is this true ?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /m/ - Mecha
You are currently reading a thread in /m/ - Mecha
is this true ?
>>14242871
He's a pathological liar.
>>14242871
In a way. To betray anyone, you have to actually be on their side, and he only was part of Zeon to get close to the Zabis and kill them.
>>14242871
Cool.We still haven't had this thread this week.
So here we go:
Technically he can't be lying because he is not replying to the question if he has ever betrayed anyone but responding to another person's opinion that he has betrayed someone.Thus he is also providing his private opinion.Opinions can't be lies since they represent someone's personal point of view and not the objective reality.
Nevertheless,as it is,his assessment strikes me as fairly correct.
This of course would depend on one's interpretation of the term "betrayal" with may vary from person to person,which further demonstrates my point.
>>14242871
Garma doesn't count..
But Char's death certainly does.
>>14242906
Char doesn't exist.
>>14242910
Read the origin.
>>14242914
I have.I actually haven't but you get the drift.
I came here to nya at you
>>14242916
Oh..well you should. Its really good.
>>14242934
Char Aznable was a friend of Casval and Artesia.
Casval led him into a trap set up by the Zabis and resumed Char's identity for the duration of the OYW.
>>14242871
If you were never on their side to begin with, is it really betreyal?
If you swear an oath of loyalty to a country's military and then kill one of its leaders, you've betrayed them. There's no "I had my fingers crossed so it didn't count." bullshit.
Charfags have the most backasswards logic.
>>14242871
He's speaking as Quattro here. Not as Char or Casval.
>>14245093
>literally the same as fluidsexual tumblrina bullshit logic
>>14245093
I'm pretty sure at this point in the show he is openly being called Char.
>>14242871
No and all the people who scream that he technically never betrayed Garma because he was never on his side are fucking retards who don't know what the hell betrayal is.
>>14244922
>If you swear an oath of loyalty to a country's military and then kill one of its leaders, you've betrayed them
Zabi government is inherently illegitimate, no oath to them can be binding. Besides they've been trying to kill him from the start.
>>14242871
Lurk more, newfag.
We have this thread like 3 times a month.
>>14242887
>Self-rationalizing his actions
Char pls.
>>14245607
A dangerous and duplicitousideal.
>>14245607
its an extense debate, we need to find the true about char
>>14245093
Nah, he speaks as Casval. He's completely unmasked.
>>14244922
This is just stupid.In what way is this sort of thing morally binding?
Yes,they can court-martial him for his Garma and Kycillia stunts and he would have no right to protest but a military oath of loyalty is part of the law and law is enforced by compulsion.It cannot be morally obligating.
If Char doesn't feel he owes anyone anything no one has the right of traitor shaming him.
>>14242902
Yes we had.
>>14246446
I was being sarcastic.We had the exact same thread a few days ago.
Isn't it time to change the quote?I feel that everything that could be said about this one has already been said.
>>14242874
He is not a pathological liar.Pathological liars lie compulsively and without any particular reason.
Char lies with purpose because when you are not burdened with superfluous moral considerations lying is a very quick and practical way to get what you want.
This sort of behavior is commonly a part of manipulation and coercion.The OP quote is not an example of either of that.
Technically the guy was never on anybody else's side but his own to begin with. The only person I would argue that Char actually betrayed was his sister.
>>14246270
Nobody said he was "morally obligated" (though Zeon would certainly consider it so).
The point is that he did, objectively, betray someone, by every definition of the word.
>>14246446
>Implying people who make this kind of thread want anything but shitposting.
>>14247390
I see.So the point is that he is a lying liar because he used a word incorrectly without consulting a dictionary beforehand?And that's terrible?
If only he had said "I don't owe you or anyone anything,you bitch."
But of course then we could argue over the meaning of the word "owe".
I think he shall need a lawyer to put this in clear legal terms so that /m/ can sleep at night.
>>14247569
Char was literally trusted to fight for Zeon. His entire cloak and dagger participation was so he could kill the Zabis. That's being a treacherous liar.
>So the point is that he is a lying liar because he used a word incorrectly
Char rationalizing himself and his perception is just a show of how deluded he is. It's his personal truth.
wow it's almost like Char is an asshole or something
>>14249443
There is no such thing as objective morality.Is it so hard to imagine that different people might have different perception of the world and as a result different values.
He doesn't have to twist and turn or rationalize anything because what he says makes perfect sense.
It's just that >>14249468 is you choose to put it that way.
