After all is said and done Wing remains the best Gundam show.

>>23344992 (OP)
Wingkings stay winning

Trieze did nothing wrong

>>23344992 (OP)
Wing was Honest Mecha

>>23344992 (OP)
Agree. Shit was just fun. And the robots were cool.

Nataku remains both the best Gundam and girl.

>>23344992 (OP)
Holy based.

>>23345022
he was absurdly charismatic

>>23345649
I hate the nataku design, the ew version only makes it bearable for me

>>23344992 (OP)
it's not, and some parts are a mess, but it's a well-packaged product that's why it's remained so popular despite its flaws. Gundam 00 takes a lot of inspiration from Wing rather than the classic One Year War setting.

I admit that it's a show that I can't hate and it's not a question of nostalgia alone, it actually has some things that work.

>>23344992 (OP)
Should the fuck up Wingfags the spectacle over substance writing philosophy you ate up was introduced by Wing.
Its the first Gundam series with ill thought out and incoherent themes in the vein of SEED and 00 and you faggots ate it up only because it was about 5 bishounen instead of one bishoujo.

>>23344992 (OP)
Was this show inspired by Jetman?

>>23346539
>the first Gundam series with ill thought out and incoherent themes
>the ethics of using Drones in war
>the responsibility of men in command
>why it is dangerous to de-responsibilize people letting the machines do the massacres
>incoherent themes
>incoherent themes

Wing can be criticized for many things, but the topics it deals with are extremely valid.

>>23346972
Wing is like SEED in that both dont fail to bring up interesting topics and themes but both fail to meaningfully engage with them in a way that doesnt make light of the heavy subject matter.
>the ethics of using Drones in war
>the responsibility of men in command
>why it is dangerous to de-responsibilize people letting the machines do the massacres
These themes that are first established in Wing are muddled throughout the course of the series when they intersect with its romanticized portrayal of soldiers and warfare. In its attempt to introduce a counter position to these problems it suddenly veers into the other extreme and has characters like Treize spout ideology about how warfare and the resolve to die ennobles the soul of the soldier and makes them virtuous, thus unintentionally sending pro-war messages by implying that war makes humans virtuous and drives them to excellence which is a detestable message to send for obvious reasons. The same goes for Wufei and his justice-equals-power ideology, which is introduced to criticize the military officials that wage war with drones in safety only to tip over into might-makes-right ideology where the show conflates the powerful with the righteous only because it thinks that the righteous ought to be powerful, causing Wing to unironically support an idea that has proven as contradictory centuries ago.
This is what I mean with incoherent and ill thought out. Wing fails to understand the thematic implications of the words and actions of its characters and clumsily stumbles into spouting pro-war rhetoric it probably didnt mean to, similar to SEED, and not unlike how Unicorn and Gqux misunderstand Newtypes.

>>23347026
>being this smug about misunderstanding entirely

>>23347039
If I misunderstand please enlighten me, Im anxious to know about how the theming of Wing really works because it has baffled me for the longest time.

>>23347026
>Treize spout ideology about how warfare and the resolve to die ennobles the soul of the soldier and makes them virtuous,

Even though it is often seen "Treize did nothing wrong" here, I am pretty sure that you should not take Treize's nonsense as wisdom.

>>23347084
This appears to be the case at first when Treize does catroonishly evil shit like trick Heero into killing a peace advocate that could have ended the war and initiate a military coup at the same time but again, this is muddled when he is retroactively framed as a morally righteous character for being opposed to the OZ top brass and eventually becoming the OZ leader in the finale that makes the preparations necessary to bring peace to the world and also that comically funny bit about him remembering the number and names of every death he is responsible for in an attempt to make him seem more sympathetic. By the time of EW Treize is essentially framed as a messiah figure that sacrificed himself for lasting peace which implicitly justifies his past actions and affirms his nonsense ideology.
If I understand correctly, that is. Every character in EW treats him like a hero and makes no serious attempt to challenge his ideology, they didnt even try to during the middle or latter parts of TV Wing. It doesnt help that Releena abandons pacifism in EW and affirms him by saying peace must be earned with power and the will to fight.

>>23347026
>Treize spout ideology about how warfare and the resolve to die ennobles the soul of the soldier and makes them virtuous, thus unintentionally sending pro-war messages by implying that war makes humans virtuous and drives them to excellence which is a detestable message to send for obvious reasons.
It's not obvious, though. Humankind loves war. It pretends that it wants peace, but as soon as it attains peace it starts finding new reasons to fight within itself. We've seen this for thousands of years. Treize is an honest man, who accepts humanity for its brutal nature and finds beauty in it. War can and SHOULD be noble and virtuous, because there is no future that contains humans but does not contain war. If we are to war for eternity, I say let it be fought beautifully, and with honor and dignity for the fallen and the victors alike.

