I guess if you bring the world's crime rates down by 70%. You're automatically the villain and the police will hunt you down because you obviously aren't helping better the world.
Why were people even trying to catch Light, he did more good than bad. Anyone he killed was either a criminal, someone trying to capture him, or aiding in his capture.
because tehy didnt know how the killing system worked. Kira might as well been some pharmaceutical company that tested drugs on inmates. Only those autists knew about it and they wanted to catch him for their epenis
>Says someone who's never been rapes, beat, or family torn apart because of criminals.
Until you've had experience, just keep your vanilla mouth shut. Jail isn't some place people are treated like humans you know. Death is much better suited for trash that breaks societies laws.
>Anyone he killed was either a criminal, someone trying to capture him, or aiding in his capture.
So he killed criminals, innocent people, and people he didn't like. What a nice guy.
Killing people is wrong. That's why he had to be stopped.
>What is war?
If governments authorized people to kill one another via war. I guess that's wrong and we should kill the people leading our country.
But in Light's case, him literally bringing more good from his actions that any government on earth could even hope for is a problem?
You see the contradiction here?
There were like 20 people at most in the world hunting him in the second half, and then a good part of them was killed by Mello, the police was hardly giving two shits about him by then.
The only thing Light did wrong was only killing 2/3 of those fucking autistic detectives.
>Your hate gives no excuse to treat another human like filth. I don't care what you've been through.
Like I said, go through some shit before you open your mouth.
Hate is more than enough reason to treat other human's like filth, if they deserve it, and society agrees they deserve it. Then it will be done. Good and Evil are decided by the majority. And more agrees with me than you.
Think about that next time you say what you said. By your standards, its ok to treat a child molester like a human being.
In first place, you can't kill other human being just because he committed a crime. That's not just morally wrong, but is also a contradiction because you are committing a crime too.
Unless you live in a third world shithole, society considers all human beings as equal and worthy of the same rights. If the worst scum of the earth commits some terrible crime, it's normal for the victims (and third parties) to want some payback, and society's role is that of taking the victim's side...and also the perpetrator's, in order to come up with a fair judgment. I don't think society, which should be as netrual as possible, should have the right to kill one of its members. This doesn't mean I wouldn't be driven into doing it myself, if someone makes me go through some serious shit, call me a hypocrite but that's what I think.
This is what idealist think, yes society views people as equal and worthy of the same rights. But when a crime of extremely unmoral activity happens.
Society changes, people call for that person's fucking head, they turn into animals. I can bring up too many examples in America ALONE where this has happened. People only save face till a crime people just can't forgive happens. There's a reason majority of the world holds the death penalty, there's a reason why people go for revenge on their own if they can before even getting the law enforcement.
You're trying to say all human's are just, well most are, but we're just by our own standards. Society changes from nice to pure evil in the blink of an eye.
It's just as silly the second time you post it. If the majority decides what's good and bad then good and bad become descriptions of what's popular to consider good and what's popular to consider evil and the terms lose all other meaning. When you say an act is evil you're not describing the act you're describing society's view on the act. An evil thing is evil because the majority thinks it's evil and a good thing is good because the majority thinks it's good, however when you ask someone why something is good or evil you will invariably get different explanations. Murder is evil because it causes suffering to innocents, charity is good because it's jesuslike etc, everyone has their own reasons that they derive through process of reasoning which they can more or less explain in a logical manner when prompted, only the moral relativist makes no attempt at this process of reason and cares what the majority thinks despite the fact that society as a whole disagrees with their view. The very same normalfags that you derive your morality from think you're retarded because they themselves derive their morality from themselves.
Society gathers what's good and bad by what majority thinks and it is taught to the next generation. I don't think you realize this, but there were civilizations who were ok with cannabilism. It was considered just in their society by majority, so it was good. People decide what is accepted and it is taught until something physical or mental changes it for majority.
Majority is what decides almost all acts we take in governing ourselves, that's what our government rely on. And we're not the same person dumbass, two people just happened to fucking disagree with you.
I will give you an example: John and Peter are two blue kids, and Edward is a red kid. There are two political parties, the red and the blue one. Edward convinces John and Peter to vote for the red party. The red party wins and decides to kill all blue kids. Is that good just because the majority choose it?
What the fuck kind of argument is that? The majority may have agreed to "vote for the red party", but they did not agree to "kill all blue kids". That's not a decision that was made by the majority, that was made by "the red party".
Yes, because majority wins. Good and Evil is decided by majority because majority has the POWER.
That's the problem you're having, good and evil aren't things that have a meaning until people with majority forces and power gives definitions people are forced to follow.
Good is something that helps another person. If someone is hungry and you give them food it is good, if someone wants to die and you kill them it is good.
Evil is something that harms another person. If someone is hungry and you take their food it is evil, if someone wants to die and you save them it is evil.
It's been a long time since I read Death Note, but didn't he explicitly say that once all of the "criminals" were gone, he was going to start in on people who weren't living their life "correctly"?
He was a complete loon.
I kinda regret that we didn't get to see that. Him failing as a God would have been a much more satisfying downfall than getting tripped up as a mere human.
Why do I always see so many people shit on this series? The anime kind of ruined the second half but other than that I really don't see what's so bad about it
plus the soundtrack is 10/10
The fact that popular "memetic" ideas about what is good or evil tend to spread around and survive to future generations is a testament to the fact that people are persuaded to believe in those ideas. The reason those ideas survive and get taught in schools is because people agree with the content of those ideas. This doesn't mean that society decides what's good based on what's popular.
Do you realize that people frown upon cannibalism because they dislike the nature of cannibalism and not because of the opinion of their peers? If you ask an individual why they don't eat people won't be because they think society considers cannibalism to be bad, but because they themselves consider it to be bad.
I know full well you're two different retards.
>The reason those ideas survive and get taught in schools is because people agree with the content of those ideas. This doesn't mean that society decides what's good based on what's popular.
This entire sentence means you agree with me. Society takes the ideas previous people from that society thinks are just and reteaches them. What is your side? You're saying ideas survive because they just do? People who believe those ideas become part of a larger bubble of people who think that's best. That's when good and evil are decided.
A prime example of this is the foundation of fucking america.
This. You can'tem just let a total random person control the world.
Hell said that he would kill useless Lady people, só he was probably gringos tô kill most of his neet fans of /a/ for being fat fucks that live in a basement.
The thing is, he doesn't have the right to ordem the world, nobody choose him. If he thinks that he can have it by force or fear, he should prepare to get his ass kicked.
>You're trying to say all human's are just
I'm not. I think the opposite indeed.
>Society changes, people call for that person's fucking head, they turn into animals
That's why there are branches of government that should prevent "the arm of justice" from going too far, because even the worst criminal, in front of the law, has his rights. I know it's asking too much, but neither a judge, nor a jury should be driven by emotions, and if they do, they shouldn't hold that position. In that sense, something like the Sybill System from Psycho Pass is probably more suitable than human (save for the whole imprisoning or killing innocents part)
The only thing for which death penalty could be justified is the deterrence factor, and it's been proven not to work as such either.
This entire sentence serves to explain to you that I fully understand why ideas survive. Ideas survive because they're popular so when people die there are still enough people that are alive who still believe in them, even if it's a shitty idea. If I came up with a new idea and I never told it to anyone and I die tomorrow then this idea also dies with me.
What I'm trying to explain to you is that society doesn't decide what's good and evil, they only decide what is CONSIDERED good and evil by that society. When you say that cannibalism was ok in past civilization you mean to say that cannibalism was considered to be ok at those times. When we say that cannibalism was considered to be ok, we mean to say that, it was believed at those times "the nature of cannibalism is such that it's ok". In present time cannibalism is considered evil, and when we say that cannibalism is considered evil we mean to say that it is commonly believed today "the nature of cannibalism is such that it's evil".
Clearly cannibalism in the past and cannibalism today is the same thing, it's just eating people. Cannibalism didn't change, it has the same nature. I seriously ask you, what is the nature of cannibalism, in your opinion?
Just get this guy to run everything.
>only the moral relativist makes no attempt at this process of reason and cares what the majority thinks despite the fact that society as a whole disagrees with their view.
That's funny, because when you said
>however when you ask someone why something is good or evil you will invariably get different explanations
and a few other things, you described moral relativism
Developed Countries by UN standards give individuals human rights, most countries in that classification have a justice system.
Its more like the battle between order and disorder, aka the police vs teenage killer mastermind.
kinda systematic debate of ideology.
But the people that are 'good" by your definition take money from me by threat of force, money I wanted to use to care for my family, and they give that money to lazy welfare queens who refuse to work. How is that really good?
Moral relativism is not the position that states that different people have different ideas about morality, that much is obvious. Moral relativism is the position that states that things are good or evil based on the cultural standards at that moment.
Killing is in human nature, when we form a society we are supposed to give up some of our instincts to function in an environment that tries to favor everyone. In other words, I won't kill if I am reassured no one would kill me, this kind of thing. Far from perfect if you ask me, but still better than nothing.
It means that you have no opinion of your own about what is good or evil and you leave it up to society to decide what's good and evil. Such a person might say that when people engaged in human sacrifice in ancient civilizations it was not evil to do so, because it was culturally acceptable at that time.
The basis for moral relativism is that there is no absolute moral values, it does not mean passive acceptance of the current views on good and evil. If anything, it acknowledges that the moral values held by the majority of people, in a certain time and place, is a product of society, and not a set of rules carved into stone forever, but if you are a moral relativist you can very well have your own set of morals, which can be derived from logic, emotions, both and whatnot
They are considered evil by that anon and they are considered good by those on welfare. When you say something IS good or IS evil you are describing that thing's nature, and because things can only have one nature they can't be simultaneously good and evil.
You can't simultaneously have a set of moral standards that are derived from logic, emotions, or both, while also believing that there are no absolute moral values. That's because people have the tendency to rationalize their feelings and actions in a way that creates an explanation for why they felt and did what they did at the time they did it. When you ask someone why did something they explain the principals that governed their actions. He killed that man because that man was evil, and evil men must be killed, therefore he had to be killed. Such statements as "evil men must be killed" are universal principles, they apply universally to all "evil men" with no exception. This necessarily leads to belief in absolute values (moral or otherwise). "Evil men must be killed regardless of opinion" is the thinking.
That would be evil, regardless of the country.
He didn't ask what your personal opinion is as if taking a poll, he asked you to solve the moral problem.
That person was Johnny Rapemurder, who somehow managed to rape and murder 1/4 of the population of that country. He is completely unrepentant. His existence has been a net drain on the entire world.
Holy shit kill yourself fight now because literally at this very second you are killing millions upon millions of cells to create your skin. And it's not a pleasant dseath either, you are starving them until they expand and burst in an attempt to get nutrients from veins that arent there.
