AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Death Note

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2006-11-16, 17:16   Link #261
musouka
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux View Post
And about the last thing. People say its murder, but why is it murder? There are cases which involves killing people, yet people don't call it as murder. Logically, just calling it murder doesn't make it murder. You need proof to prove that it is indeed murder. Call this an "Innocent until proven guilty" approach if you will.
Because murder is the killing of another person. There are different degrees and I'm not a lawyer so I can't argue specifics. But I think it's rather hard to argue that Light is not killing people.
musouka is offline  
Old 2006-11-16, 17:23   Link #262
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ptolemi
Point is what he was doing was right looking at it from a supernatural being point of view which is what Light is.
Why should we judge Light by lower standards simply because he uses some funky tricks?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ptolemi
He might not deal away with crimes, but he will damn well reduce them and kill man of those who deserve to be killed.
How do we know that crime has actually been reduced? After all, the murder rate has definitely gone up.
Why should we assume that those he killed deserved to die?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
The point is, if you can poke holes in someone else's arguments, then it means they need better arguments. But even if they can't come up with arguments, and even if you somehow prove they are wrong, you haven't proved that your view is right.
True, but refuting someone else's argument is an important part of showing the strength of your own arguments. In this case, musouka has argued all along how the arguments used to defend Light's actions don't work; thereby

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
But, if you are asking for a pro-Light to debate with, I'm afraid I'm not exactly pro-Light. But I just think people are just painting Light as pure evil, as some incarnate of evil itself or something to that extreme, which I don't quite agree with, if not somewhat unfair to Light.
I'm not sure if anyone has tried to paint Light as pure evil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
If there aren't any opposing opinions, then how is it a debate? In fact, if there were no opposing opinions, how did the debate even start? The debate shouldn't even exist in the first place.
You misunderstood me. I'm saying that an issue is not simply a matter of two diametrically opposed viewpoints. There can be many other positions that simply don't fit on that kind of scale. Arguing the preeminence of neutral positions tends to oversimplify the debate by making look like everything can fit on a scale. The way American politics is often divided into a "right" and a "left" as if there are no other considerations, is an example of this failing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
First of all, I haven't ever used the word "layman", so why are you even using the word "layman"? Just using that word and by your definition, it implies that someone who is not a layman is more qualified, which by default makes you right. Why not use a less biased word like non-expert when comparing them to experts? Non-experts can also be as qualified as experts, but by using the word "layman" you are automatically assuming the position that non-experts are less capable. Non-experts may not know everything about a certain topic by definition, because they aren't experts, but they can know more about certain issues in a topic when compared to an expert of that topic.
Laymen and non-experts are exactly the same. An automobile mechanic is an expert when it comes to repairing cars, and a brain surgeon can be a layman when it comes to doing the same task. The word "expert", by definition, means that that person is more competent in his field of study than a non-expert would be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
Again, you may hold the opinion of the doctor over someone who is less trustworthy. But the words of the doctor, no matter how highly regarded, is hardly truth, it is an opinion no matter what you call it. And unfortunately, not all doctors care about the well-being of their patients, and you should also take what they say with a grain of salt. A silly example: a doctor says "jump off the building to cure your headache", and the grocer says "oh, just buy this medicine I have for sale". Whose opinion do you believe more?
Hence the "without extenuating circumstances" part. Regardless of how you try to skew this argument, it's natural to weigh the opinion of an expert more than that of a non-expert.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
And about the last thing. People say its murder, but why is it murder? There are cases which involves killing people, yet people don't call it as murder. Logically, just calling it murder doesn't make it murder. You need proof to prove that it is indeed murder.
You're somehow confusing morality with the law. Legally speaking, it's wrong to call an act murder until the culprit is convicted. However, we're not really interested in that aspect of the issue. What Light does matches the criteria we use for murder; therefore, it's the proper term to use. The logical proof for this is that if you were to kill the people that Light does with poison instead of some magical book, your crime would be murder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by musouka
Because murder is the killing of another person. There are different degrees and I'm not a lawyer so I can't argue specifics. But I think it's rather hard to argue that Light is not killing people.
Technically, murder is only supposed to apply to unlawful killing, but it's awfully hard to see how the way Light kills can be considered lawful.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline  
Old 2006-11-16, 17:38   Link #263
musouka
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
Technically, murder is only supposed to apply to unlawful killing, but it's awfully hard to see how the way Light kills can be considered lawful.
In that case, the issue is with the "lawful" aspect. I'll just say, preemptively, that by the basis of the laws we as people have decided for our society, then, yes, Light is unlawfully killing people. So, yes, by our standards he is murdering people.