>>23347141
>Humankind loves war. It pretends that it wants peace, but as soon as it attains peace it starts finding new reasons to fight within itself.
This is nowhere near as conclusive as you think it is. Political leaders and business elites stand to benefit from war because it furthers their geopolitical or economic interests but youd be insane to say that the average middle- to low-class citizen loves war or has some natural affinity for it when they only stand to suffer because of it. War is profitable for the powerful and elite because it comes at the expense of the common and disenfranchised, this is why states have to always make an effort to stir up huge propaganda campaigns and perpetuate cultural narratives about the greatness of warfare in order to dupe the common person into supporting them. If we all loved war by default they wouldnt have to make such an effort to convince us.

>>23347026
Wing and SEED are both perfectly intelligible, speedwatcher-kun

>>23347162
It actually is quite conclusive. There has never been a time in human history without blood being shed somewhere. When the first two brothers were born into this world, it didn't take long for one to kill the other. Mankind is a violent, destructive animal. While we try to "do better" than our nature, you cannot resist your nature forever on a universal scale. Words are fine and dandy until you have a barbarian sneak inside your gates, and he reminds you what simple violence can do to words.

The propaganda campaigns only work because innately, people hunger to be propagandized. When it comes to war, plenty of the seven deadly sins can lead to it. Envy for the wealth of another nation. Pride in your own nation. Greed for more power. The propaganda campaigns are also only required for the fence-sitters and nature-resistors. plenty of people need no coaxing at all.
I'm an American and even among the people who say they're anti-war here, those same people become extremely pro-war the moment it suits their favors and they think they ca get away with it without casualties on "our side."

>>23347177
They are if you view them at a surface level and take what they say at face value. Scrutinize their themes in more detail and you'll encounter the contradictions and inconsistencies like those I outlined, unless you wish to provide an alternative reading that makes more sense.

>>23347188
You aren’t looking deeper, you’re overthinking. You say that Wufei’s ideology is Wing’s message, that power = justice, but even the show doesn’t portray that as right, and it’s contradicted massively by the Mariemaia army basically winning

>>23347108
>This appears to be the case at first when Treize does catroonishly evil shit like trick Heero into killing a peace advocate that could have ended the war and initiate a military coup at the same time
At this point in the show Trieze is pretty much a card carrying member of the Romefeller Foundation. He was still naive enough early in series to believe the foundations leaders like Dermail bought into the ideal of nobility and knighthood the way he did. The ends would justify the means in putting the nobility in charge. It's not until mobile dolls shatter that nobility delusion for him that Trieze, the settings hero, is really born. Before that he's just a cool sword fighting antagonist who values honor and takes rose baths.

>>23347026
Seeds main ideological flaw is that it sells what any common sense would tell you is a class war between coordinator haves and natural have nots as a race war.

>>23347182
This is an extremely fatalist conception of humanity, I doubt I can persuade you if youre in this deep but fine.
>Words are fine and dandy until you have a barbarian sneak inside your gates, and he reminds you what simple violence can do to words.
Just because material conditions force humans to engage in conflict doesnt mean they have an inherent desire or affinity for conflict or war. I can fight the barbarian in self defense because my material circumstances force me to do so, this doesnt mean that I enjoy fighting him nor does it mean that I would still fight him if I had other means of resolving the conflict. Similarly, just because the imbalance of their affect and passions causes some humans to desire conflict over peaceful resolution doesnt mean that its fundamental to our nature, it only means that we always have to contest with people that feel such a way.
>The propaganda campaigns only work because innately, people hunger to be propagandized.
This does not speak to a natural affinity for war but a natural desire to be a minor, to be free of responsibility and let other people take charge of your life instead of making the effort to think for yourself and and find out what your own interests are and how to protect them. It speaks to a natural pension for sloth, not a desire for war, as propaganda and grand cultural narratives can be used to fool people into believing any number of things. That does not mean whatever desire the elites decided to peddle to us is actually natural and inherent to our being.
>the people who say they're anti-war here, those same people become extremely pro-war the moment it suits their favors and they think they ca get away with it without casualties on "our side."
This only speaks to a lack of principle.
Just because humans can be irrational doesnt mean all humans fundamentally are, just because they can be immoral doesnt mean they fundamentally are. Humans have the latent potential to overcome these vices.