If I kill someone for the greater good of humanity. Then I should not be punished. I did a murder that will benefit people in a long run.
When will people realize THE ENDS, JUSTIFIES THE MEANS
Light wasn't wrong, he just went about it too fast and got too cocky. Other than that I never had much of a problem with his methods because like even NEAR said. What Light did ultimately helped more than he killed.
I'm giving about my interpretation about what I consider to be the actual nature, so I am making a value judgment but I'm assuming we share similar values (which we do). We all subjectively perceive the moon to exist, therefore we say that "the moon" exists, the implication being that the moon exists objectively. This is the basis of empiricism.
Self defense that involves killing is evil because killing is evil.
They have no mind that I'm aware of though so I'm not intentionally causing suffering. I neglected to point out those additional qualifiers before because I didn't think someone would bring up this example.
If you do something with no malice and knowledge or intent to cause suffering then that's not evil. Of course if you engage in negligence then it is evil, but if the situation is such where you couldn't have possibly known that your actions might cause suffering then it's not evil.
Not sure what you mean by preventing evil. If you have to kill one person to prevent a hundred from being killed that's evil.
>someone seems to has the power to just let people drop dead
>nah it's alright we shouldn't investigate why people are dying left and right
of course you'll try to find out what the fuck is happening
So how do you stop unrepentant evil? You can't imprison them, that's basically robbing them of life. But simultaneously, inaction just allows them to commit more evil, making you evil by your inaction. You can't kill them apparently. So how?
That's a great answer. I'll be here waiting in case you decide you're not lazy enough to explain yourself. Perhaps one day your worldview would change when you hurt someone while thinking the means justify the ends and see how badly it fucks you up with guilt, by then it'll be too late though.
>"Perhaps one day your worldview would change when you hurt someone while thinking the means justify the ends and see how badly it fucks you up with guilt" He says as he unapologetically shitposts to rile anonymous individuals for his fleeting amusement.
You as a person would benefit most from not doing anything about unrepentant evil, don't involve yourself with it and distance yourself from it whenever possible. It's none of your responsibility to fix the world nor would it be your fault for not doing anything. If someone's going to go around hurting people that's going to have more to do with his state of mind and his circumstances that you stopping or failing to stop him.
You are evil by your inaction then. You are allowing it to happen, making you equivalent to the person committing the acts.
And seriously, listen to how this sounds
>bad shit going down? Ignore it.
If you're doing something that makes you feel guilty you're damaging yourself and your mental health first and foremost, therefore you should refrain from doing it as it's "evil" towards yourself. If for some reason doing horrible shit doesn't cause you to feel guilt then you have deeper problems.
It is if you kill someone.
Inaction is not evil. Unless you're a surgeon falling asleep in a middle of an operation in which case it's negligence. Otherwise there's absolutely nothing wrong with walking the fuck away from a bad situation that you didn't create.
My uncle is in prison for 40 years with no chance of probation (He's basically not getting out.) for armed robbery, selling meth, aggravated assault, and violating his probation over and over.
When he was out of prison last time, he had members of the Aryan brotherhood partying in his lawn right next door to our house.
He is a scumbag.
I'd still be fucking pissed off if someone murdered him though, you little prick.
>Until you've had experience, just keep your vanilla mouth shut.
As if you're some kind of edgelord that has had experience with violence. If you had actually ever experienced real hardship, you wouldn't think being a vile little savage makes you cool. You'd realize you're being a fearful little pussy, and that thinking murder makes you mature is pathetic.
No way in hell you're over the edge of 16.
>go through some shit before you open your mouth.
Let's fucking hear what shit you went through then, faggot.
Your dad rape you? Some kid at school call you a pussy?
If you eat a pie despite knowing it'll cause you terrible guilt you're doing a bad thing towards yourself which you shouldn't do.
What I mean by this is that if someone's a psychopath then I can't have any hope of persuading them that they should be good and not do evil, because feeling guilt plays a key role in my own morality. If I was born without guilt I would most likely would not give a fuck about hurting people no matter how much people tried to explain it to me.
Helping someone is without hurting anyone is good but if you have to kill a would be murderer in order to save the victim you're better off walking away from the situation.
I never denied the fact that I formed my opinion from my subjective experience, but as long as you share similar experience and values, it can be said to be objectively true. Don't pretend like we are each living in our own special snowflake of a reality, reality is shared.
>but if you have to kill a would be murderer in order to save the victim you're better off walking away from the situation.
So you're putting satisfying your ego above saving a victim. If you only frivolously care about people to that extent, then why do you care about being moral at all?
>as long as you agree with me, it's objectively true
You what. I obviously don't share similar values, I don't believe in objective morality, the only way to establish objective morality is through an objectifier like a God. Obviously, since I don't believe in your screed, your screed is subjective. Reality may be shared but that doesn't make the opinions of a group of people valid.
Nice arguments you have there son. Come back when you have hairs on your face.
>You can't simultaneously have a set of moral standards that are derived from logic, emotions, or both, while also believing that there are no absolute moral values.
Yes, yes you can. You just have to give up concepts like good or evil. If you believe things are inherently good or evil, and use the standards you have (emotions, logic etc) then the values you are are seem absolute to you.
Truth is, good and evil are manmade concept, they have no real meaning. Somehow rules protect us, following them may make us feel good, breaking them may make us feel bad, because they were ingrained in us as we grew up. Some of them may come from pure instincts, but the truth is, none of it matters from an objective point of view. So you can follow a set of rules, thinking it's the best for you and the others, without claiming they are the only possible rules.
Acknowledging this doesn't even mean living a life devoid of "morals", because needing, and having a set of morals is something entrenched in human nature, you just can't help it.
For these reasons society should be built around rules that benefit the majority of people, in other words "intelligently-designed" morals (the pun is intentional)
It's inaccurate to say that I'm only satisfying my own ego, if I didn't have consideration for the life of the murderer that you want me to kill then I wouldn't feel bad about killing them in the first place. I do care about people to a normal extent but I won't go out of my way to help starving children in africa or kill some person just to help someone else, that's not my responsibility because I didn't create those situations.
Evil is not really a word I'd associate with overeating bro. Hell even most crime isn't really evil just bad. I mean you don't really here people throw the word evil around outside of like RPGs and shows. Its reserved for like mass murder or genocide.
no one person should ever be allowed to hold such power, and he is the prime example for that. Not only would he have killed people that were lazy or didn't live correctly up to his standard, which mind you he never made clear to the public because he wants to hide under anonymity. But also the mere fact he thinks once a criminal always a criminal and thus should be killed for good, which concept has been refuted countless times in the past.
He killed more than just criminals though. That was what made the entire series so fucking funny. It was about a edgelord wannabe "god" who ended up taking it too far and becoming a criminal himself.
WHY DO YOU FUCKERS ENTERTAIN THE OP?!, CAN'T YOU SEE THIS THREAD IS DESIGNED TO FUCK YOU OVER AND MAKE A MORAL DEBATE OVER WHAT'S RIGHT AND WRONG?
WHY DO YOU KEEP FALLING FOR THE SAME BAIT
People are more than the sum of their crimes, you blind little shit. If you truly came from somewhere where you experiences "hardship" you would understand that.
Some people are born with nothing, they are raised wanting more for themselves, and they are not given the tools to help them gain anything more than the shit they came from. Their life is fucking pain. Eventually they might turn to drugs, or they might rob a store because they have poor impulse control. They might regret it for the rest of their lives and turn their lives around and work hard, like my fucking dad as he's struggling to help me pay my way through college.
Or they might stay a scumbag forever and become an actual Nazi like my uncle.
You don't fucking know. You don't know anything about these people you want murdered.
You think that saying shit like "morality is subjective" and talking about how you justify doing what you want with shit like "that's not my responsibility because I didn't create those situations" makes you wise, but it's really idiotic and edgy because you fundamentally don't comprehend the level of extreme hypocrisy in your words.
You define morality as you see fit to keep yourself safe from scrutiny and responsibility while casually condemning huge swathes of everyone else not because you actually have a problem with them, but because you think it earns you edgy credibility. As I said, you think you're cool, but you're not. You are a sociopath.
If you give up concepts like good and evil then you have no morality at all. Do you share my view that you either believe values are either absolute or you don't they don't exist at all? What would be the point of believing that murder is bad "in my opinion"? Would you go ahead and stop someone from killing an innocent if they believed it's okay or not? If you see moral values as ice cream flavors then they hold any water at all in your day to day life. You say that you can do good deeds without having moral beliefs because it's in your nature, but I remain in the position that you can't simply act impulsively on your good intentions without rationalizing them into absolute moral principals.
Evil is a bit too strong but it's synonymous with "bad" in most cases as far as I'm concerned.
Hate is also evil because it hurts you as well, and also while you may kill someone while angry and not feel bad about it, eventually when the anger subsides you will feel terrible guilt.
>eventually you will feel guilt
And if I don't? Hate simply allowed me to kill an evil person without remorse. Obviously it is a force of righteousness.
>you can't act on your good intentions without making them a morality
Why? I mean this is from the guy that would walk away from a murder in progress because he couldn't be bothered to seriously face the murderer.
What I'm saying is you can act as if your moral principles were absolute without actually believing they are, because:
We, as humans, are hard-wired (not in a religious way, but in an evolutionary way) to have morals.
We (should) follow the rules we believe to be the best for us and, by extension, society.
This discussion is dangerously close to become a religious debate though, inb4:
>see, atheists can't be good people because they have no fixed concept of good
Fuck your uncle I hope he dies. And he deserves the death penalty or life in prison at least for this persistent disregard for human lives. You reap what you fucking sow.
It's not about breaking laws. He's a scumbag who hates or disregard every single one of us. He would murder me for a bit of money. He might even murder you. People who treat humans beings like trash do no deserve any better.
Also it's likely you have the same shit genetic that led him to do that to innocent people. Please don't reproduce.
He never killed anyone innocent. Don't want shit? Then don't try to stop someone who not only reduced the crime rate by 70%, but also saved millions of innocent victims of murder, rape and torture.
If you disagree with Kira, then you approve of the murder of all these innocent people. You become a murder enabler and therefore an indirect accomplish. And YOU are the one that deserves to be shot like a dog.
For the record I'm the one who kept saying you should lay down your life and die if your only method of self defense is killing your aggressor, how you can call me a sociopath I have no idea.
There is a high chance that as you mature you will eventually feel the guilt, unless you are a cold killer but if you are then you simple can't mature and you're too emotionally fucked up to feel guilt.
When I said that you can't act on your good intentions without having a morality I didn't mean that only people who have a belief in morality are the ones who have good intentions and everyone else is nasty. You can have good intentions and not believe in anything, however it's human nature to turn our intentions into rationalizations so we would be able to explain why we did why we did. It's human nature to have absolute principals period. Even a belief in moral relativism is an absolute value, because we are inclined that way. A moral relativist has made a judgment about the nature of morality, and has concluded that everyone who is not of the position of moral relativism is wrong.
