2006-11-06, 23:34 | Link #201 | |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
|
Quote:
See the difference i was trying to make by compairing Death Note to Childhood's End is how the power in each source is applied. In the book a man questions the Overlord's leader by saying the logic the Overlord's were using was "Might makes right!" However the Overlord leader countered his statement by saying "We are not using might. We have power and are using it the right way. You as humans never had power nor know how to apply it" The thing is they changed the roots of the problems he was trimming the branches. That is the best comparison i can give. This show could have taken two roads. The "is it right" road and the current road it is taking. Both choices would have delivered a completely solid show. With the current path we are seeing a phsycopathic story develop now. He completely steered off the "right" thing to do and went after innocent people. So now i am waiting how it will play out, but because i am a dumbass i accidentaly read what happened on wikipedia so it is a bit spoiled for me |
|
2006-11-07, 00:04 | Link #202 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
That is a good point, Ptolemi. It's been vaguely touched upon, but no one really summed it up succinctly before you did. The power the Death Note gives is the power to put fear into the hearts of people. But many crimes aren't premeditated, but are in the heat of the moment. It doesn't help much if after you've killed your husband you realize "Oh shit, Kira might get me."
There's also the issue of the fact that Kira cannot "punish" all those that do evil. That murder case in Small Town might only only make the local or state news. It becomes a lottery system, and you will always find people willing to gamble. |
2006-11-07, 00:05 | Link #203 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There are several different ways of defining morality. My favorite is that morality is a decision-making system designed to weigh the relative worth of different courses of action. The fact that it's man-made has no bearing on anything as far as I can see. To question morality's existence is sort of silly - it's a little bit like asking "Do questions exist?" My question to you is "how do you define morality?" Spoiler for Offtopic response:
__________________
|
||||||||
2006-11-07, 01:00 | Link #204 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Quote:
(Note: Raito knows he is killing which is wrong, but he had to overcome his guilty to do it for the "big" good. Quote:
|
||
2006-11-07, 01:39 | Link #205 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
Quote:
|
|
2006-11-07, 01:58 | Link #206 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
ThisIsDream, why are you insisting that we have to look at it from the perspective of someone in the world of Death Note? Death Note isn't real, it's a story. We are privy to this information for a reason. Telling us that Light is talking to himself when he says he'll become a god doesn't mean that he didn't actually say it and that we can't judge him by those desires.
|
2006-11-07, 02:58 | Link #207 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
|
nono, I am not saying u HAVE to, I am saying it is better to see things from a neutral stance . I understand ppl can have different opinions, I am a human being myself sometimes I can see things from a neutral place, but I am leaning more on one side I know human sympathy and have emontional and such etc.
|
2006-11-07, 08:23 | Link #208 | |||||||||
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
|
Quote:
Even if it doesn't work, sometimes, it may be a solution to certain problems we need solved. Of course, that solution isn't strictly better than all other solutions we have, since every solution will have its advantages and disadvantages. If you can't stop crime, then you may have to deter crime. And that is what some people think, and it's not like they don't realize it when they are trying to enforce something like that. They think it's best for them, considering their situation, their case, so they choose that system. Not necessarily that it's the best and perfect system, but instead that it's a better system for them. Now, I would not say Kira's goal is the same as terror, and Kira realizes this. Spoiler for 2nd half of manga:
And when you say can only be enforced by terror. Then how about jail, fees, death sentences. They can also be seen as fearful things that can induce terror to deter crime. Quote:
The end result is the same, and the means is the same. Yes, you can argue that, but it does not mean I can't either. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Spoiler for response to 4Tran:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Neux; 2006-11-07 at 09:08. |
|||||||||
2006-11-07, 10:19 | Link #209 | |||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
You're not addressing the point: do you think that Light's views are historically unprecedented? Do you think that his ideas have never been implemented before? Exactly how is what Light is trying to do all that different from what Stalin did? Quote:
Quote:
You didnt address the point: do you really not think that murder overshadows euthanasia? Are they the same thing? Quote:
Quote:
In addition, as Neux said earlier, "I'm saying that could just be as wrong as murder. That any killing regardless of purpose or means can also be immoral." If that's truly the case, then how does it justify Light's case? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Spoiler for Offtopic:
__________________
|
|||||||||
2006-11-07, 11:16 | Link #210 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
|
4Tran:
I am going to keep this is short and simple as possible. Learning from history. Learning is one thing, but your statement implies that because it failed in history, it will never work. Which is not true. My point is that there may not be a clear right or wrong answer to morality. The point in those cases is that the issue of morality is heavily debated, and that morality is a very complex issue. That the very concept of morality may not even exist. This is very relevant in knowing what morality even is, if you don't even know what morality even is, then what is the point of discussing morality. And as I have said before, morality is relative, what could be moral for someone could be immoral to another. It seems you only accept things as either moral or immoral, but it does not occur to you that some things may not be either or that it could be both. If you don't see how it is relevant, or understand someone's intent, ask to clarify before accusing someone of "obfuscation", or stating that certain points are irrelevant like it's a fact. Those are your opinions not a fact. Even if you ask to clarify, and they don't, doesn't mean you're right. The cases are to get people to think about certain issues, to know that they exist. They may be my opinions, and they may not. But you shouldn't ignore them and pretend they don't exist. Cutting down irrelevant points...sounds good in theory, but then you are overgeneralizing a complex issue. Cutting out points you think are wrong, and only keeping points you think are right until the answer is the same as yours. And who is to say they are irrelevant, and how do you even define irrelevant. What is irrelevant to someone may be relevant to someone else. Even relevant is a matter of opinion. You shouldn't treat relevance as fact. Quote:
