The MGS games make no sense in the ways that you’ve already pointed out, but at the same time there is a lot of very well thought out plot that does make sense in the context of the universe that he’s built.
In short, lmao it makes no sense and it’s one of my favorite series.
There is a big difference between getting a solid idea for what will happen before testing and literally being able to see the future as clearly as the present. If a software developer literally can see the future and already knows what error will occur if he tries to run the code then he would not run it. Or to use the engineer example, let’s say someone is creating a humanoid robot which is still in the early phases of development but the creator believes that it has just reached a point where it is able to sort of balance for a second. First of all, he can’t KNOW that it’s at that point without testing. And even if he has a very good idea that it is probably at that point he certainly won’t know exactly how it is going to fail eventually during the test. If the designer is all-knowing then he would literally know every force that is applied to the robot as it attempts to stand, the exact way that it will stumble down to the minutiae, etc. There is no reason, not for fun, not for learning, literally no logical reason to run that test in that case.
I also agree that religion is a bunch of BS but if I were to try to come up with a justification to the question of why an all-knowing creator would test their creation, I would say that it isn’t for the sake of the creator but rather to teach the person they are testing about themselves or some BS like that. That being said, I think there are many many ways that you can poke holes in the logic of a creator being all-knowing, just, and all-powerful; all three of which are claimed by believers. Alternatively, you can also focus on the all-knowing aspect specifically by illustrating that it is impossible for free will to exist if god is all-knowing. At least not the version of free will that most people refer to. If you want to claim that free will can exist even if there is only one possible time line then that’s another argument.
Yes, that is my point. Whether someone is vegetarian, “trying to be more ethical” but still eating meat, or just a meat eater that has never even considered ethics, there is nothing that says you have to go through all of those steps to becoming vegan. In my experience, regardless of how far along you are in those “steps” once you make the connection between the food on your plate and the animals that it comes from and you realize that they are suffering for you, you go vegan. That could be meat eater to vegan, “ethical” meat eater to vegan, or vegetarian to vegan. My point is that in my experience that process does happen overnight.
What he said
In my experience they often do go vegan overnight though. The key tends to be actually connecting the food on your plate with where it came from and accepting that animals are capable of suffering. Once that connection is made, animal products simply aren’t seen as food anymore and going vegan overnight is the only logical conclusion.
Some people may be further along the spectrum towards being vegan when this connection is actually made but regardless of if you are vegetarian, “only eat free range meat”, or an unapologetic meat eater, once the connection is made they are vegan.
Unfortunately that is simply not true. If you had to take a guess, how long does a chicken live that is born into the animal agriculture industry and what does its life look like? Go watch Dominion ( https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko ) and learn what modern animal agriculture looks like because I promise you it is not a life free of abuse where they are safer than they would be in the wild with plenty of food to eat. If you are paying for animal products then you are not only paying for the animal to be murdered but are also paying for the abuse that it suffered for its entire short life before that point.
Also I’d definitely argue that murder is a form of abuse. Defined as: “treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.” If you wanted to discuss semantics it would be more accurate to say that it is impossible to murder an animal since the most common definition would probably be “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”. There is a second more loose definition though that uses the language “kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation”. I would argue that an animal IS a “someone” as they are an individual with their own unique perception of the world. As such I do believe that it is possible to murder an animal. That being said, it is completely irrelevant to the morality of what is happening whether we call it murder or abuse or we come up with all new words to describe what’s happening. No matter what you call it, we are creating unfathomable amounts of completely unnecessary suffering by forcefully breeding (aka raping) animals and forcing them to live unimaginably awful lives which are ended very very prematurely because money and yummy.
That’s a fair point. I have never seen it done from a video before specifically, but I am positive that it is a technique which is theoretically possible given that there is enough data in the image. Obviously if the image was grainy to begin with then it doesn’t matter what you do to it, you won’t get anything better than the original. And regardless of how the file is exported, as long as you can take a screenshot of the video afterwards and there is enough definition in the image I don’t see how this technique couldn’t be applied.
Edit: and to be clear, I don’t know what specific transformation(s) are traditionally used in video editing. For all I know it could be a long list of transformations that are all coded to happen with the click of a button to make it more difficult to unblur. But even that isn’t entirely safe. There is just literally no reason to not use a black box/elipse or whatever in cases where the data is actually sensitive.
Makes sense. What a ridiculous statement to have made to begin with though.
It’s interesting that they would choose to blur them if it’s that sensitive considering blurring things isn’t actually destructive and if you were to figure out the settings they used to blur then you can easily apply the opposite effect to unblur the image. To be truly destructive they should use black boxes over faces.
And regardless of the method they use it really shouldn’t take long to do either.
I didn’t say that EVERYTHING was well thought out. I also said that it makes no sense. But I do think that a lot (ie not all) of it was well thought out. Things like what you’re talking about are I would say extremely minor nitpicks in terms of the overarching plot and character motivations and that type of thing. Also, I find it hilarious that you say Big Boss since he was never pregnant as far as I’m aware lmao