He is not trying people in a court of law. He doesn't know anything about these people except for what crimes they've suposedly committed and their names and faces. So it's not like he's even making judgements after looking at casefiles. And that's not even getting into the fact that he is killing people who have commited no crime but impede his progress or "can be used as springboards to get to L".

And, again, as far as Light's "evilness" is concerned, I'd still like to point out that he has shown no remorse for the non-criminal killings he's done, as one might expect of a good person.
musouka is offline  
Old 2006-11-16, 17:47   Link #264
monir
cho~ kakkoii
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 3rd Planet
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsDream View Post
There are too many anti Light, so I just gotta bring some positive things up.
I can understand that.

Quote:
I also said that Light was wrong, he is not perfect. The first time he killed the faked L on Tv he got provoked, even Light himself know he did a mistake. I am suggesting see the good and bad, not only BAD EVIL.
I am only watching the anime and have seen up to episode 6. From my point of view, I'm simply amazed there are Death Note fans who are still trying to find anything positive about Light's action. I just can't get past the notion that he kills people to see anything positive about his action. To me, he is just as much of a criminal as those people he is killing.

Here are some of the interesting perception I've observed after reading few posts in this and other threads from fans who are trying to justify Lights action:
  • It's okay to kill a person if he/she is criminal. (note: we haven't seen if Light has killed any female criminals. Probably, he is a sexist when it comes to "criminals"? )
  • Light is killing criminal and serving justice.
  • By killing criminals, Light is helping/saving innocent people from those criminals from any future crimes those criminal might have committed. (For example, a criminal who is sentenced to serve 30 years in jail, will serve his/her time, and will come out of jail to commit another vicious crime.)
  • Light has a noble, long term goal, hence, the end justifies the means even if it means killing a hordes of people to achieve that goal. (What is Light's ultimate goal? )
  • Light-fans often seem to overlook the fact in their argument that he also kills people whose primary task is to uphold the law whenever he is feeling cornered. In other words, he also kills innocent people when it becomes necessary to save his own hide.
  • Light-fans don't seem to pay much attention to what Light himself is saying about serving justice and other positive notions the Light-fans are trying to associate with Light's action. (For example, we know Light isn't suffering from any illusion of justice (or at least, the notion of justice the fans are trying to associate with Light's action) when we pay close attention to his dialogues with Ryuku.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
I'm not even sure why it's necessarily desirable to have a neutral stance in the first place. Doesn't being neutral merely mean that a person either is unaware of the facts of the situation, or that he simply has no opinion on the issue?
Agreed!
__________________
Eat and sleep! And Solace. Sig by RRW.
Space Brothers Executive member of the ASS. Ready to flee at the first sign of trouble.
monir is offline  
Old 2006-11-16, 17:53   Link #265
Neux
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by musouka View Post
Because murder is the killing of another person. There are different degrees and I'm not a lawyer so I can't argue specifics. But I think it's rather hard to argue that Light is not killing people.
If there are no specifics, then it's hard to make a case.

But. Even if you are a lawyer and you can argue specifics, what makes you think that the legal definition of murder is correct and applies to this case. Is murder only murder when law says it is? If someone takes the law for murder out, is doing the same act suddenly no longer murder? What exactly is murder?

