|
Post by Revitalize Book on Jun 15, 2006 21:55:36 GMT -5
... Zuko's actions technically led to the Agni Kai, but to say that what happened to him is his fault is just beyond harsh. What Ozai did was incredibly cruel, not to mention twisted and unecessary. And he certainly didn't do it in Zuko's best interest. Not that if he did it would be any less horrible. I would agree that what happened to Zuko was partly his fault. I'm just avid in the theory: it takes two to create conflict. Even if his part was unintentional, it did cause part of the conflict if it led to the Agnai Kai. I don't think what Ozai did to Zuko was just though. Although, long ago in history speaking out against a ruler resulted in death or something else unfathomable, shouldn't there be some tolerance from the ruler (Ozai) if it is their kin(Zuko)? I can see how what he did-speaking out- was a grave offense in the rule of the Fire Kingdom...but seriously... Speaking out=being burnt. Oui. >.< However, I can see how someone would say what Ozai did was right. That's not necessarily a cruel opinion depending on where your coming from. Perhaps Zuko did deserve to be taught a lesson- I don't know. All I am positive about is that, it seemed extremely crazy to burn ones own kin just because he was looking out for the individuals instead of the whole for a moment. (I actually think that may have a large factor that angered Ozai, as well as Zuko showing doubt in his fathers judgement by speaking out. Sacrificing a unit is pretty disgraceful if it is unnecessary, but it might have helped the larger whole of the who military outline. I'm definetly not saying it did. Just tossing in a possiblity...) I could see shouting at Zuko, but it just seemed bizarre to burn him. On the other hand, if he did deserve to be taught a lesson with 'suffering' as his teacher...then what Ozai did was appropriate-depending. I don't agree though... Anyway, no matter how anyone sees it: wrong, right, pizza- it happened. I'm just wondering what IROH said to Ozai about what he did to Zuko, if he said anything at all..? >.<
|
|
Alleluia
Kyoshi Mai
Earthbending General of the Zutarian Army
Icon by Youkaislayer
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by Alleluia on Jun 15, 2006 22:27:18 GMT -5
I have a little factoid that pertains to the whole sacrifice of the 41st thing. Wild Actish mentioned "Sacrificing a unit... but might have helped the larger whole", but we weren't dealing with a unit. A "unit" (this is in the USA) is made up of ~6 people. A Division, which is what the 41st was, is ~8,000 to 10,000+ people. I just thought this factiod could put it into prespective a bit more. We weren't talking about sacrificing "just" 20 guys, or even 100, but thousands.
|
|
|
Post by Revitalize Book on Jun 15, 2006 22:32:45 GMT -5
I have a little factoid that pertains to the whole sacrifice of the 41st thing. Wild Actish mentioned "Sacrificing a unit... but might have helped the larger whole", but we weren't dealing with a unit. A "unit" (this is in the USA) is made up of ~6 people. A Division, which is what the 41st was, is ~8,000 to 10,000+ people. I just thought this factiod could put it into prespective a bit more. We weren't talking about sacrificing "just" 20 guys, or even 100, but thousands. That still doesn't take away from possibly sacrificing a division in order to help the whole- no matter what the reason. Once again, I am not saying that is how it was, but it is a valid opinion nonetheless: that it was a possiblity the sacrifice was meant to help the greater whole. Just to be clear,: I do not agree, but it is a possiblity. I'm wondering, though, about anyones thoughts on what Iroh might have said to Ozai about hurting Zuko..? Does anyone believe he said anything, or just...remained silent?
|
|
Alleluia
Kyoshi Mai
Earthbending General of the Zutarian Army
Icon by Youkaislayer
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by Alleluia on Jun 15, 2006 22:36:28 GMT -5
I wasn't saying that you were saying anything, except that quote, Wild Actish. It is just that what you said reminded me of that little factoid I learned a while ago and had yet to see anyone mention. So, it became my springboard for the information.
