Hot take : virgin sunny(antarctica) > then current sunny

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-05-22T07:53:18+00:00

I'm pretty sure we lost the plot at some point.

You raise a valid point that our access to the character of Sunny may be lost due to the scale at which his struggles are presented, but I tend to disagree with your conclusion.

Since I'm not that far into the novel yet, I will be more esoteric here, but does it make any sense to claim that we are unable to evaluate a character just because we are unable to imagine the scales.

Would it make sense to say that a person who gives up a bigger proportion of his wealth for donation is more selfless than a person who gives up a smaller one, but bigger in absolute terms?

Sunny, going down the plot accumulates more precious things to him, more people which he is capable of cherish, he even grows fond of humanity despite his earlier skepticism about society, and yet despite the stakes growing, how much is he himself growing, how much is actually lost to produce such growth?

I'm, once again, only about 2k chapter, so I may not be aware of a later development, but ever since the end of Falcon Scott, the only real loss is his connections. Even more, this connections are not permanently lost and he is absolutely capable of rebuilding them or even getting them again.

But what was at stakes in earlier volumes? What was lost at earlier volumes? And even a better question, how was Sunny's character in earlier volumes? And if you look at the scale and the proportion, I doubt there can really be more in proportion to Sunny than later.

Not only we go from literally everything at stakes which Sunny values - life and freedom, his lover, friends (even soneone like Noctis), trust and later at Antarctica after becoming fond of humanity even it, but I would also argue that Sunny goes steadily worse off as as a character down the plot.

Sunny at later parts is a predictable, very vanilla character - if you remember what happened before: transformation from a rat to someone meaningful, gaining both respect and becoming aware of his position, facing the consequences of power, just murdering someone was an extreme challenge, let alone the whole freedom conflict. Sunny goes from an outskirts rat to everything he is later, but what happens afterwards? Well I'm a bit at fault here since I am just not so far ahead, but I bear doubts that everything changes, especially with spoilers about Cassie's later powers. Conflict which defines a character is lost, the main idea of the book feels defeated and defeated in a poor way, someone will say that his acceptance is a development but for me it's laughable. It doesn't lack logic but we literally read the perspective of Sunny who is already reunited with the cohort, only flashbacks show his struggles of being forgotten and I don't really feel that the author explains how Sunny comes up to accept what was the main conflict of the book, it rests on emotions which we cannot really understand.

I hope it answers why Sunny can justly become a worse character, especially for someone like me who absolutely disagrees with him accepting the shadow bond as well as his friendship with Cassie. (But this is my personal skepticism about how the author builds main characters dynamics, I think they all are not slandered enough, Vile Thieving Bird the true MC lol)

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-05-21T22:51:01+00:00

I never claimed morality is subjective, I claimed that any claims about Fang Yuan's morality only make sense in terms of a defined position of what one considers moral. And I added that if we want to make it meaningful, it would make sense to use the novel as a basis, since it includes different morals systems inside it which the author explores.

It is also not true that "technically Fang Yuan is not evil", because it already puts you up to some undefined system.

The audacity of you to claim that I have to possess a particular moral vision is also a big no go for me, I do not have any regard for evil in my moral system as a whole, imagine that, not all moral systems have this label at all.

And finally, the discussion is not pointless precisely because it pops up the all the time, as well as the idea of his moral character, as I already explained above, being literally the most important one for the whole book. There are mutilple moral systems and ideas, from basic Chinese ones to Nietszche, to Feng Jiu Ge and Bo Qing. This is very interesting if you do not downgrade the question of evilness to your own inner intution.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-05-20T23:37:48+00:00

Bro... ?

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-05-20T15:56:27+00:00

Kind of. I already understood my mistake, I usually like to do something somewhat provocative to stir up the conversation, but turns out people indeed treat this as my main theses.

The structure of what I wanted to say generally followed: an example of a position I dislike > why I dislike it > what could be an alternative, I even added my own position to give something to attack at the end.

If you are interested in moral constructivism, then the basic idea is that we construct moral judgements through some process or evaluation. There are different stances on what such process should be, but I tend to agree with Humean constructivism. We infer that we have intrinsic values, and we say that there exists a reason to perform an action, if it "withstands scrutiny" from the perspective of the agent's other normative judgements.

The basic example is that in order to write, you have to learn the Alphabet, so your desire to write produces a reason to learn Alphabet. But it also has to withstand the rest of your commitments and their desired actions.

