ITT: """""villains""""" who did absolutely nothing wrong.
>Reduced the world's crime rate by 70%
>Killed criminal scum who were only burdens to society
>Literally just wanted a world where crime didn't exist
>Implying he wasn't the hero we needed and deserve
What's with people keep putting that many quotation marks around a word lately??
This thread AGAIN?
Light was wrong because his whole system is wrong.
He still needs a police force/investigation department to get to the crimes and determine who's the perp. That not only raises the uncomfortable question that he certainly killed dozens of wrongly convicted people and would continue to do so, but also the question of a democracy ruled by the "We the People", meaning: If the police force is the one catching and assessing the crimes/criminals why then leave the sentencing to a shadowy authoritarian ruler rather than the judicial system that answers to the people?
Basically if you believe in free will and ruling by the people for the people you have to admit Light was a direct threat to that philosophy and if you do support Lights methods you favor government control over your life and delegation of responsibilities and duties, which isn't necessarily wrong, I just rather the alternative and that preferably you did not have power to decide stuff in my society.
>Literally wanted to kill off all the 'lazy' people
They never explored that point, so I assume it is written out.
>he certainly killed dozens of wrongly convicted people
And this was never written in. Do you seriously believe that people can be wrongly convicted in a shounen manga that panders to Japanese police?
Pictured: heroic man as he's about to rid the world of the second worst girl.
>And this was never written in. Do you seriously believe that people can be wrongly convicted in a shounen manga that panders to Japanese police?
This is such a dumb retort. I can write a story about a guy that saves the world by implement full blown communism and everuthing wors out fine because it's my story and I say so. Or I can even write a story in which mandatory pedophiliac rape saves society because it's my story and I depict an utopic pedophile rape society where nothing "bad" ever happens.
The truth is, these problems are inherent to the ideas and if you want to have an honest argument about it you can't just pretend the problems don't exist because the anime doesn't show them. That means nothing. Using those rules ANY idea or philosophy can be "right".
>I can write a story about a guy that saves the world by implement full blown communism and everuthing wors out fine because it's my story and I say so.
No, it works out fine because communism is right. Oh, wait, ar you an amerifat? Opinion disregarded.
No, it's immoral because in order to implement communism you must steal labor from people. I hate to point out the obvious but theft is immoral. Also communism rewards lazy, worthless pieces of garbage and punishes hardworking productive people. That is also immoral.
TTGL is the greatest anime of all time and no one can convince me otherwise
Not necessarily my opinion, but many leftists argue that the "natural human behavior" you're talking about is not actually natural, but a product of society and ideology, so it can be changed in the long term if capitalism is replaced.
Light started out as arguably admirable. He did kill criminals that arguably deserved death. Who were both threats and drains on society.
However we all know there is inherent problems from the start.
One of the biggest oppositions to the death penalty is all about justice. Killing a single innocent person is not justice, so if there's even a chance some of the inmates on death row are innocent, then killing any or all of them can be seen as immoral and unjust.
However at the very least we can argue he was choosing the lesser of two evils to build a better society by overlooking this fact. He did stuff wrong, but more good than bad.
That said people forget prisons are not meant to punish but rehabilitate. Unfortunately US and lots of countries forgot that key point and punish which increases the rate at which people will continue to be a criminal.
That said light devolves into killing innocent people directly, trying to kill law enforcement, and killing people for lesser crimes. A person who stole out of desperation and got caught (I.e. stole money to feed their family) could be argued to be a good person as well, yet light eventually kills him to. A person who copes with depression with pot or other drugs but get's caught doesn't deserve to die. They deserve help.
Not to mention eventually Light starts threatening nations, and eventually wanted to move from criminals to "lazy people" and eugenics on a mass scale.
Serious answer here, all he wanted was his country to be prosperous but some selfish cripple had to fuck everything up
>cheer for brat boy when he's doing something important or trying to overcome something
>though they have tried to kill him without a second thought countless of times
>sometimes theses things even happen back to back in the same episode
They're doing something wrong.
He's an Uchiha. That's wrong enough.
One of the few villains who literally did nothing wrong.
I just pointed out a fact. Not whining.
Communism asks for the confiscation of all wealth in the state by the government and subsequent redistribution. What this necessarily means is that if you sit on your ass and do nothing you get the same amount of stuff as anyone else. It also means if you work a lot and thus produce a lot, you still get the same as everyone else, since anything and everything you produce belongs to the state and the state is the one that destributes the resources.
