Jump to content

Basara Nekki


  

145 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you like Basara Nekki?

    • Yes
      70
    • No
      69
    • I'm having Basara's love child
      6


Recommended Posts

That sounds like it would be a lot more interesting tale than anything else going on in this thread...

As a member of the boat generation people, my ship was raided by pirates who took all the food, fuel, and valuables we were carrying as we escaped persecution. They then left us floating on the high seas without killing anyone. It is a form of psychological torture because we have to watch each other die of starvation. Those that survive have to resort to cannibalism. It is a fate worse than death. This is not an exceptional incident. Many boat people have similar stories.

This is why I do not subscribe to pacifism. Is that interesting enough?

Edited by justvinnie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a member of the boat generation people, my ship was raided by pirates who took all the food, fuel, and valuables we were carrying as we escaped persecution. They then left us floating on the high seas without killing anyone. It is a form of psychological torture because we have to watch each other die of starvation. Those that survive have to resort to cannibalism. It is a fate worse than death. This is not an exceptional incident. Many boat people have similar stories.

This is why I do not subscribe to pacifism. Is that interesting enough?

I am sorry to hear that. We shouldn't have termed it "interesting"...

Thanks for sharing though so I know such barbarism still exists and is so close to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people confuse pacifism with passivism. Pacisism doesn't necessarily mean that someone will not fight, or condone fighting, though that's often a component. It at its purest form means someone would prefer that there wasn't a need to fight. As opposed to simply being passive and just letting things happen without any action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people confuse pacifism with passivism. Pacisism doesn't necessarily mean that someone will not fight, or condone fighting, though that's often a component. It at its purest form means someone would prefer that there wasn't a need to fight. As opposed to simply being passive and just letting things happen without any action.

That's a really nice ideological distinction that I haven't given much thought. While I'm not a pacifist, I certainly would rather avoid violence if possible since the ultimate outcome inevitably is loss on both sides. I have rarely encountered a violent confrontation where one party was able to walk away completely unscathed.

Someone brought up Kamina from Gurren Lagann as a point of comparison to Basara. While it is true that neither changed during the course of their own storyline, I feel that the comparison is invalid from an ideological standpoint and is a false analogy. Kamina's action was towards the pursuit of an objective through physical violence. Basara worked towards an ideological objective through nonviolent means. Specifically, Kamina represents a "might makes right" ideology and ultimately the suppression and domination of his adversaries, while Basara worked in a different framework where the only real change one can make is a persuasive one, thus reconciling former adversaries. One could argue that both are the products of their environments (within universe as given by the back story), and thus have different outlooks on the world, but as a third party viewer, Kamina's actions represent the more generic and less interesting path for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A point of contention there, would be who exactly did Kamina kill? In the end, nobody. Simone on the other hand killed Lordgenome & inevitably the anti-spirals, but Kamina never actually took anyones life. The major distinction between Basara & Kamina would be that Basara was quite skilled in his own right, while Kamina admitted that both his fighting prowess and passion level was highly dependant on Simone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Congratulations, you have demonstrated that you know how to use the internet. So how long did it take you to craft this “witty” response?

I love the fact that you quoted Wikipedia (which you forgot to cite, by the way). I am going to guess that none of your teachers have taught you that Wikipedia is never an appropriate reference source. I also love your attempt at slyness, underhandedly attacking my academic background, which you are completely ignorant about. Indeed, I do pity the educational system that produced you. Fortunately, I am actually doing something about it and educating whole new generations that there is a difference between having information and critical thinking about it.

Do you make any comments NOT peppered with your own assumptions?

My quote is from an online dictionary. You are aware that wikipedia quotes online dictionaries too, right?

By your own assertion (via Wikipedia), a moral “is a message conveyed or a lesson to be learned from a story or event.” If you continue reading the entry, you will see that, “Throughout the history of recorded literature, the majority of fictional writing has served not only to entertain but also to instruct, inform or improve their audiences or readership.” Indeed, a moral is meant to instruct and/or enlighten the audience through the lesson or message it conveys. I imply that I do not need art that is trying to force its message down my throat or try to enlighten me because I am an independent thinking human with my own world view. Instead of addressing my point, you created a straw man by implicating that I somehow meant to say that morals and morality were one and the same. A semantic debate about morals and morality, while possibly entertaining, is not something I have any desire to engage in.

I wonder if "Straw Man" is your latest "new" term, you use it an awful lot. It strikes me that the "Straw Man" assertion you claim everyone else has of your opinions is more a judgement based on your own personal example.

I mince no words to make my position clear with regards to how I view the general masses. It amuses me that in attempting to chastise me from your moral high ground, you have rendered judgment on me and thus are no better than I am from your own moral code. Since I have no problems with my own world view, I have no problems with your judgment, though your own hypocrisy should force a re-evaluation of your world view. This is a perennial problem for people who subscribe to a slave moral code. The masses are mediocre (rightly so by definition) and if a member of the masses wishes to garner my respect, they will have to earn it through their own merits. I need not and seek not the acceptance of people who are not my intellectual equivalents. Furthermore, you operate on the assumption that all opinions are equivalent, when there are in fact not. I also noted how you chose to ignore my argument regarding aesthetic appreciation of the product without the benefit of witnessing the process.