>>14249443
There's definitely a difference between someone that was once loyal vs. someone that was never at any moment loyal. The term betrayal is most often associated with the former than the latter. I mean seriously if a group of people is trying to hunt you down and kill you, but you disguise yourself as one of them to kill them... would you really call that "a betrayal?"
It's to show that in Casval's head he was always at war with them, always true to that all-consuming desire for revenge that he's had his entire life. That's the only point of the quote.
>>14250116
>Is it so hard to imagine that different people might have different perception of the world and as a result different values.
Right back at ya'. He's still a traitor. If Zeon had discovered he killed Garma: they'd declare him a traitor. I'm not the anon bringing up mortality but he didn't subjectively kill Garma. He straight up killed Garma. He murdered a commander in his own army. Char never betrayed himself. He's crazy.
>>14250356
If you fake half a lifetime of loyalty and betray your institution, specifically the easy example of killing party leaders, you're a traitor. Not to yourself, but to everyone else.
>>14250356
>The term betrayal is most often associated with the former than the latter.
Not really. It doesn't have to be either.
The motives of the offending party are irrelevant for a betrayal. Fundamentally, a betrayal is the willful breaking of an agreement or confidence of one party in a relationship to the detriment of another which is exactly what Char did. As a officer in the Principality, he was entrusted with authority so that he may serve Zeon. Instead, he wages his personal vendetta against important heads of Zeon and destroyed spacenoids' best chance for independence.
>>14250680
Didn't spacenoids become independent in Late UC?
>>14242871
no matter how you spin it, Char Aznable/Edward Mass/Quattro Bajeena/Casval Deikun is a dangerously insane individual, all the more so in The Origin, especially since in that work one can argue quite well that the One Year War and all it's horrors can be blamed on him, if Char hadn't organized the attack on the Federation barracks, conflict between Zeon and the Federation could have been staved off for years or even decades longer than they did, possibly avoided entirely even, as it's possible that the two sides could have found a more peaceful resolution with enough time, Char basically forced both sides hands way before either one was even remotely ready to deal with this sort of thing
>>14250648
Yes,from semantic perspective he is a traitor and an objective fact is not something he would be stupid enough argue with.But what is the point of stating a fact in any particular situation without giving it a subjective context?
Arguing about him being a traitor or not from objective perspective if like arguing if he is short or tall or if he is a man or a woman.
In this case Haman is implying that he is bad and he should feel bad for betraying her.From her perspective this is a bad thing,while from his it isn't.See?Since the definition of right and wrong is subjective this is what can be called a difference in values.
While she as well as anyone else has the right to feel that he is a complete asshole it would be unfair to suggest that he has to feel this way about himself.It would be understandable if he felt angry about it.Does this make him a liar?No.Does this make him something even worse?Probably,but that depend on everyone's private judgement and their understanding of morality.
>>14250690
> if Char hadn't organized the attack on the Federation barracks conflict between Zeon and the Federation could have been staved off for years
Is that from the flashback chapters?In any case I don't think this is how war works.It's like saying Kamille started the Gryps conflict.
>>14250680
>destroyed spacenoids' best chance for independence
How so?Are you one of those "Garma could have saved Zeon" guys or do you mean something else?
>>14250757
>Jerid shittalks Kamillie
>Kamillie steals the MkII and joins the AEUG because of it
>Kills Scirroco
Titans could have won Gyrps if Jerid just kept his mouth shut.
>>14250760
>hear someone call out a girl's name
>when you look, it see it's not a girl who responded, but actually a guy
Kamille's just an autistic roid rager who woulda flipped his shit eventually. Even if Jerid HAD thought it to himself, Kamille would have ended up attacking some other TITANS member for an imaginary slight. Hell, Kamille probably would have attacked Jerid regardless, just for thinking that Kamille is a girl's name,
Which it is, by the way.
>>14250774
>Which it is, by the way.
I'M GONNA FUCKING KILL YOU KAMILLIE IS A PERFECTLY GOOD NAME FOR A GUY
>>14250757
>Is that from the flashback chapters?In any case I don't think this is how war works.It's like saying Kamille started the Gryps conflict.
basically if Char hadn't instigated that attack(and dragged Garma into being part of it, so it would come off as a sanctioned attack and not something that Zeon could deny they advocated), then it's entirely possible that open hostility between the Federation and Zeon could have been avoided for years(or even prevented entirely), pretty much the only good to come out of that mess was Dozle meeting his future wife, and eventually Char meeting Lalah(and the latter could conceivably be considered a bad thing since Lalah's influence on Char eventually leads to CCA's events)
>>14250690
>it's an "everything ever is Char's fault" episode
>>14250757
>How so?Are you one of those "Garma could have saved Zeon" guys or do you mean something else?