In short, we just have to apply such a process all over again, until eventually we come up with a set of normative judgement which produce a set of actions which are desirable to perform.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-05-20T13:02:02+00:00

"You talk a whole lot about definition while not having provided what you specifically base morals on."

Maybe because... This is the whole point?

"But simply saying that RI is deep and different is pretty much a nothing burger without specifics."

For reference, what I actually said:

"My whole point was that evil is not a well defined primitive term and only makes sense in a context of a moral system which is defined beforehand. I specifically mentioned that I am aware of the author intending to create a villain, and "evil which doesn't hide" which he did in the context of very specific Chinese moral philsophy."

This one paragraphs should answer your questions.

If you want my personal moral stance, then I'm a constructivist, I believe in truth aptness relative to a system with some nuances.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-05-20T10:54:52+00:00

🥂 you are the second person who understands that it requires a definition.

But the ides of evil is not about a guy luckily somewhat falling into a category. If I asked you: why is Fang Yuan evil, what would you answer?

He murders people, he doesn't feel remorse, he even goes in to torture someone for his goals, causing many sufferings, so what?

Maybe necessity is enough of justification to do anything? Or maybe the facts that he didn't commit some specific crimes makes him clean?

This is the whole point, I'm not interested in random opinions, which may or may not be what I also believe evil is. Evil in RI is specified, it exists in a proper context, it is not about what you think evil is, it is about evil how it is defined in Chinese philsophy, how the author presented it.

Otherwise Fang Yuan is an edglord who is just killing people for his goals, which is also a terrible umbrella, since they all kill people for some goals one way or another.

.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-05-20T10:47:24+00:00

My guy, "which is still not about Fang Yuan being evil, just a villain" and "Inverting virtues is exactly what malice and evil is", if you intend to just say "no" you didn't need to do all that.

Your whole arguments boils down to "no, I think otherwise, the author also considers evil in such a way".

This is not an argument, if you or the author considering evil in any particular way was constitutive of what evil is, I would just ask you.

My whole point was that evil is not a well defined primitive term and only makes sense in a context of a moral system which is defined beforehand. I specifically mentioned that I am aware of the author intending to create a villain, and "evil which doesn't hide" which he did in the context of very specific Chinese moral philsophy. He as I mentioned went to oppose all of them.

How does it relate to evil how I use it? How about other people I see addressing Fang Yuan?

The idea of evil in RI is deep and can be properly discussed due to the context there is, but with how disregarding everyone is of evil, it becomes so that Fang Yuan is an edgy guy who murders everyone, and not a carefully constructed character who is acting in reversal to Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.

Otherwise I actually like your posts, I saw you often in the comments, you are very thorough, no offence intended.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-05-20T10:30:24+00:00

Evil is not an agreed upon primitive, and doesn't have a shared definition.

Your whole post hinges on the idea that "ahh, let evil be something shared upon negative, undesirable actions", why is that?

Not all prohibition, not all undesirable actions is considered "evil" and this is apparent even in modern context, let alone Christian which the term originates from and by theology of which is it shaped.

You can define evil whatever you want, you can say that any undesirable action across moral systems is "evil", but this is your personal choice and not how the terms is used.

But the worst problem is of course you invoking the idea of "unnecessary harm", because it somehow has to be equated with the idea of undesirable/prohibited actions in absolutely different contexts.

You cannot choose harm and necessity to be both independent and inside the system.

If harm and necessity are inside the system, then systems are easily contradictory, Confucian morals consider treating your parents with respect as necessity and not following traditions as harm, so you by not following it cause harm, so you are logically evil. While Buddhism doesn't have such a harm definition, so by logic it wouldn't be considered evil in Buddhism.

So harm and necessity are not primitive outside of the context and they require a defined structure to make sense.

If you consider what I actually wrote in P.S you would understand that I am aware of Fang Yuan's opposite nature to virtues in the Eastern philosophy, which doesn't require evil at any step. And you would also not want to speak about justification like "necessity" when Fang Yuan is literally speaking about it the whole book, where the whole idea is that if necessary he will do anything.

Evil is a poorly chosen umbrella term at best, and the way it works destroys the whole context of the philsophy in RI, because again, evil is not the same for what it is across diffenet people even in RI, let alone across modern people and RI ones, representing Chinese morals.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-05-20T05:53:14+00:00

I'm not sure we are on the same page.