>He never killed anyone innocent
>Killed a bunch of detective and cops
>Straight up gonna kill a bunch of his friends
Pic related, it is you
>self defense is wrong if you kill someone
Oh I'm sorry. I have such a perfect mastery of my body and aim I can disarm 3 murderers coming at me with the preciseness of robocop. It's not like in those split seconds I don't have all the time in the world to make a 100% accurate estimation of the use of force necessary and my arm isn't shaking like crazy from the stress caused by people trying to murder me.
I used anecdotes to explain how you don't understand what you're talking about and don't empathize with people you want dead. If you can't address that, than you are a sociopath or a retard.
As for accusing you of "you think you're cool but actually you're not" that's actually because I want to give you a better excuse for being this evil and horrid. You think it's an insult, but it's either that or "You are just evil, period.".
My uncle has never killed anyone, he's just beat the shit out of some people at bards that probably deserved it, robbed some houses, and sold some drugs. I'm not trying to excuse anything, I think he's a scumbag too and I don't like him, but you're being melodramatic as fuck.
I agree, but this is why we don't fucking kill people when they become criminals. You don't know their true worth. You can't know. Taking another persons life is an extreme responsibility not to be disregarded. When you kill someone, you snuff out everything they've done, everything they could do, their hopes, their dreams, the love of their family, fucking everything. I believe in the death penalty, but only because I know that there are some people truly beyond redemption. That's not a casual choice to make based on a quick google like Light does though.
I might be confusing you with other posters, there's probably like 8 people arguing right now, so I apologize.
>He never killed anyone innocent.
Im sorry, what? He definitely killed people who werent criminals and who were just in his way.
That female agent who was close to discovering who he was? L?
Who are you to say that your overly emotional state is righteous. You, who wouldn't kill a man about to drop a nuke on an innocently populated city.
Your second sentence was literally just "Everyone is right, especially the moral relativists"
Killing isn't good, no matter what situation. Life is something precious that people should try and preserve.
Death does nothing to remedy pain in our world, it only leads to more death, more broken bonds, more hatred, more rage, more revenge.
That's why Light had to be stopped, he was killing people to make a world where people feared him and his power. he was a monster and a true tyrant.
Being Good is the only path people should take and those who fall to evil, should be helped and corrected to become good. Everyone has the compassion and ability to become a member of society and follow our laws and regulations to help everyone lead a good life.
Everyone on earth is just trying to survive in this world.
>Some people are born with nothing, they are raised wanting more for themselves, and they are not given the tools to help them gain anything more than the shit they came from. Their life is fucking pain. Eventually they might turn to drugs, or they might rob a store because they have poor impulse control. They might regret it for the rest of their lives and turn their lives around and work hard, like my fucking dad as he's struggling to help me pay my way through college.
Yea bro, I "came from nothing", the only person in the last couple generations to graduate high school, and some of my inlaws moved from mexico becouse of some drug shit. The whole lot is shit. But i didn't cry because the world treated me like shit and i got delt a shit hand, i got a fucking job, and worked hard. I got recognized for my hard work and got a better job. I keep getting better jobs and work 14 - 16 hour days every week to pay off the land im buying (22 btw). When i done, it'll make me the only land owner in my family. Ive smoke weed a few times but im not a bitch like your uncle was. You don't know shit.
Hi I'm sociopath mcedgelord, and I'll kill you if you try to turn me good. Also, every day I am, left alive, I will kill another good person for literally no reason and also make an edgy speech in hopes of turning more people like me. Enjoy your ideal world being destroyed by a force you can't stop.
>if caught the police intends to illegally execute you without due process
>Stopping you from saving millions of innocent lives
>Knowing full well the benefits of what you are doing
>Trying to stop you and let millions of innocent people die because of their ego.
Pic related, this isn't you.
There is virtually no difference between our lives, the only difference is I don't want my family dead regardless of what they've done because I know there's more to people than their crimes.
Not everyone has the strength to rise above their circumstances, and we don't kill them for that weakness because we're not fucking Sith Lords.
Then you shouldn't engage in a fight if you know there's a chance you might kill someone.
The first person and fourth person you quoted are both me, I think you have me confused with someone else.
I'm not sure what you mean by righteous, but I consider having empathy to better than being a psychopath because without it you suffer. As a result of having empathy you can't kill people without causing damage to yourself. I don't think the nuke situation is very likely to happen and if it did, it'll be none of my responsibility to stop it, so the thought doesn't really disturb me. Having to kill someone would cause me a lot more guilt than failing to stop someone from being murdered because I don't feel guilty about things that aren't my fault.
>If you had the Death Note would you do the same?
Yes. Also scare every rulers or would be rulers in the world shitless about mistreating their people and declaring pointless wars. I would also have our legislative bodies start respecting our damned constitution.
All in all I wouldn't kill anyone that hasn't completely disregarded the value of human life. Unless they try to stop me, in which case it's self defense not only of myself but all the people I'm saving.
I wouldn't have anyone worship me though. That's fucking tacky.
>without it you suffer
You what? But I feel no guilt or remorse, I feel nothing for any act I've committed. A psycopath could theoretically fuck a baby to death after gutting his mother and feel absolutely dandy the next morning. In this situation, your empathy is causing you to stand by and watch evil while his lack of empathy allows him to stop it. Sounds like empathy is a waste of time bruv.
If we capture you and talk with you for long enough, we can help you. Everyone has something they try and hide.
All people have the power to be good and I won't allow for you to harm innocent people. They did nothing to you for you to harm them, we will capture you and help bring you back to reality where you can achieve a better life without harming others or taking life.
Hope and Love can defeat hate and anger every day. I remember as a kid, I was furious over being beaten up in the park because kids mistook me for someone else, and I got fucking destroyed.
I hated them, I wanted them to die. But I realized all that anger, all that hate. It did nothing but take energy from me, it exhausted me. I decided to let it go, things happen. But good always helps and gives you more happiness and energy.
I forgave them.
>Being Good is the only path people should take
That is your opinion. Alot of people would disagree with you.
>and those who fall to evil, should be helped and corrected to become good.
Im sorry to tell you this buddy, but there are a lot of cases in which this is literally impossible. I know you won't believe me when i say that but its just the way people are. Also "corrected" is a matter of perspective.
>Everyone has the compassion and ability to become a member of society and follow our laws and regulations to help everyone lead a good life.
>Everyone on earth is just trying to survive in this world.
Are you really that scared of getting boo boo's on your feelings? Does the fear of that pain really outweigh the value you place on any number of other people's lives and well being? Are you fine with being an inactive coward as long as you can convince yourself that your hands are clean?
>It's your fault if you get mugged on the street
>It's your fault if your home is invaded
>It's your fault if a mass shooter starts firing in a crowded theater
>It's your fault if someone corners you and tries to rape you
That's right. U shouldn't pick any fight with that murderer that's about to murder you if you don't fight back.
You sound like some pretentious little faggot. I would beat the shit out of you everyday too
>and we don't kill them for that weakness because we're not fucking Sith Lords.
Lol, i feel you though. I wouldn't really want my in laws dead either, even knowing shits like them are eating up my taxes. So i really don't disagree with you.
>But I realized all that anger, all that hate. It did nothing but take energy from me, it exhausted me.
Whut? When im angry i get fucking pumped, work harder and faster. Nothing kicks my ass in gear like anger. I think your having a problem realizing that people are alot different than you. This echo chamber of a website doesn't help either.
I can't speak with confidence about psychopaths because I don't fully understand them but as far as I understand losing your connection to other people's feelings is the result of deep psychological trauma, so if someone because a psychopath because of bad childhood experiences and then hurt people it would make it very difficult to recover.
Then you shouldn't fight ever.
I am terrified of living with guilt, yes. I would want to help someone I can whenever possible without going too much out of my way to do it but as far as hurting someone to do a good deed that's too much. I don't consider being inactive to be a bad thing.
If someone breaks into my house I run the fuck away anon. I don't fight street thugs.
>Pedophiles deserve death
Sure is retarded in here
Not use it if the heaven in hell thing was for real, but if i did use it. I would make all the murders look like a message from some god, like make them scribble a certain symbol out in blood when they died. Make some sort of death religion.
>All those people who don't know that self justice is a crime.
What is wrong in capturing a criminal like Light?
>You sound like some pretentious little faggot. I would beat the shit out of you everyday too
In all honesty, you can and I will not fight back. if you think beating me will achieve something for you, then by all means I'd let you.
I haven't had a fight in over 8 years and I'm 20 years old man. You would rekt me. It won't change how I feel. Good is something that I hold dearest to my heart and it has given me more than being filled with anger and hate or bitterness ever did.
>That is your opinion. Alot of people would disagree with you.
It is my opinion, sadly the alternative isn't all that good.
>Im sorry to tell you this buddy, but there are a lot of cases in which this is literally impossible. I know you won't believe me when i say that but its just the way people are. Also "corrected" is a matter of perspective.
People can achieve a matter of being corrected. It just takes time, it takes breaking them down and rebuilding them. People are less complex than you make them out to be.
Not necessarily. You could theoretically have a bit too much to drink one night, damage your brain, and wake up an empathyless sociopath. Futhermore, why do you say they need to recover? As we've stated, obviously psycopaths are the most morally righteous individuals that act on pure human impulse and never feel bad about their actions. By your guidelines, they are lawful good paladins.
>you shouldn't fight ever
Thanks man I'll keep that in mind and just let the dude beat me to death. It's not like under your moral guideline I've just let an immoral person kill a moral person thereby making the world more immoral.
>If someone breaks into my house I run the fuck away anon. I don't fight street thugs.
It's that easy. I wonder why we keep hearing about people being killed execution style in their own homes. They should have just broken the wall with one punch and jump down the building all in the split seconds they had to react. :DD
The american definition of pedophile (i.e. person who has sex with anyone under the age of 18) is nuts, the age of consent should be set at 16 at least.
But fucking kids is disgusting you pedoscum
There is a very thin line between righteousness and evil
Fuck, did you never wonder what the black tear in yang is? That's Light. The worst evils are always done with the best intentions.
Yeah well it's hard to keep your mind intact when you have to live a double life all the while living with a dedicated group that is hunting you down to kill you and then you still have to keep track of all the major crimes in the world.
If people had been a little more collaborative with someone doing so much good he might have not lost it.
The whole show was about how power corrupts you and turns you into what youre fighting against. First he just kills lifers, then he kills prisoners with long sentences, then he kills petty criminals, then he kills suspects, then he kills people trying to find him , then kills people who openly speak against him, then he kills his own followers, then he kills his closest supporters, by this point he's already a cold blooded murderer invalidating his own jihad tier murder logic.