This is a direct punishment for productive people and also a direct reward to unproductive people. This is a fundamentally disagreeable philosophy.
Also, stop talking about capitalism. You are the only one mentioning it.
Even if you do the amazingly unrealistic assumption you can change human nature to get utopic communism it is still fundamentally immoral because there will always be people who produce more and are more important to society than others, thus theft will always exist in a communist society no matter how utopic it is. In my opinion if enforced theft is a staple of your society it autamtically ceases to be "utopic".
Communist approach: you do what you can, you get what you need.
Capitalist approach: you do what you can, some fuck gets what he needs.
The only people who spout bullshit you spout are the ones who are comfortable living off others. But you know, the ones who ore irnorant to others' suffering are also the ones who scream the loudest. I wonder how loud would your dying scream be.
>Communist approach: you do what you can, you get what you need.
>Capitalist approach: you do what you can, some fuck gets what he needs.
What a fucking platitude. Just stop embarrassing yourself.
>Europe today is getting more and more ill with nazism.
It's the other way around you dumb nigger
Europe is getting more and more infested with sandnigger due to Jews promoting multi-culti bullshit
Yes and here we have a likely white American on an anime discussion board saying multiculturalism is a bad thing, see the irony in that friendo
>Communist approach: you do what you can, you get what you need.
And that's wrong.
Let me use this example: Imagine we are both doctors. We are both employed in the same hospital. I'm a much better surgeon than you, maybe I studied harder, maybe I'm just smarter -- Who knows? Point is my surgery success rate is 95% and your's is just 57%.
Because of this patients overwhelmingly choose to be treated by me over you or other surgeons n matter how long they have to wait or how much they'll have to pay. The end result is I have a much heavier workload per day and save the lives of 200 people a month and you have only one surgery every other day and save only 6 lives a month, you also botched a few.
Despite this, because we are in a communist state you get the exact same paycheck as me.
Is this fair?
Also what incentive would there be for me to keep being as good? why would aspiring doctors study as hard to get their license? Why wouldn't I just botch my surgeries to stop patients from coming over to me? Why would anyone even try?
>Capitalist approach: you do what you can, some fuck gets what he needs.
First, you're still the only one mentioning capitalism. Second, that's a huge misrepresentation of the ideology.
>The only people who spout bullshit you spout are the ones who are comfortable living off others.
You don't now me. Stop projecting.
>But you know, the ones who ore irnorant to others' suffering are also the ones who scream the loudest. I wonder how loud would your dying scream be.
Watch that edge, anon.
Lelouch did nothing wrong.
There's a difference between appreciating other cultures from afar and literally mashing a bunch of different, inherently incompatible cultures together and expecting the results to be anything but disastrous.
>And that's wrong.
No that's what it is. Your example is either a blabber of someone whe never understood what communisn is or a piece of capitalist propaganda. In both cases you are not fooling anyone, self-serving capitalist leech.
>You don't now me.
I know what you showed to everyone in this thread: that you are self-serving capitalist leech.
Not that anon, but you two seem to be using two different definitions of "multiculturalism".
Usually /pol/ isn't against the existence of many cultures. Far from it. Actually by forcing or incentivising all different ethnicities and cultures together you'll end up erging them all into a one world culture. Meaning the de facto death of the mere concept of "multiculturalism" (ie many cultures). By promoting homogeny and keeping the different cultures and ethnicities you will preserve the many cultures we have and leave them relatively untainted. This obviously doesn't mean you can't go on vacation to wherever the fuck you want to to appreciate the different flavors around the world. Some may even choose to go live into other cultures. That's all fine, and actually this is the only way in which this is even possible as globalist multiculturalism means no matter where you go, everything will be the same apart from maybe the landscape/climate.
Lots of evil in the world and lots of people who do not deserve existence.
What's startling is that a lot of people on 4chan think Light is the only vigilante, or even popularized vigilantes.
Do you not comprehend the fundamental difference between the Internet and the real world? One is virtual and intangible, the other is the actual reality that you and me occupy. Me and you are never going to see each other and our paths are never going to cross. Multiculturalism being applied in real life means people who have been taught and raised in conflicting beliefs and values are in close proximity to each other, meaning there are actual consequences to be had, unlike on here.
Sure. Megalomaniacs usually do that. Not sure what this has to do with my original post at all.
Polite sage since this is clearly going nowhere.
Stop responding to shitposters.