By the definition you gave, if murder is killing another person then are you saying you also consider soldiers who kill people on the battlefield mass murderers? As part of their duty, it's also possible for soldiers to kill innocent civilians, and they might also be trained to show no mercy or remorse. Therefore, since murderers kill people, and since soldiers kill people, soldiers are mass murderers? Is that right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran
Hence the "without extenuating circumstances" part. Regardless of how you try to skew this argument, it's natural to weigh the opinion of an expert more than that of a non-expert.
It's common sense to consider both opinions equally, and only when one is left with no other choice, should one consider the one they believe is more trustworthy. If you believe a particular doctor is more trustworthy, then you believe him. But you shouldn't believe the doctor simply because he is a doctor, without taking into consideration of what the other person said.

EDIT:
All this talk about lawful killing. Laws itself can change, what could be unlawful killing could become lawful killing. Rebels may kill evil tyrants, which goes against the law the tyrants established, so rebels who are fighting for the oppressed people are also murderers because they unlawfully kill people ?

Last edited by Neux; 2006-11-16 at 18:12.
Neux is offline  
Old 2006-11-16, 18:07   Link #266
monir
cho~ kakkoii
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 3rd Planet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux View Post
By the definition you gave, if murder is killing another person then are you saying you also consider soldiers who kill people on the battlefield mass murderers? As part of their duty, it's also possible for soldiers to kill innocent civilians, and they might also be trained to show no mercy or remorse. Therefore, since murderers kill people, and since soldiers kill people, soldiers are mass murderers? Is that right?
So we are going to argue about semantics, are we? Okay, let's pretend the soldiers are above all of the possible definition of murder (which they are obviously not)... Then, let's ask the question, "Is Light a soldier?"
__________________
Eat and sleep! And Solace. Sig by RRW.
Space Brothers Executive member of the ASS. Ready to flee at the first sign of trouble.
monir is offline  
Old 2006-11-16, 18:20   Link #267
Neux
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by monir View Post
So we are going to argue about semantics, are we? Okay, let's pretend the soldiers are above all of the possible definition of murder (which they are obviously not)... Then, let's ask the question, "Is Light a soldier?"
If you ask this question, then surely you must have an answer already in mind. Let's hear your thoughts first.


So many points, so I'll just say this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by monir View Post
Light-fans often seem to overlook the fact in their argument that he also kills people whose primary task is to uphold the law whenever he is feeling cornered. In other words, he also kills innocent people when it becomes necessary to save his own hide.
The innocent people you refer to were actively and heavily involved in the process to capture and kill Light, and they were not merely innocent Bystanders. L and Kira are involved in a war so to speak, and those people to Kira are essentially the enemy. And if Light really wanted to "save his hide", he could have quit all together, and given up on his ideal world. But, you could say that Light believes that if he dies, no one will be able to fulfill his dream of creating his ideal world. So Light thinks that he has to say alive no matter what to create that ideal world, because he believes that no one else can.

Last edited by Neux; 2006-11-16 at 18:33.
Neux is offline  
Old 2006-11-16, 18:37   Link #268
monir
cho~ kakkoii
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 3rd Planet
Actually, I don't want to argue for the sake of arguing as if I'm trying to win something here by pursuing an argument that is going grossly offtopic. So, I'll just quit right here.

Beside, I've already stated my opinion on how I view Light's action in regards to "morality" and "justfication of the end result by any means necessary". Light is not a soldier because a soldier represent the beliefs and ideals of a collective. A soldier doesn't pursue his/her personal goal.
__________________
Eat and sleep! And Solace. Sig by RRW.
Space Brothers Executive member of the ASS. Ready to flee at the first sign of trouble.