Wow, I suspect you love to hear yourself talk and write for that matter... All opinions are equivalent since they are generally subjective and the same can be asserted regarding "aesthetic appreciation" as that is inherently subjective.

As for garnering YOUR respect, you are making yet another assumption that we care about it. This is the internet, there is little way of proving you are who you claim to be as it would be to prove you are not a well read twelve year old typing in his bedroom...

Have you ever considered going to college so you don't embarrass yourself so much? Maybe you can even register for one of my classes.

No thanks, I went to college to learn, not hear some self absorbed post-grad assistant pontificate on what THEY consider important in the world. There are enough soap boxes around, I can hear those messages anywhere- for FREE!

As a source of personal entertainment and diversion from my daily routine, you have run dry. I have no need nor desire to prove myself to you. Therefore, you are now nothing to me.

Oh NO! What will I do now? My life is now meaningless!! I have just been dissed on the interweb, how will I go on......

<Smell that? That's sarcasm :rolleyes: >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people confuse pacifism with passivism. Pacisism doesn't necessarily mean that someone will not fight, or condone fighting, though that's often a component. It at its purest form means someone would prefer that there wasn't a need to fight. As opposed to simply being passive and just letting things happen without any action.

what? No, being a pacifist doesn't mean you just prefer not to fight, it means not fighting, that there is no moral reason to fight, ever. Not to help others, not even to defend yourself. That's pacifism. It's a strict, hard line definition. I don't know how you can interpret pacifism any other way. A complete rejection of war. Not as a last resort, not if you really, really, really, feel like it. EVER. A pacifist will try any other means to end the conflict and work towards resolution but war and fighting are not ever one of those means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what? No, being a pacifist doesn't mean you just prefer not to fight, it means not fighting, that there is no moral reason to fight, ever. Not to help others, not even to defend yourself. That's pacifism. It's a strict, hard line definition. I don't know how you can interpret pacifism any other way. A complete rejection of war. Not as a last resort, not if you really, really, really, feel like it. EVER. A pacifist will try any other means to end the conflict and work towards resolution but war and fighting are not ever one of those means.

Eugimon, I love ya man, but I think you're building a straw man here...

You're creating a situation where PACIFISTS have no recourse besides (to put it bluntly) rolling over and laying dead, while NON-PACIFISTS have a range of options...and I don't think that that's the real case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eugimon, I love ya man, but I think you're building a straw man here...

You're creating a situation where PACIFISTS have no recourse besides (to put it bluntly) rolling over and laying dead, while NON-PACIFISTS have a range of options...and I don't think that that's the real case.

Pacifists can and do work to effect change, but waging war isn't one of them. There are various schools of thought on pacifism to be sure. Including one group that believe that as long as they didn't start the violence, they're free to respond in kind... which is kind of like saying I'm a vegan on the days I don't eat meat.

Keith is right when he says there's a difference between pacifism and passivism but the response to aggression and hostility of a pacifist cannot be war. If we look at the most famous, historical examples of pacifist leaders of the common era, Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., none condoned violence, not when their own followers were being attacked, beaten and killed and not even when their own personal safety was at risk. That's pacifism.

that's why it's a frakking hard row to hoe.

edit::

There's actually a famous case of a WWII pacifist, Desmond Doss, who still served but served as a field medic and refused to carry a rifle and save the lives of countless soldiers and earned himself a Medal of Honor.

So it's entirely possible to be a pacifist, still serve in a war, save lives and not be a total douche bag.

Edited by eugimon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pacifists can and do work to effect change, but waging war isn't one of them. There are various schools of thought on pacifism to be sure. Including one group that believe that as long as they didn't start the violence, they're free to respond in kind... which is kind of like saying I'm a vegan on the days I don't eat meat.

Keith is right when he says there's a difference between pacifism and passivism but the response to aggression and hostility of a pacifist cannot be war. If we look at the most famous, historical examples of pacifist leaders of the common era, Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., none condoned violence, not when their own followers were being attacked, beaten and killed and not even when their own personal safety was at risk. That's pacifism.

that's why it's a frakking hard row to hoe.

Okay...that, I agree with...

I also agree with Veef.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what? No, being a pacifist doesn't mean you just prefer not to fight, it means not fighting, that there is no moral reason to fight, ever. Not to help others, not even to defend yourself. That's pacifism. It's a strict, hard line definition. I don't know how you can interpret pacifism any other way. A complete rejection of war. Not as a last resort, not if you really, really, really, feel like it. EVER. A pacifist will try any other means to end the conflict and work towards resolution but war and fighting are not ever one of those means.

That's so closed-minded. For me, pacifism isn't about saying NO to things, it's about saying YES to things. Even fighting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is war? Is war fighting? What about a cold war? What about an information war? Would a pacifist nto participate in a tug of war? Bare bones definition from Merriam Websters: "opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes" Opposition at its core is a type of fight no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then is "War" violence or conflict? This needs to be defined for the argument to move forward.