And I believe Iroh went and yelled at Ozai, personally. Maybe not ranted and raved, but did that growling low voiced "How could you do that to your own son?" kinda thing.
|
|
|
Post by Revitalize Book on Jun 15, 2006 22:46:15 GMT -5
I wasn't saying that you were saying anything, except that quote, Wild Actish. It is just that what you said reminded me of that little factoid I learned a while ago and had yet to see anyone mention. So, it became my springboard for the information. . I understand that. I did not say that you said I was saying anything. I suppose I used your post as a springboard to re-clarify my stance on the issue. I am making myself clear on the whole. That's all. I believe Iroh, if nothing else, probably glared or gazed at Ozai sadly, in a way that may have messaged: "What has become of you Brother?"
|
|
Gotterdammerung
Casual Zuko
sorry. i'm fresh out of the ability to care.
Posts: 969
|
Post by Gotterdammerung on Jun 15, 2006 22:51:51 GMT -5
I can't. At all. Ever. That's unfathomable to me.
Saying that because Zuko spoke up it was his own fault that his father assaulted and disfigured him is like saying that because a child came home late from school it's their own fault if their abusive parent throws them down a flight of steps.
Zuko did not instigate a conflict with his father. He unwittingly showed a sign of disrespect and when his father made a move to physically retaliate Zuko backed down, begged forgiveness, and refused to defend himself.
Now, if Zuko had faced the actual general that he thought he was going to face and then been scarred by him in the course of the duel, then you could say it was Zuko's own fault. That was a fight that he instigated and would have carried out. As it stands, however, no. Not even a little bit.
And narratively-speaking, it's made perfectly clear through the sadistic joy the general was taking in announcing the plan and Iroh right out stating it as a fact, that Zuko was entirely correct about it being cruel and unnecessary to sacrifice that entire division of new recruits.
|
|
Yang Fishy
Wolf Hakoda
Firebending General of the Zutarian Army
all that rises must fall, all that is born must die, all that is gathered will be scattered
Posts: 2,857
|
Post by Yang Fishy on Jun 15, 2006 23:04:56 GMT -5
Whether Zuko was saving one soldier or thousands it's still the same concept; he was putting himself on the line for the safety of another, so why should he be punished for it? I understand that answering back to a respected elder is an act of disrespect but to go so far as burning your own flesh and blood for it maybe crossing the line. I felt that the sole reason for Ozai punishing Zuko by having him suffer was because he had to go through suffering as well when he had disrespected his own father back when he was a prince. Personally, I think Iroh said nothing to challenge his brother who was Firelord at the time. He might have just packed his bags and left with Zuko without saying another word to someone who would have probably not even paid attention anyway... Not to sound offensive but although the idea of prince/peasant(opposites attract) or friends...>lovers may be cliche and predicted by older fans, each creator/head writer adds their own creativity in order to make the couple solely unique, so I don't understand how some members claim they have the Zutara romance figured out already. Same can be said for Kataang. People keep saying how obvious it is, but isn't what your saying hypocritical in the sense that people shouldn't know how the Zutara romance is going to come out, but Kataang is blatantly obvious? No, I honestly don't think my statement was hypocritical because I wasn't only defending Zutara in my post. I remember mentioning the "prince/peasant(opposites attract)" which was clearly Zutara and I also mentioned "friends.....>lovers" which in my opinion is Kataang.
