[ SECRET POST #4606 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4606 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Kotomi Ichinose, CLANNAD]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________

















05. [SPOILERS for Endgame]



__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILERS for Endgame]



__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for Jessica Jones season 3]
[WARNING for dubcon]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #659.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Calling people a sociopath based on fandom secrets about a contrived moral dilemma is fucked up, don't do that. Fuck's wrong with you.

[(Anonymous)]

It wasn't just one kid. Hundreds of thousands of kids. To soothe the conscience of "I fucked up" others felt.

[(Anonymous)]

FICTIONAL kids.

da

[(Anonymous)]

Idk if it makes someone a sociopath if they think a fictional character should kill off their own kid for the greater good, but I can't say I think much of someone who thinks it's that easy of a decision and condemns anyone who doesn't automatically jump on it.

[(Anonymous)]

Ayrt - Good grief. I had a comment written out, had another look, and I deleted it. Let's try this:
1) "Sociopath", no matter what BBC Sherlock might try to tell you, is not a actual psychological diagnosis. All it means in common English parlance is "person whose moral fibre is distinctly lacking".
2) This is Fandom Secrets. Most of what is discussed here involves fictional characters and their actions. If we didn't treat these with some degree of seriousness, it would be pretty hard to ever have a conversation at all.
3) If someone takes the time to make a secret, it's not unreasonable to assume that they mean it. And if someone says that a parent is a selfish coward for not being keen to risk killing or erasing from existence his four-year-old daughter, I will assume that they are a terrible person who should probably not be allowed near children, small animals or the elderly.

[(Anonymous)]

There's a difference between debating fictional character motivations and devolving into ad hominem attacks just because you disagree about a fictional character's behavior in a fictional scenario.

[(Anonymous)]

Ayrt

In general, I think making direct ad hominem attacks based on abstruse and impossible comic book moral dilemmas is bad and like, really clearly and absurdly disproportionate. And I think "sociopath" is particularly bad because - while it is not actually a medical condition - the common usage of the term certainly envisions sociopath in pathological, psychological terms.

[(Anonymous)]

Ok, here I go:
1) NO 'sociopath' is not a psychological diagnosis but that's only because 'antisocial personality disorder' is a more accepted and broad term
2) You can have a conversation about fictional characters and not devolve into ad hominen attacks. Also, I think it's healthy to keep in mind that these are only movies, in the end, as much as we love them (or hate aspects of them) and don't actually make much impact in our own lives.
3) Is that what the secret is saying? Also, that is a very extreme thing for you to say about the original OP, particularly as they are talking about a fictional character.
I could argue that you are a terrible person who should probably not be allowed near children, small animals or the elderly, because you believe that it's NOT selfish to allow billions of life to continue to not exist when you have a chance to bring them back, all because you want to save one (even if it is your own child). See how this works? Does the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few?
I actually agree with OP. Tony was being selfish and I'm glad he turned around in the end. And yes, it was very IC for him.

[(Anonymous)]

What I find problematic is looking at a transparently manipulative plot device in a profoundly stupid science fiction movie (one that makes some MST3K movies look good in comparison) written by marketing-propaganda wonks as a serious ethical problem. It's kind of like judging your friends based on their theory of the physics of Vibranium/Unobtanium.

[(Anonymous)]

+1