>>23347108
>Every character in EW treats him like a hero and makes no serious attempt to challenge his ideology,

But it is not like that because the methods chosen define the person and none of the MC characters really ally themselves with Treize. He makes a lot of nice speeches about honor and chivalry saying that he remembers the names of all the soldiers he killed (lovely), but in reality it's the classic excuse of "I can't stop because if I do all those people I killed will have died in vain".

And then proceeds to commit suicide against Wufei. Which tells us that Treiza is perfectly aware of being a hypocrite and how much he really doesn't believe his own speeches and above all the necessity of his cause. he possibly believing that in the heroic death against a Gundam pilot (mind you, not against a mobile doll) can both redeem him and make him become the ideal symbol he wants to portray. A convenient way out as self-punishment for the methods he chose to use to his end.

Yes because I don't think there's any doubt that he didn't take Wufei seriously, so why troll him like that? If Treize really believes the bullshit he's talking about, he wouldn't have any personal guilt considering his actions necessary, but if he believes he's someone who has to disappear in order for peace to work.

>>23347199
In TV Wing its tempered once in an episode where Wufei meets Sally(?) where the only thing he learns is that the weak have a right to fight and protect themselves too wher as previously he believed that they should submit to the powerful and righteous for their protection. He doesnt really discard the foundation of his ideology at all. He's still raring to fight Treize afterwards thinking that if Treize is just he will lose and if he wins he'll prove himself right, and this is only foiled by Treizes letting him win. Again, Wing doesnt say this intentionally but by failing to properly address whats actually wrong with Wufeis ideology it lets it go uncontested and accidentally frames it as unproblematic. Wing doesnt send this message in an intentional coherent way, it does it by accident.

>>23347206
If you think Treize is the hero then I assume youre not >>23347084 who I was responding to.
Treizes ideology does not fundamentally change after turning on the OZ leaders and I wrote this with the premise that his military romanticism was immoral to begin with.
>Seeds main ideological flaw is that it sells what any common sense would tell you is a class war between coordinator haves and natural have nots as a race war.
Unrelated but absolutely true.

>>23345649
Combat wise, he had the best Gundam

>>23347258
I'm not the anon you were responding to, and I agree HIS ideology doesn't change. What I'm trying to do is frame the context in which Trieze did things like orchestrating the death of the chairman. I do think Trieze honestly believed in the foundation early in wing. When mobile dolls come in, he's forced to accept his beliefs are not the beliefs of the Foundation/Oz as a whole. The break with the foundation is when Trieze, as leader of the Trieze faction, in setting becomes its hero figure.
Also, I'm fine with criticizing his romantism for soldiers. I wouldn't call it immoral, but I would call it overly idealistic in a world where bad soldiers clearly exist. It's a completely fair thing to criticize about him.

>>23347226
Alright, this is actually a pretty legit sounding reading because with this interpretation it could make sense why no one challenges him ideologically when he ultimately proves himself wrong.
That said I still think its weird that he only renounces his ideology in action but not in word nor does anyone say anything about Treize thinking that he was actually in the wrong. His sudden desire for peace comes out of nowhere and his underlying guilt about the people who died because of him is only established in the same episode as his death, which makes it seem like an ungraceful way of redeeming him in the last moment or even a type of masterplan for peace that he was planning for all along. Its in this way that Wing cant properly interrogate the problematic ideologies its characters promote that I think it accidentally comes off as promoting them by venerating the character that promoted war as a hero and messiah and making it unclear whether his turn toward peace was a renunciation or hidden extension of his ideology. Another common interpretation of Wing is that Treize simply thinks people must experience the hardship of war (and be ennobled because of it) to understand the value of peace and thus his sacrifice was simply his intended endgoal all along after his warmongering has made people realize the value of peace and given them the virtue to pursue it.
But to be fair its been a good while since I watched TV Wing and EW, so I wont interrogate this interpretation any further and assume it went over my head due to what I consider to be Wings lackluster writing and inability to organically set up and develop Treizes motivations.

>>23347219
It's not fatalist at all. People have the power to resist their nature, but simple reality is that people also only control their own actions. A pacifist can live as a peaceful pacifist forever, until a violent thug crosses his path. The thug can either kill him or let him go his way, but if the thug chooses violence, the pacifist's options get reduced to two: sacrifice your ideals and fight, or die for your ideals. No matter what, the pacifist will cease to be a pacifist if the thug chooses violence and refuses peace.
>this doesnt mean that I enjoy fighting
I don't care if an individual enjoys it - I'm speaking to the nature of things.
>This does not speak to a natural affinity for war
Correct, it's a tangential topic that you brought up. The desire for war is deeper than that.
>Humans have the latent potential to overcome these vices.
Undeniable, but humans are equally capable of embracing those vices enthusiastically. Thus, an endless waltz of conflict.

