Was he right?

Damn right he was.

>>89901144
No. America is the best and ypu need to keep non christians/whites out to keep it like that

>>89901204
Die you idiot racist nazi pig. Die.

>>89901276
Thats why we won

Of course. Only filthy commies and nazis disagree.

>>89901144
Depends.

Timely comics cap thought America was already great.

Stan lees Marvel always been more socially liberal.

>>89901399
I see a new claim for why "he won" almost every thread. "It's the SJWs!" "It's the political correctness!" "It's the economy!" "It's the brown people!" "It's memes!"

Well which fucking is it, /pol/?

File: 3779149-no-you-move-cap-says.jpg (127KB, 1152x814px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1152x814px

Yeah.

This speech, on the other hand, is one that could be used for evil just as much as for good.

>>89901694
A mix of those + wanting jobs that aren't ever going to come back

>>89901882
Ultimate cap, timely cap, hydra cap are closer to the first cap.

>>89901702
Who even wrote this? How did they not look at it at any point in the writing and notice that it could literally be used about anything?
Think being gay is wrong, but everyone else say's it okay? "No you move."
Think the jews are a scourge upon your country, but the rest of the world think they're okay, and that you need to be stopped? "No you move."

>>89902311
Morals are subjective.

T. Classical liberalist.

>>89902409
I'm not saying they aren't. Just that it can so obviously be used for something that Cap would absolutely not agree with, that it's completely out of his character to say something like that.

>>89902571
Not to me.

He said something similar in the older comics about it.

>>89902765
What do you mean not to me? It can be used to justify any action, simply by saying you're right, and they're wrong. It can be used to justify the fucking Nazi regime.

>>89901694

your unending childish butthurt. And the ACA being a shitfest.

>>89902311
>>89901702
The point isn't that "No, you move" makes you automatically right. The point is that you shouldn't change your belief because of mob rule, which is true. What is popular is not automatically right. What wins an election or a war is not automatically right. If you know something is right, you have to stand up for it.

>>89902997
>If you know something is right, you have to stand up for it.
That is what the Nazi regime did when everyone told them to stop. They knew they where right, so they tried to force everyone else to join them.
I know the intention of it, but it can still be used to justify anything, because anything can be seen as right or wrong by anyone.

>>89901702
yeah it's not a great speech

it's been scrutinized since the comic was published almost a decade ago.

I mean, none of you in the thread remember that because you were 5 but it was a pretty big discussion amongst the fandom about how it was a pretty ham-handed speech since you could switch it and make it about any ideology

>>89902571
It's not out of character. The context is that Spider-Man asks him how he, a man who embodies the country, can continue fighting when the country itself seems like it's against him. Cap quotes Whitman, clarifying to Spidey that the country is not the laws or the press or the courts, it's everyone. So basically, Spidey asks "How do you keep fighting when everyone tells you you're wrong?" and he's replying "Because I'm not."

>>89901144
>America is nothing without it's ideals.
>So let's mass import millions of people who don't share those ideals.

File: image.png (727KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 1024x768px

>>89902873
Here.

>>89903143
>country is everyone
>everyone tells cap he's wrong
>but he's not cause...

that's some no-logic anon

>>89903090
What? The Nazis battered and killed those who opposed them. The problem was that everyone else was passive about the Nazi takeover. Countless people just let it happen.

Also, did you not even read the first sentence of my post?

>The point isn't that "No, you move" makes you automatically right.

It's not a justification. It's saying that you shouldn't change your mind just because people are telling you to stop. Cap isn't saying you should never change your mind - but that popularity or emotion or violence doesn't make something right.

>>89903239
Everyone as an individual, not everyone as a mob.

>>89902997
I think the base idea of not giving in to mob rule is fine. But the way it's worded: "I'm right no matter what anyone else thinks". It's eschewing reasoning and compromise

>>89903312
That's not how it's worded, though. You can't say it's worded that way when it's not.

>>89903292
when does everyone go from a group of individuals to a mob

serious question, is it when they do something that you don't like? Is it when they break the law? Is it when they do something you agree with?

Everyone is still an individual in a mob, they just have a shared goal.

I don't see how the Cap speech promotes the individual when it in and of itself is a blanket statement about "morality".