How did Light even still have criminals to kill years into being Kira? You'd think by that point people would be shitting themselves if they got pulled over for speeding, much less arrested for committing a violent crime.
Death is the absolute pinnacle of inactivity and being free of hurt feelings. Why are you so against the act of giving it to someone again? You don't even seem to be adverse to having it done to yourself.
>All people have the power to be good
Psychologically speaking that's actually factually inaccurate on many levels.
Life isn't like the plot of a fictional story, in our reality due to the complex nature of our composition physically and as the result of time and experience past a certain point or due to mental illness some people are past the capacity for "the power of good'.
You can talk to them for however long makes you feel good, but they won't register a thing you're saying. It's like speaking to someone in another language and expecting them to just understand your view for your sake. Maybe in your head that seems to be the case for your piece of mind, but that's not what's happening.
What you're trying to argue here is the existence of moral absolutism: no matter what society believes, certain things will always be "wrong".
But if society doesn't what's good and evil, what does? You? Religion? Our natural instincts? The golden rule? At least provide some answer before people discuss this further.
They would need and presumably want to recover because empathy plays an important role in your life and you can't be at peace without it. At any rate if someone is a psychopath because they were born with the condition and they never knew what it's like in the first place then they are truly acting without malice and unaware that they're hurting anyone. It would be the same as if you stepped on an ant without noticing, I can't call it evil, though possibly negligent.
It's also a good thing to prevent people from killing you whenever you can so that you'll prevent them from further damaging their mental health.
If the alternative is killing someone then I see no other choice. I'm not bothered by the slight possibility I might get murdered in my home because it's such a small chance that I might as well be getting worried about getting hit by lightning. It's not like not killing people will significantly reduce your life expectancy, realistically.
I consider death to be bad because I consider life to have a purpose, but even if it didn't have any killing someone is still bad. I'm also against mercy killings for the same reason, even if someone might benefit from it you're still doing a bad thing to yourself by committing the mercy killing.
Laws are there for a reason.
Oh no wait, you called me a retard, so now im going to kill you and the police is going to be totally okay with it.
I don't know who is more of a retard here.
You people seem to think not everyone can be good. Well then, if you think so lowly of humanity, and of people in general.
When did you forsake yourselves?
If people think not everyone can be good, then I must recant my previous statement, Life is precious.
Life is something that shouldn't be lost to humans, but for those who are unable to lead a life of goodness and follow the examples society leads, and then refuses to change after so much kindness and love, so much compassion is given to them?
After all that, and the person still has not changed. They should be put to death, because if they want to act like animals instead of humans then we will treat them like animals. We will cry over it, we will apologize to the person and their family. Because it will create broken bonds and probably breed hatred.
But people like that are evil and evil should not be allowed to be on earth. Only good should remain here. That is my stand on this.
>you can't be at peace without it
BUT SOCIOPATHS ARE.
You keep saying things about "Mental health", but your metric for mental health values the mentally impaired over the mentally free. Obviously, everyone else is flawed and evil and only the remorseless sociopaths are good and righteous.
>by letting joker get away
Bruce has nothing to do with that. Everyone in Arkham is responsible, the GCPD is responsible, Bruce Wayne is just someone going out his way to make the irresponsibility of the city less harmful to the other innocents of Gotham.
In the future of the animated series in Batman Beyond he's given up, and crime still persists. You can say he's ineffectual, that's sort of true, but people who inexplicably conflate the crime and evil of Gotham to Batman somehow are exactly why evil wins. Its ills will always be shrugged onto the innocent.
>Inb4 those shitty written stories where a writer has Batman go out his way to save Joker due to some contrived plot convenience
Those aren't representative of the characters or anything outside the nonsense in the heads of writers and readers who already assume Bruce is the fulcrum of everything in Gotham. He's Batman to begin with because Gotham inflicted upon him something he and others failed to prevent, he's just a reaction not the cause.
>Why were people even trying to catch Light
Why the fuck wouldn't they? It doesn't even matter if he's using it for "good" or not. Not only is what he's doing illegal, Death Note is literally an extremely easy-to-use weapon of mass destruction that's in the hands of some random moron. That alone is more than enough of a justification to warrant a manhunt.
>Laws are there for a reason.
Yes. As long as they serve people living a moral and righteous life, not the other way around.
>Oh no wait, you called me a retard, so now im going to kill you and the police is going to be totally okay with it.
No because that would be unfair. It's that simple. If you're one of those retards that think there's no such thing as fairness I'm not going to give you a 30 min long lecture as to why you're a retard bathed in retardition from your childhood if you can't grasp such an intuitive principle of divine legitimacy.
I would like everyone to keep in mind that "The world's greatest detective" used criminals to help in his investigation.
Literally L had no reason to even challenge Light. This fucker was just a dumbass who wanted to stop someone who was delivering justice to criminals.
Well I can't really view sociopaths with the same framework I use to think about other normal humans, they have a different nature than normal humans so my beliefs about "human nature" don't necessarily apply to them. We can consider them to be like intelligent animals but even animals have some empathy. You can treat them like you would wild bears.
What this man did was also illegal you tea suckling limey faggot.
Do something about it.
>if the heaven in hell thing was for real
The anime kind of flubbed this. The manga explains it better. There is no afterlife in the Death Note universe When Ryuk told Light that no human who uses the death note can go to heaven or hell, what he's saying is that you can use the death note without worrying that you're going to damn your soul to hell (because hell doesn't exist).
>If you can't kill evil but evil can kill good, it sounds like evil is going to win.
That sounds like it doesn't it? but the thing about good is it can change many evil people. Human's have emotions and good plays on those, people are not born evil, they're taught it. People are born good, and change over time. That's the difference.
Good will always rise above evil, but evil will always strike hard and hinder good for a bit.
I trust my judgement and I stand by Goodness.
That's not true, it takes someone with a physically broken brain to not fit into my framework. Someone who is a stone cold killer but otherwise not brain damaged is obviously doing a lot of damage to themselves by living a lifestyle without morality and hurting people.
I think people who (need to) believe in absolute values can't stand the thought of a non-fair world (read: neither fair nor unfair).
I'm neither criticizing them nor trying to sound edgy, it's just the impression I have got
>he was chuuni as fuck while Light had actual power at his disposal
In L's defense he's a product of his environmet. The Wammy House gave him a lot of resources so as he said he's someone who doesn't like to lose. He's been raised to think he's some sort of special person. Admittedly he's very intelligent, but that doesn't put him the position to play chess with the lives of others.
Not that anything could be done about it since Light indulged that sort of thing to an extent. It's also convenient how the shinigami look down on Earth and probably saw these events but no one bothered to inform the Death God King about Light and Ryuk's antics.
YOU KNOW WHAT WAS ALSO ILLEGAL. THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE. COME AND TAKE IT BACK EUROTRASH PRICKS. COME AND TAKE IT BACK.
My life is in no way shape or form perfect. In fact I struggled with depression for a good part of it.
At my new job while I go to college. Customers actually write in and tell my bosses and managers how Kind I am to them, how good my customer service is. How I'm such a optimistic person. I never thought people cared that much before but it made my co-workers angry and jealous and I could see how many didn't even like me to begin with. I am now employee of the quarter and on my way to a promotion.
Long story short, Good is the best path you should take, hell dude. I was my High School's Student Council president.
I chose to give my life to being a good person and nothing but good has followed since, I don't have a girlfriend though. But I have faith that will happen at its own time.
It's not true that they're unaffected. You have to be deeply fucked in order to be able to kill people and not care. Most serial killer I've seen interviewed are emotionally empty shells that can't even be relaxed or laugh. Being able to hurt people without feeling anything is far from being a useful perk.
>Someone is trying to murder you
>Your life and those you have to protect are worth less than his
Oh alright. If you want to be a martyr go ahead. Doesn't change that it's retarded.
>Yes. As long as they serve people living a moral and righteous life, not the other way around.
If they don't, nobody accepts them. It's the basis for a law to be this, and self justice is a unquestionble crime.
Why is that? I know the world is unfair, but I don't see the connection. Belief in absolute values is naturally occurring, if you believe in something then you believe it absolutely. If you think that hurting people is evil then you think that's absolute. It's inevitable that we make such judgments, even if we realize that we might be wrong and have skepticism of our own opinions.
>you have to be fucked
But apparently, this fucking allows you to react righteously in all situations. Which is morally good. Your framework is fucked man, maybe you should try revising your moral outlook because it's really, really stupid and self defeating as it stands.
No we raised those generations under threat of war and united them against a common enemy. We gave them something to hate and kill.
His legacy lives on and we are laughing at your people's pasty faces while giving murderers the death penalty. Feels fucking good. When is your queen going to arrest our president?
It's not a matter of worth, I'm not some judge that considers which one is better of dying, the murderer or me and my family. It's not your responsibility to make such choices, anyway. If someone forced you to chop of your arm in order to save an innocent I wouldn't blame you for not doing it. The fault lies entirely with the lunatic that created this fucked up dilemma in the first place.
It's not morally good because you hurt yourself and you hurt others while knowing. Someone who is a killer is aware that they're hurting people they just don't care. This is consistent with my previous statements.
I really sound that bad to you? Do I really sound THAT bad?
What have I said that makes it sound like I'm from a children's story book. That I believe true goodness exist and That I'm actually living proof of it?
Life isn't all sunshine and rainbows, but a positive outlook can help make it that way with effort and work.
I have friends who are cynical assholes, I have friends I actually hate. But I deal with them all with a smile on my face because I honor their friendship and respect their character.
True goodness can make life even better, you appreciate what you have and honor those you love. I was a depressed maniac once upon a time ago. I'm not even religious. I just trust my life to being as good a I can be.
Let me rephrase that, I don't mean we shouldn't believe in any values (none of which I consider absolute though), and I agree we sponaneously come to need values, what I was talking about is the belief that there is set of eternal and absolute rules which give life and the world a "positive" value.
But you don't, you don't feel any guilt from your actions
Without feeling guilt. Obviously, they must be making righteous actions because they feel no guilt.
It is evil, you could use the same methods to actually prevent them from doing any more harm. Going for kill is putting you on the same level as him, you stop him and remove his threat then call the police and wait for them to arrive and they'll take it from there.
Putting the criminal to death doesn't give you satisfaction, him being in jail. Learning what he did was wrong and being re-educated is better than a senseless loss of life.
>wait for the police
"Three found dead from stab wounds in suburban home, the perpetrator is at large"
Police don't operate on instant teleportation you know. Thank god those three lives were selfless enough to martyr themselves so that this criminal would have a chance at redemption.
>It's not your responsibility to make such choices, anyway.
It actually is. Or if it's no one's, the state doesn't carry any more legitimacy than the immediate victim.
You also have a duty toward yourself to protect your integrity and those you love if it is unfairly jeopardized. You are not allowed to risk the success of this operation over concerns for the guilty party.
