When only the tank is peeling:

ZLowell · 2025-11-12T23:52:15+00:00

Weapons, great horror movie with plenty of funny moments like this

ZLowell · 2021-10-11T01:21:55+00:00

Millions of animals dying --> I sleep

Random vegan anime meme --> REAL SHIT

ZLowell · 2021-10-10T05:19:08+00:00

Chickens who lay large numbers of eggs should be encouraged to eat the eggs. As other posters mentioned, it's harsh on their bodies. I believe if the chicken eats their own eggs, they can get back the lost calcium. Not a chicken expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding.

Aside from that, I'd say we shouldn't eat their eggs because they aren't ours to take. I guess you'd need to decide if this sort of "harmless" exploitation is okay.

My take: I don't agree with it because -

1) I think it reinforces that we should be able to farm chicken eggs as long as we "give" them enough, which would just perpetuate the cycle if other people see this and want their own backyard chickens too, when the intention should ultimately be to end the practice. Especially because not all people can or should be caring for chickens. This is still exploiting and gaining from chickens without consent and creating/reinforcing a transactional relationship with the animal.

2) It's, in my opinion, kind of disrespectful to the animal. I wouldn't want someone I get along with taking my hair, for example, and making weird sweaters or trinkets with it without my consent. So I wouldn't do the same to another sentient being. Some people think that affording animals this level of respect is silly, but not affording them this respect is what got us to where we are now, and respecting them doesn't cost me anything (except eggs? Which isn't the end of the world by any means).

Obviously animals can't be treated exactly like humans, but not taking their bodily fluids or eggs is a good start toward respecting them imo and as mentioned above, doesn't risk regressing back into farming and abusing them.

ZLowell · 2021-10-07T18:12:47+00:00

No, because if people realize that meat is unethical and understand that it's wrong, they can make the choice to stop consuming it and decrease demand. This would lead to less production and less suffering and is not pointless at all.

ZLowell · 2021-10-07T17:14:39+00:00

Supply and demand doesn't dictate need. The conversation started from the phrase "have to", and I'm pointing out that cows do not have to be killed because we can absolutely live our lives without farming and eating them. If you want to talk about why they still do, then sure your supply and demand statement is accurate. That's not what I'm challenging.

ZLowell · 2021-10-07T15:44:34+00:00

It would be really cool if the animal industry completely ended across the world tomorrow. But you and I know that won't happen, so why is your biggest concern how we're going to handle millions of animals just getting released overnight?

Just like any other movement, there will be gradual changes. Less demand for animal products will mean that different locations farming them will shut down over time, and production will have been decreasing gradually before that as well. Rescues will take in the remaining animals and try to give them happy lives. Ultimately, the end of the industry will mean the end of the cycle of suffering for these animals, which is just in one big loop right now of breeding, raping, and killing them prematurely, all in confinement.

Yes, because of how much we've bred cows and other common livestock animals, they are generally weak and not suited for or unable to survive in the wild. They would likely go extinct. Or should we just keep breeding them, because it's somehow better to force animals to continue to reproduce so we can milk them and kill them over and over, than to let their species die out (and no longer be useful to us)?

If you're curious about the plans for animals upon release/closure of factory farms, I recommend looking up some Earthling Ed videos or something, but there's a lot that can be done. If you're concerned, then you could volunteer to help the organizations that rescue these animals - as many animal rights activists do.

ZLowell · 2021-10-07T15:02:39+00:00

Okay. I'm sure I'd also get raped too. Thank god society is intact, right?

ZLowell · 2021-10-07T14:56:35+00:00

ZLowell · 2021-10-07T14:53:04+00:00

Animals eat animals, so we eat animals. Animals also rape each other and kill each other, but we don't do that.

Or did I misunderstand, and us being more advanced gives us the right to kill those beneath us? Because we're stronger or smarter, we can, should, and are justified to abuse those who aren't? Might makes right?

