The hills we choose to die on and the fights we battle for when it comes to Dragon Ball

[Cure Dragon 255]

Strawman much?

That whole "essay" he wrote failed to prove that objective standards are impossible.

This is BS. Denying the existence of the nature of art review is like denying that movies and songs can make people cry.

An objective review of art doesn't exist, and is instead called "a summary". An actual review of art mentions feelings, thoughts, questions, and other bits of personal analysis alongside historical context.

There is truly no such thing as "unbiased" and "objective" "reviews".

To claim that there's no such thing as objective art quality is pure relativist denialism. Its like denying the existence of truth/fact itself.

Just because people use subjective feelings to measure\judge something doesn't mean there's no objective metric to view anything.

Is 2+2=4 just a subjective opinion to you?

The thing is that quality IS NOT MATHEMATICAL.

[JulieYBM]

Art is subjective. I think Evangelion is the greatest television series of all time, some people disagree, and I make voodoo dolls of them and pin them to my wall so that my Russian Blue can vomit on them.

[Sadala Elite]

This is BS. Denying the existence of the nature of art review is like denying that movies and songs can make people cry.

An objective review of art doesn't exist, and is instead called "a summary". An actual review of art mentions feelings, thoughts, questions, and other bits of personal analysis alongside historical context.

There is truly no such thing as "unbiased" and "objective" "reviews".

To claim that there's no such thing as objective art quality is pure relativist denialism. Its like denying the existence of truth/fact itself.

Just because people use subjective feelings to measure\judge something doesn't mean there's no objective metric to view anything.

Is 2+2=4 just a subjective opinion to you?

The thing is that quality IS NOT MATHEMATICAL.

The point was that quality is a measurable, objectively existing thing, like math.

To say that quality isn't objective is to basically say that it doesn't exist.

[Cure Dragon 255]

I wonder where were these people complaining about this thread being pointless when extremely popular opinions are put in the so called unpopular opinions thread.

[Rory]

When did the Mauler crowd infiltrate this board?

[Robo4900]

Here's a hill I'll die on:

Power levels don't matter, never mattered, never will matter, and anyone who's under any illusion that there's any sensible, consistent, coherent way to quantify the power levels of any given character at any given point, is completely missing the point of the show.

I'll grant you that a lot of people have a lot of fun messing around with figuring out in-depth systems for how "power levels" work, and of course, your free time is your free time, spend it as you wish. But such people must recognise that this is entirely their own fun, entirely their own headcanon view of the story, and not anything that ever was, is, or could be part of the story itself in any actually serious manner.

Power levels were something for Vegeta, Nappa, and Raditz (and, to a lesser extent, a few of the Freeza forces) to inflate their heads about, and use to act generally confused and shocked when they see how strong the protagonists are. Vegeta and Nappa outright throw their scouters away at one point, because they know power levels are bullshit, and give no real indication to how strong a fighter is.
And even if there wasn't a big point made of the fact that power levels are bullshit, aside from maybe one or two mentions Freeza makes while bragging to Goku during their fight, power levels are never mentioned at any point in the original storyline aside from the Saiyan arc, plus a bit of the early/mid Freeza arc.

[Dr. Casey]

I've always had a slightly different take. I think that scouters and Power Levels in general are, when attributed to the overwhelming majority of people throughout the universe, accurate and helpful. Their accuracy just falls apart when it comes to ascertaining the strength of anyone that has an advanced mastery of ki.

Trunks can hide his ki so that he appears many thousands of times weaker than he actually is, according to a Scouter. Characters can, with a certain level of ki development, gather their ki so that they're more powerful than they are in their default resting state. Certain moves can make characters far deadlier than they would be otherwise, like with Krillin's Kienzan or Tenshinhan's Kikoho.

Scouters and Power Levels probably served the saiyans well throughout the decades, though, because most Saiyans, most of Freeza's empire, most regular people, and even most martial artists can't do the things listed above. The percentage of beings that can do things like conceal their ki, gather their ki, or use ki attacks at all is a small one in the grand scheme of things. The strength of most people is much more static, with the flexibility granted to advanced ki users being an outlier. Outside the small group of people that has an advanced mastery of ki, yeah, you can pretty well take for granted that someone with a level of 1000 will beat the shit out of someone with 100.

