish on the part of those with the most shrunken heads? (Dude, this example is just weird. ) I'm not even talking consciously, per se -- they might consciously accept the unfortunate situation but deep down they feel that it is wrong. IMO

It is a way of life, a way that has gone on for centuries. It has been held as a way to define the richness and prosperity of the families as long as it has gone on, and those with the least number are seen as weaker beings and they view it as simple twists of fate. So, nothing other than a better way can remove the pagan ways that they hold onto in their system.

Well, it's hard to tell if that is simply what they say, or even consciously think, and deep down they still resent it. Obviously it would be much different than for you and I, though, so that's more of a guess than anything. Telepathy would be the only way to know for sure, probably.

As for the German schooling example, that was entirely based upon current times and events. I do indeed speak German (as I am German. Well, half German), and Germany currently banned homeschooling in favor of more orthodox public methods, blaming the parents of brainwashing their kidns when the actualy performed academically advanced.

Ich sehe. I guess I'm not up on my current German events enough... That's too bad. Homeschooling is proven to be effective (though it might certainly vary depending on the parent) -- I'm a case in point. I literally would not be a logician if I hadn't been homeschooled for a few years. They don't teach logic in these schools, you know; the Prof in Narnia is right on.

Several families have been torn apart by the selfless acts of the parents to home educate their kids. Obviously, the act would be a good one according to the parents and kids, seeing as academic exellence is a priority, but according to the goverment, the family is evil. Now, although this may be considered a POV, I see it as the philosophy adopted by the creators of the Constitution of the said country. This is not a question of brainwashing, but rather internal belifes. It can be argued as a POV, albeit individual, but that can also be seen as a philosophy if the parents belive that HSing is the fundamental way for their kids to learn in a quality way.

Yep, I agree with all of that. BTW, did you mean "beliefs"?

IMO, what defines good and evil depends on the judge, the circumstance and the philosophies in both. Laws cannot make a difference in good versus evil, as Thomas Jefferson once said:

Well, I agree wholeheartedly that the circumstances matter, but I don't see the judge as that relevant -- basically because I'm talking about the "actual truth" sort of thing. If someone chooses an action for selfish reasons, it might be that no "judge" can recognize it or know it, but that doesn't change the action.

Differences in how some people or cultures "judge" can change the circumstances, though. Like with the shrunken heads example, that obviously changes how you act, and it can change what you might consider selfish. I assume that society would pressure you to feel guilty for resenting the elitism of those with the shrunken heads. Under those circumstances, it would be possible to hold grudges for selfish reasons, even though the root cause isn't the fault of that person.

But it's the circumstances that define that. If someone stands up against that discrimination for selfless reasons; to stand up for justice (which applies to far more than just that someone), a "judge" in that culture would appeal to the tradition as a basis to say "you are committing evil here". But that judge would quite simply be wrong.

As far as philosophy, I think we covered that already well enough.

Law is not justice, justice should be law.

 

So, just a simple law cannot mean anything to it. Circumstance, yes. Defying the speed limit to ram another car in the fender obviously is evil and against the law, but it was the intent that caused the person to defy the limit i the first place. But defying the limit to get to the hospotal in an unmarked car? No.

Yep, I agree. Again, that's basically what it comes down to; the circumstance.

Not sure I agree with the idea that the law "cannot mean anything to it" though. The laws do change the circumstance, although they ideally shouldn't.

I agree with the quote from Thomas of Jeffer though. Law isn't justice -- what is it though? Well, it's just what the elites of one society happen to decide they want everybody to act. Even in a "democracatic republic" like America (not to get too political here though ) It's abstract, and often not rooted in real practicality or logic, heh.

So, in the end, I must confess that you (as usual) have the superior logic. That is what you do. BTW, I intend on making a blog entry defining the differences in our ways someday, and what causes us to be a leeetle varied in our POVs (). Along with other essays in the beggining process.

 

~EW~

I look forward to it.

On the current state of BIONICLE

 

I'm not happy.

 

Strong words to start off with, I know, but it's true. I'm simply not happy with BIONICLE at this time.

I don't look at it that way, Janus -- one of the things I bring up in complaint topics all the time is the difference between each of our individual tastes and the tastes of the majority; i.e. between what each of us wishes LEGO could do, and what LEGO objectively should do to please the majority.

It's not surprising, unusual, or IMO anything to ashamed of that you aren't happy with the current direction. The old cliche that you can't please everybody, basically -- it's true. Many of the things LEGO's moved towards now are opposites of what a lot of BZPers prefer. BR's article a while back talked about this quite well.

The question is, to me, though: Is whether one fan is happy or not indicative of the current state of Bionicle itself? No, I don't think so -- it's more about the "relationship" between Bionicle and that one fan. Bionicle itself is not for any one individual. If it was, ardent fans of scifi and technology like me wouldn't be happy if Bionicle appealed to a fan of pure fantasy, and same idea with a balance, etc.