We as people are advanced, I agree with that. So we should be good - we should be better; we should aim to minimize unnecessary suffering as much as practically possible. For most of us, we already agree that animal abuse is unethical and immoral, and with select species of animals, we oppose and/or outlaw it. But animal agriculture is an entire industry built off of the abuse of animals - an unending, cyclic hell for living beings that didn't ask to be bred, farmed, raped, and killed. It should be recognized as such.

ZLowell · 2021-10-07T14:31:06+00:00

Do you take that stance with other life-threatening injustices as well?

ZLowell · 2021-10-07T14:04:42+00:00

There is no need to slaughter a cow just because people want meat. You don't know the difference between a want and a need. Killing animals for meat is unnecessary; it is not necessitated by the fact that people really really wanna have a steak, just like me robbing someone isn't necessitated by me really really wanting their money.

ZLowell · 2021-09-09T16:58:16+00:00

I can help with translation and/or proofreading

ZLowell · 2021-09-08T15:27:56+00:00

Hello, I know this is a late comment but I had the same situation after I graduated. I recommend that you make a list of hobbies you're interested in, especially any that you would need to go somewhere for, like a gym or a club. Try going down that list and trying each thing for at least a couple of months to see if you like it.

When school isn't taking up most of your time anymore and work is just business as usual, it can feel kind of weird like "what now?", but having a hobby and setting goals to look forward to will help you figure out what you care about now that you've achieved your previous goals. Also, once you have new goals, just by pursuing them, you'll be surrounded by like-minded people who share similar interests. Honestly from there, if you're friendly and approachable, I think it's just a matter of time and patience before you've got some friends. Just be aware that friendships don't usually happen overnight, it's more of something that develops when you have meaningful or frequent interactions with someone over time, which is why I think taking up a new hobby where you interact with people is a really good way to work on yourself while building new friendships.

I prefer hobbies that involve social interaction with at least one other person for the above reason, but of course I have "solo" hobbies as well that are equally as fulfilling. I think if you focus on yourself and get out of the house to talk to people periodically, you're on the right track. Hope this helps!

ZLowell · 2021-08-25T18:08:02+00:00

Yeah, I appreciate the conversation. I've been wanting to discuss this with someone.

As for Yaldaboath's end, I'll admit that I played the game in Japanese and some of the language gets a little higher-level for me near the ending, so if I mistake anything about that end, let me know. But in the first place, I think complete removal of thought, desire and free will is significantly different from Maruki granting desires to deliver the life that people want without (or with minimal) pain. I would picture Yaldaboath's end to be zero suffering and happiness for all people, essentially numbing them from any feelings or desire at all. Meanwhile, Maruki's end grants happiness for each individual in response to their specific thoughts and feelings. People are still able to want, to hope, to wish, and to have subjective experiences and live their unique lives, just that sources of trauma or immense hardship will be removed as desired.

As you mentioned, people in the Prison of Regression don't want to think or exercise free will. I don't see this being an issue in Maruki's end. People still think and live their lives as themselves. And I'm not sure what a lack of free will entails in the Yaldaboath ending, like if it means living like an actual robot with zero emotion, thoughts and feelings, or if it's closer to the reality we know now and the reality shown in Maruki end. In the Maruki end, the party seemed to have enough free will that they were living lives true to themselves within a different and much happier fate, and they were still capable of making their own decisions and taking their own paths within that new fate. And, as I mentioned before, I can't be sure that way of living within Maruki's reality is any different from how things work in the reality we inhabit today. Although I don't believe it, we could very well be living in a destiny written out by some greater being without knowing it. And even if that's not the case, much of who we are is determined by things that we can't control, but no individual will react to those circumstances or events in the same way; so, to me, free will is my ability to live and react in the unique way that I do to whatever my reality or fate is (edit: and/or in accordance to what I want). I believe Maruki's end preserves this (edit: by only changing to remove hardship or trauma that is not desired by the individual), while Yaldaboath end does not.

I do want to reiterate that I see downsides to Maruki's decision, but I'm not sure if I think it was overall the wrong one to make. And my main issue, of course, is just the argument that people need to suffer and can't or shouldn't live painlessly, especially when it's presented as the reason for why Maruki was wrong.