>>89903381
So popularity makes something right to you, then?

>>89903423
no, of course not

but neither does something "unpopular" makes it right because it's against the norm

I think you have to look at each situation individual and look for a specific solution instead of blanketing it as "if I don't like it, and stand up for it, then that automatically makes it right and the moral choice".

>>89903517
>but neither does something "unpopular" makes it right because it's against the norm

Cap never asserts this, though.

>I think you have to look at each situation individual and look for a specific solution instead of blanketing it as "if I don't like it, and stand up for it, then that automatically makes it right and the moral choice".

Cap never asserts this either.

>>89903360
"Stand up for what we believe in, no matter the consequences"

His speech assumes he's right. Which is fine when he is. But there are plenty of people who are wrong that would argue the same way.

File: All_American.jpg (102KB, 499x669px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 499x669px

>>89901204
That really un american to say anon

>>89903143
>he's replying "Because I'm not."
Still feels like a weird thing for Cap to say, since anyone can say that about any action.

>>89903217
He's talking about opinions here. The other quote can be used to justify actions. "No I won't stop killing people. I think I'm doing the right thing, so fuck off."

>>89903261
>The Nazis battered and killed those who opposed them.
And they did that because they saw themselves as being in the right, and everyone else where wrong. It was them saying "No, you move."

>It's saying that you shouldn't change your mind just because people are telling you to stop. Cap isn't saying you should never change your mind - but that popularity or emotion or violence doesn't make something right.
I agree, but it's worded in such a way, that anyone can look at the quote, and use it to justify anything.
It can be "Yeah, people say I shouldn't be gay, but fuck them, I'm going to do what I think is right."
But it can also be "Yeah, people say I shouldn't kill 'Insert group of people here', but fuck them, I'm going to do what I think is right."

>>89903622
>His speech assumes he's right

No, the condition of the argument is that he's right. He's not saying "I'm always right," he's saying "If I'm right, I'm going to stand up for what I believe and not cower just because it's unpopular or makes me a target."

>>89903582
I never said cap said those things, I was answering your previous statement based on the dialogue of what we were discussing.

Molymeme, I know you just want to say "not an argument" and put me in can't cuck the tuck vol. 69 but it's an argument over the use of force in relation to morality and when it should be implemented. There's not really a right or wrong answer so I mean, we can discuss this for hours or we can agree to disagree and just take different interpretations from the text.

>>89903696
>Still feels like a weird thing for Cap to say, since anyone can say that about any action.

Yeah, almost like people can disagree and have the freedom to do so or something! Wild, right?

>But it can also be "Yeah, people say I shouldn't kill 'Insert group of people here', but fuck them, I'm going to do what I think is right."

And that's why we have discourse and arguments, not popularity contests, to determine as a society what rightness is. By your logic, "Oh, well, everyone thinks being gay is wrong, so I shouldn't be" or "Oh well all those Nazis are saying genocide is cool, so it must be" is a legitimate statement. It's not. That's what Cap is saying. You can't just predicate rightness on popularity or social cost.

>>89903803
>I never said cap said those things, I was answering your previous statement based on the dialogue of what we were discussing.

If you're not implying that Cap said them, why are those statements relevant? Are you conceding that Cap is right, here?

>>89903805
I'm not saying that popularity makes right. But the way what he says is worded, makes it so that people should stop doing things, simply because people tell them to. Why should I obey the laws if I don't agree with them? Just because a bigger group of people does? Fuck you and your shitty laws, I don't believe in them, so I won't follow them.

I agree with what he's thing to say, but not the way he said it. It's a good argument, worded in a dumb way.

>>89903975
makes it so that people shouldn't stop doing things*

>>89903975
>Why should I obey the laws if I don't agree with them?

Ask anyone who smokes weed outside of the few places where it's legal. Or a woman who gets an abortion even though it's illegal. Or gay folks who have sex in places with sodomy laws. Or slaves who ran away before the emancipation proclamation. If you think a law being a law makes it just, you seriously need to reevaluate your ethical thinking.

>>89903852

those statements were relevant because you asked my opinion on if "popularity means that a decision is always right" which I answer truthfully.

Cap was never a part of that specific dialogue since you asked me about MY personal beliefs not my interpretation of Caps.