And even if I have replied to your posts, doesn't mean I suddenly have to respond to every single point you make. People respond to points they feel are important. If I don't respond, it may be the case I feel it's right or I feel it's wrong, don't just suddenly assume I "concede". I don't have time to respond to every single point you make, and I am within right to not respond to some points. I do not drop my point on euthanasia. It seems to me, you are unwilling to make an effort to understand euthanasia. Until you show effort in understanding what it is, I won't go into this complex issue. |
|
2006-11-07, 16:06 | Link #212 | ||
◕‿‿◕
|
Quote:
Death penalty is forever abolished in my country in any case, and I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but I thought I'd ask those questions to see where exactly you stand. You've been talking about this issue on more or less absolute terms (for example, "rape doesn't merit death penalty because the victim is still alive, murder I could see it", IIRC), when in the world there seems to be a lot of disagreement in these law, crime and punishment matters. By the way, forgive my English if it's poor and please ask if there's anything you don't understand, I'd try to make it clearer. It's not my first language. Quote:
__________________
Last edited by AvatarST; 2006-11-07 at 16:22. |
||
2006-11-07, 16:34 | Link #213 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Chances are, if you're actually sitting there thinking of a way to kill someone, you're already going to try do it in a way that it can't be connected back to you and the police can't find you. And if the police can't find you, Kira can't find you. |
|
2006-11-07, 17:47 | Link #215 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
The message Kira is sending isn't really "don't kill", it's "don't get caught." |
|
2006-11-07, 17:48 | Link #216 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
|
True, Kira won't find them. And I think the reason why Light wants the public to view Kira as the God of Justice, is so people will think that he has supernatural power that allows him to judge them from anywhere anytime. The criminals may not fear the police finding them since they are only human, but they may fear an all-knowing God that supposedly watches over them, even when "Kira the God of Justice"is merely something Light invented. Maybe this similar to using hell as a means to deter people from doing "evil" acts, and heaven to entice people to do good acts?
|
2006-11-07, 17:52 | Link #217 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
But again, while that might stop superstitious people from doing bad things they might otherwise, it won't stop people caught up in the heat of the moment any more than the nebulous threat of "hell" has stopped crime throughout the centuries.
And there will always be intelligent bad people that will notice that Kira is only killing those that have been caught/are in jail and will continue on with whatever crime they're planning. |
2006-11-07, 17:57 | Link #218 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
|
Quote:
But yeah, it won't stop certain at the moment type crimes. |
|
2006-11-07, 18:34 | Link #219 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
|
My view on the issue is this:
Thesis: A good dictator is better than a good democracy. That is it. No arguing about it. Now we need to look at how things work in life. We need something to take care of the trash, We have the trashman for that. We need somebody to clean the room. We have the janitor for that. The list keeps going. Somebody has to take the great leap foward and be the one who does the dirty work for the society. Now when i say dirty it isn't always the bad kind, but when we talk on a scale that involves the society and such it will be a major leap that the person/s take. Example: Forming of America. We need leaders to have the balls to take the revolution up. They were considered terrorist in their time (according to the defenition of a terrorist) and they were called immoral by the Loyalists and the British people, but somebody had to get the job done. Conclusion: Well i can keep going about revolutions but that would be pointless. So how far have we really as a society gone? That is the key difference here. We have only gone up to maybe mass murder, to wars, to revolutions. We never as a species had the power to accend those. Maybe the nuke, but the difference is it is controlled by more than one person while Light has sole control of the Death Note. So the tables are turned in the fact now one man, who is bored and pretty much king of his world (that is extremely important to remember when we talk about his specific case, because in the end he is just human), has the most power in the world. Is Light doing the right thing? Well let's look at it compared to other things in history. American Revolution i am sure innocent people died. French Revolution i know innocent people died. However in the end they were both for a better good for the people and society. PERFECT example is Japan. We decided to nuke because that would be less casualties. Here we talk about two of the lesser evils. So is his sacrificing of a few to better the whole world comparable to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that would have had less people die in the end? Him wanting to be god of the new world (a.k.a ruler) viewed as greed overcoming his human side? You can argue he is too logical for that and only wants to ensure its success after it's birth. Maybe he wants to satisfy his sudden craving for power. To be honest all of those answers would apply. Even if it is greed do not forget he is human and in the end if you accept the end justifys the deeds then he is forgivable for power overcomming him. I am sure that my logic is flawed somewhere or that somebody can easily argue it, but that is what i have in the end. My view: He wants a better society. With his power it is impossible. He does not nearly have enough power to change the world. Fear works wonders, but he just can not uproot all of the problems with fear. His power is lacking and he needed to understand that and never have started the crusade. EDIT: However if he reveals his identity to the public and he is not listened to and commits a mass murde he could possibly gain control, but it would be very hard. If he mass-murders and gets people to actually listen to him then hell it just might work. |
|
|