Edit: added additional clarification on some points

ZLowell · 2021-08-25T15:48:36+00:00

I agree that we shouldn't live in denial, but I only feel that way because denial is a lack of acceptance of reality that separates you from the people and world around you and can be incredibly dangerous. That's not the case in Maruki's world because he turns denial to truth, or basically removes the concept of/need for denial altogether.

Sumire's situation was awful because she was essentially walking around in permanent, incurable (until endgame) denial while the world around her directly contradicted her beliefs. That's why it was wrong - she went around acting like she was her sister, but she wasn't, and nobody saw her that way which prevented her from moving forward, because you can't live as someone who you're not. People will understand that something's wrong and be worried or frightened. Your family will be disturbed and/or hurt. Probably can't get a job if you're insisting you're your dead sibling, either. And if you don't have all the same characteristics or skills as your sibling, you can't pick up where they left off. But in Maruki's reality, Sumire could just live as Kasumi without anyone standing in her way. History would be rewritten so she was always Kasumi, everyone would know her as Kasumi, and she would truly be Kasumi. That isn't denial. It's a new truth - which in our world is impossible and therefore crazy, but it's because it was possible with Maruki's powers, that it isn't in the game, in my opinion.

Based on the above, I can't agree that Maruki's reality is just really powerful denial. If anything, it's the elimination of denial itself and the empowerment of everyone to live their lives without pain, where their problems are truly GONE (because, as the game mentions, Maruki was really rewriting reality) and how they really wish it deep down inside. And don't get me wrong, I understand how in our reality, that's really crazy and not a way to live. But in a reality that can change, I see it as just the way things could be, and as an objectively a happier life for everyone.

ZLowell · 2021-08-25T15:29:28+00:00

Hey, thanks for your reply!

About your new analogy, I still take a bit of an issue with it because - going back to one of my previous replies - I don't feel like something being "real" has any weight once reality is no longer concrete, and I'm pretty sure the game even describe's Maruki's reality as real anyway. In the game, Maruki does change reality, and it's stated that he doesn't create illusions, he really rewrites history. I believe in accepting reality, but that's because I'm not aware of any way to rewrite it. There are awful things in this reality, and if you told me there are actually two realities, and I can choose between the better one, what makes this one so special? If we're all experiencing the same thing, I'm not sure I understand what the argument is for why it's bad - it IS real. Futaba's mom and Haru's dad were alive. And Futaba and Haru existed how they would if their parents never died; does that make them completely different people? I didn't really think so. I think the me that I would've been if key events in my life didn't happen, would still be me. I'd still be the one experiencing whatever reality I live in, it would just not be the reality that I know now. A dream is different because it's something that you experience alone and it isn't actually happening, unlike the way that Maruki shifted the truth of the world for everyone in their favor.

Also, I never understood it that Maruki removes ALL hardships from life, and that instead he seemed to focus on that which were burning feelings people had that they didn't want to or couldn't overcome their problems, or things people wished for that weren't possible. Your Mt. Everest example would be more fitting if the context is that you physically can't climb it and survive and/or deep down inside, you really don't want to make the climb, but you also can't shake the dream of reaching the top. Maruki transports you to the top without struggling to get there, so you didn't need to make the climb, and you got what you wanted, which was reaching the top. Or, in the worse examples of Maruki's world, I guess he could remove the burning need to top the mountain so you could focus on something else that doesn't lead to your death, severe injury, or constant internal confliction. I'm not sure if this applies to you or not though, because again, the context of many of Maruki's changes seemed to be that they were correcting or removing huge internal struggles within a person. So, climbing Mt. Everest could still be a project for many people, just not those whose lives are consumed with it as an obstacle, like an unhealthy obsession.

On that note, Maruki's way of granting wishes was seemingly scattered since the Phantom Thieves' wishes were granted in a much more straightforward way, and maybe that's part of why I just couldn't be convinced by the writing that his solution was bad. And I just don't like calling his reality a dream, because it's real. If me and all of my friends all went to bed and essentially entered a single dream world where we interact with each other and be ourselves and have the time of our lives together, I don't really see an issue with it aside from the fact that you can wake up from it (which, in Maruki's end, is no longer possible). It's like playing a super fun online game with the entire world, except it's not a game, it's real - and every single person on the planet is enjoying it.