I'm not even arguing Cap is wrong in this situation, I'm simply saying an individual can't assume his morality is justification for opposition.

Like in this dialogue we are having, You are right in your mind, I am right in my mind. We have both planted by the stream of truth and will not move. Who's right? Who decides what's right? If it is the individual that we are both equally right then we both will not move, if it is a higher power we have to wait on Him to give us a sign and let the one who is wrong "move"

>>89904169
>I'm not even arguing Cap is wrong in this situation, I'm simply saying an individual can't assume his morality is justification for opposition.

If a moral reason is not a justification for opposition, what is? What reason have you to oppose genocide if not morality?

>>89903696
Nope. He is saying stand there. Peaceful protest and never giving up.

>>89903805
then why are liberals still screaming about popular vote. checkm8 libcuck.

>>89904418
Because the electoral college isn't a measure of rightness either.

>>89904131
Or the people who kill someone because they cheated on them. Or the husband that beats up his wife. Or the gangs that collects money from local stores so that they don't trash them.

>>89904228
That might be what he meant, but that is not what that quote is saying. It's never sated that you have to fight for your beliefs in a peaceful way, and it doesn't account for beliefs that are about something harmful being right. He's simply saying that no matter how many people say you're wrong, as long as you think you're right, you shouldn't change your mind, simply because people say you're wrong.

>>89904471
>Or the people who kill someone because they cheated on them. Or the husband that beats up his wife. Or the gangs that collects money from local stores so that they don't trash them.

So you agree, then, that the legality or lack thereof is independent of the rightness of an action?

>>89904550
>So you agree, then, that the legality or lack thereof is independent of the rightness of an action?
Well, yeah. Never said it did. I'm saying that Just because a bunch of people say that I shouldn't kill people, it doesn't make it wrong either. And according to caps quote, if I thought it was right to kill people, I should stand up for that belief, no matter how many people said it was wrong.

>>89904226
That is an interesting argument and I commend you for it.

I dare say that an individuals morality is a product of their surrounding community. Humans intrinsically have a concept called "empathy" which allows us to connect with another person who is outside our family and offspring. With empathy, others in our community have value and they value us. With this mutual value, we contribute to each other out of "empathy". This lead towards, marriage, community, cities, countries etc. Now, we as individuals have needs that have to be met, and desires that we wish to be met.

All other people have these two criteria and luckily all humans have the same basic needs ie. Food, Water, Shelter, and Sleep. Since we all have these basic needs we all work together to fulfill these needs more easily than we could if we did them individually for ourselves. Outside of needs, we have "desires" which is things like Companionship, Love, Entertainment, Expression, etc.

>>89904661
>And according to caps quote, if I thought it was right to kill people, I should stand up for that belief, no matter how many people said it was wrong.

If you genuinely thought something was morally right, why WOULDN'T you stand up for it? Because a lot of people said no?

>>89901144
The president decides what America stands for, and you either fall in line or you fall into a grave.

Now fuck off. This kind of libshit propaganda isn't going to be tolerated in this country for much longer.

>>89904778
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

― Theodore Roosevelt

>>89904812
Fake saying

>>89904840
Nope.

http://www.snopes.com/theodore-roosevelt-on-criticizing-the-president/

>>89904812
who cares what some faggot literally who thinks, trump would have destroyed him

>>89901399
>*won the electoral votes with margins in the thousands and lost the popular votes by over 3 million

Wow what a significant win.

>>89904868
Babyhands would've gotten BTFO by Teddy.

>>89904868
-1/10

>>89904858
shut up

>>89904726
Right? That's why the quote is weird, because it can be used so that anyone should stand up for anything they believe in, be it helping others, or committing genocide. He's literally saying that if you believe that if you believe in something, it's your job to stand up for it, and this includes beliefs like genocide.

>>89904908
>gets proven wrong
>tells the person with the facts to shut up
all are trump supporters like this

>>89902903
You say butthurt, but it seems to be the trumpfags that are whining nonstop. Nothing your glorious leader does it ever good enough, huh?

>>89904899
how can someone who is nicknamed after a teddy bear be a threat to our god emporer

>>89902409
"Classical Liberal" means "Retarded Conservative" fyi

>>89904909
Again, you are saying the quote is a justification for any action when it's not. It's not a justification for an action at all. It's saying that you can't just back down because of popularity. Do you think popularity is the be all, end all of rightness? If not, then you agree with Cap. You're being willfully obtuse here.