So there's not that much to say in agreement/disagreement with this entry, because it's clearly what you prefer. You are entitled to prefer that. But.

So all I can really do is give my take on these issues, rather than your opinion of them per se.

Comics -- I had the same problems with not getting the comics, BTW, but that's beside the point (unless that wasn't just us...). I frankly think this "the story is all in the books" thing is more of an illusion simply because 1) the books are there now whereas they weren't before, 2) the books used to be just resumming-up of what was in the comics, but around the end of 2004-2005 they started to take off as their own works of art, and 3) Different artists, different content, different characters, different sets and everybody's own likes and dislikes of those things affects our perception of the comic quality itself.

In other words, I have seen the comics as "shallow" and all about fighting all along. That's what comics do, and just pick up the first three and look at what they're about. There's virtually no character depth; the Toa Mata were just archetypes (as many have commented for years) being put into situations where they had to fight. The main differences were in style and presentation. By their nature, comics must be shallow, because they are so short, and also by their nature, they must be very visual, which requires battles and that sort of thing.

But your perception is your perception, and nothing I can say is going to change that. My point is more that I see a trend in who agrees with you -- it is usually among people who do prefer the feel and style of the older Bionicle. You say it's not about those things. I'm not so sure -- maybe not consciously, but among the ardent fans of the newer stuff that I see posting out there on BZP, I see them getting everything from the newer comics that you and I got from the older ones. (And frankly I have gotten a lot more from the newer stuff than many of the members saying things like what you said.) I think it is more perception than reality.

And so to come to the crux of the issue, I find it wonderful that the BIONICLE books exist, it's a great way to give the story some depth--however now I find that the BOOKS are what contain most of the story, and the comics are really there to showcase all the nice toys you can buy, and show how 'cool' everyone is.

Hate to break it to you, J, but the comics have always been for that purpose. And if you pay attention to the posts of those who preferred the original comics, you see them commenting on how it made the toys look better, and made them look cool. There was a recent post by Kohran, to cite an example, in the poll about the comics artists that captured that feeling perfectly. The comics, storyline, books, everything have always been marketing for toys.

Sounds harsh, but there are advantages to that. For one, it makes the writers work with what they have, rather than bring in random new characters on a whim that come off as Deus ex Machina and we know ahead of time that those are the pieces on the chessboard. Of course, there are also disadvantages, most of which you covered.

A sensitive spot for many, I know. It is not that I dislike the characters, no, I quite enjoy many of them. It's more the fact that in my eyes in many ways they've ceased being just that, characters, rather they seem in many ways to be character-types.

I don't see it as a sensitive spot at all -- I see it as another perception thing. Frankly the most posts I've seen about characters being archetypes have been comments on the Toa Mata/Nuva. It's the same rarer group that is seeing them as unique characters. It also probably has a lot to do with what other story franchises we're each used to and thus what we see as cliche and what we don't. It was with the newer characters that I see an increase in characterization.

Yes, that is mostly through the books, but prior to the books we didn't get it at all in the comics; we got archetypes. You had the temper tantrum incarnate, the cold ice Toa, the calm but powerful water toa, the quiet guy who disliked bright sunlight, etc. They were basically molded after their element in terms of personality, which is by definition highly archetypal.

the Toa while powerful had different opinions on how power should be used, they fought, they lost, they argued and they seemed to live. Around 2005 I began to notice this changing, with the advent of the books much of the life seemed to be leaving from the characters--even in said books (I've read quite a few of them, thank you very much) they simply weren't diverse, weren't interesting.

In 2001 I saw it that way, yes. In 2002 and 2003, though, it was just the same plot being recycled. "Should we work together? Should we not?" I didn't get a sense of "living" out of that. I got a sense of, frankly, boredom. A sense that the story team didn't have any more ideas on where characters can go, who they can be, what their conflicts can be, etc. Thankfully that changed in 2004 and beyond...

But that wasn't why I quoted this passage -- what I just want to point out is the word "interesting", which is subjective. Again, it's a perception based on your preferences. To someone else, like me, they have been much more interesting characters. The theme of the darkness inside in 2005 for example was frankly the deepest Bionicle had ever had, far deeper than 2001-2003 "Should we work together?"

That's my perception -- and it isn't necessarily reality either. My point is more that it has more to do with our interests than anything Bionicle is actually doing.

I noticed this more than ever in 2006. Describe the defining characteristics of The Piraka, Vezon, and The Inika. Now describe the characteristics of the Toa Nuva--notice a difference?