|
|
|
Post by Revitalize Book on Jun 15, 2006 23:28:32 GMT -5
I can't. At all. Ever. That's unfathomable to me. Saying that because Zuko spoke up it was his own fault that his father assaulted and disfigured him is like saying that because a child came home late from school it's their own fault if their abusive parent throws them down a flight of steps. Zuko did not instigate a conflict with his father. He unwittingly showed a sign of disrespect and when his father made a move to physically retaliate Zuko backed down, begged forgiveness, and refused to defend himself. Now, if Zuko had faced the actual general that he thought he was going to face and then been scarred by him in the course of the duel, then you could say it was Zuko's own fault. That was a fight that he instigated and would have carried out. As it stands, however, no. Not even a little bit. And narratively-speaking, it's made perfectly clear through the sadistic joy the general was taking in announcing the plan and Iroh right out stating it as a fact, that Zuko was entirely correct about it being cruel and unnecessary to sacrifice that entire division of new recruits. 'Kay.^^ I say your stance on it. xD (I hope you see mine: I don't think what happened to Zuko was entirely right either. But its benificial to see both sides on why what happened happened for this person or that person...ah, but it's in my perspective^^ . I'm a little confused though: when you say 'saying it was Zukos fault *for you* is wrong' are you saying that blaming the WHOLE thing that happened to him being his fault is wrong, or that even blaming him PARTLY is wrong? When I say Zuko could have been part of the conflict, I mean that his actions did push forward gears to begin the conflict. He spoke out which angered his father and created conflict. That's not to say I believe he kept the conflict up: He backed down, apologized, his father didn't listen...but he did move the wells to begin the conflict, even though it was just a conflict primarily because Ozai became angered by it. It wasn't a conflict for Zuko or he wasn't making it to be as he apologized and such. Still, speaking out- in my view- did have a part in what happened to Zuko. That definetly doesn't mean its reason enough to burn him, or the whole reason the Agnai Kai happened- I'm not stating that at all *just to state ^^;*. I'm just saying it did play a part- whether or not it was agreeable is based on opinion. And I was just stating it was a possiblity it could have been for the greater whole, despite the way the General presented it in a sadistic way. It's not a very solid possiblity- more than likely wrong, as you described it Gotterdammerung, but its just that: possiblity. Not fact or anything. xD (Not saying you said it was) Phew! All tense. xD But an intersting discussion. I hope my views aren't offending anyone, but even if it is the criminally insane side, I like to present both: I can't just see one way, even though I believe in one if that makes sense.x( But dudes, I don't want to get into an agruement on 'that is not right anyway/How can you blame Zuko? Do you hate him or something?/ this is the only way stupid Wild!'. x( I actually had that happen yesterday, so if you are about to blast me please just tell me and I'm gone. I honesty don't want to argue or offend anyone for bringing in *maybe* disagreeable and/or agreeable sides. Edit: ARGH. xD If all of what I'm trying to get across is fuzzy, please look at Gambitias post in ZukoxKatara. xD She worded what I'm struggling to word properly exactly. xD But these are all different views guys: whether we believe what happened to Zuko is his own doing or not, whether we believe he has done nothing-or so many things wrong... ...in the end, we can only watch. xD ::Boo!::
|
|
|
Post by almighty on Jun 16, 2006 0:01:36 GMT -5
Fairysgift4u: Okay... just wanted some clarification....
Wow... the things that I miss when I'm reading my new cookbook.
Okay, here's my thought on the whole Zuko thing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Zuko did was morally correct and I would have to admit that his decision was for the greater good. The thing I believe is to be his fault is the fact that he wanted to go to the war meeting in the first place when Iroh and the guards told him not too. He still fought against them and managed to sit in the war room where the whole saving the batallion thing happened.
Zuko was the one who spoke up at the war room, even though he wasn't really suppose to be there in the first place. Although his motive was right, his actions were disrespectful to the general and the firelord. I have to admit that Ozai may have taken things a little too far though and I would have to ridicule Ozai for taking something as lame as "speaking up" and turning it into this big event.
In a way, the only thing I blame Zuko for is his decision to go to the war room meeting. The whole mutilation thing is technically Ozai's temper. I mean, I guess you can say Zuko's actions of not fighting his father is morally correct.. I mean, he is Zuko's daddy after all. But, I guess according to Agni Kai tradition, it was more respectful (and more stronger) to fight against your opponent (although I think things would've been a lot worse for Zuko if he fought Ozai).
|
|
|
Post by Revitalize Book on Jun 16, 2006 0:05:27 GMT -5
>.>....
<.<....
*xD Psss! Almighty, which cookbook is it? :3*
I guess the major factor on weighing Zukos good intentions/actions with what happened is how far one will go to sympathize with him, or how far one will go to remember Fire Nation traditions are not the same as ours...or just how far one will go. xD
Blurgh. To be random: Sokka is a powerful bender, because he is not a bender, and thus one can either say or not say he would be powerful if he was one. Yeahs. @_@
I wish Avatar Roku would appear before Zuko....It might jolt something. I dunno.>.>
|
|
Gotterdammerung
Casual Zuko
sorry. i'm fresh out of the ability to care.
Posts: 969
|
Post by Gotterdammerung on Jun 16, 2006 0:08:38 GMT -5
No, it's not even a possibility because Iroh-as-Narrator says straight out that Zuko was right.