Last edited by monir; 2006-11-16 at 18:48.
monir is offline  
Old 2006-11-16, 18:53   Link #269
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
By the definition you gave, if murder is killing another person then are you saying you also consider soldiers who kill people on the battlefield mass murderers? As part of their duty, it's also possible for soldiers to kill innocent civilians, and they might also be trained to show no mercy or remorse. Therefore, since murderers kill people, and since soldiers kill people, soldiers are mass murderers? Is that right?
I doubt that musouka meant that all killings should be considered murder. However, it seems reasonable to assume that all killings are murder unless they fulfill the conditions of other forms of killing. Since these other forms don't apply to Light's case, his actions are equivalent to murder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
It's common sense to consider both opinions equally, and only when one is left with no other choice, should one consider the one they believe is more trustworthy. If you believe a particular doctor is more trustworthy, then you believe him. But you shouldn't believe the doctor simply because he is a doctor, without taking into consideration of what the other person said.
Common sense is often meaningless. Only a fool would consider the medical advice from his doctor as equivalent to that of his grocer. It's not a question of belief, it's entirely a matter of competence. If your doctor were to examine you and say that you had some sort of ailment, wouldn't take his words to heart? Would you actually ask the grocery boy for a second opinion? Sure, there can be extenuating circumstances, but that's mostly just a red herring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
All this talk about lawful killing. Laws itself can change, what could be unlawful killing could become lawful killing. Rebels may kill evil tyrants, which goes against the law the tyrants established, so rebels who are fighting for the oppressed people are also murderers because they unlawfully kill people ?
The only reason I brought up unlawful killing is because it's the commonly accepted definition of murder. However, there's no real need to get hung up on the word "legal" - it's quite easy to show that Light's actions are logically equivalent to murder. Look at my example above: "if you were to kill the people that Light does with poison instead of some magical book, your crime would be murder".

What you brought up are the reasons why legalism is not a valid moral system.

I ask again, do you have any arguments to bear on this issue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by monir
Beside, I've already stated my opinion on how I view Light's action in regards to "morality" and "justfication of the end result by any means necessary". Light is not a soldier because a soldier represent the beliefs and ideals of a collective. A soldier doesn't pursue his/her personal goal.
Another way to look at it is that a soldier's only justification for killing people is when he is at war. Light is most certainly not at war, so it's invalid to use this analogy to defend him.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline  
Old 2006-11-16, 19:01   Link #270
Neux
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by monir View Post
Actually, I don't want to argue for the sake of arguing as if I'm trying to win something here by pursuing an argument that is going grossly offtopic. So, I'll just quit right here.

Beside, I've already stated my opinion on how I view Light's action in regards to "morality" and "justfication of the end result by any means necessary". Light is not a soldier because a soldier represent the beliefs and ideals of a collective. A soldier doesn't persure his/her personal goal.
I don't want this to go on and on either like last time....

I'll just say this and end it. From your definition, a soldier represents the beliefs and ideals of a collective. Light also represents the beliefs and ideals of a collective. Take for example, the people who support Kira in the first couple of episodes, and also remember that home page(s) that someone or group of people set up to support Kira. He is not on his own, though the story of Death Note does not focus on that. And note the alias "Kira" references killer and not murderer. Also, who says soldiers don't have personal goals. For example, they might have personal goals to ensure the safety of their family by winning the war, or they might have personal goals to uphold his or her version of justice, or for the pride of his or her country. Similarly, Light is trying to ensure that the criminals get the justice that he thinks they deserve, which he thinks is for the benefit of the greater good. Doing it for the greater good (for others) is different from doing for selfish personal reasons.