He was a criminal who on more then one occasion killed innocent cops that were just doing their job.
You also have to realize that ultimately Death Note is a manga about Light vs Everyone else. The author has said himself that there's really no deep morality questions he was trying to raise. It's simply a battle between two geniuses.
You feel the negative effects of guilt by further propagating a self destructive lifestyle. You will also end up regretting what you did if you ever become less hardened and change into a normal person.
>Without feeling guilt
But, you do know you're doing something bad, since you are aware of human emotions, so you have to warp your mind to suppress that guilt, which will result in psychological tension that will manifest one way or another which will damage you.
I don't think values are eternal and absolute, I think values come from human nature which is subject to change, but because every human is so similar and human nature is so consistent in between humans we end up operating as if values are absolute. Because it's universally agreed upon that the sun rises in the east we consider that to be a fact, and we treat it as an absolute value.
Who said anything about your buzzwords. Light was directly saving millions of innocent people by making thousands of monsters shit themselves at the thought of doing something horrible.
L, during the whole series DID NOT GIVE A SINGLE FUCK about all the victims of crimes and Near showed NO REMORSE at the thousands that would die immediately after Kira's fall.
They were luxury investigators here for their ego and paycheck. Who is the sociopath now?
Fucking this. Tsugumi Ohba stated that there were no shades of gray for Light and that his life was ruined the minute he picked up the notebook.
John Dalberg-Acton said it best when he said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
This quote perfectly describes the themes Death Note tackled.
>Thank god those three lives were selfless enough to martyr themselves so that this criminal would have a chance at redemption.
Even if it comes to this, don't you think your life was worth giving up? Even though you died to evil, him living in misery over what he did after being re-educated on life and people. Should be satisfying to you. You didn't die in vain, him becoming a better person, him apologizing to you and spending years of his life in jail should be enough for you.
At risk of being edgy, you don't need an excuse to take whatever action you want to protect yourself against a perceived threat. A zebra doesn't need an excuse to kick a lioness to death any more than the lioness needs one to tear out the zebra's throat.
We're a little more advanced and can plan scenarios before they happen, which means if we know someone is a murderer/rapist/thief/etc. then we don't have to wait until they're committing the crime to react.
Natural law is that if you have the ability to do something, you have the right to do it. There are no such things as rights you cannot enforce. Society is just a system of responsibility distribution through which a few can dedicate themselves to enforcing agreed upon rights for the whole.
>John Dalberg-Acton said it best when he said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
My sister was raped and killed by a fucking black asshole. Didn't show one bit of remorse during court.
Yeah, he deserves better. What do I know? Until you actually lose someone to a senseless act you can shut the fuck up. Not all criminals deserve to live.
It is no one's responsibility, or rather the responsibility lies with the murder to stop themselves from doing bad deeds. I believe that by refraining from killing you'd be fulfilling your duty to yourself to be as mentally healthy as possible by not killing anyone and that's more important than having things stolen from you or dying. Mental health is the highest value.
>if you ever change back
Which would be an immoral thing to do as you are no longer able to make the righteous actions you once could.
>you know you're doing something bad
But you don't. You are just getting yours, after all. How is this bad? I mean you aren't feeling guilt. therefore you are righteous.
You are also comparing natural phenomenon to morality. One exists separate from humans. The other exists because of them. These cannot be compared unless you believe in the observation theory of reality.
At this point I really am just poking you because you are only capable of going around in circles and making claims that you can't back up. Seriously, go reflect on your morality, it's completely fucked.
>I don't think values are eternal and absolute, I think values come from human nature which is subject to change, but because every human is so similar and human nature is so consistent in between humans we end up operating as if values are absolute. Because it's universally agreed upon that the sun rises in the east we consider that to be a fact, and we treat it as an absolute value.
Then our opinion is alike.
Without going into details though, I don't think every single value that may spontaneously arise in people automatically benefits the single individual or society as a whole, but that's another story.
>Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Another liberal platitude. For every tyrannical despot you find a enlightened monarch who busted his ass to bring prosperity to his people.
Some people are wicked by nature and some are good. Politics just tend to attract more of the former.
There are a few people who hold the power to rain death over the whole world with nuclear weapons. Why aren't they doing it? I thought power was corrupted or some shit.
I don't exist anymore because I died, I wasn't around to see if he ever got his shit together. What do you mean "Shouldn't I be glad", I'm fucking DEAD I don't have the capacity to be anything anymore. And what if he lives his remaining days an evil bastard and the three people died for absolutely nothing?
I like how people think anything in this thread will change the world's moral capacity.
Yeah ok you want to sacrifice yourself and your family hoping that he will come to reason within the few seconds he's pointing that gun at you.
Please don't have children. If you want to be a martyr don't bring more people down with you.
>Everyone in Arkham is responsible, the GCPD is responsible
You make it sound like batman doesnt work with these guys.
>have infinite amounts of money
>use it to spy on all your friends and colleagues
>not using it to make a fucking prison that would hold joker in
Fucking lex luthor made a prison that even he himself cant get out of. Why cant batman do the same? fuck you
You are by definition warping your mind in order to avoid the guilt. In this scenario we're not talking about a born psycho that is physically unable to understand other human's emotion. It could be said that those killers who numb their emotions are feeling the effects of guilt but in other ways. They're being bad for themselves, and would do well to try to fix themselves so they could properly empathize with other people.
If he is still evil after all the love and kindness people try to use to make him reform. The he himself is put to death for his evil actions and his refusal to become anything better.
Yes you died, yes it was tragic. But you should try and find some good in it. You didn't resort to murdering him and having that blood on your hands.
>YOU are the one who deserves to be shot like a dog.
>mental health is the highest value
So in other words, kill him and then yourself and anyone with any connection to you and anyone with any connection to THEM to prevent t anyone from being sad. Just genocide your social circle's social circle. Hopefully you don't have to kill the entire world, just most of it. Might as well murder whatever survivors are left because they might fall into despair.
WHY OH WHY ARE PEOPLE TELL EACH OTHER TO BE SHOT LIKE DOGS.
You're exaggerating when you say I want to sacrifice myself and my family, I don't want to hurt anyone, but you're putting me in an impossible hypothetical situation where I'm faced with two bad choices and I'm simply letting you know which one is the least bad based on my own values. As it happens I also think I shouldn't have any children but for different reasons.
That would involve killing which is bad for you.
Well, that depends on the severity of the crime. Petty theft should result in jailtime, rape should result in 25 years to life in prison, and only murder should result in being given the death penalty.
I cant follow comics with the whole retarded shit of MULTIPLE ALTERNATE UNIVERSES and YOU ARE READING BATMAN NOW JUMP TO THIS #67238 ISSUE OF IRON MAN TO FINISH THIS STORY
Why is comic so retarded?
You don't know how the human mind works mate. People can kill and not ever feel remorse, normal everyday people. And it isn't twisting them, they simply don't think they did anything wrong.
Your morality is fucked. Please, revise yourself.
>he is put to death for his evil actions
I'm perfectly willing to get that blood on my hands. It would save my own life while saving taxpayer dollars to put him to death. I will make the sacrifice so that nobody else has to, aren't I a righteous person?
But what does it matter if I kill myself at the end? I mean it's all planned from the very start. My mental health is irrelevant, as I am planning on ending my own pain very quickly so that I don't have to suffer. Just like I am ending everyone else's pain on the entire planet because emotions are apparently more important than the lives that enable those emotions. You idiot.
I do understand some specific things about the human mind reasonably well enough to form an opinion on them. By default you feel bad when you hurt people, but there are ways to repress that guilt. I have personal experience with being an edgy faggot so this much I do know. Things only got tricky when you brought up born sociopath that physically can't understand what they're doing wrong by hurting people, this isn't the same as someone who's a cold killer but fully understands and is tormented by the evil shit that he does. Actually brain damaged people can't be blamed any more than an elephant can be blamed for stepping on someone.
I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE, YOU ALL HAVE TO DIE
NONE OF YOU ARE RIGHT
EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS POINTLESS
NOBODY HAS A PURPOSE
I WANNA JUST BURN YOU IDIOTS, YOU TAKE BAIT SO FUCKING SERIOUSLY, ITS DEATH NOTE YOU FUCKING BABIES, WHY ARE YOU GETTING SOCARATES UP IN THIS BITCH.
I WANNA BURN YOU ALL ON CROSSES, IMPALED CRUCIFIED STYLE
The multiple universe thing isnt really that hard to follow and these publishers are making it even easier by combining their universes together
What pisses me off are stories that happen at different points in time for just one event, like that story about superman losing his power and batman getting amnesia. That shit was all over the place
That's because those monarchs had a number of subjects and political advisors that he was wise enough to listen to them and grant them political power rather than hog all the power to himself.
>Why cant batman do the same?
Because Batman engineering a prison would raise some serious questions. He's not a public figure like Luthor.
Also Batman working with those people is not the same as being in charge of or responsible for them. You've failed to make any point why Bruce Wayne should be held accountable for Gotham's degeneracy.
It does matter because your existence in those moments before you die will be full of agony. Morality has to do with how you live your life, not what happens after you die (unless you believe in heaven).
Unless you're talking about an event which is a very specific and irrelevant thing in comics to begin with, that's rarely ever a problem.
Writers have runs that may influence or be influenced by others but are largely self-contained.
Also not every comic runs on the formula you're talking about so your generalization is even less accurate.
No, you don't. Let me tell you, as someone who has had to extensively study medicine, you do not understand the human mind at ALL. Most people aren't tormented by anything they do, no matter how terrible. That would be evolutionary disadvantageous. As a result, we can rationalize away literally anything we do and continue on with our lives VERY easily.
You don't just have personal experience being an edgy faggot, now you are just nega-edgy and just as stupid.
No they won't, by your moral views I am doing the right thing, my life will be spent at peace, basking in the glow of your system of morality. Then, I will end my life, before I can question your obviously perfect and not at all as porous as a sieve moral outlook.
Seriously, you are too much fun.
So you are saying I am right? Thanks anime girl. I think you are cute.
>There are a few people who hold the power to rain death over the whole world with nuclear weapons. Why aren't they doing it?
Mutually Assured Destruction dipshit. The minute one nation fires a nuke, EVERYONE does.
Even North Korea knows that they should only have nukes as a deterrent lest they unleash Nuclear Armageddon.
The only people who don't give a shit about MAD are radical mudslimes.
They should have called a better hero instead of some sugar addict cunt for that TV transmision
I mean, Shirou isn't about "being correct" and "Muh justice".
>THE ENDS, JUSTIFIES THE MEANS
See, this is exactly the attitude that leads to people condoning cold-blooded mass murder and all the other evils of the world.
Live free or die, anon. There are things worse than death. Tyranny is one of them.
I studied evolutionary biology and specialized in neurology.
Psychology can kiss my anus, I actually know about the brain and am not just studying the mind through observations of actions.