The Piraka are about the true nature of evil, basically what I was talking about in my blog entry about good and evil recently -- they really don't give a flying ice bat about anybody but themselves, and in the end that came back to bite them. They enjoy hurting others, they do whatever it takes for #1. Thus, no matter how much they may pretend to be on each others' side, no matter how much they act like a team, in the end they will each backstab the other whenever it's most advantageous. Even the act of betrayal itself can be a false teamwork maneuver, as with Hakann and Thok when they stole Brutaka's power.

Running out of time here -- but when I compare that to the Toa Nuva... well frankly "Should we work together or not" is a little shallow. It was fine for its time, don't get me wrong, and sure, it's a good lesson to draw as well. But there came a point when they were splitting up yet again despite just proving that teamwork is a good idea, when I had to wonder, do these guys have brains in their heads? I had to roll my eyes a lot during those years.

And out of time for now. More later.

Nah man, Greg talks about that sorta thing all the time. Just don't tell us anything about 'em.

TL, don't tempt him.

Ooh! Can you make an entry for me, too? I care not about the context, but at least something about the logic behind Rudolph's glowing nose?

That doesn't need an entry, man. It's simple. Glowing noses, when red, enable a deer to blend in amongst the christmas trees that grow in the North Pole, since their fruit resembles a glowing red ornament.

So the Bony Bloggy is not dead... yet?

 

 

Okay, so, your entry is quite interesting. But I think good and evil is more defined as a philosophy.

That can be argued, because "philosophy" is one of those light and fluffy words that can mean just about whatever. But I think of it more as behavior; what you do, related to your mindset and reasons for doing it. If you claim to have the loftiest philosophy of nonviolence in the world but lash out in sheer selfish anger during a temper tantrum and kill somebody, it's your deed that matters.

Of course, you could claim temporary insanity, XD.

Philosophy,n, def. 9. A system of fundamental and motivational principarl: basis for action and belief 10. A general viewpoint: THEORY 10. The overall values by which one lives

 

Note "general" viewpoint. It does not mean just one's personal preference in the definition betwix good and evil at all, but rather a general standing on the matter.

Yes, all of these definately can apply. But notice that they do refer to a point of view. Remember in situations like with the quote Omi provided, it is a "mass point of view" that's at work, so it doesn't have to be personal only. I think it's important to point out that no philosophy can change the fact that some actions are motivated by selfish reasons and others by selfless reasons. They can dress those up and disguise them, and certainly many do, but not change that basic fact.

Now, although we can agree that eil and good are indeed opposites,

On that at least I'm pretty sure everybody agrees, yes.

the term "general" cannot be applied unless all parties are represented, evin the evildoesrs.

Right -- it turns right and wrong into a popularity contest, which is very dangerous. Hitler is the case in point. In essence, it relies on an Ad Populum logical fallacy. Most people might, for example, believe that bleeding a diseased patient is good medical help, when in fact it is counterproductive. Or with Hitler most people might support his hatred towards Jews and other "undesirables" at the time (and this was often argued by surviving Nazi war criminals).

Most criminals have no choice on where to go, so they enter crime, aka evil.

There's a big difference between "crime" and "evil", though. Crime is what goes against the laws that the country in question happens to have on the books. In my town, for example, there's a rather odd law against riding bikes on sidewalks, even on busy streets. So people who have been obeying that law have been hit by cars, naturally. That's a great example of a time when the law is the problem, not the "criminal". (The law dates before cars, but legislators have been lazy and haven't gotten rid of it.) There's nothing selfish about taking common sense precautions to keep yourself (and those in the cars!) safe by riding on the sidewalk in dangerous areas (slowly enough to not hit pedestrians, of course).

So it's an important distinction that for "crime" to be evil, there must be a better choice. The robber that holds up a convenience store could have, in the vast majority of cases, got a job and earned money the honest way. That act of crime is done for selfish reasons; laziness and carelessness towards others leading to a desire to "get rich quick" at others' expense. Thus that action IS evil.

If, on the otherhand, there truly was no choice, like if the robber's family was taken hostage by someone else and threatened with execution unless he robbed this place, then it's less clear. Going with this hypothetical all the way, if there really was no way out for the robber, then robbing in that instance was not evil. Another example would be soldiers stealing a car in street battle for battle purposes.

Same sort of idea with heroes; if a hero kills an enemy when there was a better way to incapacitate them without risking their escape, getting information from them, etc. then killing them is an "evil" choice, in essence. This is why the Toa "do not kill", yet they did kill the Morbuzahk King Root.

For some, stealing the rich lady's purseful of money at gunpoint is a way of life forced upon them. They know it is evil, but they have no choice. (NOTE: Tis is not neuteral as they do know what their actions are and are aware ofany penalties therein.)

Again, if they truly have no choice, then it is not IMO evil.

Thus, the definition is there, but ingorance makes them oblivious to what they do because they know no other way.

 

But as for the definitions of good and evil:

 

Good, adj, 1. Having desirable or positive qualities. Serving the desirable end: SUITABLE.