I might be being pedantic, though, and Robo simply means "Power Levels are bullshit when it comes to characters of any significance or who actually appear in the series (rather than from an overall in-universe historical perspective)." In which case yeah, totally on the same page there. Beyond the Radditz era, you can take for granted that almost any fighter - villain or protagonist or side character, movie or TV original or manga - will be able to fly, gather their ki, sense ki, use ki attacks, etc. By the time Scouters and Power Levels are introduced, almost any character of any importance is capable of cheating the 'system,' and so their usefulness is rendered entirely null and void.

[ABED]

To claim that there's no such thing as objective art quality is pure relativist denialism. Its like denying the existence of truth/fact itself.

Just because people use subjective feelings to measure\judge something doesn't mean there's no objective metric to view anything.

Is 2+2=4 just a subjective opinion to you?

The thing is that quality IS NOT MATHEMATICAL.

The point was that quality is a measurable, objectively existing thing, like math.

To say that quality isn't objective is to basically say that it doesn't exist.

You keep saying that but I don't see you giving any examples. How is it measurable? What are the measure of units of quality?

[Cure Dragon 255]

And hate to break it to you, but when it comes to art objective quality really doesnt exist.

[Sadala Elite]

And hate to break it to you, but when it comes to art objective quality really doesnt exist.

Then that means you think there's no such thing as good/bad art or good/bad writing (which is an obviously BS belief lmao).

[ABED]

And hate to break it to you, but when it comes to art objective quality really doesnt exist.

Then that means you think there's no such thing as good/bad art or good/bad writing (which is an obviously BS belief lmao).

But apparently not so obvious that intelligent adults can't disagree with you. You keep doing this. You keep saying your POV is obviously true and regardless if that's correct, you've made no case for your assertion.

[Sadala Elite]

The thing is that quality IS NOT MATHEMATICAL.

The point was that quality is a measurable, objectively existing thing, like math.

To say that quality isn't objective is to basically say that it doesn't exist.

You keep saying that but I don't see you giving any examples. How is it measurable? What are the measure of units of quality?

Yes, you can objectively measure how much aesthetic potency or quantity something has (that's what people intuitively do whenever they value or judge any media unless they are driven by ideological or normative biases).

The fact that beauty and art standards throughout world culture and all of history are at least half-universal points to the existence of objective quality.

Hell, scientist nowadays are even making robots & computers that can measure the beauty/art quality of something, so it's impossible to argue that art/beauty is purely subjective at this point.
https://medium.com/sciforce/computation ... b2205989fb

[Locust]

I really don't trust AIs to be objective - they will always be inherently biased due to being a man made creation - there's a reason why scientific racism with AI/robotics is such a hot subject

With art - sure, you can give objective critiques. You can look at a realistic drawing of a person and point out "hey, the anatomy of the arm is wrong" - that's objectively correct
But the reasons why someone will find particular media/art/whatever appealing is purely down to personal, subjective tastes, often coming down to life experience

I just do not think beauty, aesthetic appeal, can be quantified in such a mechanical way

[ABED]

The point was that quality is a measurable, objectively existing thing, like math.

To say that quality isn't objective is to basically say that it doesn't exist.

You keep saying that but I don't see you giving any examples. How is it measurable? What are the measure of units of quality?

Yes, you can objectively measure how much aesthetic potency or quantity something has (that's what people intuitively do whenever they value or judge any media unless they are driven by ideological or normative biases).

The fact that beauty and art standards throughout world culture and all of history are at least half-universal points to the existence of objective quality.

Hell, scientist nowadays are even making robots & computers that can measure the beauty/art quality of something, so it's impossible to argue that art/beauty is purely subjective at this point.
https://medium.com/sciforce/computation ... b2205989fb

All that says is that a lot of people have common tastes. That's not the same thing as objective quality.

And no when someone judges something's value, they aren't measuring something's objective quality. They are giving a subjective evaluation of the quality of the work based on their own subjective preferences. How much weight they give to any given aspect is entirely up to each person. For instance, visuals are very important to some, but to others such as myself, I don't really care that much.

How do you measure? What are the units of measure? Stop pulling this crap. You say you can, so tell us how instead of just making assertions.

From the article you linked to: "However, from a psychophysiological viewpoint, it is not clear whether we can have a dichotomy here or whether aesthetics is intrinsically subjective."
It's like you did a quick google search and didn't even bother to read it.