>>89904712
These "desires" are what separate us from the community and strain "empathy". Like, imagine how I might like baseball while you like swimming. we might not "understand" each other's entertainment but we can support both while still fulfilling our individual desires.

Now, I had to explain all of this so I could fully tackle your question. In the idea of "genocide" something specifically happens, one's "needs" can only happen at the expense of another's "needs"

Now, also with genocide, the act conflicts with our basic "empathy" and that's what causes mental conflict that we could say is "moral conflict". But, we are not the ones committing the genocide. If the individual is the one committing genocide and he believes he's right to do so, whether it is to protect his children, property, business etc. against another group of people who endanger that, that is being "right" if his goal is to protect those things BUT

>>89904974
Either you're retarded, or this is bait, which would also make you retarded. Good job putting yourself in a lose/lose situation.

>>89905005
Retarded conservative is redundant.

>>89905046
He was joking you fuckhead. Everybody's making fun of conservaniggers itt

File: noice.png (100KB, 241x207px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 241x207px

>>89905072

It was all of those and more. It was the memes.

>>89905029
But it is. It can be used by anyone to say that they should fight for what they believe is right, no matter how many people say they're wrong. If you think you're right, it's your job to stand for what you believe in. It doesn't matter what Cap meant when he said it, the way he said it means that anyone can stand up for anything they believe in, and that includes anyone that thinks genocides justified.

>>89901844
this desu

They won because normal people are far more sick of your shit then their's.

>>89901702
>this again

The idea is that you need to believe in yourself despite what everyone says. That's really what it is. Of course you can take a simple speech such as "believe in yourself" and apply it to something irrational like shooting up a mall or destroying the world.

There's nothing wrong with the speech but just like anything else it can be used for the wrong purposes. Like religion.

>>89905035
to the ones being genocided who want to live and propagate, integrate etc. the act of killing them is morally wrong which I, personally, agree with because of what my "community" agrees with and my personal morality.

BUT, if I was the one killing an entire race and all those around me AND my personal morality said that this was right and morally sound along with not conflicting with my empathy for others (easier said than done with personally conditioning or insular thought) how would I know that I am wrong? If you came to me and tried to stop me, and all of this that I said above is true to my upbringing and community than it is YOU that is wrong by Cap's reasoning process proposed by this statement BECAUSE I am right to ME and MY MORALS which is, unfortunately, the most important

Now, I do not believe that genocide is ever the answer BUT I can see how an individual could if his scenario and morals and needs were all endangered/ just the right way.

>>89905207
> It can be used by anyone to say that they should fight for what they believe is right, no matter how many people say they're wrong. If you think you're right, it's your job to stand for what you believe in.

Why is this wrong? Would you really not stand up for what you believe in, if you truly believed it was right?

>anyone can stand up for anything they believe in, and that includes anyone that thinks genocides justified.

They CAN. You bring up genocide because you and I think genocide is wrong. But that's the entire fucking premise, there. It's their right to believe that and stand up for or it and our right - -and as cap says, our DUTY - to stand against it because we know it's wrong. If we didn't think it was wrong, we wouldn't think twice about it. That's how ideas work, from the most righteous to the most horrible.

>>89903666
>Superman and Cap have adventures fighting the evils of modern society and bro it up while talking about ideals

Give it to the right writer and it could be fun. Thanks for the idea, Satan.

>>89905207
Seriously, you are straight up saying that genocide would be okay if everyone said it was.

>>89903131
I disagree. What it comes down to, is, where does morality come from? And that there is NO objective arbiter of morality. No authority, media, popularity, government that is the final word on morality.

>I know the intention of it, but it can still be used to justify anything, because anything can be seen as right or wrong by anyone.
That's the way cap's idea of morality works.

>>89903217
Precisely, cap is willing to stand up for the rights of even fucking nazis to express themselves.

>>89903239
No. Everyone telling him means nothing to whether cap is right or wrong.