 

Take this in. In some places in the world, the person with the most shrunken heads gets the bride; the the bigger kahuna who runs a crime gang gets the cut; the one with the more kills gets the prize. These are not "points of view," these are necessities forced upon them that evonled into a class and system of sociology.

Well, it can be argued that that is the definition of "point of view". Just not an individual POV, a "mass POV". A societal POV. Which is usually what people mean when they say g&e are POVs.

14a. Of moral exellence: UPRIGHT. b-c. Kind; loyal. 15b. socially correct: PROPER.

 

These can all be translated in a way to reveal the philosophies buried within.

 

 

The definition of evil will of course be the opposite of that of good, but still, what is a definition if the two are just a way of life, and therefor a philosophy?

Well, I think you're missing a key part of the equation. In the examples you listed, you have to pay attention to conflict, since that's where any question of good and evil come in. With the shrunken head thing (wherever that is, man ), what do those with the least shrunken heads think? Do they see practical reasons this idea is seized upon by the society? Or is it arbitrary, selfish on the part of those with the most shrunken heads? (Dude, this example is just weird. ) I'm not even talking consciously, per se -- they might consciously accept the unfortunate situation but deep down they feel that it is wrong. IMO.

With the crime gang, the conflict is obvious. Think of that as like TSO. There's conflict boiling everywhere among the DH, hatred towards him, etc. which you don't see among the Toa (not to those extremes, though). They are used to it, but that doesn't mean it isn't harming them. It is.

The more kills means there are victims involved -- again, the selfish aspect is an ironclad fact amongst all this that isn't changed by majority opinion or philosophy.

Now, I can see that my comment may actually agree with you on several issues, but I think I got something here...

 

 

~EW~

I don't see that it changes anything. But it is how a lot of people approach the issue, yes. Really, though, it seems like what you're picking up on most is individual POV versus mass POV. Both are still POVs, so neither can override the absolute definitions of good and evil that I mentioned.

Though at the same time laws can prove to be uneeded barriers. An example of this would be the law that homeschooling is illegal in some European states, like Germany. If someone like myself were to move there, I would be forced to go to school, even though I know that that will flounder my grades subtansialy. Naturally, there would be the choice, but if I deceded to do homeschooling there, then would that mean that I had made the worse choice?

Now there's a good question. Well, it's still true in that case that you would have a choice (assuming you spoke German ) of attending a school of relative quality, so I don't think the "choiceless" aspect can be applied. There is a concept of "letting the fault lie with others". The safe choice is to obey that law.

But that one is debatable -- if you were dealing with a school of indoctrination, say if this took place during Nazi Germany, and you were a Jew... Well, firstly you'd want to get out of there if you could... but you get the idea. It would basically depend on the situation.

I may become a victim of geovermental jurisdictiion, but did I truly commit a crime? From the moral viewpoint, a viewpoint based off the mass of homeschoolers, I did not. From the side of the geverment, which set up the laws, I was a criminal. But in a philosophical view, which governs morality and introspect, I did the best choice possible.

Okay, but remember the selfish/selfless thing. What would the motivations be for choosing this? It would depend on a lot of different factors, and that would, to me, indicate whether it was wrong or right. BTW, technically, yes, you would commit a crime merely because you broke a law. But that doesn't necessarily mean it would be wrong. And let's not forget parents are as much a factor here as the child.

If it was merely the child's decision (just pretend here ), heshe would be putting his parents in danger, at least of legal action. That would be arguably selfish. But if it was the parent's decision to take the risk to better prepare their child for life, that would be arguably selfLESS, because they willingly take on the risk for the benefit of someone else. See the diff?

If, hypothetically, you could homeschool yourself totally, then it's harder to judge. If you harm nobody, literally, by risking it, then arguably you aren't being selfish by doing what is logically best for your education, which you can then use later in life to help others. On the other hand, if by doing so you cause problems for people just trying to do their jobs in the government, are you then being selfish?

You picked an excellent example of a gray area.

Therefore, the law is what is flawd sometimes, not the philosophy. 'Course, that was only in response to your comment and not my defense of theory.

 

Lol, now you have two posts to talk about, both by me.

 

~EW~

There's no doubt that law would be flawed, yes. But the idea of letting the fault lie with the lawmakers can come into play here. I think it depends on how harm would be judged to be done to you by being forced to go to a normal school. And that could vary quite widely.

I wanna get back to you later on your whole post, EW, but real quick before I can't see anymore and must stumble up to bed -- One of the things I've said often on the subject of good and evil is that for something to be truly evil, there IS an element of choice involved. This usually comes up about Toa not killing. Basically, if there TRULY is "no choice" for the criminal, then what he does can't really be considered evil. But in reality, the vast majority of criminals do have other options and they DO have a choice, although admittedly not the easier choice.