>>23347313
To make myself clear, I do not argue for pacifism but simply that a desire for war is not inherent to humanity. Only those that stand to benefit from war desire it, and those that stand to lose everything naturally oppose it. This does not mean that you have to favor pacifism or be against defending yourself against violence, only that there are countless people for whom war is not in their best interest.
What youre really arguing for is admittedly becoming more opaque to me, but if I am taking what youre insinuating correctly you mean to say that because conflict between humans is inevitable it must mean that a tendency toward war is somehow fundamental to us. This I would contest.
>but simple reality is that people also only control their own actions.
This is a naive assumption because material conditions make it so that many cannot choose what they want to do under the premise that they want to preserve themselves. You wouldnt say of someone that works a job they hate that they do it because they want to, but because they have to, and your situation with the barbarian is all the same.
>sacrifice your ideals and fight, or die for your ideals. No matter what, the pacifist will cease to be a pacifist if the thug chooses violence and refuses peace.
Again, I do not argue for pacifism. I mean to say that just because the person that defends themselves through violence is forced to do so doesnt mean that violence and conflict is somehow inherent to their nature. They wouldnt resort to violence if they could help it, and it was someone else that forced them which does not reflect on their nature as a human.
>humans are equally capable of embracing those vices enthusiastically. Thus, an endless waltz of conflict.
If you admit that our capacity for vice and virtue are equal then you cannot assert thereafter that conflict and war is somehow more fundamental to human nature than negotiation and diplomacy is.

>>23347349
>you mean to say that because conflict between humans is inevitable it must mean that a tendency toward war is somehow fundamental to us.
More or less. Also to make MYself clear, when I say 'war" I do not mean "a formal declaration between two modern countries." I merely mean war as in large-scale conflict between peoples. "Largeness" of scale will be rather arbitrary, as a war between two countries that have a population of less than 1000 combined is still a war.
>many cannot choose what they want to
Incorrect - everyone has freedom of choice at all times. "I can't because I want to preserve myself" is just a reason to avoid conflict. A situation will only remain stagnant for as long as it is bearable by those bearing it. If your boss makes you work 10 hours on Saturday, you might say it sucks but keep working. If he rapes your wife and kills your kid and THEN asks you to work overtime, while still covered in their blood, you're probably going to do something else.
>the person that defends themselves through violence
You're too focused on that guy. He's being forced into that situation BY the guy who is forcing the situation, and that guy didn't need convincing. He's just a violent barbarian who loves violence. People like him can, and will, force the issue.
>you cannot assert thereafter
Ahh, but I can!
Negotiation is a tactic born of people who are resisting their nature, because they fear they'd lose in an honest conflict. It can only exist in an "enlightened" group. Negotiation might be possible with people who throw spears at drones, but last I heard, they killed everyone who tried to introduce them to Christ Our Lord.
Words are, and will always be, a luxury that can be revoked, at any time, by a barbarian who refuses to use them.

>>23347206
But it very obviously is a race war anon. They explicitly make this clear multiple times. The rhetoric used by both sides is obvious on this

>>23347313
>To make myself clear, I do not argue for pacifism but simply that a desire for war is not inherent to humanity.
Im going to have to disagree here. Greed and the desire to survive are inherent to human nature. Those are the base parts of humanity and are inherent sources of conflict/war. War/conflict are actions, it's the desires and goals behind the action that matter.

>>23347387
>Incorrect - everyone has freedom of choice at all times. "I can't because I want to preserve myself" is just a reason to avoid conflict.
You are talking about freedom of choice in the broadest and thus most irrelevant sense. When someone is acting against their own interests in favor of protecting their most basic one, survival, because someone with power over them compels them to do so, that is called being forced to do something, coercion. Any narrower definition of freedom cannot qualify being forced to do something a free choice, as little as a slave chooses to be subservient to their master because their choices are limited to death and servitude, and thus not really a choice at all if you consider survival a fundamental interest to humans.
I really dont see how you can conflate being forced into conflict with secretly having it be in your nature to engage in conflict. Your examples dont illustrate at all how humans desire war deep down. Its no more inevitable and thus no more fundamental that wanting peace. Of course I would kill my boss in a violent rage if he killed my kid and raped my wife, and I would invite him to a friendly dinner if he gave them gifts and doubled my wage, how does the former scenario speak to something more fundamental than the latter? Its hard to see what your rhetorical move is supposed to be.
>Negotiation is a tactic born of people who are resisting their nature, because they fear they'd lose in an honest conflict.
Absurdly wrong. War, on any given scale like you say, is only beneficial or profitable in certain situations, and there are many more where it actually puts you at a disadvantage in relation to any given third party. Its not because I dont think I cant win, it might be because I dont want a third party to take advantage of my weakened state after fighting, and surely the other party may feel the same, thus we negotiate in our best interest, not because either is secretly inferior to the other.