You. Are. An imbecile.
How would you have any peace if you just run around killing people? You act as if you explained some flaw in my morality without doing all the hard work. My morality condemns all of killing as being absolutely evil and you failed to show a single instance where my morality would allow for killing.
Fine, I'm done with this joke. Court of Owls, League of Shadows, Penguin, Bane.
End of story. Any attempt Wayne could make on Gotham can easily be undone or manipulated by any of the individuals above with more influence than all his money combined.
If you pretend the Court of Owls, who just recently showed their power play by having a bunch of vigilante youths held captive at their whim and have infiltrated Arkham Asylum easily, aren't capable of dismantling the efforts of one man you're just shitposting now. Bruce can only do so much, and if he does more than he should be publicly believed capable his Batman persona will be exposed and his efforts will be work even quicker against him.
"Why doesn't Batman just do thing" is exactly how situations like Tower of Babel happened, once he does someone else can manipulate it.
Unless you did research and personally spoke with people who did time for murder and other serious crimes your evo psych is worth jack all. I see this is the point in the argument where you abandon all attempts at proving your point with reason and have to rely on your authority as a neurology expert witness and I just have to take your word for it.
I would have peace because your flawless truth will have guided me to kill everybody before they began to suffer from me killing anybody. I would be doing the right thing, as death is apparently preferable to suffering, as you would rather die than kill in self defense and live with the guilt. I would be propelled forward by fervent belief in your objective truth, spurred on with religious fervor. I would not feel any guilt even as the seven billionth person died, because I did them a favor and saved them from suffering.
Your morality doesn't just allow for killing, it encourages it. In fact, it encourages omnicide. Again, you are an idiot.
Studied the brains of. Like, out of their head. "Spoke with" my ass. Psychology is a soft science, nothing a psychologist says has actually been verified. Meanwhile, biology and neurology are hard sciences.
Now please, go reevaluate your imbecilic worldview.
>I would have peace because your flawless truth will have guided me to kill everybody before they began to suffer from me killing anybody
Show that my words imply this using a quote.
>as death is apparently preferable to suffering
Let's assume death is apparently preferable to suffering, this doesn't mean you're encouraged to kill people to prevent them from suffering, because killing them would cause you more suffering and is therefore forbidden.
>it would cause you more suffering
Unless I killed lots of people, in which case even if I did feel any suffering and was not running on pure religious delusion it would be outweighed by the suffering I prevented. I would be in the moral black seven billion times over. I'm not suffering, because I know I'm doing right.
Get it now? Or are you still too dense to understand this very simple concept?
You're rambling. I couldn't care less about the scientific rigor psychology, nor was I even the one to bring your schooling up in the first place.
You don't have to be a psychologist in order to ask someone a question about their subjective experience of a certain effect. You do realize this is what neurologist do some of the time?
>made brother eye
>cant make a prison in gotham
>cant use his "connections" to coerce the Gordon to put joker in his new prison
I love how batfags defend their shitty "he's just a normal human bean with real world problems" bullshit
>Show that my words imply this using a quote.
I don't want to skim up, but merely your admission that killing someone that will kill you is wrong because it will cause you suffering is an admission that death is preferable to suffering.
>i don't care that you know better than me
Says the person that has never even interacted with a life sentence inmate in any way, shape, or form.
I literally never once in this entire thread said or implied that preventing suffering of other people in any way can cancel out the damage you do by killing a single person. You can't simply add up all the suffering you prevent and the suffering you cause and if you prevent more then it's ok to cause suffering in order to do it, you may be making the assumption that I'm some sort of utilitarian that tries to add up and substract utility but this is far from the truth. Countless times in this thread I've said that you shouldn't kill even a single person in order to save a hundred.
But I am, and I'm the one doing the killing in your name remember? See, humans do this thing called rationalization. It's what keeps us moving through all kinds of shitty situations. And as long as I cling to this interpretation, I am free of suffering and can continue killing all I want until I kill myself, by your moral philosophy being completely and totally righteous from the beginning of my wonderful omnicide to the end
So you see now? Or do I have to FURTHER fucking deconstruct it? Your moral system doesn't work. It actually accomplishes the opposite of what you seem to want it to do. It is by far one of the worst systems of morality I have ever come across, and that's saying something.
Please, kill yourself to prevent your own suffering and the suffering of others, by your admission it is the right thing to do.
>Countless times in this thread I've said that you shouldn't kill even a single person in order to save a hundred.
Why not? I mean it's not like there's objective moral truths in any sense. You could kill 100 people to save one and there's nothing really wrong with that decision. Other people might judge you for it and you have to live with it but that's about all that would come of it.
Kill yourself to save yourself from your own suffering and preventing yourself from getting entangled in the suffering of others. You have to do this, by your own moral system it is the most moral thing you could do at this point in time.
>admission that death is preferable to suffering.
This isn't the thing I asked the quote for.
>>i don't care that you know better than me
I have zero interest in any sort of medical training you may have had (and I generously take your word for) if you have no argument to present aside from it.
How are you doing killing in my name? With every post the portion of meaningful content decreases and the amount of victory dancing increases. Please phrase yourself properly.
Why are you assuming that death is preferable to suffering? You should aim to live in spite of suffering, however you shouldn't create more suffering for yourself in order to extend your life. As long as you're not put in a dilemma where you're forced to either kill or die, you shouldn't kill yourself, and nothing I said implied that.
>You should aim to live in spite of suffering, however you shouldn't create more suffering for yourself in order to extend your life. As long as you're not put in a dilemma where you're forced to either kill or die, you shouldn't kill yourself, and nothing I said implied that.
It's really a matter of personal preference man.
>Why are you assuming that death is preferable to suffering?
Because you would rather me die than kill an assailant, because I would apparently invariably suffer from crushing guilt if I did. Therefore death>suffering. Therefore, people should immediately kill themselves before they suffer or cause suffering.
>How are you doing killing in my name?
This is your system of morality. I've never seen it before you, therefore it is in your name I carry out the tenants of your broken philosophy. You seriously can't be so stupid that you never explored the implications of your own worldview, can you?
I'm going to exit out of this thread now and leave you to damage control to yourself. I bet you can rationalize away literally everything you read tonight anyways, humans are good at that.
>Because you would rather me die than kill an assailant, because I would apparently invariably suffer from crushing guilt if I did. Therefore death>suffering.
This is completely your assumption. Death is preferable to causing suffering, not suffering. Under my morality not causing suffering is strictly more important than preventing suffering. There's no implication that suffering caused and suffering prevented are somehow interchangeable.
If you want to leave leave but don't run away.
Why are you even discussing some arbitrary moral guidelines you made up. It's not like you actually follow them or even think about them when making decisions. Plus the guidelines you've made are going to be mostly disagreed with so there's no point discussing them since it just boils down to differing opinions.
Looking at Light's actions, it may be because of viewer's hindsight, but his way of doing things was inefficient as fuck and he got caught way too easily for someone that had complete anonymity.
You could just force the government into doing whatever you ask with a Death Note. They could kill criminals for me. Just force Congress into signing into a bill that kills all criminals by threatening them with death.
He could have hid the Death Note in the forest and went back once a month to get a stack of paper. They would have no way of pinning it to him if it was only paper.
Light was a shit MC, the only MC that should have had a Death Note is pick related.
For one thing if my beliefs and I just ignore it then I open myself up for a situation where I may be wrong and never realize it. Laying out my morality for all to criticize is simultaneously an affirmation that I'm right if I'm able to explain myself properly and make sense and also a test in case someone can find make me reconsider it.
I really hope I would follow it though, because I know how bad being haunted by guilt feels like.
CRAWLING IN MY SKIN
THESE WOUNDS WILL NOT HEAL
PROTIP: There's a word for systems where one man decides who gets to live and slaughters people who breaks the law. Its called a dictatorship, and you should look up some reasons why it doesn't work in real life.
>affirmation that I'm right if I'm able to explain myself properly
No, as another anon said that's affirmation you're capable of rationalizing your actions.
The ability to logically explain or excuse ourselves to others has nothing to do with us being right, it's us avoiding being proven wrong. This is ultimately questionable behavior as someone with this thinking is clearly focused on appearance and presentation, not actuality.
Linkin Park is a good band, and not only fucking 13 year olds listen to their work. I hate it when meme's spawn from musician's tracks as if they're trying to badmouth the fucking band.
Congratulations, OP, you watched the show, and brought up something they said repeatedly in it.
Personally, I think it's good that they brought down Kira. He was a murderer, who obstructed the rule of law and system of fair trial. The whole point of justice is that we're BETTER than the monsters we lock up.
This is coming from someone who has had a long history of being victimized by criminals all throughout their childhood (including my own mother, who tried to kill me repeatedly and got away with it), and is planning to join the FBI to stop it from happening to others.
Everyone rationalizes their actions because they're uncomfortable with the thought that they're acting on emotion an impule, so we create universal principals that we believe we follow. "I killed that man because he was a drain on society" is easier to say that "I killed that man because I was angry".
I my morality is ultimately the result of wanting to avoid the negative emotion that is guilt, but my rationale for doing so is rock solid. You shouldn't kill people because it will cause you to feel guilty. Thinking that because I would rather die than kill that I promote killing of others to prevent them from feeling bad is pure nonsense. It's the thought process of someone who just wants to find a flaw in someone else's thinking even to the point of warping it and derailing to semantics.
Is it even worth discussing what would have happened if L happened to get the Death Note instead of Light?
One would assume he'd refuse to use it at all after confirming that its powers are real via Ryuk's existence, but who knows
>It's the thought process of someone who just wants to find a flaw in someone else's thinking
Didn't you yourself say you came here for just that?
> Laying out my morality for all to criticize is...also a test in case someone can find make me reconsider it.
Not really, the key to human peace is one person having the technology or power to force his opinion on literally everyone else against their will.
That's the only way people will become one nation and live in a unified reality. They must be forced to by some kind of power.
L probably wouldn't have become "Kira". He didn't get a lot of inner dialogue but it seemed like L didn't hate the world in the way that Light and other Kira supporters did.
And if he did become like Kira he most likely would have thought about the possibilities of someone trying to figure out who he was and taken precautions against it from the start unlike Light.
It's not what I was hoping for. If someone earnestly thinks there's a problem with what I'm saying because their philosophical intuition makes them think there's something funny with my logic then that's something worthy of looking into and resolving. Someone that just tries to find flaws because he wants to prove themselves right in an argument at all costs will end up searching for attackable points, and likely end up misinterpreting some of the text because the misinterpretation is so attackable.
L didn't like its existence in that it vexed his critical thinking, but he was not against it entirely especially when it could be used to vex others.
He even admitted himself he's a hypocrite when it suits him.