>>89905280
so I guess in the grand scheme of things, of course, the whole world could be wrong, we've seen it before and hindsight is 20/20 when we look back at the decisions of our forefathers but what Caps speech doesn't bring up is that the INDIVIDUAL could also be in the wrong while the rest of the world is correct.

Being unable to put your beliefs under scrutiny is a dangerous thing since if we never allow them to be tested in a philosophical sense, in the real world we could cause real damage that can never be taken back or healed.

So, just because a moral is tested doesn't mean it's wrong but better to test it than to make a mistake.

>>89904899
That's not saying much. There's 2 presidents maximum that could toe that line.


>>89905397
Interestingly enough ,the ending of civil war is exactly that. A bunch of police and firefighter run up to steve and tell him he's wrong, and he stops. And then he gets shot in the head.

Of course the ending is also completely fucking retarded, but that's a separate point.

>>89905397
>what Caps speech doesn't bring up is that the INDIVIDUAL could also be in the wrong while the rest of the world is correct.

It doesn't need to bring it up, it's implicit. The whole point is it doesn't matter how many people - zero or all - say it's wrong. That doesn't affect the rightness.

>>89905373
>I disagree. What it comes down to, is, where does morality come from? And that there is NO objective arbiter of morality. No authority, media, popularity, government that is the final word on morality.
>
>>I know the intention of it, but it can still be used to justify anything, because anything can be seen as right or wrong by anyone.
>That's the way cap's idea of morality works.

I agree with you fully, my argument is a morality has to be challenged. Not even the individual has the final say on morality since morality is in a CONSTANT state of change as we learn more about the world around us and the people in it. That's the dangerous aspect that's not brought up by Cap since the train of thought is
>my morality is right because I find it to be my morality
it's circular logic

>>89905508
He doesn't get shot in the head, you fucking casual. He gets jailed, rants at Tony about what an Iron Fascist he's being, gets shot in the shoulder by Crossbones on the way to the courthouse, and then hypnotized Sharon Carter shoots him into the past with time bullets.

>>89905310
I get where you're coming from, and I get the meaning of the quote. I just think it's worded in a weird way, and that it feels so ambiguous that it's a weird thing for Cap to say. You might disagree, but so be it.

>>89905352
Point for me, to where I did, because I didn't.

>>89905555
That's not the train of thought, though.

>>89905522
>It doesn't need to bring it up, it's implicit

if it is implicit than why are we having this argument? Why is this whole thread having this argument?

If it was implicit we would have mutually understood the exact meaning of Cap's speech and not even have this discussion.

>>89905580
You said

> the way he said it means that anyone can stand up for anything they believe in, and that includes anyone that thinks genocides justified.

Which means you think that if everyone said genocide is okay, as opposed to currently, where everyone says it's wrong, it would be okay, which is the fucking opposite of the meaning of Cap's quote.

>>89905593
Would you please tell me what the train of thought is then since I would like to see where you are coming from

>>89905625
>if it is implicit than why are we having this argument? Why is this whole thread having this argument?

Because people take the conclusion to a large, multi-page speech out of context and think they're oh-so smart to shit on the ideal of "stand up for what you think is right."

>If it was implicit we would have mutually understood the exact meaning of Cap's speech and not even have this discussion.

The existence of an implication is not dependent on the perceptive ability of the audience.

>>89905655
The train of thought is

>Right and wrong don't come down to popularity and they shouldn't

>>89905630
No it means that if one person think genocide is right, it's their job to stand up too the people who thinks they're wrong, no matter how many people that might be, which is exactly what cap said. I never said that the more people think something is right or wrong, then it is right or wrong. Nothing is inherently right or wrong, so anything can be right to the right people. Standing up for what you believe is right means standing up for what you believe is right, and that can include genocide.

>>89905825
>Standing up for what you believe is right means standing up for what you believe is right, and that can include genocide.

That is what it means, yes. That is, in fact, why we judge right and wrong based on argument and discussion, not simple popularity. You think that people thinking genocide is wrong is what makes it wrong. That is not the case.

>>89905874
>You think that people thinking genocide is wrong is what makes it wrong
I have never said that either.

>>89905912
Yes, you did. You said that Cap's statement about popularity not being a sufficient reason for rightness is wrong, therefore you think popularity being a sufficient reason for rightness is true, therefore you think that what makes genocide wrong is that a lot of people think it's wrong.