Basically what I mean is sometimes the law is what's the problem, but usually there IS a choice involved. But to do this subject justice I'll have to spend more time on it tommorrow.

Okay, makes sense. Certainly his quote is a lot more eloquent for the situation than my blog entry.

My point is more the people that say good and evil are "only" POVs; that is what I'm mainly disagreeing with. Because really it both is and isn't. Just depends.

Who, Omi? Or me? Because everything I said clearly shows why the character Omi quoted is incorrect. Unless, of course, the sides in FF actually were using the first definition of "good" and "evil" that I mentioned. So not sure what you meant -- could you elaborate?

In FFVIII, basically there is Esthar, Galbadia, and SeeD.

 

Around 20 years previous to the game's events, Esthar was being ruled by an evil sorceress named Adel and she wanted to expand her power and also seek out successors (young females she can pass her powers too). Galbadia in a sense revolted against them and protected the young girls. A man named Laguna ousted Adel from power and he became the new leader of Esthar and hid the country from existence (therefore becoming good).

 

Now fast forward to the game. Galbadia is now the bad guys, and being lead by President Deling and also under the influence of Sorceress Edea (who was being possessed by Ultimecia from the future). When Edea gained control of herself, Galbadia went back to being normal. SeeD was "placed" in opposition, even though they can help anyone. They are somewhat a neutral group doing the right thing.

 

So even though the evil leaders wanted personal gain, the sides they controlled were just doing what she wanted and believing in what they were told. Esthar was originally evil, but became good. Galbadia was good, but became evil, and back to good. SeeD actually had their own civil dispute during one part of the game, but are good up to the end.

 

-Omi

Okay - I'm still a leeeetle confused (), but it sounds mostly sensible to me. But when you say "good", do you mean from the POV of the game? Or do you mean the selflessness thing I was talking about? And I'm not sure how the guy that gave the quote fits in. Regardless, it sounds a lot like real history -- countries at different times behaving in radically different ways, different allegiances, and certainly different levels of morals. A little to complex to just go "they good guys", heh.

Still, if for the moment one side is being more selfless, then objectively (for the moment ) that side is the most good.

What about people who are tricked into doing stuff beleiving they are doing it for good?

Oh, yes, those make for great stories. Simple cause and effect in the most basic sense -- the real fault would lie with the one who did the tricking. But it might depend on whether the trickee chose to ignore facts for selfish reasons that would have enabled himher to see the truth. Wisdom would play a role -- are they thinking... well... logically? And if the trickee learns the truth... it can be devestating and hard to really be sure that heshe didn't have some small fault in it too. Only the perfect trickster could pull that off without some mistakes being made on the trickee's part.

One example of that would be Vakama being tasked with making the Vahi for Makuta (thinking it was Dume). In that case it was clearly Makuta on whom the fault would lie, if Vakama had succeeded and handed Makuta a Vahi, and Makuta then carried out his plan of speeding time up on the pods and awakening a civilization of brainwashed slaves. Nothing "Dume" had done had given it away that it was Makuta, as far as one maskmaker could tell.

Good questions. But none that need a new blog entry yet.

Da answer:

If they are controlled by Evil beings are they trully evil? If they are controlled by Good beings are they trully good? They are neither as they are unthinkingly doing what they are told.

Well, that depends -- are they neutral tools being controlled, like a weapon, or are they programmed for evil, programmed for good? With the Bohrok, they're programmed, but what they were programmed for was only good at the right time.

Lotsa selfish people do things "unthinkingly". Many even because that's what they're told.

Not saying that answers the question. It's debatable, and probably varies from instance to instance. With people it's almost impossible to tell -- do they obey orders because they are forced to, or because they like being forced to? With robots... the question to me is whether they are more like a tool, or more like a self-animated worker that carries out programming. Big difference.

I think with the Bohrok, they're more good than neutral, precisely because they have no choice. But in a different way, not like people, and certainly Makuta used them for evil just like a tool, so I wouldn't say "truly good", no.

Obviously there are gray areas, whether it's people or robots.

And he's right, too.

 

 

~D

Who, Omi? Or me? Because everything I said clearly shows why the character Omi quoted is incorrect. Unless, of course, the sides in FF actually were using the first definition of "good" and "evil" that I mentioned. So not sure what you meant -- could you elaborate?

I've actually been thinking about this exact thing, recently, and I thought of that exact quote that Omi posted.

Yeah, it's been in Omi's sig before. Or something similar or the like...

Lol, I never knew you'd post a whole entry on account of me.

 

Then again, considering how fast you type, perhaps this wasn't as much work for you as one might think. j/k

 

This answers the question quite nicely, IMO.

 

Thanks very much. I am certain that I am not the only one who will find this informative.