Have you visited a heavily populated city before, there are many differing cultures forced together and they aren't all homogenous. Take nyc for example you can find most cultures and they've all been around each other for decades and the worst is that you get area of of them melding to form unique cultures altogether, while I do agree we shouldn't all be jammed together but sharing of culture and ideas allows innovation and new ideas to blossom
The "paycheck" in this case is a symbol for your reward.
Nice try at dodging the argument though.
>No that's what it is
I know that's what it is, And I'm saying that is wrong, as in, I disagree with it.
> Your example is either a blabber of someone whe never understood what communisn is or a piece of capitalist propaganda.
No, my example is a perfectly reasonable, if slightly exagerated for the sake of argument, depiction of a possible scenario under communist rule.
> self-serving capitalist leech.
Coming from a communist, that's really funny.
I disagree. I think you should get what you make for yourself. If I produce more, and society finds it valuable enough to buy my labor I earned it. If I don't produce, there's nothing for society to trade with, thus I don't get shit.
Ok, then lets jump a few decades into the future, where we are doing this talk in a VR enviroment and for all intents and purposes the barrier between what you do in the "real" world and what you do in the internet (communication wise) is very small.
What now? Even if your desire to keep culturally aligned people separted on a physical layer you will get heavy mingling of these people on a matter close to real life as means of communication advance.
Clinging to it like a little child instead of combating the arising problems in advance is nothing but stupid.
>The "paycheck" in this case is a symbol for your reward.
You are already wrong with the concept of "reward" thats what Im telling you.
The point is EVERYWHERE will be that leftist "one murder a day" shithole.
> but sharing of culture and ideas allows innovation and new ideas to blossom
Almost all great inventions I can think of don't seem to have any relation to the meshing of different cultures.
She did nothing wrong.
One of the most practical characters I've ever seen. Until authors drops that in 11 episode or so.
Neither modern math, or medicine, science, or psychology would be as developed as they are if it wasn't for the sharing of ideas between the middle east east Asia and western Europe friendo
And look how well that worked out for everyone under USSR rule! :^)
>You are already wrong with the concept of "reward" thats what Im telling you.
When you get paid, either with goods, services or currency, that's a payment, that's a reward. Unless in your utopia people can magically conjure up their goods and services from a mysterious ether, someone will have to provide them for you. That's a reward.
Multiculturalism is armonizing everything into a single greyish ugly mess, according to the false premise that different cultures can peacefully coexist and therefore be combined without problems.
Different cultures are amazing, each and every one of them, exactly because of their very diversity - they are to behold, not to mix together.
Exactly my point. It's because of the philosophy and ideology that was nested and held in the middle east at that particular time in history that they came up with the now universal numeric system. Sharing ideas and information is completely separate from the globalist multicultural question. Going back to that numeric system, we europeans ended up adopting it because we aknowledged it's superiority in working with maths. At the time we weren't integrated, quite the contrary, we were constantly waging religious wars, but we still had that exchange of ideas.
Is it that different to comprehend?
In an implemented utopic communism the concept of reward doesnt exist because it is not longer required. Its not a reward if it is apriori guaranteed that you will get it and if its independent of what you do. And thats also whats leading you to your faulty argument.
Communism as an ideal is basically defined to be the perfect and ideal state, which makes it at the same time absolutely unachievable.
The point that an implemented utopic communism (which is an unachievable premise, but lets disregard that for aguments sake) is not a faulty system by its very definition.
>And look how well that worked out for everyone under USSR rule!
Worked well until a certain shithole(pic related) hadn't come to rule the USSR.
Communism made my motherland great again. Made she Superpower from decaying corpse of the empire.
And now look at Russia now. It's almost the same decaying corpse it was in the late 10's.
>Ok, then lets jump a few decades into the future, where we are doing this talk in a VR enviroment and for all intents and purposes the barrier between what you do in the "real" world and what you do in the internet (communication wise) is very small.
That's just a hypothetical scenario that sets itself up for too many variables. I'm talking about the the here and now, and the real, palpable effects on society that multiculturalism has yielded:
Things like the violation and abuse of women by those from a completely different culture that teaches them women are inferior and must submit to them,, the constant attacks on innocent people by those from a different culture, perpetrated in the name of a different belief that teaches them anyone who doesn't adhere to said belief doesn't deserve to live, the restriction and dilution of native cultures that are done in order to appease those from a different culture, etc etc.
That's no bogeyman and it's not hypothetical. These things are actually happening, right now, and they are all derivative from the notion of multiculturalism that has been pushed down people's throats for over a decade now. If different cultures are made to mix and mingle to such an extent, then eventually violence will occur. It's just common sense to know this.