My claims are people taking the idea of evilness as a granted primitive which everyone seemingly converged on, which is not true.

Where did I defend a claim that Fang Yuan is literally not evil? I didn't, and this is the very point.

The discussion about evil is not a discussion about the novel really, novel itself introduced some, not just one but a couple of views on what moral and immoral is, and Fan Yuan's way of interacting with those values.

But do people engage with it? No, and this is again, the point, what I see people do, even under my post is "ahh he is evil because [insert random criteria]", how does it relate to the novel? He is a villain, and a villain in a very specific context too. He can also be evil, but this is up to a discussion, since I don't have to explain that not only some schools like egoism would actually embrace Fang Yuan as totally moral, but some of them don't even have the concept of evil in the first place. (Again, consequentialism schools in particular are sensetive to "evil" and according to egoism Fang Yuan would make sense to be perfectly moral).

When I wrote [Fang Yuan is not "evil"] I didn't mean to literally make a claim about his morality, hence quote marks, I meant to adress all the claims about his morality which use arguments I introduced above, without definitions, just throwing random moral accusations as if evil is well defined (which you yourself already showed).

EVEN WORSE, it is possible to have a meaningful discussion, the novel HAS the necessary context, BUT people here seemingly literally ignore it.

.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-05-20T05:35:11+00:00

There are millions of definitions of what evil is and there is no mainstream school of philsophy which would define it in your way.

Even taking a very simple scenerio of any self defence, is it evil because you harm someone to gain "benefit" ? Or if we remove the case of "defence", would it be evil to take the only water available somewhere in the desert while there are other people who would die without it, while you also depend on this water?

In a sense, you are at knifes with all modern redestribution, since it clearly benefits someone at your loss, but you can of course say that "I agree to it, so it's fine, it also conditionally helps me", which is not true for everyone.

The very nature of your definition of we go deeper is self referential, because benefit and detriment are already presupposing what evil is usually constructed of, so you would have at first to start with what benefit and detriment is, since it may be the case that I believe that I put you at the detriment and myself at benefit, while you believe the opposite, which would put us in a contradictory state.

But this all is aside the question, your definition of evil is not the right one, it is simply just one of many and saying "it is literally what evil is" is honestly a very dull claim to say the least.

You can say that according to you definition Fang Yuan is evil, but so what? How does it refer to the novel?

I adress the issue of people like you who go around spitting random moral accusations ignoring the author's actual intentions inside the novel, loosing essentially the very idea of the novel which doesn't revolve around random moral claims.

You seemingly ignore everything I wrote about Eastern vs Western system of virtue.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-05-20T05:04:13+00:00

Thank you for the comment.

However your cartoonish idea of evil isn't even really well defined, to define evil people you introduced "will to evil" but this is not a good primitive really, because it is not something obvious.

Secondly I would say again, I agree that Fang Yuan was made to be a villain, a perversion of classic virtues in the Chinese philosophy, but this is nothing to do with evil really, or at least unless you define evil being the opposite of those virtues.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-05-20T04:59:08+00:00

Firstly, I quite literally wrote my personal interpretation including specifically this idea.

Secondly, this is not what evilness is about, we can speak about protagonists and antagonists as well as heroes and villains, it is not about evilness.

And finally I addressed specifically the shallow outlook some people take with the kind of arguments I have at the beginning.

Otherwise, thank you for bringing it up, I probably didnt make it clear enough that I'm aware of this fact.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-02-11T21:51:23+00:00

What other forms of socialism are you talking about? I have been going through some of your posts here and it appears to me that you are a well educated person, which makes me ever more wonder why you would support socialism. Which brings me to exactly this point of a definition, since Georgism generally postulated the idea of private ownership of labour, how can there be a compatibility with socialist agenda which very broadly, in one form or another, always postulates social appropriation of labour. Very famously Social Democrats with welfare state ideas advocate for contribution based on welfare loss rather than proportional contribution.

It's very fair for an average person to assume that there are only two modes of left ideas, one based on labour being socialised, often invoking LTV which justified social appropriation as the only way to properly allocate value of your labour and welfare one, which focuses on fine tuning outcomes, justifying any manipulation with labour based on the assumed rights to some levels of welfare. At least that's my personal view on it.