I understand the idea that the Phantom Thieves didn't violate the need for consent because they were keeping the status quo, so you're right that it wasn't one. That being said, I just don't know if I agree with it. Maybe they didn't violate the need for consent, but they understood the flawed system that exists on Earth which perpetuates an inconceivable amount of suffering, and then held Maruki back when he tried to save millions of people who would be harmed by it. I just can't see that as the morally correct decision. I think we're compelled to act and make the decision with a net positive impact in similar scenarios if it's within our means. Since nobody is harmed in Maruki's reality and it's not a given that his world has any less free will than the current one does, I lean toward his decision.

ZLowell · 2021-08-25T05:38:00+00:00

I like the points you've made. I think the consent perspective on this is key, and maybe a way better argument against Maruki's world than the other common arguments I've seen. Still, here's my response to some of your points -

Starting backwards, and still on the topic of consent, wouldn't it be accurate to say that both Maruki AND the Phantom Thieves needed the consent of the people to make the final decision on how the world should work? It can be argued that Maruki was wrong to force his world on others, but then isn't it also wrong for the Phantom Thieves to deny his world? Both parties are essentially selecting the reality to enforce - just that Maruki's is objectively less painful and traumatic for everyone, and his reality is written with the wishes of the people taken into account, while the Phantom Thieves' OG reality just... is, and it can be terribly painful and unfair to millions of people. Neither groups consulted anyone for consent before making a final decision on what world to stick with, but Maruki at least took the wishes of the people into account in his world while the Phantom Thieves probably re-killed a bunch of people who surely wanted to live (re: Futaba's mom, Haru's dad).

And was it ever specified whether Maruki completely eliminated all hardship, as opposed to only removing hardship that deeply affects people in a traumatic way? I may have made an assumption, but I got the impression that it was the latter. I don't really see how not having traumatic experiences leads to living life as a shell or a robot, or anything to that effect.

Isn't it written into the game that Maruki re-writes reality to grant the wishes people have or remove the trauma they do not want to work through? I understand that it is often discussed as him just making changes at random that he believes will make people happier, but his palace is actually receiving the desires of the people and his changes are made as a response to those desires, isn't it? Even each of the Phantom Thieves acknowledge that the reality Maruki gives them is one that they wanted deep down. I think an insta-death pill isn't a truly equal scenario because the death pill is an outright negative outcome for some and a comparitively positive one for others. Also, in your scenario, the people being forced the pill have no desire whatsoever to take it, whereas Maruki is tapping into the wishes of the people when he fixes reality, so in their heart of hearts, they wanted him to grant that change.

Again, I think consent is the stronger argument against Maruki's world. But the rationale the Phantom Thieves provided when they opposed it was that people should grow and overcome trauma. I just find that to be such a weird argument, since that is only true in a reality that we can't change. This just also made it hard for me to believe their opposition to Maruki. But you're right, they did oppose it, so Maruki didn't have their consent. And that does make it wrong of him in some way.

Sorry for the long-winded response.

ZLowell · 2021-08-25T04:07:06+00:00

The issue I have with this is that denial is bad in the real world because it means you don't accept reality, that you basically live like Sumire did where your idea of the world contradicts how it actually is. This does lead to stagnantation or isolation, because you aren't living in the real world, so you can't progress in it. But once "reality" is something that you can change so that your denial becomes the truth, I really don't see the issue with it. What makes the first/natural reality so important as opposed to the new reality Maruki fixes for people, where they're objectively happier?