 

 

(I still feel special though. )

Took about two hours. Plus another half hour to make the obligatory banner.

And glad I could be of service.

I envy you Grav Bones made a whole Blog Entry for you Anyway I agree that it is a yes and no answer butI have to comment on the Bohrok here. They are neither Good nor Evil they are Neutral and this is where you disapointed me Bones you forgot about that catagory and still mentioned the Bohrok. The Bohrok are Mechanical being who are programmed to be controled by Krana. The Krana are organic things that aer controlled by two "beings" called Bahrag. The Bahrag are only taking orders from the Great Spirit (or was it GBs or OoMN?). Anyway in this chain the Bohrak are at the bottom as they are mechanical and cannot think for themselves. Neither can the Krana or the Bahrag can think for themselves as they are taking orders. If they are controlled by Evil beings are they trully evil? If they are controlled by Good beings are they trully good? They are neither as they are unthinkingly doing what they are told.

Fair enough about the Bohrok being neutral. I just meant, they have to do with awakening Mata Nui, which is good. But they don't know that, yeah.

And as to whether they would be truly evil, lemme get back to you on it. I gotta post and go watch Survivor now.

Well that's all I have to say anyway Bones do you think you could next time do a entry for me?

Gimme a fascinating question, and maybe.

I knew you'd say that, Omi.

If you thank someone for a banner in the sig, then don't you have more than the banner in the sig?

Notes for a new M&M, coming soon hopefully:

Takanuva is super powerful.

Bionicle ages with the fans.

Cordak -- who it would be shot at.

Magnetism = metal (maybe include).

--must review previous myths that weren't included last time

Officially, the Toa could borrow the Turaga's collected masks via the Suva, but they didn't collect their own, as the web team seemed to think. This case is a toss-up. Nuju wears a Matatu, not a Huna, so Kopaka could reasonably have switched. But the mask is shown gold in the scene, which is incorrect.

It was actually white in the MNOG episode, not gold, and he also borrows a Mahiki, also white, which may mean this episode of the MNOG is more probable than you say. Nevertheless, you have very strong points on this. I've never had a problem with Bionicle's violence before, and, maybe this is because I'm an older fan, I enjoy the darker kind of story. It adds a new flavor of mystery and atmosphere to the storyline.

 

An excellent blog entry, bonesiii. You beat down misconceptions with the blunt end of a logic-stick once again.

 

*finally struggles free of the fearsome grasp of the evil professors*

As I wanted to say a week ago, thanks. I'm not sure how I got that mixed up (apparently) with the Pohatu incident in the updates -- but at least this proves that I chose my motto well: "Forgetting things since... ummm...." Also, this came after Lewa gets his Gold Kanohi, so perhaps I was simply assuming. But really, I had watched it literally minutes before typing that, so I must blink in wonder at my lack of observation. (Of course, Lewa also "got" it after this point too, XD.)

Yarr. *Glances at evil clock* Dang time flies; I didn't even get to fix it yet. Wanted to say more, will edit later, fix later... yada...

*Applauds*

I haven't dug this up for a while -- but the occasion warrants it, so why not:

And wow, I didn't realize I was in Star Wars.

Could you provide an example, Munkiman? Utopia told me the word this may have changed, and I've added a note about that (as well as fixed some typos). Do they fire them at the Barraki themselves ever? And they blow up in the Barraki's faces?

By the way -- didn't see a good way to work this into the entry -- I think I should clear up my own view of explosions being used against biomehcanical creatures. Personally I see nothing wrong with it. In my own fanfics, I have explosions being one of the main tools used to fight infected Rahi. An explosion of the proper magnitude can, in these stories, simply knock off the infected mask, and not injure the Rahi enough that it can't heal on its own. In the RPG, Nabmaia's Bomb Shop and other places sell bombs designed for this, and there are three variants of a weapon that you can (and would want to ) fire against Rahi this way. (Well, Nabmaia's bomb shop is in the Le-Koro level that's not yet released, but consider that a little spoiler for my RPG fans. ) These are biomechanical beings; their armor can handle the explosive force, IMO, so that it only weakens them or knocks the wind out of them (or knocks masks off), rather than killing them. However, there is an incident in my second epic where an explosion kills a being, much to Nabmaia's regret. Not glorified, obviously.

So my view is, basically, that explosions are like any other kind of violence. As long as unjust use of it is not glorified, they're fine.

Even gore is no different, but I think only a very few people have the taste where seeing gore doesn't harm you, in the target audience, so I think this should always stay out of Bionicle. And still there are huge numbers of adults who dislike gore (like me). It is still a matter of taste though, as long as not glorified.

Good point, GB! How did I forget the biggest death of them all? XD

BTW, Ojhilom says the Madu Cabolo in the GBA game actually could be fired at Rahi. We're not sure if it ever had to be though. I know the stone blockade I mentioned had to be blasted with that weapon. (Anybody know?)

