Quote:
Originally Posted by shmaster
*reads up
I think I detracted a little from my original point myself.
Let me restate my central problem with Touma right now: He is too far into messiah syndrome that he is as appalling as Medaka.
I have no interest in arguing whether Touma or Birdway's philosophy is right or wrong, better or worse.
What I cannot stand is Touma acting as if he has the moral high ground when he is as flawed as Birdway, and even guilt trip her out of his desire for personal sanctification.
“You just had to choose me. That would have been enough for me to accept it.”
This is the line of all evil. Just when does Touma's acceptance over Birdway's methodology has anything to do with saving people? Why Touma has to be concerned at all when saving people is involved?
Either way, both Touma and Birdway's method will lead to casualty. Then how can Touma make Birdway guilty of what she did?
Is it because Touma is willing to try for a better solution when Birdway is just taking the easy way out?
Apparently that is not the case:
"To use your example, what you are doing is leaving the starving people to starve and simply watching as they collapse.”
“Perhaps. No…You’re probably right.”
Touma out right admitted he is just watching people starving to death. Touma is NOT trying.
In the end, Touma is equally as low as Birdway. Yet, he trashed talked her only because Birdway did not crucify him like he wanted, while trying to establish the false equation of "sacrificing Touma = saving more people", when there are going to be sacrifices no matter what.
So Chaos, to answer your response. Yes. Neither are right, which means Touma should not have any moral high ground either.
This is not about which problem is smaller or bigger, but rather what to do in a lose lose situation.
And yes, I am certain he has lost his original point on saving people. He admitted himself for letting people starve to death, yet he blamed Birdway for not doing what he wanted. Despite his method will create casualty either. Thus the difference lies not in whether people are saved or not, but whether Touma felt good or not.
If Touma's simply accuse Birdway for sacrificing people, I wouldn't be this mad at him. Even though I don't believe he has the right to accuse her, saying Birdway sacrificed people is still stating the truth. But when does Touma's acceptance over the matter has to do with anything? Unless Touma's acceptance of the matter can magically resolve everything, it has nothing to do with saving people, and not something that should be used to make Birdway feel guilty.
And remember, it was not until the end of the Hawaii incident that Birdway was who are the core members of Gremlin. How can you expect her stop Gremlin from moving into Europe? She don't even know where was their hideout, how is she going to stop their movement if she doesn't even know where are they coming from?
So what if she utilize all her resource to stall Gremlin at Baggage City? Then who is there to bring help to Brunhild when she got outnumbered by the artificial Valkyries? And that won't be right for her either, as she is choosing a smaller problem (Brunhild getting killed), rather than a bigger problem (Baggage City getting burned).
Birdway is in a lose lose situation here, and this makes her the one to blame?
|
You've just noticed this?
Touma doesn't care if he's right or wrong/ good or evil. He's stated that he does what
he thinks is right.
He's pushing what's his opinion on her as it would have been overall a lower causality plan
to him. Remember, even though it seemed like both of them make good points, there are possibly a million unknown things both could have done differently.
When two people who have two ideologies clash they try to put the others down while putting theirs up. That hasn't changed. It's just that Touma is the protagonist and as such we often side with him. Stories like this are often designed as such.
He's selfish, but, in a way it makes him more human to be selfish because everyone can identify with him.