>>23347420
I think this argument is more plausible but again it doesnt prove that the root of war, greed and survival, are more fundamental than their opposite. Humans desire companionship, recognition and affection as much as they are greedy and selfish. That doesnt mean I can argue they are fundamentally friendly and docile peacemakers that just want to gather in communities and have other peoples affection, as little as I can argue their greed turns them all into warmongers. Also, war isnt necessarily more useful to survival than cooperation and contract, its possible to argue even less so.
Essentially, i want to say that "human nature" encompasses far less than what you would argue and doesnt determine our behavior as strongly as you think it does. We have a secondary set of natural human tendencies that pull us in different directions but do not govern our behavior like natural laws do.

>>23344992 (OP)
Meh, the combat didn't make any sense, the pacing was terrible, and "Total Pacifism" didn't work even in setting.

>>23347414
>They explicitly make this clear multiple times. The rhetoric used by both sides is obvious on this
That is literally the problem with SEED on its base level.

Anon let's think about naturals vs Coordinators and why naturals would be against them for a second.
1. What's the source of the problem that naturals would have?
The coordinator is inherently better than the natural, period. If you put an average coordinator kid next to an average natural kid, the natural will lose in all categories that matter in society. You see this shit happen in show whether it be Kira's infamous you wouldn't stand a chance with Sai or Azazel getting bullied by coordinators as a kid.
2. What societal consequences are there from this?
The average natural's inability to compete against the coordinator leads to an inherently unequal society where naturals are at a disadvantage. The job market and competitive things in society will inherently favor of the superior coordinator. This locks naturals out of top tier jobs and even sports.
3. What does this mean?
What coordinators existence ultimately creates is a caste system of coordinator haves and natural have nots. The only way to prevent this caste system taking root is to ban coordinators being made.
4.why call it a class war?
Because it sure as hell isn't your average Joe who can afford to go get their baby gene edited.

Blue Cosmos extremists are quite litterally fighting to preserve a world where they and their children and grand children aren't relegated to being second class human beings. It's lunacy of both sides, ie Azazel and Zala, that muddy the source of conflict completely. Basically The show horribly mishandles coordinators vs natural as a conflict.

>>23347429
*Its not because I dont think I can win,

>>23347429
>freedom of choice in the broadest and thus most irrelevant sense
The existence of freedom of choice is already a philosophical debate on its own.
People act against their own survival all the time. The monk incinerating himself to protest the Vietnam war, for instance. My point in this freedom-thread is that people are, at all times, free to pick from nearly limitless options. Some of those options do not include their own survival, but they're still options that can, and have been, chosen.
>I really dont see how you can conflate being forced into conflict with secretly having it be in your nature to engage in conflict
I think you're missing, or avoiding, that in every example I provide, there will be an aggressor who is a human. The person who wants to be peaceful will be interrupted by the person who does not want peace. War is human nature because there will always be violent people who crave it. It cannot be bred out of us completely.
>how does the former scenario speak to something more fundamental than the latter?
It doesn't. You're stuck on your responses to actions, not the actions that instigate the responses.
>War, on any given scale like you say, is only beneficial or profitable in certain situations
This statement is true but also irrelevant to my point. You're stuck on "rational" wars. Irrational wars exist. Wars over difference of ideology exist. Many historical wars were fought simply because there was an "other" and the "other" was to be eliminated, at all costs. Senseless slaughter for the sake of itself.

>>23347483
>My point in this freedom-thread is that people are, at all times, free to pick from nearly limitless options.
"Limitless options" is demonstrably false when material conditions or the power your opponent has over you limit the number of choices available to you. What options does the slave have? In most cases, death or servitude. Any other option is only born of cooperation with other slaves that share his interests, which isnt of interest to this matter. The monk and ascetic are clear exceptions to this, and this is why figures like Buddha or Jesus are revered as exceptional for casting aside their own desire for survival or attachment to worldly things. They stand at the zenith of asceticism, in no way comparable to most humans.
>War is human nature because there will always be violent people who crave it. It cannot be bred out of us completely.
In those terms, war is no more human nature than negotiation and diplomacy are. Just as there have always been those that seek conflict, there will always be those that seek to live without it, it is just as common and could thus be argued to be no less fundamental according to your logic. But seeing as the natural desire for companionship and cooperation negates the natural desire for conflict and war, they cannot both be natural laws that govern our behavior in absolute ways, they are merely tendencies rather than laws in conflict with each other. Which triumphs depends on the virtue of the man in question. Even if it is preordained that there always must be a warmonger, that does not mean it is preordained for everyone to be so, as the existence of peacemakers is just as constant.