>>89905671
>The existence of an implication is not dependent on the perceptive ability of the audience.

to "imply" something is an individual response different for each person.

Think of someone that is staring at your personal bank account behind you in line at an ATM. The implication is that they are considering stealing from you OR they are so socially ignorant that they do not understand staring at someone's bank account are rude, both could be right if we never know the person's actual intent since the "implication" comes from another individual.

>Because people take the conclusion to a large, multi-page speech out of context and think they're oh-so smart to shit on the ideal of "stand up for what you think is right."

if you aren't willing to at least have what you "think" is right be tested by others in a safe, controlled way such as this that is where I have my issue.

>>89905968
>if you aren't willing to at least have what you "think" is right be tested by others in a safe, controlled way such as this that is where I have my issue.

But Cap doesn't say that what you think shouldn't be tested. He says the exact opposite. Everyone thinking one thing doesn't mean that thing should be tested.

>>89905701
well, that's great, I agree in a broad sense.

but in a specific scenario, I don't feel that is always true and is dangerous since an individual can be wrong just as much as the majority

>>89906028
> I don't feel that is always true
So you DO think popularity alone should determine rightness, in some cases?

>>89906018
and I agree that the inverse is true as well while you're statement is also true

they are not mutually exclusive which again, is where I feel Cap's speech doesn't cover and I take my issue

>>89905962
I never said that his idea that popularity doesn't make right is wrong. I said that he said it in such a way that anyone can take anything from it, and I don't think Cap would say anything that could so easily be spun to hurt people. Nothing is inherently right or wrong.

>>89906106
But an individual person is a part of everyone. Cap's speech absolutely covers it. You're being contrary just to be contrary.

>>89906069
>So you DO think popularity alone should determine rightness, in some cases?

In highly specific cases, yes. Just like in other situations the individual along determines rightness in some cases.

The situation is what dictates it that is where the gamble of what is "moral" comes to play.

>>89906136
> I said that he said it in such a way that anyone can take anything from it
No, he didn't. Again, you are assuming this is a justification, when it's not. It's just saying that popularity alone does not determine rightness and that you SHOULD stand up for what's right. You are twisting it to mean something else to be contrary.

>>89906170
>In highly specific cases, yes.

What is a situation in which popularity should determine moral rightness?

>>89906191
>It's just saying that popularity alone does not determine rightness and that you SHOULD stand up for what's right.
That's the problem. Different people see different things as being right. Which mean that anyone can take anything from it. If a person thinks that hurting some people in some cases is right, then he will take that quote as saying that he should stand up for that since it's right.

>>89906291
Tell me why hurting people is wrong other than that you believe it's wrong. You can't. That's the whole fucking point.

Read the Twain passage that Cap quotes before this page, which no one ever links, so you've probably never read it, and understand.

>[I]n a republic, who is "the Country"? Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant--merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. Who, then, is "the Country"? Is it the newspaper? is it the pulpit? is it the school superintendent? Why, these are mere parts of the country, not the whole of it; they have not command, they have only their little share in the command. They are but one in the thousand; it is in the thousand that command is lodged; they must determine what is right and what is wrong; they must decide who is a patriot and who isn't.

>Who are the thousand--that is to say, who are "the Country"? In a monarchy, the king and his family are the country; in a republic it is the common voice of the people. Each of you, for himself, by himself and on his own responsibility, must speak. And it is a solemn and weighty responsibility, and not lightly to be flung aside at the bullying of pulpit, press, government, or the empty catch-phrases of politicians. Each must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, and which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide it against your convictions is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.

>If you alone of all the nation shall decide one way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country--hold up your head! You have nothing to be ashamed of.

File: 1343012728917.jpg (40KB, 526x300px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 526x300px

Love all the people who post that the fucking President is going to crack down on dissidents and shit, as if that's at all a possibility for him.

Nope.

>>89906424
>as if that's at all a possibility for him
The only thing preventing him is his incompetence.

>>89906137
an individual is not a part of everyone when he exerts his individuality, he is the other.