....I want to end this as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran
Common sense is often meaningless. Only a fool would consider the medical advice from his doctor as equivalent to that of his grocer. It's not a question of belief, it's entirely a matter of competence. If your doctor were to examine you and say that you had some sort of ailment, wouldn't take his words to heart? Would you actually ask the grocery boy for a second opinion? Sure, there can be extenuating circumstances, but that's mostly just a red herring.
I think you're missing the point. Of course you wouldn't ask the grocery boy (assuming he doesn't know anything about the ailment) because he isn't as trust worthy as a doctor. You would ask another person that is as or more trustworthy than that doctor. But just having "doctor" pinned to your name doesn't mean your trustworthy and your opinion overrides everyone else's. The doctor could well be incompetent, and believing the opinion of that doctor simply because he has the word "doctor" prefixing his or her name is just as foolish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran
I ask again, do you have any arguments to bear on this issue?
I'll ask that same question right back at you. I have made my points, and I'll bring up new ones if I feel the need to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran
Another way to look at it is that a soldier's only justification for killing people is when he is at war. Light is most certainly not at war, so it's invalid to use this analogy to defend him.
L essentially declared war on Kira on public TV when L said he would catch Kira. Not all wars need soldiers on the battlefield to be called a war. If I'm not mistaken, the Cold War wasn't really a war in the conventional sense, but it was still considered a war. In this case, it is valid.

Last edited by Neux; 2006-11-16 at 19:19.
Neux is offline  
Old 2006-11-16, 19:31   Link #271
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
I think you're missing the point. Of course you wouldn't ask the grocery boy (assuming he doesn't know anything about the ailment) because he isn't as trust worthy as a doctor. You would ask another person that is as or more trustworthy than that doctor. But just having "doctor" pinned to your name doesn't mean your trustworthy and your opinion overrides everyone else's. The doctor could well be incompetent, and believing the opinion of that doctor simply because he has the word "doctor" prefixing his or her name is just as foolish.
Nonsense. A physician would be far more capable of dealing with medical matters than a layman could. How trustworthy he is an altogether different issue - the question is one of competence. Let's say you trust a police officer completely, would you still go to her for a second opinion of your physician's diagnosis?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
I'll ask that same question right back at you. I have made my points, and I'll bring up new ones if I feel the need to.
It's the same one I've always held: Light's actions are equivalent to murder. Ergo, they are immoral.
As I've said it before, it's not really any different than if you were to simply poison people you considered to be criminals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
L essentially declared war on Kira on public TV when L said he would catch Kira. Not all wars need soldiers on the battlefield to be called a war. If I'm not mistaken, the Cold War wasn't really a war in the conventional sense, but it was still considered a war. In this case, it is valid.
I'm unaware that individuals could declare war upon one another. I thought that that was strictly the province of nation-states. For the same reason, your neighbor can't simply declare war upon you and use that as justification for killing you.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline  
Old 2006-11-16, 20:10   Link #272
Neux
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
Nonsense. A physician would be far more capable of dealing with medical matters than a layman could. How trustworthy he is an altogether different issue - the question is one of competence. Let's say you trust a police officer completely, would you still go to her for a second opinion of your physician's diagnosis?


It's the same one I've always held: Light's actions are equivalent to murder. Ergo, they are immoral.
As I've said it before, it's not really any different than if you were to simply poison people you considered to be criminals.


I'm unaware that individuals could declare war upon one another. I thought that that was strictly the province of nation-states. For the same reason, your neighbor can't simply declare war upon you and use that as justification for killing you.
First, you are skewing things by using the word layman. Layman is a word that carries negativity and bias. All, I'm saying is that don't blindly believe things people say, even if they have a title prefixing their name. Yes it is also important that they are competent, but having a title prefixing their name does not automatically make them competent.

I have told you before, and I'll say this again. I find your writing style to be very inconsiderate, and forceful, and tends to attack the debater instead of the points the debater makes.

Individuals can't declare war? So a group of rebels can't declare war against an evil empire to save the oppressed people. The mafia can't declare war on another group of criminals. And criminal masterminds in comics books can't declare war on the world. For these cases, they are individuals and not a country, so if you don't call those things a war, then what do you call it?

I'm not saying killing people in wars is justifiable by itself. As I have said before, to make it justifiable, one needs a good reason for the war. In wars, there will be the loser, and there will be the winner. War is not about being fair. To make it justifiable, there needs to be a good reason, and finding a good reason to justify the means, that is finding an end to warrant the means is the hard thing.