>>23347476
>>23347511
>Wars over difference of ideology exist. Many historical wars were fought simply because there was an "other" and the "other" was to be eliminated, at all costs.
A shallow understanding of religious and racial wars. Religion and race are merely used as pretexts to justify the war while what the political or religious leaders actually desire is the political power and or economic profit they stand to gain from it. It only ever serves as a secondary pretext. And if the war is irrational, then that is only because of a mistake in the perception of what power or profit the leaders stand to gain, not because of pure emotion.

>>23347472
It's not like it's impossible for Naturals to compete against Coordinators. Murrue, Mu, Arnold, and Natarle all managed to excel in their chosen field despite the abilities of Coordinators. Rau le Creuset almost singlehandedly led to the total destruction of both factions (and humanity as a whole), and he was just some dying clone.
The G-Weapons, Umbrella of Artemis, and Mirage Colloid were all Natural inventions, were they not?
Naturals can still compete. It's just a matter of minmaxing, and likely what Durandal was planning to do with his version of the Destiny plan. Reinstating a cheaper version of the Coordinator serum might have been better, but then there'd be the birthrate problem.
Also, it's been a minute since I've seen the Azrael flashbacks, but wasn't HE the one trying to do the bullying out of jealousy? I swear he brought a group with him to try and jump the kid who wound up dropping him.
Also, this doesn't really account for the fact that most coordinators have moved to space by the time of SEED proper, so the risk of them locking all Naturals out of higher positions in any meaningful is practically impossible, especially with the hostile atmosphere undoubtedly leading to some getting screwed out of work.

>>23347511
I also notice now that I rephrased your argument in >>23347349 poorly when i said
>because conflict between humans is inevitable it must mean that a tendency toward war is somehow fundamental to us. This I would contest.
When I very much agree there is a tendency toward war as much as there is a tendency toward peace, while it seems youve really been arguing it is law, where as a tendency toward war is nowhere near as fundamental or exclusive to its opposite.

>>23344992 (OP)
Time for your prostate exam toonami-kun

>>23344992 (OP)
Show started off so well then slowed down to a crawl after the OZ coup.

>>23344992 (OP)
It's probably one of the stupidest Gundam series, but it's still a fun time watching it.

>>23347561
Which of the four?

>>23347576
First one.

>>23347511
>What options does the slave have?
Limitless, same as you and me. Servitude is a spectrum with infinite notches already, and you yourself presented a third option spectrum in your next sentence.
>Just as there have always been those that seek conflict, there will always be those that seek to live without it
The difference is that the latter cannot exist without either the consent of, or the annihilation of, the former. Peace must be forced and maintained by a collective; war blossoms arbitrarily at the whim of an instigator.

>>23347547
You're getting super bogged down by the semantics, which makes sense in a peaceful, academic world. You'd be no match for a barbarian, so you should pray that you never come across one!
Basically, your issue is that you seem unable to emphasize down on the intellectual scale. You cannot see things as a simpler person would.
>Grog not like big words.
>Grog SMASH.

>>23346539
>hating on Wing and Seed
Trying too hard to fit in.

>>23347630
It's Zeta fan. He's retarded and trans. Prease understand

>>23347595
>Limitless, same as you and me. Servitude is a spectrum with infinite notches already, and you yourself presented a third option spectrum in your next sentence.
I dont think you really understand what Im getting at. The fact that the slave has to choose between degrees of servitude instead of degrees of freedom is already an admission to the fact that those options are not available to him, not to mention that those "degrees of servitude", which I assume to be a question of mentality, are irrelevant to his material conditions. The third option I brought up was a preemptive attempt at stopping someone from ignoring the point of the hypothetical and so I ask you to assume the slave in question has no one to ask for cooperation, as could very well be the case. If you consider the man in the cage to have freedom in the sense that he is at least not bound by his hands and feet then your standard of freedom is very low and meager, as anyone would say that true freedom lies outside the cage entirely.
>The difference is that the latter cannot exist without either the consent of, or the annihilation of, the former.
>war blossoms arbitrarily at the whim of an instigator.
You make it sound like the warmonger only allows the peacemaker to exist when he could destroy him when there are various social and economic sanctions through which he can be kept in check, and lastly even by means of the threat of violence or annihilation without actually carrying it out (as I do not argue for pacifism, this is a valid means of maintaining peace). Making war is not easy as you think when there are just as many that desire peace and will ensure your ruin if you dare to, thus our histories are filled with periods equally consisting of peace and war and those that say there is "too much war" only mean it in the sense that there is more than there ought to be but not more than realistically would happen.