Well, when I say it's unfathomable the implication is that, no, I cannot see the perspective that maybe Ozai wasn't totally in the wrong if by "see" you mean "consider equally valid."
I am, indeed, saying that blaming Zuko at all for the fact that his father scarred and banished him is wrong. Wrong with a capital "w."
That was the purpose of my analogy: to illustrate why I think that it's wrong.
When the abused child came home late that was technically the reason that their abusive parent threw them down the stairs, but does that mean that the child should carry any blame at all for the fact that their parent is abusive? No. The parent threw the child down the stairs because the parent is crazy. It doesn't matter if cause and effect technically states that Coming Home Late = Getting Thrown Down the Stairs.
Ozai scarred and banished Zuko because Ozai is crazy. Anything that Zuko did that acted as superficial impetus for this chain of events was just an excuse, not the actual reason.
I think where we're having this disconnect is that you're stating cause and effect. While I, on the other hand, am chafing at the use of words like "blame" and "fault."
Cause and effect is determined by an objective analysis of the sequence of events. Zuko's speaking up technically-speaking set in motion the sequence of events that caused his scarring and banishment. I do not dispute this.
However, assigning blame is a moral judgment. And ethically-speaking Zuko is not at fault for his scarring and banishment. And I do get very out-of-sorts when a victim is assigned blame for a crime perpetrated against them.
^And that's moral relativism. Which always runs into problems when atrocities come into play. Based on that philosophy then it's also not wrong for the Fire Nation to wage an imperialist war on the rest of the world and to have exterminated an entire culture.
|
|
|
Post by almighty on Jun 16, 2006 0:10:41 GMT -5
(Duude, I just bought the magic bullet set with 10 second recipes. yay!)
Also, in addition to what I said, I would also (after reading gambitia's well thought out post) have to say that Zuko was kind of... being an idiot, in the sense that he didn't do what he was told. I mean, he was told not to even go to the war room in the first place, but he did anyway. He was told not to even speak... but he did anyway. Yes, his actions were morally correct, which is why he is rallying so many people supporting his view (fan base that is). However, when looking at both sides, he was disrespectful at the meeting because he spoke out against someone who has done their job for so-and-so years, whereas he's just a pre-teen. Technically, he didn't have any authority over the matter of sacrificing the batallion or not. Also, those who enlist in the army should know that they are putting their lives on the line. Besides, the Fire Nation is in a war, people die.
|
|
|
Post by Revitalize Book on Jun 16, 2006 0:41:54 GMT -5
No, it's not even a possibility because Iroh-as-Narrator says straight out that Zuko was right. Well, when I say it's unfathomable the implication is that, no, I cannot see the perspective that maybe Ozai wasn't totally in the wrong if by "see" you mean "consider equally valid." I am, indeed, saying that blaming Zuko at all for the fact that his father scarred and banished him is wrong. Wrong with a capital "w." That was the purpose of my analogy: to illustrate why I think that it's wrong. When the abused child came home late that was technically the reason that their abusive parent threw them down the stairs, but does that mean that the child should carry any blame at all for the fact that their parent is abusive? No. The parent threw the child down the stairs because the parent is crazy. It doesn't matter if cause and effect technically states that Coming Home Late = Getting Thrown Down the Stairs. Ozai scarred and banished Zuko because Ozai is crazy. Anything that Zuko did that acted as superficial impetus for this chain of events was just an excuse, not the actual reason. I think where we're having this disconnect is that you're stating cause and effect. While I, on the other hand, am chafing at the use of words like "blame" and "fault." Cause and effect is determined by an objective analysis of the sequence of events. Zuko's speaking up technically-speaking set in motion the sequence of events that caused his scarring and banishment. I do not dispute this. However, assigning blame is a moral judgment. And ethically-speaking Zuko is not at fault for his scarring and banishment. And I do get very out-of-sorts when a victim is assigned blame for a crime perpetrated against them. ^And that's moral relativism. Which always runs into problems when atrocities come into play. Based on that philosophy then it's also not wrong for the Fire Nation to wage an imperialist war on the rest of the world and to have exterminated an entire culture. Iroh could have possibly been wrong. >.