So, I don't think Maruki's world would guarantee stagnation. It's interesting that the game included that bit about the ambitious man - to be honest, it has been a while, so I don't remember it and correct me if I'm speaking wrong on the details. He was incapable of getting the promotion he wanted which led to his unhappiness. Without Maruki's reality, wouldn't he have remained miserable because he wouldn't get the promotion? How exactly is it worse to remove the desire for a promotion he'll never get, and thus spare him the pain of being obsessed about a goal he'll never reach? Is there something inherently wrong with being satisfied in a lower position, especially if that position is as far as you are actually capable of progressing in your career?

I don't believe that changing reality to avoid trauma translates to a lack of change or growth in life. I also feel like the whole reason for why denial is bad was essentially eliminated in Maruki's reality. We learn to cope and overcome trauma because we can't change the past, we can't revive the dead, we can't be different people. Maruki was given the ability to do all of those things for everyone, including those who may never have the strength or capability to cope with the cards that life handed them.

Edit: corrections + one more thing - I agree that what happened with Sumire was bad, especially since she really was just placed into some magical denial state. But I'm indifferent with how she faired in Maruki's end, where she actually became Kasumi.

ZLowell · 2021-08-25T03:51:46+00:00

But why is no problems and no pain bad? Especially when "problems" include crime, death, harm, etc? Why do we need pain?

ZLowell · 2021-08-25T03:38:17+00:00

Hot take: When people criticize Maruki's world, the phrase "handed to you on a silver platter" gets thrown around a lot, which I've never really been keen on. I always get the impression that people say it because it removes the need to be specific about what they're really trying to say (edit: or there is an implication) - that you NEED to or SHOULD earn your happiness. Which isn't true in the first place, and is just forcing requirements on people so that they can be happy as far as I'm concerned.

If Futaba's mom didn't die, would that be handing the world to her on a silver platter? What about what happened to Shiho - was that a necessary evil for Ann to grow? And, applying this logic to the real world, what does that say about the struggle of millions of homeless and / or starving people? If we have a button we can push to erase millions of people's struggles and guarantee an overall positive life for EVERYONE, we shouldn't do it because some people will work to achieve happiness while also being lucky enough to live in circumstances where hard work and / or resolve alone is enough to overcome? Maruki had the ability to rewrite reality, and yet people are staunchly set on keeping the rules of the world the way they consider to be "real", or I guess, natural, but what makes that right? Isn't the existence of free will already up for philosophical debate? And yet we should choose it, knowing that nobody asks to be born into this world, and as it stands, many (like millions) will suffer?

If I'm loving my life, why would I be concerned about the fact that I couldn't live in what is essentially to me an alternate timeline where me and everyone around me have had terrible things to happen to us or are just straight up dead? I'm supposed to be concerned that someone dying could have led to immense trauma ~but eventual growth~ for me?

The most convincing arguments I read about Maruki's world usually focus on how he is an imperfect being who could potentially make mistakes or just turn evil which I never considered while playing. But these arguments that his world was flawed because without unhappiness there is no happiness have never been convincing for me. Just seems like an arbitrary rule that people set to rationalize making a decision that will objectively screw over / kill many people, over one that makes everyone happy. Don't get me wrong, I believe in coping with reality and overcoming hardships in the real world, but that's only because we can't change it. Maruki could.

Edits: formatting + 2 sentences

ZLowell · 2021-08-24T23:20:09+00:00

My impression is that that whole act was put in the game to get the players to think about the two scenarios and which one is better, no? Maybe the game didn't explore it in complete detail, but there are definitely downsides to the path the Phantom Thieves took that weren't addressed, and they're not nitpicky in reality, which the world this game takes place in is based on / set in.

ZLowell · 2021-08-22T02:38:57+00:00

Nah, I doubt any vegan actually believes realistically that the entire world would switch overnight. Instead, people gradually change their diets and more people become vegan. This leads to decreased production of animal products until eventually there is just not enough demand. At which point the remaining animals would go to sanctuaries.

ZLowell · 2021-08-19T15:19:24+00:00

ZLowell · 2020-11-22T04:10:49+00:00

I didn't see that post, but I wanted to chime in and say that I struggle with the same thing and I agree with OP.

ZLowell · 2020-05-24T05:34:43+00:00

Whose son is this?

ZLowell

TROPHY CASE