More like "He killed every commander killed leaving Zeon in such disarray that they had to reconstruct the government just so they could surrender." Especially when it comes to Garma.
>>14242871
Yes. From a certain point of view.
>>14250874
He only offed Kycilia.Everything else is their own fault.
Kycilia could have done something for the independence of spacenoids at this point?
>>14250905
>He only offed Kycilia.
Confirmed for having never watched MSG.
>>14250905
>implying Char wouldn't have gone after the other Zabi members.
>>14250116
This doesn't have anything to do with morality; it has everything to do with the goddamn definition of "betray".
>>14250729
>Does this make him a liar?
Yes, yes it does. You're writing a lot of irrelevant stuff to state you don't think a cartoon character is a delusional liar. We all know Char think he's in the right. And he's wrong.
>I have never murdered anyone in my life.
>We have an HD video of you brutally murdering an entire orphanage.
>That doesn't count because I wanted to do it all along so it isn't murder. I'd like to be dismissed from court now.
Charfag logic.
>>14242871
For fuck sakes, he wasn't loyal to th Zabi's since he joined them under false pretense. He always planed to fucking kill them.
>>14251794
AND THAT'S STILL A BETRAYAL YOU DENSE FUCK.
>>14245144
>in everything except my physical appearance, I am A CHAR
>[paints everything red]
>>14243419
Where was this scene?
>>14251906
MSG episode 33, "Farewell at Side 6"
after Amuro shoots down a dozen Rick Doms in under three minutes (well he takes down 9 to be fair; I think Sayla gets 2 and Sleggar, 1, or vice versa)
>>14251737
>>14251737
Semantics doesn't matter. Morals matter.
When you say he is a traitor, liar etc. are you not making a moral judgement by implying he is morally wrong? If you are not making a moral judgement then what is the purpose of the statement? What is the purpose of stating an obvious fact.
Usually when people communicate they try to transmit a certain meaning a little bit different from the exact literal meaning of the words that constitute the sentence.
If you are saying someone is a traitor without attaching any moral or emotional implications you are stating absolutely nothing. Is that what you want to achieve? In this case congratulations. You've succeeded.
Or are you trying to make a moral judgement after all? Then you have the right to do so but you can not expect anyone else to agree with you because moral judgement is subjective.
You can't be a liar if you state something you believe is true and you can't be delusional if you make a judgement about something that is not a part of objective reality.
No one is making you believe Char is a good person. I don't believe Char is a good person.
But if Char wants to believe he is a good person then you can't deny him the right to do so on any logical grounds.
>>14251906
>not remembering Amuro counting his kills like a boss
Of all the shit that makes zero sense in Zeta why do you memers keep arguing about if he's a liar or not?
Has everything else just been established as inexplicable bullshit?
>>14252079
Holy shit. You just cut through the autism so perfectly. Your reply should be posted in all of these threads from now on.
>>14250774
Or he could beat up a normal police officer, or a classmate or something and been arrested as a delinquent.
>>14251805
NOT FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE, OR FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF DOUBLE AGENTS SENT IN DELIBERATELY TO UNDERMINE SHIT.
You think that FBI members going undercover in a cartel think they're betraying them?
>>14252873
>You think that FBI members going undercover in a cartel think they're betraying them?
Yes, they are betraying whoever they working for in the cartel.
>>14252079
You are so far up your own ass; thinking you're explaining things no one is arguing. You are over thinking something that is very simple.
>You can't be a liar if you state something you believe is true and you can't be delusional if you make a judgement about something that is not a part of objective reality.
That would explain why you don't get it. You're typing the long form version of "I'm a wizard and you can't prove me wrong alalalalalalalala" Don't let being passably literate make you into an idiot.
>>14242871
>is this true ?
yes
>>14253624
Truth depends on the context and on what the person you are speaking to is trying to say.
Normally if you say "I'm a wizard" out of any particular context it could be interpreted as "I can do magic".Now, it's commonly accepted that magic is something that doesn't objectively exist for the lack of proof to the contrary. If you want me to believe you are a wizard you would understandably have to prove that you can do magic.
Of course, if you genuinely believe you are a wizard stating you are a wizard does not make you a liar. But it does sort of make you look delusional. No?
is this true?
Of course hes lying hes knows he betrayed plenty of people
Do you not understand that being a likeable asshole is Chars whole shtick?
