/jp/ - Otaku Culture

Wooo~

Best character archtype

Saya is my favorite Gatchaman.

>>11324360
Very cute.

>>11324360
It was also really nice when her fins perked up.

>>11324348
i liked the part where she gets ufcked

If only there were a brighter future for her. That would have been best. For a highly advanced alien species, it was a bit of a shame.

>>11324373
There were a lot of those...

Green is the best color.

>>11324348
>that feel when you want Saya to be your waifu but you can't love her until she becomes more like Rally Vincent

;_;

>>11324513
bang bang

>>11324535
Thank you so much... I'll cherish this forever.

why is this not deleted?

>>11324973
Perhaps the same could be asked of all threads. But enough talk...

SOMEONE POSTED A QUESTION ABOUT MY MODERATION HABITS?

CENSOR

CENSOR

CENSOR

whew that was a close one

now nobody will see how shit of a janitor i am. WHEW

>>11324986
That's right. More Saya!

If Saya had magic as a caster..

Is this thread made by that one ban evading subhuman?

OP thumbnail keeps making me think she has a big green cock

Warui bakemono thread?
Warui bakemono thread.

>>11326903
This has not been conclusively ruled out.

>>11326903
How so? Is it just all the green?

>>11326943
Pretty sure we caught enough glimpses of Saya's non-warped form in some of the CGs to rule it out. She may have a tentacle or few though.

>>11326998
Maybe like this.

>>11326904
warui bakemono ja nai!

fucken aliums
would let inhabit earth

>>11328476
The earth is her garden.

is there any armpit sex doujin of her?

>>11335723
Get out you vile creature.

More cute Saya.

someone post some saya jokes

>>11337304
>vile creature.
You're talking about her right? I'd say that she's more of a disgusting than vile creature though.

>>11337307
Don't be so silly. Saya is beautiful, tentacles and all.

>>11337305
Knock knock

>>11337311
>Saya is beautiful
That's what she wants you to think, silly boy.

>>11337313
I love her no matter what she looks like

A-and I'm not a boy!

>>11337312
who's there

>>11337319
Say

>>11337319
Saya

>>11337318
>not a boy
>loving tentacles
Good job here, can't think of anything to counter that. You win.

anyone read the mangagamer version?
She makes gurgling sounds on "..." during "World of White"

Im sure that wasnt the case in the fantrans version.
Ruins the silence.

>>11337328
saya who

>>11337343
>mangagamer

Wasn't it JAST USA?

>>11337343
I think it might have been there in the original patch. I remember that scene being the first time it was like, "Okay, Saya is definitely some sort of weird monster, probably with tentacles."

>>11337349
Saya PRAYERS

>>11337359
I actually liked it, good job.

>>11337330
I don't even care if she looks like this, she's still very cute.

saya a shit

Really cute.

>>11337304
>More cute Saya
Anytime

You could even say the cutest.

Saya a cute.

Saya is a stupid ugly gross monster!

>>11339132
Just take the opposite of all those descriptions, and you'll be right on the mark.

>>11339137
Smart photogenic refined human

Are we talking about Saya from Saya no Uta or the sub-human tranny?

>>11337304
Did you miss the parts where she sucks dick and gets cummed inside or something? Or are you one of those pretentious normies who pass it off as not being something that's meant to be sexually arousing? You probably think the neighbor was a bad person who deserved to be killed for raping that evil monster, too.

Hello!

>>11339140
Close, the opposite of monster doesn't necessarily need to be 'human'. Angel is a good word though!

>>11339147
Hi

>>11339152
Don't ignore me, you subhuman. How long are you going to close your eyes to truth?

>>11339152
Saya no Uta? More like Saya la Puta.

>>11337381
>dat true form
Truly a disgusting creature. Probably would try to kill it with acid, or fire, or both.

>>11339167
There was a nice stitch made of how Fuminori saw his old friends as. I don't imagine Saya looking quite like this, and we do see a parts of her true form in a few CGs, but it might be the closest description we can say canon-wise.

>>11339176
Wow, Fuminori won't get along with his friends anymore just because they look like monsters to him? What a close-minded asshole. Without any doubt, if he saw Saya as a monster, he would want to kill her as well.

>>11339167
That said though, how could you not resist the chance to meet an alien lifeform that is orders of magnitude more intelligent than you, yet with heart of gold, and who you might even come to love?

>>11339181
Yes, I don't like Fuminori that much either. Now, Professor Ougai on the other hand, I have much more respect for.

>>11339190
Is that alien lifeform a tranny like you?

>>11339190
You do realize that this alien lifeform came to modify, and thus partially kill, the human race, right?
I couldn't careless about all the idiots living in our world but they still don't deserve to be turned into... this.

It's also funny that you guys keep on loving that girl when it's clearly stated that she's a hideous monster that eats humans. Now go ahead and be eaten too, see if I care.

>>11339190
Saya seems pretty evil to me. After getting raped and hating it she goes on to intentionally have another person raped, and takes great joy in it. She knows what she's doing, once she realizes something is painful, she likes to make others experience that painfulness.

You wouldn't like Saya if she always appeared to the viewer as a monster. People would only ever jokingly pretend to like her.

>>11339208
Of course I know that. Though I think you're misunderstanding some things. Think about it this way, and you said it yourself, as a vastly superior alien lifeform, the goal isn't to kill, it's to modify to become more like itself. Perhaps the only unpleasant part of the ordeal is that there was no 'opting-out' of such a transformation once it had been initiated. Ah well.

As for the 'monster that eats humans' part, the only time eating of a human took place was due to the trespassing by Ougi. There were also extenuating circumstances such as preserving the life that she and Fuminori had at the time. And why let that go to waste. Besides that, organisms eat other organisms all the time. In her case it was mostly rodents and some larger animals, like cats.

Guessing from the success of her species, I would say her 'hideousness' is only through the eyes of uninitiated humans. She's different, no doubt about that, but having bodily adaptations such as reticulated skin among other things were likely evolutionarily beneficial as their species were going through natural selection. And obviously to their own species, they certainly wouldn't look hideous. It's simply a different feature/trait landscape. Considering how she looked to Fuminori's altered vision, my guess is that she was quite beautiful according to this.

>>11339212
I actually think that thing with Yo was put in there for marketing purposes. I haven't confirmed it though. It was rather odd the change in demeanor, but then again, you will do crazy things for love. Hopefully one day, you will understand that.

>>11339284
The way I see it people who do crazy things for love are often just selfish lunatics. Doing bad things for love is no different from doing bad things for money, both are to make yourself happier.