If we act aggressively towards those other cultures tho we'll discourage the sharing of new ideas I'm not saying we all need to be one but we need culture mixing on some level or at least to stop acting like people from another place are monsters when in this modern world we rely on each other especially economically
Just because you chose to change what you call something doesn't mean it ceases to be that thing.
You have to eat. Unless you are a farmer or a herder or a fisherman, someone will have to provide and grow that food you eat.
Some farmers will produce more than others. Every farmer will eat the same. You see the problem here?
If the wealth pot of any given system is 100 and there are 10 contributors, and everyone gets 10 pieces of the pot, unless everyone contributed 10 to the pot theft will necessarily happen. Bottom line.
You can choose to believe that's a necessary immorality for the greater good and that's your problem, but you can't deny there will always be theft within Communism.
Yeah, tell that to all the prosporous nations from eastern europe.
Communism was a failed experiment. Now it is clear what the flaws are with it. You are free to aknowledge them or ignore them.
>lets not think about the future but only about the now! - the post
Since this very discussions has already occured over a thousand of times I dont feel like typing it out all again, but you guys are seriously retarded if you think its the right way to forever struggle to stay in some kind of fictive pre-globalization past instead of moving on and preparing for the future.
>Communism was a failed experiment.
Communism works well for Motherland. Like democracy works well for the USA. What fails is the intention to spread communism or democracy to others.
I feel like I've had to defend this man more then any other
You fighting a ghost. No one said to be aggressive towards other cutltures or depict them as monsters. I'm not even saying that you can't go live in Jpan if you prefere its' culture and society. Just don't force it and don't promote it and people will naturally converge with their group.
This does not mean you can't be friendly to outsiders and share knowledge and information with them, the opposite actually.
Look at Japan, they're one of the most homogenous countries on the planet, and look at all the stuff they now have that was imported from, in this case, western society. In some cases they even surpassed us on some industries and now we're the ones importing and learning from them. This is all fine.
So you'll be fine with me going into your room right now and take your anime machine, right? We're all comrades anyways, right? :^)
The point is we're not talking about working or not (whih incidentally communism doesn't work) we're talking about right and wrong. Communism is wrong and immoral.
Eh it's about as shit and edgy as these threads usually are just a different kind of edge
>lets not think about the future but only about the now! - the post
Stop it. Using a strawman like that won't make your argument any more valid. Greentexting my post and summarising it through trivialising misrepresentation just makes you look like an immature kid.
But how do the events that transpire in the present not affect the future in some way? Of course they do, that's why it's important to address the current events that are occurring and doing the best we can to combat the negative impact of them, as well as mitigate the circumstances that said events are born from in order to make sure they can't happen again.
You might think saying "move on and prepare for the future!" sounds nice and sweet and all, but really, it just sounds like an empty slogan a political party would slap onto a poster for their campaign.
Some people will be hurt but a purging of degeneracy was all for the better
>A few /pol/lsters visit /a/
>post Hitlers to disrupt
>The /a/ community is in love with based Japan and therefore incline in egaging a similarly outstanding level of civility and politeness
>An actual and constructive debate is born
I love you guys
And people say nothing constructive comes out of this place
Any institution that calls itself Just cannot exact death penalty upon no one, by doing so it would be accountable of the crime of killing someone.
Light is a person, not an institution so this rule applies to him even more, he was not a hero, he was a deluded madman and a criminal far worse than any of his victims
>doing so it would be accountable of the crime of killing someone.
You do know that there is both legal and illegal killing, right? Murder would fall under the latter, while the death penalty would fall under the former.
I'm on your camp in thinking Light was wrong, except for slightly different reasons>>144584519
How would you argue that an institution or person sentencing someone else to death is inherently immoral?
I mean, what if a person has an incurable mental condition or they are just violent pieces of shit that are hell-bent on killing and wrong-doing everytime they can with no remorse, isn't it better to just take him out rather than expending resources encarcerating someone who will never produce anything of value?
>could have reinstated the Emperor
>could have made Japan great again
>could've make people focus on what's important
>could've become a politician
He only needed to use the note sparingly
>durrr I am a God *tips fedora* who will make a perfect world a reality by killing everything I don't like!
Fucking materialistic, atheistic, nihilistic, progressive tard.
Light was a mistake.
>i-i was just pretending to be retarded n-newfag haha
Because someone who does nothing isn't infringing on someone else's liberties while a compulsive murderer, rapist, etc. is?
