Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

We've been hearing the protests from Storm, Beast, Nightcrawler ect about the formation of X-Force for a while now. Various rants condoning Cyclops decision to put X-Force in play, Beast was so disgusted by X-Force that he left the team and Storm went as far as to say that the only thing separating them from their enemies was semantics. Seriously? Is a preemptive strike on people hell bent on genocide really "crossing the line"? In my mind X-Force is pretty clearly a Counter Terrorist unit... can Beast and Storm honestly not see the distinction between Counter Terrorism measures and wholesale murder? Seriously? Is the issue solely with the use of lethal force? Some times lethal force is the only option. Do Storm and Beast have of the same opinion of Police Officers and Military Personal, as they do X-Force? Because that would be a pretty narrow outlook. I'm really having a hard time understanding where they are coming from on this. Their stances just seem absrud to me... particularly in the light of Second Coming, which does nothing but cement the fact that Cyclops made the right decision.

What do you guys think, are Beast and Storm right? You decide, X-Force: Counter Terrorists or Murders?

Whether they are a good decision or not (i personally can see the justification for them), I think Cyclops made the decision for bad, not well thought out reasons, which for me says that it was the wrong choice at the time for HIM personally.

I do think they serve a valuable purpose, though, and while they do some pretty bad work, they're no different from the likes of Delta or such other organisations imo...

The bad guys they are trying to kill are trying to kill many innocent and unaware people, where as X force are stopping this from happening permenently. So I think they are very different from their targets, not only seperated by semantics or whatever.

But I do think killing them is wrong, they should imprison them or take away their powers or something

Storm is delusional and the fact of the matter is she wasn't there and Beast is just butt hurt.

Given the current situation it was necessary although he did not utilize his resources properly.

Originally posted by Omgu8mynewt
The bad guys they are trying to kill are trying to kill many innocent and unaware people, where as X force are stopping this from happening permenently. So I think they are very different from their targets, not only seperated by semantics or whatever.

But I do think killing them is wrong, they should imprison them or take away their powers or something

A lot of them had no powers, they should have just brainwashed them over and over again.

They're a bunch of murderers, Scott will be drinking wine with the Red Skull soon enough.

(Wait for it.....



Shadowland X-men version!)

Originally posted by Bentley
They're a bunch of murderers, Scott will be drinking wine with the Red Skull soon enough.

(


That would be the single greatest plot development and scene in the history of the X-men.

Good for them. Now if Batman could just man the **** up and grow a pair and so the same thing...

^ I was actually going to point that out some people have a problem with Batman killing but not X-force. Whats going on there?

Many people are just automatically adverse to change, and their cognitive dissonance will subconsciously generate justifications for their dislike of it. I can assure you that if Batman had started off from the very beginning killing every mother****er he came up against he'd still be popular, and no one would care. It's because he doesn't normally kill that people flip out when he does. "zomg that's not in character for Bruce rabblerabble!" By that same token if Punisher decided to just never kill anyone again, Punisher fans would lose their minds.

No one likes massive changes to popular and well established characters. Spiderman. Black? *hiss hiss sputter*

Well the X-Men are in charge of a sovereign nation (and before M-Day they where all XSE) so they are in a different place than Batman. As good as he is, Batman is merely a cog in a system but the X-Men are the system. The X-Men are running a country, they police them selves and run their own prison system, where as Batman works inside the confines of the established criminal justice system.

I think Batman should kill when necessary or to save a life, I don't see why he should be held to such radically different standards than police officers. It's a very dated bs "Comic Code Authority" view that should be updated.

People became upset with the idea of Batman killing because it's against his character, not because they deemed it morally wrong. Different matter entirely from the X-Force discussion.

Storm and Beast had to be upset, because someone needs to be upset with major changes, else there's very little internal drama to write from. They're high-profile enough for it to matter to the X-books. Irrational disagreement with something that isn't terribly outlandish isn't anything new to comics.

Who's "they" Digi out of curiosity? You mean the fans?

beast was also upset about the whole him being tortured and scot just allowed it untill it was convient for him to stop it.

Originally posted by Digi
People became upset with the idea of Batman killing because it's against his character, not because they deemed it morally wrong.


From my experience thats quite incorrect.

Originally posted by Digi
Different matter entirely from the X-Force discussion.