< Not to say I think he was, but he could have been. Okay, going to be honest Gotterdammerung, you lost me. @_@ Partly. It's kind of hard not to bring in 'cause and effect', because what caused what happened to Zuko happened because of the effect of multiple actions. I'm guessing your saying blaming him-at all- is wrong. I don't agree. I'm not saying Zukos fully to blame- or even wholy to blame, but that he did play a part in what happened to him, whether it was big or small. If he didn't he wouldn't have to fight in the Agnai Kai in the first place. That's not to say whatever Zuko did deserved the scarring he recieved: it is just to say he had a role. I just don't think that role is soley victim though, because even victims has some role in what happens to them- no matter how stupid it is. That's what I believe though, and I pretty much stand firm on it. (Edit: When I post 'victim' I'm basically saying people because I see everyone as a victim.) I don't think Ozai is completely crazy either. @_@ He is/may be with Zuko (although I think he's mean and brutal pertaining to Zuko rather than crazy), but he doesn't seem that way with Azula. Although we're discussing Zuko so I'll push aside any Azula parts. xD Blame and fault....I'm not sure what you mean on this one. I asociate these two with responsibility, not necessarily in a negative way all the time. (Ex: It was her fault the cake was so delicious, because she was an excellent cook. *Or something like this toki doki times*) And I'm not blaming Zuko solely for what happened to him. >.< I'm saying he had a part to play in what happened to him, even if it was ant-eye small. (How could he not have a part? Many of his actions dictate how his life goes. That's not to say all his actions do...) I believe, in my own beliefes, that if either parties in a conflict could have done- even one small thing, so that the conflict didn't happen: whether it is not getting so upset, or not saying this or that, they had a role to play in what happened to them. If they couldn't change it, then... Er. >.< I feel like we keep going into 'whole' and I am trying to stick to 'part'. xD And now I notice you have stated 'banishment'. I was actually referring to Zukos actions leading to the Agnai Kai- not what happened after, and I think that's where it's fuzzy. xD I just feel, personally, Zukos actions are partly responsible on what led to the Agnai Kai *not what happened in or after*. (I hope this is better clarified?) I do think he holds some responsibility here. And if we went into victims, we could go all over the place, because we'd need to know: victim of insanity, victim of justice- victim of what, basically, because everyone is a victim in my view. And I'm not sure on your comparison with the boy falling down the stairs because of his parents; that's seems like a seperate subject altogether now. 'His parents are crazy', okay, I believe that's to compare that Ozai is also crazy, right? But...xD *Phew* xD I think we are set in our opinions though, and even discussing this doesn't change what happened...x( And this is a bit too stressful, now, if ya ask me. xD I understand if my view seems distorted or such to you Gotterdammerung,but it is how I view it , and I don't want to argue about it with you. x( It's not fun and it doesn't feel like a debate now, more like an arguement on set opinions that don't have much flexibility with the opposing side, which just feels tense to me. xD! I apologize if this isn't how it is, but I don't want to continously offend you if I am; especially since I'm not changing my mind on how I'm viewing Zukos Agnai Kai in the past... I don't want it to be tense. x( Edit: Oh, to be on topic: What are everyones views on an 'emotional powerful bender'?
|
|
|
Post by almighty on Jun 16, 2006 0:51:06 GMT -5
Emotional powerful bender... is it to say that the bender is emo?
In that case, I'll have to say that if a bender is way too emotional, they aren't a very good powerful bender. Take Zhao for example. Jeong Jeong said that Zhao isn't a good student because he was a bit... off his rocker. If he cannot stabilize himself, or even maintain his emotions, he will never be considered a powerful bender in my book.
|
|
|
Post by Confettie on Jun 16, 2006 0:53:52 GMT -5
Gotterdammerung you completley lost me. Or you implying that we are saying that child abuse is right? Of course it isn't. good grief. this is getting to heated. I don't understand how that has to do with anything. Song got burn by a firenation solider heck the firenation solider burns everyone. Zuko shot fire at Aang, heck Aang even burn Katara. How is that any different.
During an Agni Kai someone going to get hurt, It like those gladiator tournament in Rome way back when. It just no one get killed someone just get burns. Zuko should have realize that by going into the agni kai someone was going to get hurt, sadly it was him. I don't understand how he had no clue who he was dueling before the battle.
|
|