The fact that hes the type of guy whod spout such bullshit with such earnestness is what makes him a good character
>>14253653
Avatarfagging is not smiled upon.
>>14254260
>>14254712
I'm not overthinking. Overthinking would imply that I am trying to present a situation as more complex than it actually is which, I believe, is either unrelated or in a certain sense the opposite of what I'm trying to do.
What I'm trying to do is explain basic logic concepts that any five-year-old should be able to grasp intuitively in what I hope is an easily digestible way because it seems that some people on this board have problems with them.
Maybe the term you are looking for to describe my condition is sperging out.This would imply that I pay way more attention to a certain minor problem than it would usually warrant.
If you were to say I was sperging you would be correct. I am sperging out.
>>14242871
He never betrayed anyone, because he never lost perspective unlike a certain someone.
>>14242871
Whether it's true or not is irrelevant. The point of the scene is that Char believes it's true, and what that tells us about Char. Everyone in Zeon would say Char betrayed the Zabis. So would the rest of the AEUG. So would most of the audience. That Char is able to say with no mask that he's never betrayed anyone is demonstrative of how Char thinks and what he's capable of, because if he can justify all he's done to himself, then he can justify anything.
>>14255344
yeah but he didn't get a cat out of the bargain so whatevs
>>14254771
Apply Occam's law. It's funny to see anyone argue for Char because they assume people who call it for what it is don't "get it." And we get it's a flawed perception. Char is delusional.
>>14255901
>Apply Occam's law
I believe I am, just as most people usually do. What parts of "simple logic concepts" and "intuitively grasp" do you not understand?
>It's funny to see anyone argue for Char
I am not arguing for Char. I argue for the truthfulness of his statement. I don't care about Char. I care about the truth.
>people who call it for what it is don't "get it."
What "is" it? What is there to get?
>Char is a traitor
Are you trying to state a fact? No one in their right mind would argue with a fact.
>and we get it's a flawed perception
But I think you are trying to make a moral judgement by arguing that Char is a bad person and deserves no sympathy and you are using words the meaning of which you don't seem to understand even though I tried to explain them to you to the best of my abilities. If that is what you are trying to do then nobody can claim you are wrong but in the same time no one has to agree with you because everyone has their own subjective values and a private opinion about what is good and what is bad.
If Haman wants to think Char is a bad person she has the right to do so. And if Char thinks he is not a bad person he also has the right to think so.
Does the concept of two people holding two opposing beliefs and still being right bother you? Does it confuse you?
Do you not understand the meaning of the word subjective?
Does it confuse you that I could agree with the truthfulness of Char's statement but disagree with with its intent?
Do you think that your private opinions are always objectively right? Do you think that anyone who disagrees with you has "flawed perception"?
Do you understand that the categories of "truth" and "falsehood" do not overlap in any way with those of "right" and "wrong".
Can you comprehend the difference between objective and subjective reality?If you don't then you might be the one who's delusional.
>>14255470
>Everyone in Zeon would say Char betrayed the Zabis. So would the rest of the AEUG.
Only because they lack information on Char and his actions.
>So would most of the audience.
Uh-huh.
>because if he can justify all he's done to himself, then he can justify anything.
But there's not much to justify at all. Zabis were Char's enemy from the start and he was theirs.
There wasn't a point in the show or UC history where Zabi family and Casval Rem Deikun met up and decided they are going to stop trying to kill eachother only for Char to viciously betray them. If anyone was betrayed it's Char and his family at the earlier point of time.
What Char says is neither a justification nor self-delusion, he's just speaking from a position of person who is actually aware of facts of situation.
>Semantics: the thread
>>14255901
How is it a flawed perception? A view that a double agent is a traitor to the organization that they seek to betray is just as valid as a view where the double agent is not a traitor because his loyalty to that organization was only temporary. You could argue with Char about the same difference and it won't change anything because Char's true loyalty was to himself. If there was a time when he truly betrayed anyone, it was betraying himself when he gave Amuro the psycoframe technology.
>>14256173
>enlist in a country's military, which requires an oath
>gain the trust of the Zabis
>lure Garma into a trap, which betrayed (see that word there) his trust and treasonously kills his superior officer/royal family member of the country he's serving, not to mention all the Gaw soldiers that died at the hands of a compatriot and let the White Base go free which was against all orders
>Kycilia puts a little bit of trust in him and takes him under her lead
>shoot her in the face and kill a ton of his comrades again
>didn't betray anyone in his life
ayy lmao
>>14256223
When he gives Amuro the tech he's serving his own ego.
When he wants to stop the Titans he's serving his self-righteousness.