>>23347595
>>23347650
>You're getting super bogged down by the semantics, which makes sense in a peaceful, academic world. You'd be no match for a barbarian, so you should pray that you never come across one!
Basically, your issue is that you seem unable to emphasize down on the intellectual scale. You cannot see things as a simpler person would.
Why do I have to care that the barbarian exists when he is no more common than the sensible negotiator? Again, I believe we are arguing about whether the barbarian is anymore fundamental to human nature than the negotiator, and his mere existence does not imply that he is. Even caveman banded together and helped each other, so Grog does not get at something more fundamentally human than say Greg the sensible savage who loves his family and making friends.

>>23347650
>I dont think you really understand what Im getting at.
I do understand it, but I reject it. The man whose arms and legs and eyes are all bound can still retreat into his imagination. There are no circumstances in which a man has NO control over his actions. Even if you significantly restrict those options, "infinity" is a fucking huge concept, beyond most human comprehension. Choices may not be ideal or desirable but they are still valid choices that exist.
>You make it sound like the warmonger only allows the peacemaker to exist when he could destroy him
And this is correct. The holder of "greatest violence" allows the worlds of all holders of "inferior violence," but only so long as it is convenient to him.
>our histories
Interesting word choice ("our" feels very "western liberal"), since I think you'd struggle to find any period in human history wherein no one was fighting anywhere on earth. Someone is always fighting somewhere.
>>23347664
>Why do I have to care that the barbarian exists
You don't have to care and I haven't said that you do. But if he decides that you are no longer worth allowing to exist, you will then either start caring, or you will die before you have a chance to do so.
>Even caveman banded together
Yes, and those bands of cavemen killed other bands of cavemen.
The waltz is ENDLESS.

>>23347524
Mu and Rau and their dad are newtype freaks, toss them out inherently. They are in no way average. And yes they can compete if they do things exactly right but you're still middle weights vs heavy weights using a boxing analogy.
G-weapons were Orb, read coordinator, involved don't let the setting fool you. We have no idea how many eurasion coordinators worked on the space station shield.
Most coordinators don't actually live inin the plants they are still on earth. Plant population is only 60 million. The 60 million ubermench are fighting billions.

>>23347673
>I do understand it, but I reject it.
I will leave it at this as I see no further point in trying to persuade you about freedom. Living a harsh truth is 100 times better than living a comfortable lie.
>And this is correct. The holder of "greatest violence" allows the worlds of all holders of "inferior violence," but only so long as it is convenient to him.
That does not mean that the peacemaker actually wants to use that violence or inherently desires to use it as you imply. This does not further your point that by nature the human inherently loves war, that he secretly desires war, or that he deep down approves of war. He may hold the threat of violence explicitly as a means to prevent others from resorting to it. The peacemaker uses the threat of violence and the warmonger uses it in practice but neither is fundamentally more human than the other. The peacemaker does not have to be this sissy, sophisticated and meager person you make him out to be.
>Interesting word choice ("our" feels very "western liberal"), since I think you'd struggle to find any period in human history wherein no one was fighting anywhere on earth. Someone is always fighting somewhere.
Correct, and you would struggle to find a period in human history where there werent any people living in peace anywhere on earth. A more eastern way of phrasing it would be that the universe alternates between order and disorder (peace and war), alternating periods of tranquility and prospering dynasties followed by its rot and collapse; this leads to a period of chaos and war where the victor only seizes hegemony for the sake of erecting a new dynasty and establishing a new period of peace. War is no more common than peace, thus no more fundamental than peace.
>Yes, and those bands of cavemen killed other bands of cavemen.
>The waltz is ENDLESS.
And sometimes, they did not and made peace with the other bands instead. Youre insinuating a solo performance of war, not a waltz between war and peace.

>>23347472
That’s a bunch of baloney. Coordinators still need to train and study to achieve anything, they just have an easier time of it. There are plenty of jobs where raw capability isn’t as important as mentality or motivation, or where technology ensures the playing field is basically level.

>>23347719
>they just have an easier time of it.
Don't cry to me when the massed produced coordinator Doogie Howsers knock you out of med school.

>>23347732
Ironically, Naturals are said to be ahead of Coordinators in medicine and pharmacology in the setting, because Coordinators don’t really get sick

>>23347673
To restate, I really dont think the fact that a random barbarian could attack and kill me or force me to defend myself with violence is some big gotcha. I do not contest that he might do that, but cant you see how this is irrelevant to the goal of proving that humans fundamentally love war when I might also run into Greg the sensible savage at any moment? The burden to prove that war is more fundamental than peace lies on you, I only need to rest my case that you cannot prove that it is so to deny your assertion and its terrible implications that justify Treizes ideology (Im still arguing about this because I think Wing sucks).

