[Light_Yamagi_Kira]

Finally some action and logical and reasonable arguments.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter_Toki

And yet Light killed criminals regardless of whether they commited a capital offense or not.

Except for you, your post is circular. This brings no further help to the argument because I believe we all know this by now. Light was not doing his own Capital Punishment, actually it would be ignorant to relate Light (Kira's) actions with Capital Punishment; because Kira's actions were not lawful, that is not the argument at hand.

Originally Posted by EternalNeptune

LOL I did not call you annoying. I was referring to something else. I shall reply with proper grammar. Id like to make one thing clear though. I do not apply morals to make myself look good. I am sincere with my actions since I have morals to guide me. By the way, please answer this. How come Light has the right to kill people if he finds them evil? Everyone has a bit of evilness inside of them. Light is merely a human. Is he not prone from error? Bestowing upon himself the duty of taking away lives of people he finds evil just gives everyone else the idea that when someone does something wrong to them gives them the right to pull out a gun and shoot the offender. And about society. Anyone who has watched Deathnote knows that Light did not act for the best interest of society. He acted for his own best interests. He may have had supporters but there were also people who were against it. He did what he saw was fit. He did not respect "justice". He played with it. He made the world his playground. Using the Bible as reference will only prove to be your disadvantage for God is also One of compassion and forgiveness. I will answer your rhetorical question. Yes I do believe criminals can change for the better. There are so many examples to cite of people who have turned away from sinful actions.

Alright, my apologizes on the grammar comment, it was not to be abusive towards you; I was just stating it for further reference.

First off your "Morals" statement is begging the question, you say you're not applying morals rather being sincere, because you're guided by morals, well sincere in context means you're being moral. So I ask how can you not apply morality and when you're being sincere (guided by the one thing you're not applying).

I never once said Light had the right to kill anyone. Light obviously did this because he wanted to have a better world; a world free of "sin" and rot. It's a reasonable cause really, sure it's not moral but it did work nonetheless - 70% less crimes would help make me sleep. You bring up a good point that Light may have not helped society in regards to what if someone pulls out a gun, claim. The flaw in that is who would be that stupid? Kira would just kill them for committing murder, right? Kira, would in fact be the "New-God" this would be fact, people would fear Kira and would never try such, because society would assume if they killed someone on the same reason Kira did, Kira would just kill them - you see the circulation I assume.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree that Light acted on his best interest, because I ask you what did Light gain? Really nothing a sense of power? Power he cannot gloat in because he must stay hidden. Light's motive was to clean society and rid the criminals from it - of course he had to kill some innocent people that became burden. It's not right, but that's not the argument at hand.

Now, for your whole Bible-God comment, this is all questionable assumption, as I stated above, I only used the Bible to prove it's contradictory, much like you have just shown - how can a God be a compassion and forgiveness if he(God) is willing to kill people who commit sin such as homosexuality and many others to name. Murder is wrong UNLESS I say so... huh...

Alright, that is a fair opinion, all I ask is for you to actual cite some. I will warn you right now though - if you do not have a solid foundation for this claim I will accuse you of a false cause. You have to show me that a majority - rather than a minority because if not then it's against the odds and will not stand in your argument.

Originally Posted by eiyuu99

Suppose a murderer has already killed hundreds and will continue to do so.
After narrowing down thousands of suspects to just 50. Will you

1. Kill the 50 to ensure the murderer is dead.
2. Illegally imprison all 50 for life to stop the murderer.
3. Free the 50 and allow the murderer to continue its killing spree

If you choose 1 or 2.
Can you be 100% sure the murderer is among the 50 and not a scapegoat or an accomplice?
Suppose the murderer is among the 50. You may saved many from potential death but at what cost?

If you choose option 3.
You may have saved 49 lives but at what cost?


Does it mean your "Justice of no murder" has failed?
Or you have a plan to go around the loophole?

This question is just false dichotomy you're giving an unreasonable question with limited answer. All three of them are irrational if you ask me and have no good logic - what if I was able to decrease the number of suspects to 10, or 20. Now, that of course would be from L's perspective, if I was looking from Kira's I would simply... wait.. yes I would wait, unlike Light, I am actually not corrupted by the thought of power. This murder you claim would slip up and if I kill all of them I have more casualties than wanted. Too assume I will kill the murder before he reaches the 50 death toll would make most logical sense that I begin, after study, killing who I think is most suspicion one by one. Say I am mistaken, a human act and I kill two, or three people before I actually got to the murder. Well that might not be morally right, but at least I killed the murder, saved many potential lives at the lowest casualty rate possible. That is how I would answer your question, even though it's very unreasonable. Don't ask me for no more favors.