A dialogue/ argument takes two entities that are trying to reach an understanding based on a disagreement. An entity that already agrees with itself doesn't ever partake in an argument but an individual who takes issue with the entity (even if moments before they were APART of the entity) does start the dialogue

Caps speech in Civil War skips the dialogue aspect of disagreement and so no possibility of changing minds or compromise can happen no matter how small, it goes straight to defiance and that is where my issue lies.

If a dialogue happens and no agreement can be reached AND the disagreement reaches to the point where force is the only way to REACH agreement then yes, Cap's speech is correct but that was never our argument

>>89906440
>President not sending military to silence people who oppose him is "incompetence"

>>89906444
>an individual is not a part of everyone when he exerts his individuality, he is the other.

This is a false premise. Everyone, as an individual, forms the normative pole of epistemology.

>Caps speech in Civil War skips the dialogue aspect of disagreement and so no possibility of changing minds or compromise can happen no matter how small, it goes straight to defiance and that is where my issue lies.

You're wrong. See the Twain quote here: >>89906377

>>89906459
No, the president wanting to because he's a fascist but being unable to effectively do so because he's a gibbering simpleton is incompetence.

>>89906377
I'm not saying that hurting people is wrong. But I'm pretty sure that Cap would think so, at least in most cases. Which is why I think it's weird for him to say it.
But that quote makes what Cap says make more sense. I guess the panel that is being discussed was deliberately picked alone so that it can be taken out of context. My bad for not taking it as just a part of a speech.

>>89906620
>I'm not saying that hurting people is wrong. But I'm pretty sure that Cap would think so, at least in most cases. Which is why I think it's weird for him to say it.

But that's the whole point. Cap doesn't think hurting people is wrong because everyone thinks hurting people is wrong. He thinks hurting people is wrong because it's his morality and he'd always stand up against it. That's exactly what he's saying there. Tony's group, in his eyes, is saying it's okay to hurt people. Cap doesn't think so and, despite public opinion being turned against him, he still stands up for what's right. He says "No, YOU move."

>>89902903
Idk why the Trump voters arent pissed honestly
Personally I hated hillary and couldnt vote for her, just couldnt do it. Didnt vote for Trump either.
But if you voted for trump cause hed "drain the swamp", then hows that cabinet lookin? How about voting for him cause he would help the economy... cause that aint happening at this rate. Or what about people who voted for him for job creation?

But lets just wait a few years and see how bad it gets for the most desperate people. Maybe eventually theyll realize Trump tricked the right like Obama did the left. Humbe pie tastes like an ass sandwich.

>>89906740
Humble*

>>89906226
well let's go with this scenario and see how it holds up

Let's say that I believe in the ideals of the American Court system and even if a guilty man is found innocent he should be let go free and treated as innocent. Let's also say that I believe that family is very important and any damage done to my family should be dealt with as if it was done specifically to me. Let's also so I witnessed my wife be killed by a man I can identify and now personally who did it with no shadow of a doubt and I do the right thing, I tell the police, he is arrested, put on trial and unfortunately the jury finds him NOT guilty because of a lack of evidence and me being an unreliable witness due to poor eyesight etc.

>>89906793
So you think that if the jury convicted him despite a lack of evidence, that would also be just by virtue of being the popular.

>>89906863
in this scenario, yes since in the hypothesis there is no dispute that the man in question killed my wife since this scenario is being devised by me and is designated as the one who killed my wife.

So while I am correct, the majority uphold the morality that "better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be unjustly detained if there is a shadow of a doubt" while morally, I would argue that I would be right because my wife should have justice for being killed unjustly but my actions would harm a bigger moral that is arguably more important and held by the majority

>>89906715
What I mean is that the part that is just in the pic can easily be taken by some people that it could mean that they should stand for the right to hurt people in some way, simply because they think it's right. I personally see Cap as being good enough with words that he wouldn't say something that could so easily be spun around as to mean that people should stand for something that he doesn't agree with, ae. hurt people. But the Twain quote gives us more to work with, and makes it so that it can't as easily be spun around, making it make a lot more sense for Cap to say.

>>89907024
>in this scenario, yes since in the hypothesis there is no dispute that the man in question killed my wife since this scenario is being devised by me and is designated as the one who killed my wife.

Either the lack of conviction is just or unjust. You can't have it both ways.

>>89907027
Look, I get what you're saying, but at no point in the picture does Cap say that people aren't entitled to stand up when they disagree with him. The opposite is stated.