>>11339270
Oh, I should probably add that the amount of human knowledge present (e.g. in the form of written and electronic data) isn't destroyed by the modification process. Rather, post blooming, humanity (or perhaps there's a better word for it) will advance at a much more rapid pace.

One more thing, unlike Fuminori with his warped vision, Saya's vision is probably much clearer in that 'normal' things to us don't look weird. After all, she was able to consume all those romance novels, medical documents, the televised cooking shows, etc. without issue.

>>11339299
Ahahahaha, that's probably true. Though people do good things for love (and money) as well. Everything can really be reduced to optimization over the space of rewards from the environment. It's just that due to certain instincts, certain behaviors that may or may not be damaging to others are weighed much more heavily (emotions such as love).

>>11339270
You're rationalizing.

As a human being and, somewhat, currently the most evolved lifeform on this planet ( using your analogy here), we have the duty to respect and preserve the lower ones. OR, at least, not fuck them up on a whim.
I'm not talking about social justice or activists here, I'm simply saying that since we have the power to completely destroy/modify a lifeform, we should be careful with that.

You stated that she's just a vastly superior alien form whose purpose is just to modify anything else for her own sake, right? So you're perfectly fine with that? If tomorrow I decide to kill or even modify entire species of ants or whatever, if I could ask for their opinions I seriously doubt that they'd be ok with this.

I'm using canon facts here. Basically she's trying to fulfill a purpose that benefits only her species and simply kills whatever might be in her path. I'm not against it, she's just trying to survive, I'm just against the fact that you're trying to rationalize it.

If I meet a monster like that, I'm sorry but I'll have to kill it. Don't get me wrong though, it's not because I hate her or something, but simply because I just can't let things go her way, at least for the sake of people who are completely unrelated to what she's trying to do.

Also, call a cat a cat. It was stated that she was a "hideous" monster, and Fuminori sees her as a beautiful girl only because his mind has been damaged, so he's not perceiving reality properly. And ironically your >>11339310
further proves that point. If she was able to perceive romance, movies, etc. as normal, it proves that her body is "abnormal", and I'm not using it as a pejorative word here.

>>11339338
Rationalizing? Yeah, it's what people do. But also, I don't really see what's wrong with what I said.

Didn't I also say that the lack of an option to 'opt-out' was unpleasant? Personally, I wouldn't be one to opt-out.

If I ever met something like Saya, I would hope I could do in a similar fashion to what Professor Ougai did, to teach, nurture, and befriend.

Didn't I also say that her body, while different from ours, is only 'abnormal' based off of the feature/trait landscape of humans? I'm sure it's perfectly fine according to her own species, it would be surprising otherwise.

>>11339371
You're just far gone, but I guess we strangely agree on the same lines in the end, all but that one :
>teach, nurture, and befriend.
I'm sorry, but I won't try to befriend a being whose main purpose is basically to kill us, even if it's only for survival. That's just plain suicide.

>>11339338
Well, see, experiencing something is the most valuable gold in the Universe.

I think it's related to Saya.
Wasn't that her plan to experience being with a human like MC, to make him see her?
She isn't that bad, don't demonize her when she picked on one individual (and just a few victims) out of 7 billion people instead of killing the whole civilizations.
She knows what's precious in the Universe.
Either for her, and for MC.
The experience.

If she's an alien, then she's the endgame-level creature in there.

>>11339394
>Wasn't that her plan to experience being with a human like MC, to make him see her?
Which would result in the total annihilation of the human species as we now know it.

>>11339388
Is it suicide though? I don't think so. After all, you wouldn't die, in the traditional sense anyway. The being that is you doesn't cease to function, it just metamorphosizes into something of much greater operational capacity.

Cute Saya dress twirl-y twirl twirl~

>>11339338
>>11339371
Jesus you nerds don't you have like doujinshi to jack off to or something

I bet she's a great cook!

>>11342222
I'm sure she'd make a great wife.

She looks so soft.

itt:HERESY

>>11345529
Let me guess, you leaped at the chance to take back your so-called "humanity" at the first choice given?

>>11345529
>>11345606
Humanity really does have a lot going for it, people are altruistic by nature. But there are horrible things as well.

By choosing Saya, all those plusses are multiplied, and those minuses extinguished.

>>11339414
and nobody wants that, and yet she'd be forcing it upon us all.

>>11350598
>nobody wants that

Hnngh...

>>11350560
>people are altruistic by nature
You really give too much credits to our nature. People are not altruistic by nature, pretty much the opposite.

You can see everytime children killing insects in whatever disgusting way possible (like squashing the lower part or their body or ripping off some of their members) just because it's "fun". We adults are the ones "teaching" them that it's bad.
Actually, most of the "bad" people aren't that bad when you think about it, they just stopped caring about social codes and stuff. I'm not denying that real bad people who just enjoys inflicting pain to others exist though.

>>11350612
Do you need help man? I can call a doctor

>>11350616
N-no need to, I think I'm fine already. Didn't remember she was so beautiful, though.

>>11350615
No, it's true. All over nature, you will find organisms that tend toward working together (i.e. swarm behavior) than separately. This is because it is evolutionarily advantageous to share resources among 'kin', that is, there is a better chance that the species will survive. At the lowest level, you see this as multicellular organisms, at a higher level, you can imagine this to be countries, which are made up of cities made up of people. That is, even though individuals die, the collective survives. And this couldn't be done without a bit of selflessness on the part of the individual.

In your example, you matched humans with insects first (showing less than savory behavior), but then went on to humans and humans (teaching is sharing knowledge). This distinction of 'us' vs. 'them' is actually very important, and this is why you will see people being altruistic within the 'us' group, where they will be severely critical with the 'them' group. It causes a lot of problems, as you can imagine.

How do you think these 'social codes' came to be in the first place? It had to have been a case of the many (working together) to overpower the few. I won't place labels of good or bad here, but rather just that the former had a greater tendency toward selflessness. This also explains how there are those who would sacrifice themselves for something 'greater' than themselves. Caring about others (e.g. altruistic behavior) is simply the origin of that. Because, on the whole, it's more beneficial toward survival.

>>11350618
Yes, quite beautiful.

>>11350615
Bugs are pests.

I love Saya a lot.

>>11351932
I also love Saya a lot.

Wonderful

She has nice wings.

>>11362151
Those aren't wings, they're mini demons.

>>11362154
They're totally wings!
And they're nice too!

>>11362164
Why do you keep posting lumps of flesh and guts, you freak? Take the gore to /b/.

>>11362168
There's no gore here, only beautiful Saya.
It's a shame you're unable to see it.