I'm assuming that I forgot that, because I never used it on Rahi, since there was a very limited amount of ammo on that weapon. I mean, I mean, because that would be mean!

But, this year, the age focused on teenagers... (Which was a bad idea)

No, that's a common misconception. One that Greg and I end up debunking over and over, lol. Bionicle focuses on the same age group it always has.

I'm curious though, on what do you base it? I've only seen two basises, so far, neither of which logically lead to that conclusion:

1) The the upper age range of the sets went up. That may be true, but the lower age range is what the focus of any toy is always on. Think about it -- if you made a toy aged from five years old to fifty years old, and the toy focused only on what is appropriate for fifty year olds, like with adult material and all, do you really think the five year olds could be in the age range? No, of course they wouldn't be. The lower age range is the focus. The upper is just there to sort of say "Hey, you older guys are allowed in too."

2) The darkness increase itself. This one is circular reasoning. Since it went up specifically to focus on the younger fan's tastes, as I mentioned, it makes no sense to use it as evidence that LEGO's targeting the older groups. It's true that older fans often want more violence/darkness. However, the darkness increase was always stated to be towards what the younger fans wanted. So this isn't relevant.

You win.

 

On the subject of death, take a look at the MNOG -- Jala states he lost many warriors at the Tren Krom Break and the North March, with Kopeke fearing the latter ones may've been led into the ice by Makuta. So while death was not shown there, it was certainly indicated.

 

What entry's next?

 

-Ikk

Yes, however, those warriors were later freed from the ice (in my opinion, but it's a well-backed up opinion). This is a major thing I've spent a lot of time researching. A lot of people assume that those people died, but in the actual game, it's made clear that Jaller actually gives you a mission to find out what happened to them. You do -- Kopeke, who you find frozen alive in ice, tells you that the North March guards were frozen in ice as well. He says if they are not rescued early enough, they will die.

So your point stands.

But Jaller also makes clear that he cannot leave Ta-Koro to help because so many of his guards are gone. After you find that out, however, Jaller shows up, with many guards, at the end. My theory has always been that those are the North March guards. Since Kopeke was freed, it's reasonable to assume he went out and rescued them, then they returned to Ta-Koro.

Also of note is that Greg confirmed no Matoran died, but this would get back to the whole MNOG-officiality thing. You do raise a good point, I just want to make it clear I do not believe the MNOG designers intended to say "these guys died."

Long, looooooooong overdue.

Yeah, man, I thought you forgot!

This was very good -- that is the best idea I've ever gotten, even from many of your posts, of what pleases you most in sets. Well done.

But pics would help, yes.

No, I still have more to do, heh.

What you might be thinking is what people mistake their own opinions for fact. But that is a logical fallacy on the part of the individual; it is not supported at all by what I'm saying. In fact, I'm pointing out that people make that mistake. When they think that their opinion cannot be wrong they are confusing opinion with fact. (Logic opinions, that is.)

The way I see it is that you are still redefining the word "opinion".

Hello, guardianoftime. I'm glad to see someone out there (and hi, McSpork!) is still reading my mostly-dead blog, XD.

I have not redefined anything, at least not by the standard English definitions that I pointed out. If I was "redefining", that would mean I would be making up my own definition, and using it, either for myself, or to hope that others would use it too. I do believe that that is acceptable as long as we make it clear it's only meant as our own definition; this is what my Ruthless Elegance entry was about.

But this entry is simply a report on what the standard definitions and the important meanings of them are, logically speaking. So no, it's not a redefinition.

An opinion isn't just being wrong.

Nobody said all opinions were wrong, lol. That would make no sense--just as little sense as saying all opinions are right.

To say an opinion can be wrong makes it clear that it isn't necessarily wrong. You have to put it past the logic tests to find out if it is or is not, as well as do research into the evidence for/against, etc.

The best example that I can think of is thinking that the sky is orange which is what you might believe, even though you are wrong.

I'm with you so far. That would be an opinion (whether it was right or wrong). It fits the definition of opinion--again, let's put the dictionary.com definitions here, both of which it fits with:

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

that's not an opinion mistaken for a fact, that's just believing that it is fact and being wrong.

Here you lost me. If the opinion is not "mistaken", then how can it be wrong? What you said there amounts to saying "It's not mistaken for fact, it's mistaken for fact." Because "believing it is fact and being wrong" is synonymous with being "mistaken". The dictionary.com definitions of "mistaken":

–noun 1. an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.

2. a misunderstanding or misconception.

–verb (used with object) 3. to regard or identify wrongly as something or someone else: I mistook him for the mayor.

4. to understand, interpret, or evaluate wrongly; misunderstand; misinterpret.

–verb (used without object) 5. to be in error.