>>89906506
Cap doesn't quote the entirety of the Mark Twain speech

He quotes a piece of it. Since we are talking strictly about Cap's dialogue, which he doesn't attribute to Twain, quote fully, or even say in the precise way I can't agree that what Twain writes and what Cap says line up 100 percent in intention

>>89907163
>Cap doesn't quote the entirety of the Mark Twain speech

He quotes the part I quoted in that post verbatim and attributes it to Twain in the preceding pages.

>>89907088
the idea that a single act can be both just and unjust based on my morals of family retribution and the upholding of court proceedings MEANS that I have a conflict. Do I stand up and try to kill the man who killed my wife, Do I stand up and say that the jury's decision should be upheld and respected.
I can't do both but they are both the 'right' thing to do, so what do I do? I would have to change my morals and choose one over the other, unfortunately. In Cap's speech, the idea that morals conflict isn't a part of the equation and so it can't be used in all situations

>>89907368
>In Cap's speech, the idea that morals conflict isn't a part of the equation and so it can't be used in all situations

But that's completely wrong. The whole context is exactly about conflicting morals.

>>89907129
>but at no point in the picture does Cap say that people aren't entitled to stand up when they disagree with him
I don't really think that either. I just think that Cap wouldn't have said something that could so easily be taken in the wrong way, and as such he would most likely have worded it better, if it was just the quote in the pic. But having the whole quote changes that fact since it can no longer be be turned around so easily.

>>89907183
not verbatim, he paraphrases. That's the issue I have.

Cap is not real, I can not ask him to clarify his statement. Even asking Strasinzki wouldn't necessarily shed light on what Cap's words are meant to convey. We have to discuss Cap's speech like this, just like scholars discussed Twain's writing back in the day to try and find an undestanding

>>89907402
it's two conflicting morals from two outside forces

not conflicting morals coming from the same individual.

>>89907477
>not verbatim, he paraphrases
No, in the preceding pages, he straight up quotes Twain verbatim.

>>89907511
No, the context is that Spider-Man is conflicted because he believes Cap is right but is aware that Tony and the others think Cap is wrong. He asks Cap how he deals with that conflict of being the embodiment with the nation while being at odds with what the nation at large thinks.

>>89902409
What the hell is the 'T.' thing anyway?

>>89901702
Thomas Jefferson said something similar, but in much fewer words.

"In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principal stand like a rock."

>>89907561
Okay no he's not

there is not source cited, a page taken, exact edition read etc.

it's an interpretation of a country' s purpose by Mark Twain, interpreted through Straczynski, interpreted through the mouth of cap in a specific situation in a comic book, interpreted by me and you

Even the minor word choices he uses/omits from the original Twain piece slightly changes how it was put down by its original creator so we can't equate that what Twain thinks about morals is what Straczynski thinks of morals is what cap thinks of morals is what you/me thinks of morals because each interpretation morphs the original intent like a game of telephone

>>89903217
"If you are not offended at least three times a day, you are not living in a free country."
-I cannot remember for the life of me.

>>89907788
Yes he fucking is.

https://lowbrowcomics.com/2015/05/15/captain-america-speech-civil-war/

You can read the original here:

web.mit.edu/norvin/www/somethingelse/twain.html

>>89907875
so you know the exact way that fictional character Captain America meant to quote and convey Mark Twain in Civil War and as a meta comment on the idea of morality and the individual in today's society in the year of 2017?

>>89907613
and in that exact scenario, guess what, Cap is correct.

I assert that using this form of morality wouldn't work or would be correct in a good deal of situations in the year of our lord 2017. That's it.

>>89907946
Yeah, because I have basic reading comprehension and can support my arguments with evidence from the literature.

>>89908005
I counter that argumentum ad populum remains fallacious in all instances.

yep

>>89907697
Finnish meme

>>89901941
the greatest cap quote, undoubtedly

>>89901144
The reason America is great because of what makes it America: the people, their ideals, and opportunity. Without those, the flag and borders would stand for something else. I don't like America is great because of nationalism or an undying gratitude to a government/imaginary lines but because of the cultures and landscapes and people here. I think this is all common sense, it's just that people get it all muddled up because of manipulative rhetoric between political parties.