Janitor is a piece of shit fucking loser.

He's delusional. No one in real life, or online, can stand his autistic bullshit. No one likes it. Do you hear that janitor? Everyone fucking hates you, it is not a select few people, it is the majority of this board. There is a huge problem with that and guess whose fault is? It's yours you fucking dipshit, stop blaming everyone else.

The mods even hate you. You think they like dealing with your 70 stupid ass ban requests everyday? No, they don't. Why don't you just fucking leave already.

24

>>11337359

Filthy Xeno. Fuminori is a heretic.

I want Saya to teach me things.

>>11362151
She does

Take this!

>>11368923
I own a version! Handkerchief and all. Thanks though.

Not only is Saya really cute physically, but she also has quite the charming personality too.

How can I show my appreciation?

>>11374629
A pretty picture, words of praise, perhaps even a poem.

Why is she so adorable?

>>11350681

I'm not that other /jp/sy, but being altruistic isn't really what you think it is. A mathematician figured out the formula for altruism and found out it's simply there to help our genes survive. A person's feelings towards being altruistic towards someone else correlate with how genetically similar they are to each other; in other words, a father is more likely to give up his life for his son than for some stranger. That's how it started, someone had the gene of altruism he sacrifices himself to let his offspring survive, one of those offspring carried the gene, and because they will give their life to protect someone similar to them (most likely someone who also carries the gene for altruism) and that other person can pass the gene. Why do you think most people have a great disdain for a person who will use others as shields to save himself? You really think someone is more likely to help out a giving person or a selfish person? If they have the gene for altruism they'll help the giving person because their altruism gene wants itself to survive.

I don't feel like finding the name of the mathematician who figured this out, but he basically went insane from it. He gave away all his stuff and did other stuff because he was trying to do something truly altruistic, then he figured what he was doing wasn't altruistic because it was to prove something instead of being selfless and he killed himself. He figured out altruism is no different from our need to have sex.

>>11376734
You can't be altruistic. You can only give up something of yourself because you desire to do so, or because the consequences of not doing so are less desirable to you.

Life is incapable of selfless action. It all arises from conscious/unconscious desires.

>>11376813

Exactly

Fuck you saya took a friend from me.

You're a cunt and I'd dunk you in liquid nitrogen again and again with no regrets.

Anyone that says that they would merge is a bluepilled xeno loving faggot. She doesn't love you.

>>11376813

Altruism is possible but requires ignorance. Once you are aware of altruism, it becomes near impossible to actually be altruistic.

Kind of like bias. Going out of your way to remove anything that is biased is in and of itself also a bias. The only way is mind wiping.

I'm a japan otaku.
I interested in that how accepted saya's story in american otaku.

>>11376954
You would still only be "altruistic" because of personal desire, even if it's not known.

Sort of like being attracted to guys, but not knowing that it's gay to be attracted to guys, you're still acting on the same desires, even if you're ignorant of them.

The only way to be altruistic, not doing it for yourself in some way, would be to be created for the sole purpose of doing things for others, without feeling anything for the actions you undertake.

Ambivalent slavery. Machines are thus.

>>11324348

>>11377018
Altruism just requires you act against your own self interest. You can still get something from it, just not as much as if you acted selfishly. You are making altruism more selfless than it really is.

>>11377035
All actions are selfish. Altruism requires unselfish action. Therefore, only a creature without the capability to decide its actions can truly be altruistic. Humans cannot operate outside of sight of gain.

If you react to save a child from being hit by a car, even at the expense of your existence, it is a selfish action: your desires dictate that you wouldn't choose to live without having taken that action.

There's nobody that helps others because they don't want to, either because it makes them feel good/fulfills their principles/tickles their jimmies, or because the prospect of not helping others and being punished for it would be worse than begrudgingly helping.

>>11377046
You don't take into account the schadenfreude that comes from seeing someone run over.

So you have the following:
No danger to oneself and a good feeling > Danger to oneself and a good feeling

So the more self-serving action would be to watch by idly and the altruistic action would be to risk your life to save the child.

>>11377046
>All actions are selfish.
It sounds nice, and there's reasons to think that this might be true, but it's far from clear that this is true.

>>11377057

I think he's claiming it's impossible for a human to be ambivalent on an issue and that one choice will always provide some greater incentive (even if it is the tiniest iota larger in comparison), which will trigger the NOT ALTRUISM alarm.

>>11377057
>No danger to oneself and a good feeling > Danger to oneself and a good feeling

This is a variance in the person, and the prospective benefit. If you're a person who considers himself a good person, it would be:

Danger to oneself and possible benefit (saving a life) vs. no danger to oneself and possible detriment (living with the knowledge that you could've saved a life)

A selfish cost-benefit analysis, one that is no doubt beneficial to the child, since a person who believes in acting for others will probably save them, but still selfish.

An altruistic person would have only impetus to act, without being able to contest it.

>It sounds nice, and there's reasons to think that this might be true, but it's far from clear that this is true.

All actions are selfish. They arise from unconscious instinct and conscious reasoning/desire. You will always act in a way which follows your selfish reasoning. You drink the koolaid or don't drink the koolaid based on the sum of who you are and the reasons that are derived from that.

Now, debating whether humans have the capacity of actual choice is another train of thought entirely, but even if they have no capacity for choice, the impetus for acting can be said to have arisen from selfish reasoning/instinct, even if the formation of those instincts/reasons is external.

>>11377109
Saving a life has no benefit to you, don't put it on the positive side.

>>11377109
>[Actions] arise from unconscious instinct and conscious reasoning/desire.
That doesn't mean them automatically selfish.

>You will always act in a way which follows your selfish reasoning.
Yes, people act according to that reasoning, but you just injected the word "selfish" for what is, as far as I can tell, no actual reason other than that you think that all actions are selfish.

>>11376988
We don't accept warui bakemono like Saya here. Just fucking kill it with fire, or acid, or whatever already.

>>11377109
>[Actions] arise from unconscious instinct and conscious reasoning/desire.
That doesn't make them automatically selfish.

>You will always act in a way which follows your selfish reasoning.
Yes, people act according to reasoning, but you just injected the word "selfish" for what is, as far as I can tell, no actual reason other than that you think that all actions are selfish.

>>11377213
I see.
I think you already know that Saya story has a visionary trick.
About this trick, how do you think?

>>11377247
>visionary trick
If you're talking about "that trick", that's complete bullshit from my point of view.

Or, actually, maybe it's a "clever" one, since everyone in the end is loving Saya unironically. This VN just shows how idiotic, cruel, filthy and egoist humans are. I mean, everyone knows that already.