EDIT: Missed a point amongst all the posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran
it's quite easy to show that Light's actions are logically equivalent to murder. Look at my example above: "if you were to kill the people that Light does with poison instead of some magical book, your crime would be murder".
What is your reasoning exactly? It is murder because if someone else does it, it's murder. OK. Then, why is it murder for that person? Seems like circular reasoning to me.

Last edited by Neux; 2006-11-16 at 21:36.
Neux is offline  
Old 2006-11-16, 20:32   Link #273
ThisIsDream
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Exclamation

I have watched both the anime and manga, and in the anime I can actually tell that Raito do really look evil and so his action. He was trying to use his brain to eliminate his enemies. Even in the anime Rurouni Kenshin, Kenshin's teacher had to slay ppl to save kenshin, and Kenshin also became an assassinate. They all know sword is DESTRUCTION not SALVATION.

Even Raito know his action is wrong. Raito does love his family. Raito also felt guilty and scared when he first took human Life, but he get over it. If u cant even bear its victims how can u achieve the revolution? I know most ppl would expect something like an ambitious heart getting melt by some romantic love some super emotional things.

Nowaday, Laws are mostly used by intelligence ppl. You can always see Law deal with stupid and poor people.
ThisIsDream is offline  
Old 2006-11-17, 08:55   Link #274
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
First, you are skewing things by using the word layman. Layman is a word that carries negativity and bias. All, I'm saying is that don't blindly believe things people say, even if they have a title prefixing their name. Yes it is also important that they are competent, but having a title prefixing their name does not automatically make them competent.
You know, I've never come across any derogatory connotations with the word "layman". In fact, as far as I know, it's a commonly used term in the scientific, engineering, and medical fields. Why do you think that it "carries negativity and bias"?

Actually, by saying "expert", that already connotes that the person being referred to is competent in their field. Heck, I've already stated that "the word "expert", by definition, means that that person is more competent in his field of study than a non-expert would be." What part of that do you not understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
Individuals can't declare war? So a group of rebels can't declare war against an evil empire to save the oppressed people. The mafia can't declare war on another group of criminals. And criminal masterminds in comics books can't declare war on the world. For these cases, they are individuals and not a country, so if you don't call those things a war, then what do you call it?
No, individuals can't declare wars. You're just avoiding the point that your neighbor simply cannot declare war on you and use that declaration as justification for anything. If small groups of individuals try to use violent actions to overthrow the government, we tend to simply label them as terrorists. Do you really need any examples?

Regardless, there's no case for Light being at war, especially since he doesn't seem intent on committing treason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neux
What is your reasoning exactly? It is murder because if someone else does it, it's murder. OK. Then, why is it murder for that person? Seems like circular reasoning to me.
That's an incorrect understanding of my argument. What I simply did was to use an analogy to prove my logic. All we have to do is to change the culprit from Light to Neux, and to change the method of killing from the funky magical book to poison, and it's obvious that the act is murder. I think that people are just too caught up by the way Light kills people, so my aim is to just restate the situation in more mundane terms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsDream
Even Raito know his action is wrong. Raito does love his family. Raito also felt guilty and scared when he first took human Life, but he get over it. If u cant even bear its victims how can u achieve the revolution? I know most ppl would expect something like an ambitious heart getting melt by some romantic love some super emotional things.
How does this justify anything he does?
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline  
Old 2006-11-17, 09:44   Link #275
Trax
Rock beats scissors
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisIsDream View Post
I have watched both the anime and manga, and in the anime I can actually tell that Raito do really look evil and so his action. He was trying to use his brain to eliminate his enemies. Even in the anime Rurouni Kenshin, Kenshin's teacher had to slay ppl to save kenshin, and Kenshin also became an assassinate. They all know sword is DESTRUCTION not SALVATION.