A "war" of words deosn't necessarily end in violence and a war with bombs doesn't always end with words....

Edited by Zinjo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A point of contention there, would be who exactly did Kamina kill? In the end, nobody. Simone on the other hand killed Lordgenome & inevitably the anti-spirals, but Kamina never actually took anyones life. The major distinction between Basara & Kamina would be that Basara was quite skilled in his own right, while Kamina admitted that both his fighting prowess and passion level was highly dependant on Simone.

I'm pretty sure he and Simon took General Thymilph down, along with a few red shirts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just so I have this straight in my head, Basara disapears sometime after the Fire Bomber get-together in 2060, yes?

It depends on what you look at.

According to the liner notes for Re:Fire, Basara never went back to Macross 7 after Dynamite (his parts of the reunion album were recorded separately from the rest of the band's), but in Macross 7th Code (set 7 years after M7), he's there on City 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's this really great site called Google to help you answer questions like that... Maybe you should check it out?

Yeah, but more often than not google searches turn up porn or viruses. While I've no problem with porn, this doesn;'t seem like such a bad place to get a safe & direct answer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was doing some searches for Macross 7th Code/Chord in English, and they all redirect to either MacrossWorld, the Macross Compendium, or Macross Roleplay Galaxies.

So... for those asking, have any of you tried a search of these forums?

Also... apparently a collected version is going to be released:

http://www.kadokawa....cd=201105000124

発売日:2012年 02月 10日

定価(税込): 609円

B6判

ISBN 978-4-04-715768-2-C0979 [在庫無し]

発行元:角川書店 (発売前)

There's this really great site called Google to help you answer questions like that... Maybe you should check it out?

For next time, I recommend this one for directing people to google searches: http://lmgtfy.com/

E.g.: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cheese

Edited by sketchley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess there is no way to avoid this.... here goes. Basara isn't a character he is an aspiration. For good or bad like or has aspirations are just feelings on a subject. The reason I say this is like so many character fit this type and they do one thing they are their creator's voice to the audience on a subject they are biased they delve into the subject and that is what Kawamori likes. Look at all his creations there isn't a lot of inner monologue or any dialogue because that is just it . It is passion while good will lack a degree of substance. I 've always believe when a character is written by more than one author it can change that character for good or ill. The different stories evolve the nature add depth that was once otherwise overlooked that is why. Sherlock homes when given a look that is more modern or a context that is newer becomes less dated more updated. super man is very well known because the greatest fountain of youth is the writer keeping things new recycling telling the same stories new context. Gundam told over and over with very identical stories but with enough insight can create something new for a new viewer. I do not like Basara Nekki now but give me another writer with a little more emotional context and I will say yes.

Edited by leading edge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EVIL series are biological representations of the mechanical technology that the Protoculture already engineered. We now know that said technology was based on a naturally occuring biological manifestation, i.e. the Vajra. Fold technology, barrier shields, and reaction cannons were all biologically recreated in the EVIL series, and later on a mass-producton scale with whatever the AFOS was. This isn't a concept exclusive to Macross, other sci-fi & anime has touched on bio-mecha for years, both before and after. Take a look at Farscape, a fairly popular sci-fi series, and one which was based highly in bio-technology. The Vorlons & Shadows in Babylon 5 being the higher species of that universe also used bio-technology. Even the recent BSG adopted the concept that bio beats mechanical in the technological hierarchy. - quote from BOMBA!

Take Aura Battler Dunbine had the same concept energy human spirit equals power. Or better yet Escaflowne , I feel it was passed over in Macross 7 it is not a bad series just more mystical than I'd like. Take it this way you go to watch a star trek film and all this hard science stuff happens then boom how you feel suddenly becomes a factor but it manifests itself as a being object power. The point is the transition and quite frankly Basara doesn't really help the concept would be more legitimate if he main character had well"character" he is vague we get what he is saying but really a little more communication and less justdoing whatever would be better. It is not a bad series I like it it just isn't character driven enough. I mean ask what does he do what are his dreams is there something he can accomplish or he is afraid of. I thought we got that when he lost his voice maybe see what he would do if he lost the only thing that gave him his identity. It just did go that way. I like most of the character in Macross Hikaru, Shin, Alto, but Basara is an attempt to take a very complex issue and use personify it but for get to give him a real voice. I really just feel he needs to use more than "listen to my Song" try listen to others and communicate his song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's your problem right there (the quoted name should be "Keith" btw), you mention Star Trek as hard sci-fi when ST is incredibly guilty of regularly throwing in "magic" with no attempt to quantify it scientifically. When you account for the "many" magic god aliens in ST from the original series to curent, Macross 7 winds up being much more "hard sci-fi" than Star Trek ever was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody seems to ever have issues with Sharon Apple instantly mind-controlling people (exactly like the protodeviln) and magic super hacking everything constantly cuz this is the 90's :v

I fact the whole "Sharon needs Myung's emotions" is presented so vaguely like it's like a pseudo spiritia sound booster thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...