As a handwave for Light's extreme ethics the author presented two explanations, one was that after he committed his first murder he began hyper rationalizing his actions and so stopped thinking ethically the other was that the Death Note apparently corrupts those who use it over time.
Whatever the case I don't think L ever wanted to use the Death Note directly.
>As a handwave for Light's extreme ethics the author presented two explanations
Well both of those seem like good explanations for part of why he became Kira you have to consider the fact that Light had internal dialogue about how the world was rotten and needed to be changed before he ever came into contact with the Death Note.
Literally the only change that would have needed to be made would have been for him to not focus his attention exclusively on Japan and instead spread his focus worldwide from the start.
There would have been no 'zeroing in' on him and he would have been essentially at liberty to continue on his righteous path without all the bullshit that followed.
Our actions make us who we are. Not our race, religion, sex, or any other BS difference in people. In the words of Brad Bird's "The Iron Giant":
"You are who you choose to be."
I choose not to stab children, unlike my mom, so yes, I am a better person than her. Kira chooses to commit cold-blooded mass murder, which makes him kind of a shitty person.
Shitty behavior = shitty person.
Everyone has their own ideology(even if they don't realize it), and I'm not trying to contradict yours. I'm merely stating mine.
Shit, why am I trying to have a serious discussion on 4chan? I feel really dumb now that I've realized that. I'm not even a newfag, I should know better.
Could you at least vary the OP more or use a different pic when you make this same thread every week?
On topic: the recent live action series was fucking great. Haven't been that into a 3D series since early seasons of Dexter and House.
I like how his luck was emphasized this time more than his intellect because he would've been fucked far sooner without it.
I think Near was right when you mentions Light going to far and becoming obsessed with ruling the new world. IRL if there was some force like Kira killing off criminals, I'd mostly support it, but there's obviously such a thing as a criminal that doesn't deserve death, that's were Light went wrong
>that's were Light went wrong
I'd say he went wrong when he killed the fake L at the start. Even if that guy was a criminal before he knew it he basically killed an innocent person who was only doing their job and not harming anyone.
If he did all that then he'd later have to reveal that hes batman then the public would know then everyone he's loved will be a target. Thats why he cant do any of that dumbass.
L would still go to investigate everywhere in Japan, as that's his only lead.
the fact that he at least has the general location means that L would have eventually caught Light at some point or another
I always feel like people who post this type of dribble have likely not had more than a single opportunity to vote, if that (and likely still did not).
They have no concept of history, world affairs, economics, sense of self or even a well developed ethical paradigm.
They actually believe if they 'other' candidate had won it would have changed the outcome for the better and that the 'parties' are genuinely separate entities with divergent goals and not just controlled opposition.
It doest matter how much you try to rationalize it, the hate you feel is still there. You know that saying "it made it a better person" you are just trying to make your self feel better. All those ugly emotions are still there sleeping under the layer or pretty words you use to keep your self sane.
Because Light was killing petty criminals too. Like MAYBE if he was only killing rapists and murderers then there would be some grey morality, but I think ti was explicitly stated he was even killing like, random thieves, or people in for minor crimes too. Not to mention the people who might have been falsely persecuted. Like literally there are people who go to jail for more small time shit than rape or murder. Like common thieves and shit. The majority of people light killed likely weren't even all that bad objectively speaking, compared to the "evil" people he wanted to eliminate. It's like shooting some random guy who only stole some shit in the store in the face because of some edgy reason like "wanting to purge the world of evil" or whatever.
>mfw this entire thread
When will Death Note fags learn that you can like a show without parroting the ideals of the edgelord protagonist?
Killing criminals doesnt reduce crime,anons.
Your feelings dont mean shit when we are talking about social issues.
If you think about it Light is like every communist leader ever. Idealist vision for the world ends up getting backed by force. This usually ends up with the ideas of hope and construction of a better world being replaced by fear and the desire to uphold the leaders agenda. Lots of death
There are people who deserve to die. In my opinion, human rights should stop being a thing for people who deliberately violate them, idealism be damned. A fucking terrorist killed my father when I was a baby, then they began to flee to Europe where the brits and the french, who were spewing shit about human rights, gave them asylum . There are people out there whose lives have being ruined because of idealistic morons who have no idea of how this world works, yet babble shit about change.
Long story short, Death Note is shit, Light is a faggot, but there are people better off dead.
Well obviously there's no way to prove this but if someone started anonymously killing off all known criminals and anyone who committed/was suspected of committing crimes I'd think that it would get rid of a lot of crime that already existed. Then after than it would reduce political corruption/crimes and overt crimes.
Said criminals would be already in prison for a long time. Either that or they will not get caught,which means you dont even know them. Crime rates for violent crime would not be affected in any way.
Then theres the problem of killing innocent people and the fact that will you either...
a. Kill people who had committed a violent crime. Nothing will change for reasons stated above.
b. Start killing everyone who commits crime,which is doomed to fail due to the sheer volume of people.
Also good luck crushing on corruption. When the word gets out its already too late to do something. Corruption will still exist but you would not know where or by whom.
Death Note is a work of fiction
in reality crime rates would barely drop, people that commit a crime are barely affected by the penalty that awaits them if they get caught
also, the fact you've been hurt doesn't give you the right to decide about other people's life
justice is not about revenge
He had to do it fast as
1. he had no idea how long he would live
2. He had no idea how long it would take for him to lose the power via Ryuuk getting bored or the book burning up or anything
3. He had to let the world figure out what was going on so it would change. If you kill a dozen people out of 7 billion every month it would take forever for people to figure out it wasn't just coincidence regardless of who the people are.
>in reality crime rates would barely drop
Debatable. I'm not looking for a debate, but that is debatable.
In our world there is a constant dread of various doomsday events. I'm not sure what the crime rate looks like during those periods, assuming criminals are even aware of them but seeing how quickly most criminals turn to faith when in prison I'm going to assume they're not so hardened they wouldn't fail to recognize a situation of potential divine intervention as something they can dismiss.
If people really thought it was judgment day instead of some elaborate mass murdering ruse they'd probably start at least feigning to be children of God fearing the worst.
Actually, you're wrong.
The thing about the Death Note is that you could shape world history, and do it completely anonymously. Let me give you an example.
Osama's a shithead, right? Well, once I know what he looks like? I take out the Death Note and write:
> OSAMA BIN LADEN - PUBLICLY RENOUNCES ISLAM, CASTRATES HIMSELF ON A LIVE BROADCAST.
No need for Seal Team 6, thank me instead.
Alternatively, I don't agree with Merkel's immigration policies. Bam, now she's dead. Anyone wants to continue her work? They're dead too. And all the while, they cannot figure out what's going on: It just looks like a series of completely insane coincidences.
The Death Note is insanely powerful. Forget crime, you can shape world history. What would happen if you wiped out the entire North Korean leadership? Or you killed anyone who dared to run as president except for your favorite candidate? (Or you could be more subtle about it, but I'm going for the crudest example here.)
What would happen if you killed Assad? I mean, it would lead to a big fight over who got to take over. Hey, what if you killed Obama? Then Hillary? Then anyone of (insert politics you don't like?)
I mean, let's say I made Anita Sarkeesian tearfully announce that she's a lying whore, and she stole everyone's money, before she hangs herself on livestream. That would be pretty convincing, wouldn't it? You have so much control over people with the Death Note!
No crime rates would definitely drop if there was a preternatural force that killed you rather than gaming the legal system.
It would be no different than if God made his presence known that he existed. Suddenly everyone would be better people knowing "hey I dont want to go to hell/nonexistence"
That's exactly what he meant by shaping. And yes you can shape history the same way Genghis Khan did.
With the death note you would have the greatest influence over mankind's fate than any other singular person ever.
LISTEN TO NEAR'S THEME
AND THEN TO "NANNOU" BY APHEX TWIN
THIS JUST BLEW MY FUCKING MIND
You don't get my meaning. When someone dies, everything he could possibly do never happens. It's like how JFK's death, Martin Luther King's death, Bruce Lee's death changed the fabric of society. These men could all have gone out to do great things.
More, the Death Note lets you control HOW they die. Let's say I made the Pope leap from the highest building of the Vatician, after giving a ranting speech that the Catholic church is a nest of pedophiles and sex criminals, and God will descend to punish all of them.
Now, imagine instead that his cause of death is "Suffers a heart attack, after giving a passionate speech denouncing all Muslims and calling for a Grand Crusade."
Do you really think that won't affect history? The first one would utterly ruin the Catholic Church as an institution. The second one could quite possibly start a war. (Note: I don't have anything against the Pope. I just want to give the most dramatic example.)
Okay, here's another: Let's say that I made the Pope say - "I am the last Pope. Any who would claim my title shall be struck down by God!"
Then I make this prophecy happen by killing anyone who's appointed to the role. Unless they do it in secret, and never announce who he is? Shit, man, it looks like The Big G is really doing it.
Genghis Khan ruled a sizable area in the world. Even with Death Note you will not achieve that. Sure,you can kill the president but you cannot change the next ones actions or fully predict them
I think that anon means you have limited influence no matter how great.
It's less shaping and more guiding.
For example with the president/politician case you could kill a bunch of people you don't like sure, but there's nothing to guarantee the people you do like will do anything of significance even if they are in power and there's nothing to guarantee they won't die naturally either since attempting to prolong life with the Death Note can just lead to a heart attack since the author didn't like that cop out.
So really it's an influence of negatives. You couldn't bring any positive change to the world, not naturally anyway. Genghis Khan didn't just kill a bunch of people he conquered, his conquest introduced cultural and genetic influence and so it's a very different thing. Most importantly you could only really influence human society as much and as far as you live.
You can. You can't make someone directly kill someone else with it, but it can indirectly cause a change in future events, that may even result in someone dying. This is explained in one of the rules, not sure if the anime showed it though.
> but you cannot change the next ones actions
Yeah you can. With the death note you can dictate people's actions for weeks before they bite the bullet. You aren't thinking big enough.
Executioners are already punished by the fact that they have to live with the memories of having committed the act of killing another person. Even if they believe it's justified, their blind emotions won't.
>Executioners are already punished by the fact that they have to live with the memories of having committed the act of killing another person
Then why do the society still wants to punish murderers when they are already tormented by their own "emotions"?
reasoned judges, much smarter than yourself, have grappled with the issue
>  Legal systems have to live with the possibility of error. The unique feature of capital punishment is that it puts beyond recall the possibility of correction. In recent years, aided by the advances in the forensic sciences, including DNA testing, the courts and governments in this country and elsewhere have come to acknowledge a number of instances of wrongful convictions for murder despite all of the careful safeguards put in place for the protection of the innocent. The instances in Canada are few, but if capital punishment had been carried out, the result could have been the killing by the government of innocent individuals. The names of Marshall, Milgaard, Morin, Sophonow and Parsons signal prudence and caution in a murder case. Other countries have also experienced revelations of wrongful convictions, including states of the United States where the death penalty is still imposed and carried into execution.