>>11376734
I did say it was beneficial toward survival, didn't I? I even mentioned something about 'kin' too, ahahaha. Overall, I'm not really disagreeing with what you wrote, though it seems your examples are a bit too focused on human behavior. It's more pervasive than just people.

It's kind of sad that the mathematician, Price, decided to kill himself. Not being able to reconcile these things is probably really tough on your psyche though.

>>11376813
On some level things can be construed to be entirely mechanistic. At that point it becomes somewhat pointless to talk about selfishness or selflessness as it's all measured by how advantageous toward survival it is. Or by some internal reward system dictated though nature/nurture. That's just life, really. Still, what we choose to do is important, and these choices are what we base our feelings of good or ill will towards others, who are making their own choices.

>>11377018
>>11377046
I think you can be altruistic, even if it's 'doing something for yourself'. But this may just be due to a mismatch in scope. Within a 'kin' group, doing things for other kin is still doing things for them, even if it does benefit you in some way, either directly or though the survival of the kin groups' genes. The example you gave with the machines, I don't know if I could even consider them to have a 'self' due to their lack of agency. And without that, what point is there in 'altruism'? From the way you've described it, it's an asymptotic impossibility, and that's not too useful to talk about. It's become black and white because there's no room for any meaningful comparisons. That is, if for example, the machines had some internal reward system that made it so that 'doing things for others' was rated highly, then under your prior definitions, they would no longer be altruistic.

>>11377312
Clever or not, Dr. Ougai still came to love her without it. So in that sense, it also showed the opposite side of the coin.

>>11377177
Sure it does, doctors earn a lot of money.

>>11377213
Or liquid nitrogen, but that's mean!

In all honesty, I think the only people who can be altruistic have to be irrational, and know that they're acting irrationally. Sort of like if you see a bug about to be run over by a car so you gently move it out of the way and get hit yourself, and doing this while you hate bugs and want to live. Anyone who actually does something altruistic would almost certainly be viewed as insane.

>>11376954

I don't think so. I understand what you're talking about, but you can be altruistic while knowing about it.

>>11377018

I don't think a machine can be altruistic because it has no sense of self. If it does, we would have to do some serious research before coming to any conclusions.

>>11377046

Yes, and the people who feel good from helping others are still around because other people instinctively know that the "good" people will increase their own chance of survival.

>>11377057

Many people are horrified when witnessing a death and naturally don't want to have someone die if they can do something about it. This comes from our ancestors who were too weak to to anything by themselves but in groups could take down most animals. To them, another human was invaluable because the more humans with him, the more likely he is to survive.

>>11377214

CLONEPOST

>>11377213
I-I do

>>11377312
We can't help it, the more beautiful a mate is the better our offspring are.

Not enough room for the rest of my responses so I will continue on my next post.

>>11379827

Yes you did. You did mention kin. I'm not disagreeing with what you wrote either, only with your interpretation of it. I am focusing primarily on humans because that's what we have the most information on and what humanity can actually understand.

The rest of the animal kingdom is out of our reach simply because the way other species think is different from us and from other species. A dog doesn't think like us, a dog doesn't think like a cat, a dog doesn't think like a fish, and humans don't think like any of those (I'm taking instinct into account as well). Altruism has to do with how the individual thinks (once again, whenever I say "think" I'm including instinct as well) and emotionally feels. Something that a bird would consider altruistic might not be altruistic from a human's point of view.

When I said I disagreed with your interpretation of altruism I meant that you see it as something that arose because of society and group thinking. Altruism is something that arose because someone had a genetic mutation which caused the altruism gene to form and that human passed that gene. I'm ecstatic that you know what "us" vs "them" thinking can do to people. Group thinking occurs when someone loses their sense of self and can only follow what the others are doing, because of this anything that person does cannot be viewed as altruistic because his mind is thinking about the group before him.

Continued on next post.

Continuation from >>11381175

>>11379827

Altruism is when you place your top priorities below something else that won't positively effect you. When you lose yourself in group thinking, your top priority is the group.

I see that you put a person's group as their kin, I can understand that. But the way we spoke of kin was different because I meant it as people who are genetically similar to an individual while you meant it as their family (Not necessarily genetically similar). Not saying one of us is wrong, but I think we're both right.

Ah, so Price was his name, I'm glad you know of him/found him.

I agree that machines -as we know them- can't be altruistic, but I think it's because they have no choice in their actions. They're programmed to do something and that's what they'll do.

I agree about Ougai. Fuminori only accepted Saya because her looks let him see her personality. Ougai accepted her for what he saw on the inside while being able to see her true looks. He was the best person, because he wasn't so close-minded.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm simply stating the way I understand things. You seem to be a very nice, intelligent, and open-minded person and I'm glad you've shown how you see things. I think these types of talks help improve everyone who reads and participates in them.

Nice boat, armpits, cheddar cheese, kero.

>>11324513

What does GSC have to do with SnU?

>>11381770
feeeeeeeet ;_;

>>11381770
white people being racist as usual

>>11381790
That's heavily photoshoped but doesn't look white at all (though some of them morons apparently think they do).

>>11381175
>>11381219
While it's certain that other species think differently from us, there are still some commonalities where altruism may show itself, even if it's from their perspective. Something like sharing of killed prey is pretty common, for example. I also think it's something that formed through genetic mutation, the origin of which occurred much much earlier, with the beginning of multicellular organisms, or perhaps even prior.

The type of group/society altruism we see in humans, then, might be thought of a more recent cognitive layer on top of a time tested instinct for survival. Kind of like rationalizing, and maybe that's what we see when we move from viewing family as kin, to less genetically close friends as kin. In any case, it _does_ seem like we're talking about slightly different things when it comes to what it means to be altruistic (the bit about priorities, vs. simply caring about others). Ah well..

In spite of your interpretation of altruism, I think your comment here >>11381104 about how there's a certain amount of irrationality that comes with altruistic behavior can still be applied generally. Only then, if you change the scope of what you're looking at (i.e. from individual to group), what might have been irrational, is no longer considered that way. So scoping solves the paradox of doing irrational things while being completely rational about it, it's kind of neat.


Ougai was the best, no doubt!

Yup, yup, thanks for sharing. It's nice getting into more in depth discussions once in a while. Not that I don't enjoy posting pretty pictures any less!

>>11381774
Feeeeet~

>>11375197
It's in her nature.

>>11387238
>Something like sharing of killed prey is pretty common

Most common when hunting game bigger than yourself. Since it's unlikely that you can eat your entire catch by yourself, without sitting on it for a while, and you know there are other predators in the area that will fight you for it, sharing it prevents wasting time fighting to preserve your catch.