>>23347472
>they took our jobs

>>23347679
>Toss them out immediately
Except Rau's plan has jack shit to do with his Newtype powers and he hardly used them to fight against Kira. As for Mu, I'm pretty sure his Newtype powers only flared up against Rau, but I could be wrong.
>And yes they can compete if they do things exactly right but you're still middle weights vs heavy weights using a boxing analogy.
I wouldn't go that far, at least regarding margin for error.
>G-Weapons were Orb
Meaning coordinators were working with Naturals as peers?
>We have no idea how many eurasion coordinators worked on the space station shield
Then what's stopping me from saying that I was mostly Naturals? The Earth Forces are incredibly proud of the Umbrella of Artemis. Why would that be the case if Naturals WEREN'T at the very least the primary group behind its construction?
>Most coordinators don't actually live inin the plants they are still on earth
The graphic you sent suggests 3.4% of coordinators actually do live in space, but they're just not necessarily aligned with ZAFT. Even then, that's still a fraction of the coordinators on Earth existing in a space that barely tolerates their existence and as such do their best to lock them out of place in society whenever possible (Orb and maybe Scandinavia being the only notable exceptions to this).
>The 60 million ubermench are fighting billions.
Less a testament to the gap between groups and more a statement of how retarded the Earth Forces leadership were being sending out picrel against GINNs and CGUEs.

>>23347741
To restate, your reaction is irrelevant to the point. The barbarian's existence is the thing that you'd have to disprove to prove that war isn't human nature.
> The burden to prove that war is more fundamental than peace lies on you
Woah, now. Hold on a second! No it's not, lol. I never made anything close to that claim. I said (all the way back in >>23347141) Humankind loves war. It pretends that it wants peace, but as soon as it attains peace it starts finding new reasons to fight within itself. Nothing you've said refutes that claim.
You're admittedly better than me at manipulating language and directing conversation, but you've yet to come anywhere close to disproving my original statement. You'd probably win in a court of opinion, but that wouldn't make you correct. The burden of proof for my original statement is apparent everywhere in the course of human history: people have been at war for as long as there have been people to be at war.

Wing might suck, but it's wrong to say that it didn't think about what it was saying.

>>23344992 (OP)
You guys ever think about Scott McNeil's career outside of being smarmy voice actor guy? I do.

>>23347795
>The barbarian's existence is the thing that you'd have to disprove to prove that war isn't human nature.
I have never asserted that war wasn’t part of human nature or not one of its natural tendencies. I only wish to assert that it is not the only or one of the most basic aspects of human nature, as the love for peace is just as strong.
Humankind loves war. It pretends that it wants peace, but as soon as it attains peace it starts finding new reasons to fight within itself.
I apologize if I misunderstood your claim to be stronger than it was because “it pretends to want peace” led me to believe that you implied humanity really didn’t desire peace as much as it loved war which I take to be wrong because the desire for peace is no weaker than that for war. If your only claim is that one part of human nature loves war, then let me return to Gundam Wing and say that this by no means justifies Treizes ideology.
Just because war is inevitable doesn’t mean that we ought to venerate the soldiers that fight it as noble or be complacent about stopping it (let alone perpetuate it as Treize does) because it promotes virtue or excellency in them. This kind of ideology only serves to make light of the suffering that war brings to common people by implying that the virtues and beauty it brings out in soldiers morally justifies the suffering it puts others through. I take it to be a morally indefensible stance that Wing could only have stumbled into promoting by accident, and this is what it does when it treats Treize as a hero and messiah after his death.

>>23347810
Not really. He doesn't do much. I have seen that episode of Highlander though. He also appeared in another episode (his character died in that too). He was in this one made for TV movie though that I caught on the Sci-fi channel back in like 2003 or 4 at 1 am because I couldn't sleep. He played some jewel thief who stowed away on a prison transport spaceship that was filled with the worst kinds of psychopaths who were in cryostasis to be taken somewhere and shit hits the fan and they get woken up, take over the ship and it basically becomes like Die-hard but in space and it may or may not have re-used Stargate-SG1 props and sets. Allegedly, Mcneil is very ashamed of that movie.

>>23346539
>Should the fuck up 0083fags the spectacle over substance writing philosophy you ate up was introduced by 0083.

>After all is said and done Wing remains the gayest Gundam show.
FIFY

>>23348409
I suppose he is not Garry Chalk who never turned down a Vancouver production that had a decent craft services table.