And if you have good reason to believe they will never change and will keep infringing on peoples rights and lives it's probably better to cleanly take his life rather than spending tax-payers money keeping someone who's whole objective is to fuck everything up alive. No?
If not, why not?
If morality is the basis of your point, then it's just as easy to say that it's immoral to deliberately allow criminals to live while they effectively leech off the hardworking people through taxes.
It's not about being legal or not, it's about being Just or unjust. Legality does not imply Justice, one's state's law can be unjust.
You do realize that these are the theories written Cesare Beccaria's "De Delitti e delle Pene" and not ''empty talk'' right?
You are seeing society as something superior to the individual, so for you everyone who has no value in society has no value as an individual, however I think that an individual's worth is not measured by any mean by the value that he has inside a structured society.
Plus by making him a victim of Death penalty you are imposing the responsibility of killing the criminal on the executioner, who is forced by law to become a murderer himself.
>It's not about being legal or not, it's about being Just or unjust. Legality does not imply Justice, one's state's law can be unjust.
But justice is an entirely subjective concept, what you feel to be unjust can just as easily be seen by other people as the right thing.
And that is the source of our problems, the fact that we are having this discussion stems from the impossibility to determine an objective Justice.
For me for example Justice is found in the teachings of Jesus.
I would also like to add that by no mean the Just path is the easiest or the most functional path, rather it can be one that is not actually attainable, however it is proper to try and achieve it.
I personally don't subscribe to the teachings of Christianity, or any religion in general. I don't believe it's practical to try and attain the unattainable, especially in regards to religion, where there are so many countless different belief systems and worldviews; like you said, it would be impossible to try and come to a consensus on what is and isn't right or just.
There's probably never gonna be a solution to the various problems in the world that can be universally agreed upon. That's why I think the only semi-viable option there is to take is to peruse your own notion of what is right.
>Mr.I'm gonna nuke your planet and enslave a few of your people, then sell your planet for money I likely don't even need.
Freiza is probably one of the coldest cock suckers out there.
>That said people forget prisons are not meant to punish but rehabilitate.
And unless we're talking about teenagers who steal mars bars, this barely ever works. We need to move away from that Enlightenment optimism: some people are simply so rotten to the core or so corrupted by an ideology that preaches the death of others
like Islamthat they are beyond rehabilitation. Their prison sentences exist purely to remove them from civilized society, to ensure these twisted minds can inflict no harm... and even then inmate-on-inmate violence is pretty insane especially in America. Hell, America even has a unique culture of prison rape.
This rehabilitation talk is all fine and dandy for people who don't want to lose their faith in humanity and throw the veil of ignorance over their own heads. The biggest example of this not working isn't America, but France. 7% of the population is Muslim, but 70% of its inmates are Muslim. And often Muslim inmates leave prison more radicalized than they entered, effectively making prisons state-financed terrorist education. The reintroduction of the guillotine would provide a much more effective solution.
Not if that's the way the taxpayers decide to do things through a democratic vote.
>You are seeing society as something superior to the individual, so for you everyone who has no value in society has no value as an individual, however I think that an individual's worth is not measured by any mean by the value that he has inside a structured society.
>Plus by making him a victim of Death penalty you are imposing the responsibility of killing the criminal on the executioner, who is forced by law to become a murderer himself.
I'm not puting society above the individual. If someone steps on another individual's rights and liberties he deserves punishment. If that individuals steps on other peoples rights and liberties hard enough or enough times, taking out that individual rather than nursing him might be worth considering.
Also the executioner as any other free citizen can choose to not do it.
>He can choose not to do it
But in the end someone has to, it might not be him but as long as there is an execution there will be an executioner.
Also, I agree that a punishment is due, however in my opinion it would be better an extensive punishment rather than an intensive one, that way the criminal has to live the rest of his life with the burden of his sin.
>But in the end someone has to, it might not be him but as long as there is an execution there will be an executioner.
Yes, but if the individual is doing it willingly and he obviously will receive any legal punishment for it, then it becomes a non-issue since he accepts the moral implications of his act.
Also, I can't say you are wrong, I guess we just disagree on the issue.
>/a/ has better /pol/ threads than /pol/
Putting aside the entire moral/ethical dilemma of whether it's right or wrong to kill criminals, Light did a lot of shit wrong, and almost all of it had to do with L.
He took obvious fucking bait that helped the police and L reduce the number of potential suspects from "could be literally anybody or anything" to "it's a student-age person living in this prefecture of tokyo with access to police records meaning it's probably a kid with a cop parent".
Dumbass honestly should've lost there.