All of the above, except mistaking a person, action, or calculation, apply to your example. So it is most definately an opinion mistaken as fact.

the first definition from dictionary.com sounds more like a hypothesis, or maybe a theory.

Correct; if you're using the scientific definitions of those words. Hopefully it would be a theory (as in, that has some evidence but isn't totally proven), but many people hold opinions that are merely hypotheses as well, yes.

the third looks more like someones VIEW of someone else based on what they know about them.

You mean this?

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.

Yes, we aren't talking about that definition here; it's irrelevant to this discussion. We're not dealing with "formal expressions" in Bionicle debates, heh.

sometimes disagreeing with a logic opinion can only be done with another.

Another what? Logic opinion? Isn't that obvious? Person? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you explain?

The way I see it, to go by believing that opinions can be wrong

Not to take you out of context; I'll continue your quote in a second, but let's not forget that it isn't a matter of "to go by", as if we can just say "hey, I feel like believing opinions can be wrong". It's that logic proves that opinions definately can be wrong, so we must realize that they indeed can.

may possibly lead to believing that all opinions can be wrong

What do you mean by "can"? There's a huge difference between what you said above; which amounts to this:

1) "Believing that opinions are wrong"

and what you said here:

2) "Believeing that opinions can be wrong"

Which one do you mean? If you mean the former, it completely changes your meaning, from if you mean the latter. You used the former earlier, but now are using the latter. Which is it?

Nobody is arguing for the former here. Nobody's saying all opinions are wrong.

I am saying the latter; that opinions can be wrong. Anything that is not inherently proven (such as the statement that "There are absolutely absolutes", which proves itself true) is certainly up for debate. It's healthy for us all to realize that all our own opinions might be wrong; and so we should logically test even our own, and that way we are more likely to find the actual truth. It would not, of course, be healthy to say "eh, all opinions can be wrong, so yours must be." That would be a logical fallacy, lol. The point is, you shouldn't just assume things.

no matter what type, and disagree with anything, maybe. that's a guess, it could be wrong, really.

Again, I'm not sure what you meant by "can", and why would it be a bad thing if we all realized that any opinion can be wrong, but isn't necessarily wrong and has to be logically tested to find the truth? You're certainly not saying we should assume our own opinions are always right, are you?

If you mean, it could lead to believing that all opinions are wrong, then no, logically it could not. That would be an opinion that inherently defeats itself; it is an opinion therefore that declares itself wrong. It could be worded this way: "In my opinion, all opinions are wrong." See the mistake there?

But I'm not sure that's what you meant...

All hail Brave Knight Binkmeister! Lord Survurlode is just gonna have to learn that Binkmeister is a force to be reckoned with.

Here's to Binky's magical sword! *cheers*

Actually, the way I see it is that they way you are describing the definition of "opinion" it seems to fit the definition of "fact" completely. That brings up another question, what's the difference between fact and opinion?

 

Yeah, I know, this is a very short post, but I make less sense when I try to make a long speech.

Well, I'll go ahead and answer, but I'm a little confused how anything I have posted here makes the definition of opinion sound anything like fact? I ask because if I've said something unclear, I wish to know so that I can correct it.

Opinion -- a viewpoint that cannot be 100% confirmed, with the info available. It can be wrong.

Fact -- a viewpoint that can be 100% confirmed, with the info available. It cannot be wrong (except for the rare instance where we get new info we could not get before (see below, though, for a note on this)).

See the difference?

What you might be thinking is what people mistake their own opinions for fact. But that is a logical fallacy on the part of the individual; it is not supported at all by what I'm saying. In fact, I'm pointing out that people make that mistake. When they think that their opinion cannot be wrong they are confusing opinion with fact. (Logic opinions, that is.)

In other words, if a "fact" is later found to be wrong, then it was not truly a fact, but an opinion that almost everybody confused with fact. I'd love to rant about tons of examples of this confusion in popular culture even today... but won't. Anyways, DV had summed that up well above.

Judge in each case; something like set sales is a fact, definately, unless of course sales reports lied or made mistakes, as an example. Something like "This set will sell poorly" is an opinion, even if it does turn out to be correct, because there's no way to be 100% certain ahead of time. Make-a sense-a?

You'd seriously need to give an example man. If you mean emoticon spam, then you're slamming the hammer to the proverbial nail... But in general, on the 'net emoticons are important because nobody can hear voices so it's often ambiguous how a post is intended. If you find them annoying, then I must ask, in real life, do you talk like a robot and never smile or make any facial expression?

And instead of using the *shrugs* emote I would normally use up there to communicate what I mean, I will add this note to make it clear that I am not being sarcastic--or condescending in any way. And... well, I hope you can see the mistake you're making--look how much more text I had to include to make that clear. Brevity is the soul of wit--if that means using emotes for more than just the kind of example you gave, so be it.