This is selfish in the same way that you take what you want/can get, then leave the rest because it's better to just move on.

>I don't think a machine can be altruistic because it has no sense of self.

Which gets straight to my point: you can't be altruistic, devoid of selfish reasons, without rejecting a sense of self. Just like bias, selfishness pervades all actions, even if the actions are beneficial to all involved.

You will always pursue the course of action that is either most beneficial to your intents, or the one that you BELIEVE is most beneficial to your intents.

While you weigh many conflicting interests, the one that comes out on top is the one that matters most to you, regardless of what other people want, and is therefore the one you act on.

It sort of makes you appreciate people that do good for others even more, because you know that, somehow, despite all the crueler instincts that they could've chosen to act on, they feel good/think better about helping you. They feel that on a deep enough level to do it.

I would feel more confidence in the actions of someone who got emotional well being from helping others, than I would from a machine-like person that was devoid of such capacity.

>>11387935
The thing here is that you're sharing it with 'kin' as opposed to 'other' predators, which may be other species or perhaps a different 'pack' of the same species.

>>11387945
People aren't always the most rational agents though. Sometimes, the course of action comes purely from, perhaps learned, reflex, and that may or may not be the most beneficial, or even what you believe is so (after you sit down to think about it).

In any case, the point I was trying to make earlier regarding the sense of self is that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to talk about altruism unless there is a sense of self. The way you've described it though, any agent with a sense of self makes actions that are on any level, selfish. Which makes talking about altruism as purely selfless also somewhat pointless. This is a case of where I agree with what you said, according to your definitions, but I don't necessarily agree with your definitions, because they're not that useful for talking about things.

Instead, the way I've been looking at altruistic behavior is one that puts the amount of benefit toward others and benefit towards the individual on a scale. Which means that caring for others (in your kin, or whatever) is considered to be more altruistic than being solely selfish (and not benefiting the others at all).

I also appreciate people that do good for others, and I also think that this type of behavior is more common than not. People, unlike some other species, are far more social than we are isolated. It's in our nature, so to speak.

Speaking of predators, Saya is quite talented.

>>11381790
HOW THE FUCK IS THAT RACIST...

I aint even white myself but the whole "oh woe me, the vile white man opresses me!" deal is tiring as all fuck.

Happiest moment in my life. I love evil characters but only when their personalities are the result of long and complex moral considerations that cause great pain to its bearers (resulting, in some cases, in a mindbreak). She was just a spoiled bitch.

In its own way, Saya no Uta apparently addresses the inexistence of such things as absolute (classical) philosophical categories: truth, beauty and goodness. Specifically, and against naive realism, it shows that what our empirical culture takes as an essential component of the ultimate path to objectivity, the notion of heavily considering the "object" as what is reported by our five senses, is flawed to the core. The story reminds us that every definition or provisional so called "truth" can only be grasped thanks to actual lies: to substitutions (by a semiotical process) and biased interpretations of stimuli, which ultimately render every human experience as virtual, fictional and thus essentially false. Then, these conclusions are made extensive to both our inherited concepts of beauty and goodness i.e. that there are no aesthetical or moral truths, either). Nevertheless, Saya, for good or bad, ends up defending love (whatever that may be) as the ultimate value to cherish: the only thing worthy of truly sacrificing a world for; and we ourselves have to acknowledge all this as well, in order to love and follow her to whatever may come.

>>11396433
>In its own way, Saya no Uta apparently addresses the inexistence of such things as absolute (classical) philosophical categories: truth, beauty and goodness.

I thought we already moved past this issue over 2000 years ago.

First, I want to apologize because in a moment of little cleverness I also posted this as a thread, being my last post >>11396088

>>11396433
You presented some very elaborated moral reasons but I disagree with them mostly because accepting them means for me to conceive a world without sense. I think I find in your answer the idea that there cannot be real knowledge because our senses are a defective means to achieve it but I think that, even if what is in our minds can only be conceived as a "provisional truth" to believe in the existence of the ultimate truth is a presupposition for us to continue living. Since you identify the problem with senses, one could say that there only exist logical necessity but never necessity between the facts that happen in the world but I think that saying "x must exist" is different to saying to someone what is exactly the x and I think we must say the first and continue fighting for finding it if we want to conceive a world with rational sense.

That being said, I don't believe in morals like a kantian metaphysical entity of which we are mere puppets, but rather as that objective reality that has his source in the subjectivity of men. I disapprove of this views on morals because it fights dogmatism just to arrive at absolute ambiguity. Moral objectivity is the ultimate theoretical union between all subjectivities and, in that sense, Fuminori is being completely morally stupid because he believes that the satisfaction of his only subjectivity (incomplete objectivity) is the way of achieving happiness. But what he does cannot be called love but mere lust because it is of the essence of rational love in man to achieve happiness through the body and mind union with the other thing that corresponds perfectly with him, that is, man (of course, not harming him and wishing for his happiness too) and not just clinging desperately to something that gives him pleasure. Remember that without love, the truth cannot be seen.

>>11397180
I'm not saying knowledge is useless. Rather, there's no knowledge that isn't pragmatic (which is the motivation, for example, behind Peirce's triadic semiotic theory: a sign is the substitution of a thing -representamen- by another -object- towards a certain purpose -interpretant-). What I think, and found illustrated in Saya no Uta, is precisely that this discovery tears down any pretension of reaching, by the means of knowledge, the objective reality you mention; in other words: that true knowledge (and not false knowledge) is the actual contradiction: to know is to signify (i.e. to turn into signs), to interpret, to rebuild, to fictionalize. Everyday life sense is not logical but narratological.

>>11397180
>Moral objectivity is the ultimate theoretical union between all subjectivities
But that leads precisely to the kantian transcendental subject and categorical imperative that you despised... and rightly so: such allegedly objective goodness is built on an ad populum fallacy.

Ethics, as a discourse of ethos (opposed to pathos), deal with one's power of incidence in the world: with freedom. Moral duties deal with the otherness of the collective, falling into the pathos we must endure and thus may oppose to ethics (ethics may not need to be immoral but rather, amoral). As an alternative definition of the ethical act, you can take Wittgenstein's (Tractatus, Proposition 6.422): an act that find its purpose in itself; to act, on free will, out of some sense of righteousness, disregard its consequences (pleasant or not)... and that's what Fuminori did.