>  Awareness of the potential for miscarriages of justice, together with broader public concerns about the taking of life by the state, as well as doubts about the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to murder in comparison with life in prison without parole for 25 years, led Canada to abolish the death penalty for all but a handful of military offences in 1976, and subsequently to abolish the death penalty for all offences in 1998.
Not even Cheyenne Mountain can take a direct hit from the mainline stuff the soviets or chinese field.
North Koreans missiles are weaksauce, but they don't need the hit the US to be a deterrent, only South Korea.
This thread is full of shit but I'm fucking bored so I might as well reply.
Nice ad populum argument, faggot.
If everybody in, say, two thousand years were anti-Semitic and loved Hitler, his actions still wouldn't be "good" just because everybody says "he was a good guy".
Actually, I agree. THE ENDS, JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.
Happen in every single fucking war known to man, giving thousands of lives for one single purpose, breaking up families, destroying towns, cities with bombs or pillages.
The ends. justifies the means is something many people do every single day to live so what the fuck are you talking about.
Humans have killed other humans since the dawn of humanity as their natural course of action until some guys said it's wrong. It means killing itself isn't inherently evil, it's just "evil" because of a law humans invented.
Exactly, our actions in the world are not defined by good and evil until majority LABELS it good or evil.
If people in the future praise hitler and majority of the world agrees what he did was right then he was right, then who the fuck is the minority to say he wasn't? They don't have the power to force their beliefs on the majority so by all meaning of the term. Hitler was Right.
Do you think if something like morality (but not morality) which is purely based in opinion was always considered in a certain manner by all conscious beings forever that opinion would become a fact?
I've brought this up before but people always call it ad populum.
The majority literally thinks people like you are retards. Only a small minority actually thinks morality is just a label decided by society, the rest believe that good and evil actually exists regardless of what the majority thinks. How does it make you feel to be seen as a fool by the very masses who's opinion you care about so much?
What is this suppose to accomplish? You send a link to someone's OPINION. On a situation? Majority decides what's good and evil. I never said the got damn correctness of it.
If you're one of those pretentious douchebags who feels smart posting links and living off what others say about certain topics without challenging them yourself. Then I feel for you.
9 judges got together last Summer
5 of them decided that it would be evil to grant or deny gay marriage based on popular vote
5 people were sufficient to pass it into law. How does your theory of morality account for this?
>people always call it ad populum
That's because it is. An opinion can't become a fact. Period.
If everybody says that a green flower is red, it won't become red just because that's the opinion of everybody.
Empiricism only applies to experience, not judgments of said experience. If all conscious beings reported that there is a big red flying dragon then it would become a fact that this dragon exists, but any judgments about whether or not that dragon is "good" or "evil" is not up to them.
That's some nice headcanon. You think people are BORN with morality? No you fucking retard, you take a child from birth and raise him/her to be a serial killer, they will not say "This is wrong".
In our society, people are taught morality to be accepted into society and thus a part of the majority who lives life well off so long as they follow the laws and are abiding citizens. This is taught to you as a kid what's right and wrong. Because MAJORITY SAYS SO.
morality is not an objective fact. It all comes down to basic principles which are either accepted or denied
If you don't accept that people have a right to self-determination or bodily integrity, then your moral code will look very different from a person's who does.
As an example of what I mean let's take that Dragon thing.
For the dragon existing or not that's a whole can of worms about how the world exists is respect to consciousness so let's not get into that.
But say there was a dragon. And throughout all of time and space every conscious being had the opinion "that dragon is good".
In that case I propose that the opinion becomes a fact because it is impossible to ever come up with a different answer for "is the dragon good" than "yes".
People are born with empathy and the desire to not be a psycho asshole and as they mature those qualities become more pronounced. The desire to act in a "moral" way is physically hardwired into you. Sure, people can be trained to think certain things are ok but that requires that they become brainwashed so that they would act against their better nature.
>If everybody says that a green flower is red, it won't become red just because that's the opinion of everybody.
You are aware words are given meaning by man right? This is the problem here, you people think that these definitions, these terms, all this shit that makes you "logical" was just here. Opinions form, people put them to the test to see if they are fact. Words are given meaning by language that majority has to learn and follow.
So in all extensive purposes you just proved me right, if majority says red means red then you can't call a green flower red. Majority decides what things are, that is a fact.
>Majority decides what things are, that is a fact.
Stop saying this. The majority almost never decides things. People who have the power to make decisions and enforce them or have them accepted decide what things are.
Some of them, yeah. There's such a thing as benign neglect anon. There are instances where doing nothing will improve a situation more than interfering. "Best laid plans of mice and men" and all.
I specifically brought up the case of whether or not the dragon exists to explain empiricism, don't dismiss it you dumbass. We can only empirically verify whether or not something exists by relying on the experiences of a great group of people.
If "good" has a defined meaning then it can be wrong to claim that the dragon is "good", based on whether or not the dragon's nature is consistent with the concept of "goodness". If "good" has no defined meaning then the statement "the dragon is good" has no meaning.
>The desire to act in a "moral" way is physically hardwired into you.
Bold faced Bullshit.
There were civilizations that committed murdering sacrifices every other day, and some that still do in africa.
People are taught to be moral, it isn't hardwired into you, it isn't some shit your brain just creates. You have to learn it via family, friends, life experiences, etc. Not something just instinctual.
That doesn't surprise me, the majority of people still believe in deities and magic, no wonder they think good and evil are objective
None of this makes them less retarded though.
Since I don't believe in objective morality, allow me to say that, even if everyone embraced moral relativism, I wouldn't passively accept the views of the majority, and neither would anyone over the age of 12 or the IQ>100
I won't call you a liar for thinking that, but you are ignorant.
Empathy is hardwired. Empathy entails feeling what you perceive another being feels. By causing something to feel bad while also having empathy with them, you cause yourself to feel bad. This dissuades people from hurting one another and is the basis of morality across all cultures.
How can the very people who decide what's good and evil be disagree with the very thing that they're deciding? Society doesn't think good and evil is subjective, society thinks it's not up to people's whims to decide what's good and evil, yet what is good and evil is their decision?
Empathy holds many different forms in many different people. And Empathy can also be shaped by that person's view on life.
Empathy like any emotion is something the person can change or ignore. Empathy is not equal to Morality. I see what you're going for, I respect it, but I will say you are ignorant.
>We can only empirically verify whether or not something exists by relying on the experiences of a great group of people.
I'm dismissing it because like I said this is a whole can of worms I don't want to get into. For instance if every conscious being experience the dragon does that make it exist? What if the actual matter that they experience forming the dragon does not exist outside of their consciousness? Then it comes down to questions of what is existence in relation to consciousness which is a pain in the ass and not relevant to my point.
"Good" does not have a defined meaning for my example. It's an arbitrary concept that differs between everyone but it's the same in respect to the dragon, even though the same concept in respect to everything else could be different.
Quick question, if you had the opportunity to touch the touch and use the Death Note (knowing that the Shinigami was going to write your name) would you do it or would you walk away ignoring it.
Well I'd probably ask some questions about what it means that you can't go to heaven or hell. Iirc it said when humans die (normal humans) they go to "nothing" which doesn't seem to be heaven or hell anyways...
Anyways I'd probably end up using it but not nearly as much as anyone in death note and I would stay away from heart attacks most of the time and do pretty much all accidental deaths.
Obviously the mechanisms of empathy are very complicated and I'm not educated enough to fully understand it fully, yet the basic functionality described in my previous post exists pretty much for everyone who isn't personality disordered and it can be seen at work even when observing small children who were taught nothing.
Sure empathy is not the same as morality, but it is the basis for having good will to help people. People help each other because they want to help, not because they were forced into doing it.
Thing is, in our world there's no reason to truly believe in any divine retribution: we've heard those tales for thousand of years and nothing happened. The only justice that ever worked was the human one, but it has its limits and most people still committing intentional crimes do not expect they'd get caught. If criminals from all over the world suddenly started dropping like flies from odd causes, it'd be something unprecedented and most likely quite effective.
I would kill all those who made fun or me, mocked me, and used me.
My ex-girlfriend, the assholes in my high school, the pretentious assholes in my college now.
I would go on a killing spree with that notebook and would not feel a ounce of remorse. That's the thing about humanity, people talk high and mighty as if they're "good" people.
But when the chips are down and you stripe things they love from them, they'll turn to animals.
They (may) disagree because everyone has different standards based on which they derive their rules, whether you think morality is subjective or objective.
I wrote "may" disagree because, for the most part, the individuals in a society share the same values.
Anyway, in my book good is something that benefits people, evil is what hurts or oppresses people. Society is largely built around these principles, but unfortunately not completely, irrationality (not necessarily coming from religion) often gets in the way of proper judgment
Good doesn't just have no defined meaning in the dragon example, it has no defined meaning whatsoever in your life and philosophy. If good is just a passing trend then it has no meaning itself. I'm not saying you're an evil person, but you have no ethical framework. If I asked you why you do good deeds you would probably answer "because I feel like it".
According to your book if society decides that something that hurts or oppresses people is "good" then you are faced with a contradiction. Is it evil because it harms or is it good because the collective will of society deemed it so?
Not him, but morality (as in "harmful things you shouldn't do to others") is indeed hardwired into us and many other social species. It's a necessary evolutionary adaption that allows organisms to live and coexist in a larger community.
Are you talking about what the concept of "good" means to me specifically? Because I was talking about a hypothetical universe in which an opinion based in judgement and not reality shared universally and thus becomes a fact.
Of course the real person me has their own concept of "good" morality wise. For me it isn't a rigid definition but I don't think pretty mucdh anyone has a rigid definition to their concept of morality. I don't get why you're bringing my morals into this though it was never about that.
>If its true, it must be edge.
Funny thing is, what he said is right. You take away the shit people enjoy, love and have a passion for. You'll really see who they are in those sad times.
People are only as good as the world allows them to be, why do you think people in poverty are so bitter and angry most of the time, as opposed to those who live comfortably.
People and countries alike have actually overturned governments because they were treated like shit and denied the things they wanted or loved. Calling someone edgy over a fact of humanity is kind of retarded.
A normalized person. Knowing the end result of what happened to Light, this could sway people from ever picking it up.
Also the notion one person has that much power is another factor to consider. We very rarely have to make decisions that could impact a person's life and so imagine dealing with that on a daily basis.
What possible benefit will it ever give to you? It would only push you further down the line of insanity anon. Remember the Death God will be by your side until you die and so he will be always watching your actions. The concept of privacy is thrown out the window.
Utter nonsense. You pick it up and you will never be the same person. You can't pick it up and then decide to not use it because even if you don't use it the Death God will forever follow you.
"A god of death has no obligation to completely explain how to use the note or rules which will apply to the human who owns it unless asked."