Seventeen's Going Seventeen - 13 Angry Men Part 2 (Season 5, Episode 102)
Added 2024-06-06 19:00:05 +0000 UTCHello Patrons! We're excited to bring you another episode of Seventeen's Going Seventeen - 13 Angry Men Part 2 (Season 5, Episode 102). The members continue their thought-provoking debate session with two new topics that spark stimulating discussions and playful banter.
Episode Highlights:
Happiness and Awareness: The first topic asks, "Does happiness you're not aware of in the moment count as happiness?" The members dive into this philosophical question, bringing their unique perspectives and experiences to the table. The debate is filled with insightful comments, humorous interjections, and the usual Seventeen chaos.
Intentions vs. Outcomes: The second topic, "Can good intentions exonerate one from bad outcomes?" leads to a heated yet respectful discussion. The members share their thoughts on the balance between intentions and consequences, resulting in a lively exchange of ideas and some unexpected arguments.
Throughout the episode, Seventeen's dynamic and respectful interactions shine through. Despite the sometimes controversial nature of the topics, the members maintain their trademark humour and camaraderie, making for an engaging and entertaining watch.
Join us for this captivating episode as we witness Seventeen navigate these deep questions with their characteristic wit and charm. Thank you for your continued support, which allows us to bring these exclusive behind-the-scenes moments and special features directly to you. Stay tuned for more exciting content from your favourite group!
Comments
I'm so excited for you to watch debate nights
Eva
2024-06-10 23:29:12 +0000 UTCim so excited for the other debate nights!!! these are some of my favorite episodes
Kerriane
2024-06-09 23:30:15 +0000 UTCTbh when this episode first aired, I couldn't grasp any of the arguments they were making XD Now, watching it with you guys, it all finally makes sense.
Purple Spirit
2024-06-07 21:57:50 +0000 UTCIt's Simon. Kerry has never written a message that long in her life! 🤣 For what it's worth, I don't think Kerry would disagree with the points either. That said, for her this is more about her personal values than opinion. She believes that intentions should outweigh outcomes and so, for her, they always will. These debates are so fascinating to me. It's like Joshua said, you get to know people so much better through them!!
Simon Chilley
2024-06-07 08:07:07 +0000 UTCYes, I agree with both points:) Is this Simon though? Lol it sounds like you, and if yes, then we have the same opinions for the both debate situations during the ep anyway... But if you're Kerry, I'm actually glad we're on the same side (or like I understand your points better now)... Thanks again for always sharing your thoughtful insights and genuine reactions!
krizhe ming
2024-06-07 07:33:15 +0000 UTCI've just realised I didn't edit the beginning of this episode!!! How embarrassing!!!!
Simon Chilley
2024-06-07 07:11:36 +0000 UTCI think that's a great example. My view is that there are two different things to consider: 1. Do good intentions take away individual responsibility for outcomes? In your example, the person who gave the present caused serious harm. That matters and that person is responsible 2. Do good intentions change what consequences/punishments a person should receive? I think, in your example, that the gift giver should not be treated the same way as someone who did it deliberately. Good intentions don't exonerate you, but they do change how we should deal with people who do bad things
Simon Chilley
2024-06-07 07:07:53 +0000 UTCyou guys participating in the debate makes me think about how you'd do for the Debate Night episodes 🤣🤣🤣 it's gonna be fun lol
Arcfrosvt
2024-06-07 06:28:25 +0000 UTCTotally agreed with simon’s take on both counts haha, but I absolutely love that you guys paused and took the time to discuss and debate yourselves!! I can’t wait for you guys to get to their debate night gose episodes, it’s also a recurring thing like don’t lie but the topics are much sillier so it’s a lot of chaotic fun! Also I think it’s so funny that after there are sillier concepts on gose like going rangers, they tend to follow up with more structured/serious things like this to remind us like oh yes, we contain multitudes 😂
Prinn
2024-06-07 03:52:56 +0000 UTCWatching this with you makes it even more interesting. I was glad that most of your talking points and your views were aligned with the members and mine as well... I thought Kerry would be convinced too with the last example Gyu had given to The8 regarding the car, but looks like she's still on the 'can exonarate'. Guess it's really how you think of the case and if the 'good intention' is really there. As Simon said, it's the "why's" that matter... How about this -- Someone prepared a surprise for your kid. Was very excited and thorough in their preparation. Comes the day of the event, a gift is handed to your kid but as she opens it, the gift is/has something she has a phobia or trauma of (the giver genuinely didn't know) and she has a serious attack and got hospitalized. Can you completely put off the blame from that person who surprised her and gave the gift?