>what he does cannot be called love but mere lust
It's all a matter of definitions, of course. And to define love, I'd have to start with Schopenhauer, debunk it (though it's very useful to understand Saya's take on it), and arrive to Villiers De L'Isle Adam... so, in short: if rather than mere fancy, love is a process of splitting by which one's identity is translated/merged/turned into one's own concept of someone/something else that thus becomes the (semiotical) object of one's love (in other words: that love is a phenomenon by which one comes to re-organize and re-understand oneself entirely, by the means of an alleged otherness that is, ultimately, nothing but one's own invention), then I can safely say that Fuminori loved (what he and only he could see of) Saya. However, there's absolutely no implying between love and caring for the good of the otherness that serves it as source; rather, love is a rather destructive force: we want that otherness to turn into something else entirely, bounded entirely to us: into "our beloved".

>>11326903
every
single
time

>>11345606
Enemy of humanity detected

>>11397820
Honestly, I chose getting all back my first time, BUT because I thought that would lead into the most conflictive (thus interesting) path: I did wanted to stay with her in the end, but also wanted a long story to lead me into such end. Obviously I was so wrong, I was too stupid those days (it was years ago); I'd like to think I got better but who knows.

Saya competes vs Kana imouto for my favorite VN ever.
Old school.

>>11397733
Not seeing it.

>>11397180
Just copying this over...

>Yes, I hate Fuminori as well and, maybe, one could say that Saya is not really an evil or morally stupid character if we consider the fact that "she" is an extraterrestrial being and, in that sense, it's totally rational for her to disregard the thoughts and feelings of another species for the sake of "her" own satisfaction (just like I think it is perfectly rational for us to use animals for our satisfaction).

>That being said, we can place the doubt at Saya's behavior but being completely sure that Fuminori is a man who only deserves loathing for having arrived to that mediocre concept of the meaning of life (and the duties it implies) that you just designated, just a manifestation of his enormous impotence that can no longer be contained with rationality and resulting in a behavior only motivated by the pleasure principle (like a child lacking of any intelligence to be motivated by more elaborated moral reasons). On the other hand, I still hate Saya because of course Urobuchi just wanted to create an omnipotent sadistic bitch.

Saya was never evil, even disregarding the fact that her instincts carried through to when she learned and became 'more human'. Well, there's an argument for it when the thing with Yo happened, but I'm going to overlook that as a scenario designed solely for the visuals. As for her morality, there were definitely some questionable decisions on her part, such as toying with patients, but over all, I think she was taught well.

Don't hate Saya. She's not for hating. Quite the opposite, in fact!

>>11324348

Too scary for me...

>>11397180
Your wall of text means nothing, he doesnt have to care about anyone else. It isn't his responsibility to care about anyone else.

Fairness doesn't matter. The real world runs by nature's rule. We call this rule many things.

- Survival of the fittest
- Tooth and claw
- kragdadigheid
- The weak are meat and the strong shall eat

But it comes down to the fact that there are no rules. The strong do what they can; the weak suffer what they must. All moral ideas are essentially propaganda which is warfare by other means - people and groups of people do what they want, then think of plausible moral justifications that will help them keep their gains.
Fuminori could do whatever the fuck he wanted to do and he wouldn't be wrong
I thought retards who study this had already debunked ``morals'' over a hundred years ago.

>>11401882

so edgy and cool i want to be just like you XD

>>11401924
Nice meme.
Call it what you want, morals dont mean anything, so trying to justify something with morals as a basis is worthless.

>>11339338
>most evolved lifeform
>most evolved
This term does not make any sense at all. There is no "goal" to evolution and thus no such thing as more or less evolved.

Reminder that Fuminori would have killed Saya too if she appeared in her true form to him.

>>11401947
Reminder that Fuminori would have been the king of tennis if he was born in Spain.

Hypotheticals carry no weight.

>>11401950
I just want to make sure there aren't any people in here who believe that Fuminori is actually a great person for loving Saya. He's not. He likes what looks pretty to him, he hates what looks ugly to him.

>>11401955
It was more than just looks, it invaded all of his senses.
His world was completely different, anyone would have done the same after a short time or killed themselves from living in hell.
Suicide for a bunch of people who give you nothing isn't heroic either, he did what was logical in his position.

>>11401961
I don't actually hate him or anything. I would have done some of the things he did as well, especially the rape, though I would've avoided going out of my way to murder my former self's friends. I just think it's stupid when some fans act like he's so much more of an open-minded person than his friends, when really his reaction and reasoning with them amounts to the same as their reactions and reasoning with Saya.

Why couldn't Fuminori be honest about his condition to others, especially his doctor? Wasn't he a medical student? I'm not one but even I know that visual aphasia is a known medical condition.

>>11401981
Woops, the correct condition was Visual agnosia.

>>11401882

You're right that morals are fabrications, and of course not objective truth - instead they're the rules that we as humans have created to guilt people into behaving in the way which will most rapidly convey us into the future where things like engineered pseudo-immortality and near-1:1 virtual reality exist (obviously atomic replication is not possible) exist, and where contemporarily human labors are done by post-Singularity machine logicians and laborers. But your post also reeks of crossboard - especially that dumb image. So get the heck out of here, dweeb.

>>11401983

The world is not very delicate or good at treating mental disorders right now.

>>11401987
At least we stopped with the electroshock therapies and lobotomy. Not like keeping quiet went well for him.

>>11401988

Yes it did...?

How did it not? He was happy. Saya 'bloomed' but oh well, couldn't be avoided.

>>11401985
I got that image on /jp/ actually, I think eva is a shitty anime too and that image can sum up the entire series.

>>11401981
Because then there'd be no story (rule of drama). You can't make a powerful tale with a NORP who took the blue pill. You can't get benefit without conflict; the larger the bet, the stronger the consequences.

>>11404370
There would still be a story, it just would be all internal conflict instead of the insane asylum/shotgun external conflict.

>>11404391
Maybe. But that wouldn't be Saya no Uta, in any case.

>>11404391
Maybe. The point is, that story, with all the achievements it may have, wouldn't be Saya no Uta,

>>11397725
So, if I understand, there is the representamen and the way our subjectivities know something about the object it designates is by interpreting it (giving meaning to something). I agree with the existence of this process, however I cannot accept this to be called the act of knowing (or, at least, a relevant definition of knowledge). What you are not seeing is that this theory does recognize the existence of an “object” to which the representamen is referring and, therefore, even if the actual content in our minds cannot be more than something determined by our subjectivities that doesn’t means that there is not something that is real even if the content in our minds does not correspond perfectly with it. What I think is that a relevant meaning for knowledge is the perfect adequacy between an idea and the object to which it refers, and nothing else, even if this is impossible.