When he's seeking revenge he's serving his pride.
>>14256262
That is true, but I also view it as a part of Char wanting Amuro to stop him. He was serving his own ego but it was still an act which undermines his goal of dropping Axis.
>>14256253
>infiltrate enemy political structure lead by people who killed your father and wanted to kill you
>kill an enemy while his guard is down
>kill an enemy and her guard while her guard is down
It's literally impossible for Char to beray Zabi's as he is the enemy of the state from day 1 operating under the false name.
Even if his military oath had some sort of weight, Zabi government is questionably legitimate because of the way Zeon Deikun died. Degwin and Gihren Zabi deaths add to the lawless nature of Zeon and no investigations or courts-martial have been held.
Zeon is a failed state that doesn't seem to follow the rule of the law, how can anyone betray the oath to it?
>>14256324
Doesn't Kycillia stop trying to murder him though
>>14256306
>a part of Char wanting Amuro to stop him
I think you are reading too much into it. He is just not really that kind of person.
Yes. Even he would know that killing a lot of innocent people is not very cool. He is not such a bad guy as most people make him out to be. But he still believes he was morally right. He is just a control freak and he wants to do everything his own way. Anyway that's how I see it but this is one of the parts of the movie I'm not really sure about. I somehow get the feeling that it's not something that has to do strictly with his personality but is some part of Tomino psychology I have yet to understand. So I guess it's up to interpretation.
>>14256380
Well Char is not necessarily a consistent character as evidenced by the OP. He finishes up killing the Zabis even after he realizes that he has higher ambitions than petty revenge. Also, he clearly has mixed feelings about Amuro, wavering between bitterness over Lalah's death and deep respect for Amuro as a true friend and adversary. He is at odds with both himself and Amuro constantly throughout UC.
>>14252079
Capped
This is a good response to any of the "x is OBJRCTIVELY Y" posts
>>14252079
>Semantics doesn't matter. Morals matter.
But that's wrong, you fucking retard.
>>14257270
>my feefees > objective fact
>>>/tumblr/
>>14256324
>It's literally impossible for Char to beray Zabi's as he is the enemy of the state from day 1 operating under the false name.
The fact that I have to breath from the same atmosphere as something as dense as you makes me sick to my stomach.
It's nice to know I can leave /m/ for 4 years and come back and folks are still shitposting about 0079.
>>14256050
Char's perception of himself takes a backseat to the reality of who he is and what he has done.
>But I think you are trying to make a moral judgement by arguing that Char is a bad person and deserves no sympathy
I love Char, the crazy lovable devil. I'm even down for the occasional Zeonwank. For the sake of the thread: his absolutist statement makes him momentarily laughable.
>I could agree with the truthfulness of Char's statement but disagree with with its intent?
Hey that's exactly what I've been looking for the whole time. While you post paragraphs and go off the rails summarizing the long form of what everyone, in these threads, already get about Char. Don't pretend we're not all a bunch of fanboys who passed Villain Anatomy 101.
>>14253261
You're wrong.
>>14257280
Please don't make assertive statements like that and accompany them with this sort of epithets if you have no intention of explaining yourself.
When people speak they rarely mean exactly what they say.That is how the >literally meme was born.
Of course, expressing yourself in a manner that is as close as possible to your actual intent is important of you want to make yourself clear.
To be fair,most people are just not that good at putting their thoughts into words but even so most of the time it's easy enough to understand what they mean depending on the context.
Interpreting or demanding people to bear responsibility for the literal meaning of their words is not necessary unless you are in a court of justice.
People use communication to convey and look for confirmation of their thoughts, intentions and feelings so they can interact meaningfully with the world surrounding them and be a well-integrated member of society.
Or else why even bother flapping your mouth?
>>14257696
No. It's correct.
>>14242871
Yes. He is a precious baby who has done nothing wrong.
By the way, have I mentioned how much I love the taste of penis? It is so good. Yum yum yummy penis.
First, I will go Anon and argue about the meaning of the word "betray" while enjoying my first dozen cocks of the hour. Then I will shitpost for attention. Then, and only then, will I resume my trip and-
Oh shit I typed that out? I need more dicks for both hands! A cushion of cocks...nay...a COCKSHION...to lay upon as I refute Feddie lies and propaganda!
God bless Sweden!
>>14258384
nigga knight you need to use the trip calculator
>>14257421
I can't decide if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.
>>14258456
We've had static background agreement for days. I took the short route cause I know you weren't retarded and I couldn't be bothered to patronize long responses. Enjoy the simple things.