You sure about that?

Originally posted by Deadline




You sure about that?
I think there is. For one x-force was promoted as a kill team. It members are also known for killing people neither of which batman is.

Originally posted by Deadline
^ I was actually going to point that out some people have a problem with Batman killing but not X-force. Whats going on there?

because they're different characters. that's all really.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Many people are just automatically adverse to change, and their cognitive dissonance will subconsciously generate justifications for their dislike of it. I can assure you that if Batman had started off from the very beginning killing every mother****er he came up against he'd still be popular, and no one would care. It's because he doesn't normally kill that people flip out when he does. "zomg that's not in character for Bruce rabblerabble!" By that same token if Punisher decided to just never kill anyone again, Punisher fans would lose their minds.

No one likes massive changes to popular and well established characters. Spiderman. Black? *hiss hiss sputter*

it's called consistency. which is as true of most people as it is fictional characters.

Originally posted by Digi
People became upset with the idea of Batman killing because it's against his character, not because they deemed it morally wrong. Different matter entirely from the X-Force discussion.

Storm and Beast had to be upset, because someone needs to be upset with major changes, else there's very little internal drama to write from. They're high-profile enough for it to matter to the X-books. Irrational disagreement with something that isn't terribly outlandish isn't anything new to comics.

Originally posted by Battlehammer
I think there is. For one x-force was promoted as a kill team. It members are also known for killing people neither of which batman is.

I think you're jumping on the bandwagon.

Originally posted by Deadline
I think you're jumping on the bandwagon.
I am jumping on a bandwagon? Becuase I disagree with your post?

honestly you need to stop being so sensitive all the time. Your point you made is not correct plain an simple in my opinion.

For one batman has never been sold as a killer.

X-force was sold as a kill team.

Batman does not for the vast majority kill and actual has made several claims it against his code.

Majority of x-force are stone cold killers, mercenaries that have no problem with killing or people who literally have a personality that personify death.

Batman is not X-force there not remotely similar.

Originally posted by Battlehammer
I am jumping on a bandwagon? Becuase I disagree with your post?

honestly you need to stop being so sensitive all the time. Your point you made is not correct plain an simple in my opinion.

For one batman has never been sold as a killer.

X-force was sold as a kill team.

Batman does not for the vast majority kill and actual has made several claims it against his code.

Majority of x-force are stone cooled killers, mercenaries that have no problem with killing or people and personify death.

No you're jumping on the bandwagon because you probably think Batman should kill but you've suddenly changed your mind....


Originally posted by -Pr-
because they're different characters. that's all really.



it's called consistency. which is as true of most people as it is fictional characters.





If thats your justification fine. Many people have agreed with what Batman does becuase they think its moraly correct and not because of his character.

Originally posted by Deadline
No you're jumping on the bandwagon because you probably think Batman should kill but you've suddenly changed your mind....




If thats your justification fine. Many people have agreed with what Batman does becuase they think its moraly correct and not because of his character.

i don't. i believe in assassinations, torture in certain situations, and have the opinion that certain people have to die.

just because i think they're justified, though, doesn't mean i think other people should think that. batman doesn't, so imo he should reman consistent to his character.

Originally posted by Deadline
No you're jumping on the bandwagon because you probably think Batman should kill but you've suddenly changed your mind....



Really because you know what I am thinking right?


For starters what I stated never disagreed or agreed that Batman should kill. What I was stating was your concept that people believing x-force should kill, but then having problems with batman killing to be hypocritical. Becuase the fact is X-force series and it members are sold as and moralistic views on the world are vastly different then Batman.


As for batman killing I could careless though, if he became a killer it should be done in a similar way as shadowland daredevil.

For Batman people need to realize that though he a character that seems to border upon the grey lines of the law. He is second perhaps to none, perhaps other then superman in his moral convictions it always seemed in my opinion.

Originally posted by Battlehammer
For Batman people need to realize that though he a character that seems to border upon the grey lines of the law. He is second perhaps to known perhaps other then superman in his moral convictions it always seemed in my opinion.

superman has killed more people than batman has, so i might put batman ahead of him tbh...

Originally posted by Battlehammer
Really because you know what I am thinking right?