krizhe ming
2024-06-07 02:15:13 +0000 UTCReally fun debate! I'm actually in the camp of "Good intentions can't exonerate" in the legal sense but if it's just generally I do think you could look at it the way Vernon put it: if we take "can" to mean: "is it possible" then in the minor circumstances I would tend to agree! If someone tried to hold a door open for me but timed it wrong and accidentally hit me with it I probably wouldn't need any compensation- I could consider it an accident and therefore absolve them. In more serious situations of course I wouldn't but the mere fact that I could in a minor one suggests that it *can* exonerate you sometimes? Doesn't the fact that Kerry and Minghao (before money was involved) were willing to exonerate in some cases prove that yes there are people for whom good intentions hold enough weight? In any case, I think the context really does matter because if I asked my sister to look after my pet fish and she bought it a bigger tank intending to be nice but the stress of moving it killed it, I would probably just think it was bad luck because she couldn’t have known it would respond like that, and it was obviously an accident. But if it was a random friend of a friend that thought they were doing me a favour and I came back to a dead fish I'd be really pissed and want compensation, likewise if it was a cat and not a fish I would be a lot more upset. 😆
caratcake97
2024-06-07 00:39:50 +0000 UTCI loved the discussions you had and actually waited for this upload to see your take. Now I am curious how would you react to Seventeen's Debate Night episodes hehe. And as for this GoSe content I personally liked it a lot and what DK said in his closing comment was exactly how I felt. ----- Regarding the topics, idk if my thoughts make sense, but here it is. 1) Happiness: Here is what I feel in the end. Suppose there was a time in past which back in the moment was not a happy moment, and was just a moment for me. And now in future thinking back to it I find the moment happy. I am happy in present thinking about the moment. But suppose there was a moment in past I was being happy, like laughing and chilling with my friends. But I didn't think much of the moment then. But later in the end of the day when I thought about it, I only then realized I was happy earlier with my friends, the past was still a happy moment even though I wasn't conscious of it back then. 2) Exonerate: Since the term "exonerate" means to completely absolve someone, I feel even if it was a good intention, if the out come is bad it wouldn't exonerate them. Yes I could be understanding to it depending on the outcome, but it wouldn't completely absolve someone. But I also feel this has levels to it. Like suppose a friend has this candy which they really like and give it to me to share the yummy thing which is a good intension. But I eat it and fall really sick which is a bad outcome. Would the friend be held at fault? But then I also do get Simon's point being that the friend will feel bad that I am sick because of a candy they gave. So does it mean they can't be exonerated? Also speaking of this I also understand where Dino is coming from. Not to judge the person's character, but A saved a plate while stealing a candy. Yes A's intension was bad but the outcome was good. A could have just let the plate fall and break and just go about stealing but A did chose to save it. So they did do a good job technically. And similarly B tried to help the owner, a good thing, but broke 10 plates. The owner did not ask for help, so while trying to be productive B just caused more trouble. And now the owner has to deal with it. So while I understand B's intension and the fact that humans make mistake, B did cause trouble and is the reason the plates broke...? Idk I feel I have thoughts in my head but idk if I am making sense. :') And sorry for the extra long comment :(
Priyanka Banerjee
2024-06-06 20:51:15 +0000 UTCThat's fair enough, I decided the smart thing to do was to comment while watching, rather than waiting till the end to see if the issue was resolved. 😅 You'll be pleased to know I've actually finished watching now.
Abzify1
2024-06-06 20:32:09 +0000 UTCThis is absolutely one of those things that Kerry and I just fundamentally disagree on. When we talk about it, we describe it as "Why (Kerry) vs How (Simon)". Kerry is much more interested in the reasons for things and I'm much more interested in the processes behind them. This means we often just don't see eye to eye on it, though knowing why that this, really helps!
Simon Chilley
2024-06-06 20:18:35 +0000 UTCI think I get what Kerry's saying with the intentions thing. If what you did was a freak accident, than it's a freak accident and you don't get punished, no matter what the consequences are. If you do something when you're drunk or incredibly angry, than the fact that your mental state is impaired means that it's not a freak accident and so you can't be absolved from whatever those consequences are. If the plate broke while you were handing it to her, than consequences are absolved, if you broke the plate on purpose out of anger but didn't mean to hurt her than the fact that you broke it on purpose prevents you from being absolved, because your original state of mind in impaired. Could be wrong but that's how I understood it.
Abzify1
2024-06-06 20:07:39 +0000 UTCThat's a really interesting point. I think in that situation you describe then that absolutely would count, but is maybe more of a language or labelling thing? It's a good counter!
Simon Chilley
2024-06-06 20:06:38 +0000 UTCMy counter argument for the happiness thing, is that if a person has never felt happiness before (first memory type things) than they won't realise that what they are feeling in that moment is what we know as happiness. When they learn what happiness is, they than realise oh that feeling I had in that moment was happiness. (Felt happiness but not conscious of it at that time).
Abzify1
2024-06-06 19:34:36 +0000 UTCWOOOO
ela
2024-06-06 19:19:34 +0000 UTC