[MyVisionity]

- Yeah, I agree that there are objective standards of quality. Determining the "metrics" is dependent upon which aspects you are trying to measure. For the more technical aspects of a work, those who study film/television would likely learn such metrics in an academic or professional setting. For the average viewer, however, they may only be able to rely on things like logic, evidence, imagination, etc.


- When I read a professional critic's review, I'm not looking for whether or not they liked it, I want to know if they thought it was good or bad. I'm not looking for "personal preference".


- If a lot of people have common tastes, that suggests that there may be something objective at play.


- Objectivity doesn't have to be mathematical.


- Objectivity and subjectivity can co-exist. And what begins as subjective may turn into objective and vice versa.

[pepd]

Something is objective when it's independent of a subject. Good and bad are value judgments, and requires a judge, a subject that judges.

There is no intersection of objectivity and subjectivity. [[subject] thinks [value judgment]] is an objective statement, [value judgment] is subjective and can never be true.

[MCDaveG]

As a man who loves animals and boycots supermarkets and dairy, meat and animal produce from factories and inspired by Dragon Ball.
Give more rights to animals!
I don't think it is normal to plunder the planet just for the sake of our species, that overpopulates and destroys resources and takes lives.
I don't it is normal, that because average human has rights to buy an overproduce of eggs, 6 billion of hatched male chicks are sent to speed grinders alive in Germany alone (and somewhere, they are suffocated in bags or crushed).
Pigs dying scary deaths in CO2, just to meet the production speed criteria.
I am not even talking about Asian animal cruelty, but this is happening all around the planet.
I think that if we are talking about LBGT and racial equality, every voice needs to be heard, even those that don't have one.

It is normal to eat meat, don't get me wrong, but the question is how it is done. If you have animal bred for meat, since the days we became sheperds after being gatheres and hunters, treat it with respect and kill it respectfully if you need to eat it.
It is not normal, to eat meat every day.

It is funny, because Son Goku pretty much eats whatever he sees, but well, he is survivor. People in the wild hunt and eat animals for having something to eat. Take native Americans for example and their respect for nature, before Europeans invaded their lives and habbits and killed off probably around the 90 percent of native populace.

Human is the worst enemy there is, so let us be better humans, in all aspects.

[ABED]

- Yeah, I agree that there are objective standards of quality. Determining the "metrics" is dependent upon which aspects you are trying to measure. For the more technical aspects of a work, those who study film/television would likely learn such metrics in an academic or professional setting. For the average viewer, however, they may only be able to rely on things like logic, evidence, imagination, etc.

Please give examples.

[Sadala Elite]

You keep saying that but I don't see you giving any examples. How is it measurable? What are the measure of units of quality?

Yes, you can objectively measure how much aesthetic potency or quantity something has (that's what people intuitively do whenever they value or judge any media unless they are driven by ideological or normative biases).

The fact that beauty and art standards throughout world culture and all of history are at least half-universal points to the existence of objective quality.

Hell, scientist nowadays are even making robots & computers that can measure the beauty/art quality of something, so it's impossible to argue that art/beauty is purely subjective at this point.
https://medium.com/sciforce/computation ... b2205989fb

All that says is that a lot of people have common tastes. That's not the same thing as objective quality.

And no when someone judges something's value, they aren't measuring something's objective quality. They are giving a subjective evaluation of the quality of the work based on their own subjective preferences. How much weight they give to any given aspect is entirely up to each person. For instance, visuals are very important to some, but to others such as myself, I don't really care that much.

How do you measure? What are the units of measure? Stop pulling this crap. You say you can, so tell us how instead of just making assertions.

From the article you linked to: "However, from a psychophysiological viewpoint, it is not clear whether we can have a dichotomy here or whether aesthetics is intrinsically subjective."
It's like you did a quick google search and didn't even bother to read it.

Is "the Earth is round" just a subjective opinion? Is "the Sun is bright" just a subjective opinion?

And its obvious that you didn't read the entire article, since it literally gave out an entire scientific metric for measuring beauty & quality.

[Matches Malone]

The fact that beauty and art standards throughout world culture and all of history are at least half-universal points to the existence of objective quality.

Of course quality can be objective, anyone who says it isn't is just trying to cover up the fact that their taste in some things are...not great. Just because you can't take a measuring stick to something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.