Even Raito know his action is wrong. Raito does love his family. Raito also felt guilty and scared when he first took human Life, but he get over it. If u cant even bear its victims how can u achieve the revolution? I know most ppl would expect something like an ambitious heart getting melt by some romantic love some super emotional things.
Although Kenshin became a ruthless killer like Light, he later felt remorse and tried to atone for it later on in life and use his sword to protect people and not kill anyone. Up to this point Light has shown no remorse at all, unless his conscience starts nagging him later on. But I doubt it, considering his god complex.
Trax is online now  
Old 2006-11-17, 09:48   Link #276
ThisIsDream
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Not justify what he does, but his personality. Actually, his actions, his feeling do justfiy his person. What most people are seeing is Raito killing people, he is wrong, but no one trying to see something else or other side of him. I am not saying killing is right, imo i dont know should i say wrong (but without it the world will not be the same). What I want to say is a noramal human being do contain Good and Bad.

Last edited by ThisIsDream; 2006-11-17 at 10:05.
ThisIsDream is offline  
Old 2006-11-17, 09:59   Link #277
ThisIsDream
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trax View Post
Although Kenshin became a ruthless killer like Light, he later felt remorse and tried to atone for it later on in life and use his sword to protect people and not kill anyone. Up to this point Light has shown no remorse at all, unless his conscience starts nagging him later on. But I doubt it, considering his god complex.
Yea, Kenshin did. Both animes are different. Death note is focus on more how to eliminating the enemies, how to do the revolution and skip the love the emotional parts, just get right into the reality. In the other hand, Rurouni Kenshin focus more on the Emotional part, like using a sword to stop a bullets etc.. much more like a happy anime ^^. The reality is cruel is unfair. I can just say Death note is too realistic. Take a look at the Ova 5,6 of Kenshin, even KEnshin went to War at the end (Many ppl dont recognize this ending). One more thing Kenshin is different from Raito, he is just a tool, he blindly want to save ppl, but Raito is the revolution leader, an assassin. He is alone, he gotta plan, he gotta act, he require the calm, also the dynamic.

Last edited by ThisIsDream; 2006-11-17 at 10:35.
ThisIsDream is offline  
Old 2006-11-17, 10:43   Link #278
musouka
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
ThisIsDream, Light feels no remorse for killing non-criminals. In fact, he gloats over killing them. You have not addressed this point. If Light feels guilty about what he does, why not address this issue?
musouka is offline  
Old 2006-11-17, 10:51   Link #279
Neux
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
OK, this has been going on and on, and I really am getting weary of all this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran
No, individuals can't declare wars. You're just avoiding the point that your neighbor simply cannot declare war on you and use that declaration as justification for anything. If small groups of individuals try to use violent actions to overthrow the government, we tend to simply label them as terrorists. Do you really need any examples?
I think you're the one who is avoiding my point. You have not answered my question, yet instead you say I'm the one avoiding your so-called point. This is getting nowhere.

You can label them terrorists if you want. But, as someone mentioned, the definition of "terrorist" changes. And the usage of the word depends on one's perspective. What may be a terrorist to someone, may be a freedom fighter to another. And, no I don't want to get into the politics of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran
That's an incorrect understanding of my argument. What I simply did was to use an analogy to prove my logic.
First of all, that analogy is worthless. It proves nothing. You have not explained why that analogy works, you just said it works. That is not a proof because it doesn't explain anything.

And I am sick and tired of you and your elitist attitude. You have done nothing but attack me as a debater by using me in that "example". And I have warned you before I do not take a liking to that. And am debating logically, and reasonably asking why you call that act what it is. Emotionally, it may be something, but logically it may not. This is why I ask for a reason. It seems you don't understand that.
Neux is offline  
Old 2006-11-17, 11:07   Link #280
ThisIsDream
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by musouka View Post
ThisIsDream, Light feels no remorse for killing non-criminals. In fact, he gloats over killing them. You have not addressed this point. If Light feels guilty about what he does, why not address this issue?
We dont know the future, Raito died too early. And I also said Raito's actions do contain right and wrong. It just depends what u gonna focus on.
ThisIsDream is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:34.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.