This reminds me of Frege’s difference between reference and sense, being the first the object (conceived as an idea) to which it refers and the second like the way how it fulfills this function (how we perceive/understand the meaning). He says that some propositions can have sense but not reference, however Wittgenstein replies that there are the exact same thing because a proposition always have to fulfill the requirement of being true or false (by having or not having a referenced object). So, we arrive, at a first moment, to at least a logical necessity in the world. “If p then q”. If, by some means, I could be certain about the veracity of p, then I could have absolute knowledge about q too. How to do this is the real problem but that is not an excuse to say that your actions are justified because you cannot achieve a perfect adequacy between an idea and the object to which it refers.

I have some ideas of how it would be possible to obtain true knowledge based on Baruch Spinoza's Ethics but I think it's better to just make the reference.

>>11397728
>Wittgenstein's (Tractatus, Proposition 6.422):
>and that's what Fuminori did.

Well, I agree with this definition but not with your conclusion. Fuminori's behavior doesn't find justification in his free will but in his passions, being his actions completely constrained by the limiting need of acquiring pleasure (consequences).

Since we're quoting authors and I do not want to feel like I'm committing plagiarism I will just quote some of the points, that relate to the objections that you have made, which are from the thinker that has influenced me the most in my life, Benedict de Spinoza. In his Ethics (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm)), part IV, he writes:

DEF I. By good I mean that which we certainly know to be useful to us.
PROP. XIX. Every man, by the laws of his nature, necessarily desires or shrinks from that which he deems to be good or bad.
PROP. XX. The more every man endeavours, and is able to seek what is useful to him—in other words, to preserve his own being—the more is he endowed with virtue; on the contrary, in proportion as a man neglects to seek what is useful to him, that is, to preserve his own being, he is wanting in power.
PROP. XXXI. In so far as a thing is in harmony with our nature, it is necessarily good.
PROP. XXXV. In so far only as men live in obedience to reason, do they always necessarily agree in nature.
Corollary I. (of the last PROP.)—There is no individual thing in nature, which is more useful to man, than a man who lives in obedience to reason.
PROP. XXXVI. The highest good of those who follow virtue is common to all, and therefore all can equally rejoice therein.

That being said, I think that an ethical act is the one that gives the greatest joy in man but that, finally, when a man is fully rational and understands all the forces that are constraining his real free will, results to be the joy of other men.

>>11404851

Now I will stop writing these things here because I am a very shy guy and I feel awkward. I just wanted to manifest the very little sympathy that generates a character like Saya (and Fuminori) in me but I apologize for having called her a spoiled bitch, it was somewhat rude of me.

>>11404370
>rule of drama
Shitty Western construct everybody takes like a law of physics.

>>11404851
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
...so Spinoza it's really problematic. Like Villiers De L'Isle said (L'Eve Future): nature is like that lady everybody talks about but no one has ever seen. The natural, as opposed to the artificial, is by definition unattainable by the means of signs and signs seem to be the only thing we have at hand (though not necesarly linguistical; sensations are included, as icons, under Peirce's typology); nothing can ever be signified by itself; to attempt on it (a~a) would be just another form of the tautology a=a, which is useless. Appealing to nature is like appealing to God: nonsensical.

>>11404643
You must also consider that Frege's theory of sign, like Saussure's (signifiant/signified), is dyadic. Peirce's input consisted in noticing that the pragmatic dimension of a sign is actually the only thing that allow us to judge it, rather than true or false, useful or not (to its purported use); this is similar to Wittgenstein II on how the meaning of any word can only be grasped within a specific game of language that must be lived through. In any case, the main problem is that the sign, as you sure know, is neither one half or third of its parts but the entire set, and the existence of such complex entity cannot be but virtual; if you want, it's similar to Wittgenstein I on the world not being the entire set of things but of facts, i.e. something within the very (structural/virtual) bridge between the actual world (which is unreachable) and some particular language. Therefore my initial afirmation about every experience being ultimately virtual: the object exists alright, but only virtually (Baudrillard is the king on this subject).

That is, I think, the origin of our disagreement. I do not give credit to any allegacy of realism or naturality within a discourse, let alone concerning ethics. Science, the main holder of the alleged knowledge about nature, can't pretend to offer a neutral view of goodness or justice; in fact, science prey on the world: it models/artificializes things in order to put them at the service of men, by using efficient causal signs to emulate phenomena and render accurate predictions; science's pragmatic success does come from assimilating the notion of explanation to that of efficient cause, but that leads precisely to the big fallacy behind science: to believe that dominating something means you have understood it; science is under the category of power, rather than truth; therefore, science cannot really deal with ethics: it is science which is an ethical problem as well.

Good talking with you, btw.

>>11405428
Physics are very, very dramatic.

So
Cute saya?

>>11407419
Yes, I think you have correctly pointed the origin of our irreconcilable (in the short run) disagreement.

Anyway, I think that, by and large, what I'm doing (what Spinoza does) is to speculate about a way in which reality could have sense and so ethics would be possible, fulfilled some presuppositions. What you are doing (what Peirce and I think Wittgenstein I and II do), by and large, is to highlight the obstacles that make impossible to attain certainty about these presuppositions that allow the construction of this perfect system. Spinoza would dare to elaborate beautiful arguments to affirm the possibility of absolute certainty regarding these presuppositions (through the concept of common notions: "Corollary (of PROP. XXXVIII. Part II)—Hence it follows that there are certain ideas or notions common to all men; for (by Lemma ii.) all bodies agree in certain respects, which (by the foregoing Prop.) must be adequately or clearly and distinctly perceived by all.). However, I think my knowledge is not yet at the level to keep statements like this with such certainty. That being said, I can just contribute with a final thought that attains my mind in the moment of choosing one or the other point of view: If Spinoza is right, then he has attained blessedness, if Peirce and Wittgenstein are right then they have attained nothing...which I think is a little sad. Of course that this is an argument that lacks scientific authority and would be ethically defective as a directive according to the unconditioned ethical system of Spinoza, but I must admit that is the provisional reason for me for choosing this point of view, like my "Grundnorm" (doing a very crazy analogy).

It has been a pleasure discussing with you too, sir. I learned some very interesting things, so thank you.

>>11407416
>>11407419

Oh, and...I forgot to say that I am not sure if you two are the same person but I assumed this for writing my last answer...

>>11408873
Sexy blooming Saya.

Remember when Chitanda bloomed like Saya (who bloomed like Uber-Rei)?

>>11408873
Mmmhmmm~

Sleeping with Saya!
She looks so fluffy..