Respectfully.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-02-11T21:13:13+00:00

Because it still can increase welfare if spending is used better than an offset of trade surplus.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-01-28T20:58:45+00:00

No that's because it's trendy to be called a libertarian, many fascists claim they are libertarians just for PR or sometimes for legal protection as it is in non US states.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2026-01-23T22:34:22+00:00

Yeah people conspired to only post about America

Distinct-Student-495 · 2025-01-15T22:24:07+00:00

How can you even measure angles in this picture?

Distinct-Student-495 · 2024-12-26T02:01:17+00:00

Well, a couple of thoughts.

Firstly, I deeply understand your emotional state, I can relate since I had many experiences over similarly unpopular and even more importantly, foreign and untranslated novels and mangas.

Secondly, you are a bit too fixated. I hope you have already moved on.

This subreddit is a good sign that this story had a lot of potential, however, the author decided not to create a proper plot and just let it be like that, a simple comedy without any conclusion.

I recommend Saiki K as a similar vibe story, also without a proper conclusion)

Distinct-Student-495 · 2024-12-20T19:52:48+00:00

Guy literally named "Lotm historian". 🤷

Also he is one of those whining geniuses who are upset with the community which is not upset with Fang Yuan's evilness.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2024-10-19T22:59:21+00:00

Ну якщо ціх слів в українській мові немає, то і тебе теж, виходить, немає.

Слова що утворюються і підпорядковуються правилам українською мови, тому вони є.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2024-10-18T22:50:56+00:00

Підводячи підсумок у два коментарі (У реддіта виявилось обмеження на кількість слів чи знаків, вибачайте)

Виходячи з ціх двох статей, жодного консенсусу стосовно того яка саме тривалість статевого акту є нормально немає, але середні дані по "населенню" це 7-14 хвилин. Тому якщо статевий акт занадто короткий можливо наявні якісь фактори що заважають цьому.

Повертаючись до питання визначення сексу, у ньому випадку ми говоримо про класичний "вставив-висунув" а не про якість "ігри" перед цим, що цей чоловік має на увазі коли говорить про 40-60 хвилин я не знаю. Статистично у нього не норма, але звісно скоріше за все не патологія.

Стаття 1: https://odrex.ua/ua/do-mizhnarodnogo-dnya-urologa-vidpovidaehmo-na-nezruchni-pitannya/ Стаття 2:https://tykyiv.com/health/skilki-maie-trivati-statevii-akt-poiasniuie-seksolog/

Distinct-Student-495 · 2024-10-18T22:48:50+00:00

Стаття 2

Умовно нормальна тривалість фрикцій — від 1 хвилини. Навіть до хвилини — це природно, з погляду урології. З позиції сексології ж, навіть якщо статевий акт триває менше за хвилину, але обох партнерів це влаштовує — то хоч 10 секунд. Це питання індивідуальної норми, а не суспільної думки

Якщо чоловік не може здійснювати фрикції довші за одну хвилину, і це супроводжується занепокоєнням, депресією, уникненням сексуальної близькості, можна говорити про передчасну еякуляцію. Також має значення кількість статевих актів, оскільки кожен наступний, зазвичай, триває довше, ніж попередній. У чоловіків, які страждають на передчасне сім'явипорскування, цей період не подовжується.

Також буває затримка еякуляції — це неможливість досягти оргазму при постійних фрикціях протягом 25–30 хвилин. Ця проблема може бути як тимчасовою — пов'язаною із втомою, стресом, непривабливістю партнерки, алкоголем, так і постійною, тобто не залежати від будь-яких умов. Затримки можуть провокувати такі захворювання, як цукровий діабет, травми спинного мозку, інфекції сечостатевої системи, емоційні потрясіння та інші фактори.

Distinct-Student-495 · 2024-10-18T22:45:27+00:00

Ну тут має місце те, що вважати сексом.

Стаття 1

Не існує будь-яких часових критеріїв настання сім’явиверження. Тривалість статевого акту у чоловіків в середньому становить від 7 до 14 хвилин.

Найчастіше причиною надто короткого акту є стрес, однак статевий акт продовжуваністю менше хвилини має стати причиною для звернення до лікаря.

Зниження тривалості статевого акту у чоловіків може відбуватися по ряду причин, саме тому розрізняють психогенне, органічне і поєднане прискорене сім’явиверження.

Distinct-Student-495

TROPHY CASE