Kinky Innocent man who only desired a quiet life gets bullied to death by school children.
Oberstein did nothing wrong. He saved countless lives by allowing the civil war to end when it did and ensuring that Reinhardt would take control.
>People in this thread actually defending Communism
he made a miscalculation, he only did things morally questionable but he did have the people's interests at heart.
Throughout the series there was always doubt that because he was emotionally stunted this equaled a bad person.
He killed a lot of people and he was going to rape a 14 year old girl, but in some way i can agree with you
This is the moment where I knew Light was truly lost. Getting a little hissyfit on L's preliminary catching him was the first one, but I didn't mind since it was a deathrow. Even then, he still tried to kill an innocent with no remorse whatsoever.
That's particularly wrong in this case since he wasn't even killing her because he thought she was bad or anything. Light killed her specifically and exclusively out of self-interest. There was no noble intentions even by his POV.
>Started to murder allies of justice because they were getting close to discovering him.
>He literally failed hiding a power that should be undetectable.
My biggest issue with death note is it's almost amazingly simple to never be discovered.
Step 1: Make sure killings are random. Furthermore test on people outside country or region at first. Furthermore kill 1 person in every country possible as a test all dying at the same time. Keep things random, kill people in X country for a week, then switch it up.
Step 2: Never take bait. Don't fucking kill someone who is claiming they are going to catch you.
Done. For someone as smart as Light those two steps should of been fucking obvious.
Nobunaga did nothing wrong
Ikko-Ikki genocide best day of my life
Everything before time skip is generic, and pretty shoddily done if you don't combine it with the time skip. On it's own, with the time skip to follow up, it's nothing but generic garbage, and boring generic garbage at that. After the time skip though, is when it comes into its own and becomes great. Without the over the top post-timeskip premise, Gurren Lagann would be forgotten as a flavor-of-the-month mecha
His quest for justice would end if Naomi's information reached L. Worse, at that point Light had no way of knowing if L wouldn't abuse the Death Note if it fell into his hands. Light's actions were justified in this case.
No, they really weren't. He killed an innocent women because he was afraid to face the consequences of his actions. He was a coward.
A truly virtuous man, even if he thought he was doing the right thing by killing criminals illegally, when faced with the scenario would not under any circumstances kill an innocent person and would rather deal with the effects of everyone's actions.
Is this what ribbit is like? Self driving cars are not going to be here anytime soon. This isn't going to magically happen one day and everyone will be fucked. It will be a slow progression.
You forgot you just admitted you're wrong.
Whether it's a slow, medium, or rapid progression(Truth lies in the middle) it will occur and will happen.
What you said agrees that it will happen and utterly defeats any argument for light killing "welfare queens".
>this person stands in the way of my noble goal
>but she hasn't done anything bad, so I'll do nothing to stop her and let her actions result in my death and the end of my plan
Yeah no. Light didn't have a lot of room for finesse. Naomi had to be stopped there and then.
We have robots that can make music, write articles you read now, diagnosis better then doctors can, self driving cars here now and slowly progressing to perfection, and you fail to see that robots would eventually do delivery, shipping, general purpose tasks?
How much of a shitposter or moron are you?
So you subscribe to the idea that the ends justify the means then, even if the means are immoral and even poentially in direct contradiction to your values?
If so then that means he is still an immoral degenerate who stands for what he thinks is right only until it no longer is convenient to him. Not to mention the only reason he "needs" to kill her in the first place is due to his incompetence and carelessness by being cornered so thoroughly while having a huge advantage.
Spot the lying kike.
go back to (((reddit))) kid.
At least google before you try to post something.
You could post something like having free will(Which is an illusion that robots can eventually emulate like us).
>It's about "muh goals".
I'd argue that the reason you do something is just as important as what you do. A goal is meaningless if there's no intent or reasoning behind it.
Bottom line is: He killed an innocent women. He instantly becomes on e of those pieces of shit he so wants to rid the world of. He should've written his name right after hers, if he really believed what he was doing was right.
did you know that in japan, once youre suspected of a crime, you're most likely to go into jail?
>Killing a single innocent person is not justice
>so if there's even a chance some of the inmates on death row are innocent, then killing any or all of them can be seen as immoral and unjust.
Guy was bored with his thousand year bender of influencing war and genocide, and just wanted to crash. Possessing a sweet kid with severe self-worth issues only further justified his actions.
ok ... I think Light wanted only good, but his greed made him make mistakes out, what spoiled all what he tried to do good. In the end he became the only "bad genius" that Ryuk had said.