Just finished it after picking it up on a whim. Went into it completely blind not knowing anything about it prior. Very enjoyable story that did not use the usual SOL high school kids setting, music really stood out in mind setting up the mood for it quite nicely, also the sex scenes where good as they where not overly dragged out like they seem to be in most VN's.

>>11413398
>sex scenes where good

The ero in Saya always disturbed me. I just couldn't get the image of Fuminori sticking his penis into rotting meat out of my head.

>>11381255
Nothing. It's not what I was trying to imply either way.

What I was saying is that I would probably love Saya if she was like Rally; sadly, she is not. Even with the multitude of wonderful 2Ds out there, I still haven't found a waifu.

>>11413398
>the sex scenes where good
It's the only blowjob I've ever enjoyed.

>>11413405
Isn't normal sex the same thing?

>>11413732

Saya no Uta is a very cleverly disguised pedophile game. It is pretentious as fuck. Don't be fooled. It is nothing more than an adult student fucking a by all means underage little child. It tries to hide this fact by indroducing an even older man trying to rape Saya making it seem wrong and simultaniously right that the protagonist fucks her. The protagonist is trapped in his own world where is primary focus is the little girl Saya. Just like any other pedophile he is obsessed with her since apparently she is the only desireable thing in a world seemingly made of agony. However this condition only exists in his mind. While the normal outsiders are baffled by his behaviour he justifies it by them being the non-understanding ones. He never tries to explain his condition because he knows that he is fucked up. And him fucking a little girl is acceptable to him because of the pretense of love. This love is strictly superficial since he does not love her because of her character but only due to her childish looks. The only looks he can find attractive by the way.

After Saya was nearly fucked by an even older man she goes from crying to sucking the cock of the protagonist. This is the ultimate desire of the pedophile love from an underage child expressed as sucking cock

>>11416832
But she's and shoggoth not a little girl

I recently saw a movie named "Masters of Horror: Jenifer," it sort of reminded me of Saya no Uta. It wasn't deep, but it had quite a few similarities.

I would suggest watching it because of the similarities and it's interesting; just don't watch it around your parents if you still live at home.

I know it's on youtube; they've probably censored it on youtube, but I don't know for sure since I didn't watch it there.

>>11419809
Thank you I like Masters of Horror of will watch.

>>11419809
Where can I download this?

All torrents seem to be stuck on 97% or so...

>>11419822

No problem.

>>11419907

I didn't download it, so I can't help you with that, but you can probably watch it with some looking around.

>>11419809
I liked this, thank you. It felt a little rushed but I see what you mean about the similarities.

Bitten (2008) is similar, but campier and sexier (because vampires).

>>11420234

You're welcome, always glad to help a fellow horror fan, and the way current horror movies are I'm I could glad help you find something interesting. I agree, I feel they could have gone in depth in many things. But it seemed that the movie was part of some sort of series and they had to make it about one hour, either way I found it interesting and refreshing because it wans't like most horror movies.

I'll watch Bitten, it's a shame it's so late right now, but I'll try to watch it later today (it just turned Monday in my time zone), I'll tell you my thoughts on it when I do.

Surprisingly,found quite a few images here I didn't have saved.

Saya is best gatcha

>>11368923
>>11368972
I wasn't aware that existed, wish I did when it came out.

>>11420626
For the love of Cirno, please tell me where I can get one of these.

>>11420916
>For the love of Cirno

*tips fedora in an appreciative gesture, as I have, indeed, noticed what you did there*

>>11413732
totally agree. feeling otherwise is just a sensory illusion as well.

>>11416832
he also liked You's juicy tits. your entire theory is false. Saya's looking as a little girl is part of the status quo breaking visual elements alright, but it is you who obsess over it.

>>11362154
I'd say they're rhizomatic extensions. But they aren't wings indeed: they do not serve to flap and fly or swim or whatever.

>>11420916
http://www.e2046.com/product/14668
Seems they are finally restocking.

>>11422731
Are they now, that's great!

>>11420234

I watched Bitten. They were certainly similar ie: male helping his uniquely troubled woman. It was interesting, and I was surprised to find another story with that type of story layout.

It was an okay movie, not really my type but it's watchable. I usually like movies that don't try to intertwine humor with other genres, but that's just me.

It did make me hopeful in finding other stories with similar templates though; it's rather difficult finding this type. Thanks for the suggestion.

I was planning on typing this HOURS ago, but was ridiculously side tracked, forgive my tardiness.

>>11324489
you don't say?

>>11424160
Just look at all this green.

>>11401702
i dont know what the white thing is
maybe her giant cock wears a cape
but i cant unsee it

Saya is beautiful. I dreamt of her once. I wish that I could dream of her again, but, no matter how much I sleep, she never comes back.

>>11422731
People at /jp/ might give you shit for it bring Gathering, but I highly recommend this one at least. It's definitely a top jewel for any collection.

>>11420622

Can someone translate this?

Does anyone know its origin?

Here it is without the text, if anyone cares.

>>11339165
Fuck off

>>11429275
The text in the title bar is ニトロ+ロワイヤル (Nitro+ Royale)

Feel free to google it yourself.

>>11416832

yeah, so what.

>>11429445

>How did I not know this existed

Thank you. Knowing it's official art, I'm genuinely surprised Nitroplus made the mistake of drawing a left foot on a right leg for >>11429275.

>>11339165
Guau, te vaciaste en ese juego de palabras verdad? Fresán te la pela...

No, honestly: get out.

>>11429556
It's in this image as well.

>>11424934
Who knows, maybe you'll see her again one of these days.

>>11429701

Huh, I've had that one for a while and never noticed it. I really have no words to say to that, makes me think they're doing it on purpose, or they have a cross-eyed artist, or maybe it's both. Diabeetus.

>>11429701

I just thought of something: what if one of heir artist can't draw right feet and Nitroplus never noticed and the artist has been hiding this fact while hoping no one will notice? Everything makes sense now.

>>11433624
LIVING THE DREAM

>>>11433624

That's very unlikely.
Maybe he just draws all toes alike and tells right form left depending on the angle they hold as a set (and which doesn't maintain on those panels' scorzo).

>>11401947
>her true form
There's no such thing, silly goose, that's the moral of the story. It's all about perception.

>>11434452
Imagine how heartbreaking it would be, rejected based on something immutable, not just by anyone, but by one you view as more important to you than yourself.

>>11434499
That would be close enough to Finagle's Law in action: the world being constitutively against you, ontologically loveless.

>>11434547
It would be very sad, like wanting to give Saya a hug, but being incapable of even communicating those feelings.

Saya is so wonderful.

Such a cutie~

Stunning and bright, Saya lights up the night.