For starters what I stated never disagreed or agreed that Batman should kill. What I was stating was your concept that people believing x-force should kill, but then having problems with batman killing to be hypocritical. Becuase the fact is X-force series and it members are sold as and moralistic views on the world are vastly different then Batman.


As for batman killing I could careless though, if he became a killer it should be done in a similar way as shadowland daredevil.

You are using the term hypocrite incorrectly. Anyway if thats what you think, fine.


Originally posted by -Pr-
i don't. i believe in assassinations, torture in certain situations, and have the opinion that certain people have to die.

just because i think they're justified, though, doesn't mean i think other people should think that. batman doesn't, so imo he should reman consistent to his character.

Well alot of people think he should make an exception with the Joker and Batman has made exceptions before, not sure if its out of his character anyway.

Originally posted by -Pr-
superman has killed more people than batman has, so i might put batman ahead of him tbh...

Interesting. Elaborate?

Originally posted by Deadline
You are using the term hypocrite incorrectly. Anyway if thats what you think, fine.




Well alot of people think he should make an exception with the Joker and Batman has made exceptions before, not sure if its out of his character anyway.



Interesting. Elaborate?

batman doesn't make many exceptions if any, though. given his beliefs and his previous actions, any sort of murder is definitely out of his character.

Superman has killed: Doomsday, Grundy by accident, three kryptonians, a sentient robot too iirc.

Sets up for another interesting debate:

Character consistantcy vs. Character Growth and development.

When is it okay for a character to change?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Sets up for another interesting debate:

Character consistantcy vs. Character Growth and development.

When is it okay for a character to change?

when it's within their sphere of ability imo.

like, i could see batman becoming a darker person, but not a stone cold killer.

Originally posted by -Pr-
when it's within their sphere of ability imo.

like, i could see batman becoming a darker person, but not a stone cold killer. And then after becoming darker slowly becoming a killer would be more plausible or still out of character? Now I did say slowly so I'm not talking about an over night thing.

Originally posted by Creshosk
And then after becoming darker slowly becoming a killer would be more plausible or still out of character? Now I did say slowly so I'm not talking about an over night thing.

it would have to be due to massive emotional trauma imo. the only problem is that with batman, he takes almost everything in his stride. i can't see any trauma breaking him to the point that he would be a killer.

Originally posted by -Pr-
batman doesn't make many exceptions if any, though. given his beliefs and his previous actions, any sort of murder is definitely out of his character.

Vampires, Darkseid and apparently he tried to kill Ras.


Originally posted by -Pr-
it would have to be due to massive emotional trauma imo. the only problem is that with batman, he takes almost everything in his stride. i can't see any trauma breaking him to the point that he would be a killer.

You didn't read IC where almost killed Alexander Luthor? Yes killing the Bat family would send him over the edge. Superman needs to be mind-wiped.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Who's "they" Digi out of curiosity? You mean the fans?

You didn't see any of the comical backlash when Bats killed Darkseid, with a gun of all things? I didn't think I needed to spell it out. Nobody argued that it was immoral, just that it was out of character even for such a situation.

Originally posted by -Pr-
it would have to be due to massive emotional trauma imo. the only problem is that with batman, he takes almost everything in his stride. i can't see any trauma breaking him to the point that he would be a killer. So sort of like what made Cyclops from
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb6/Enteithegreat/WolverinevsMM2.jpg

To the new X-factor right?

Originally posted by Digi
You didn't see any of the comical backlash when Bats killed Darkseid, with a gun of all things? I didn't think I needed to spell it out. Nobody argued that it was immoral, just that it was out of character even for such a situation.

Even I would argue that its out of character like you said he tried to kill him with a gun. Hmm then again he almost killed Alexander Luthor with a gun...

Im also not sure if Batman killing non-humans is out of character though.

Originally posted by Deadline
Vampires, Darkseid and apparently he tried to kill Ras.




You didn't read IC where almost killed Alexander Luthor? Yes killing the Bat family would send him over the edge. Superman needs to be mind-wiped.

vampires aren't alive. darkseid was his big exception. he's ALMOST killed plenty of people, but for whatever reason stopped.

it was because dick was hurt. not the bat-family. BIG difference. plus, bruce ended up not doing it. nearly doing something doesn't prove that he would take the next step.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So sort of like what made Cyclops from
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb6/Enteithegreat/WolverinevsMM2.jpg

To the new X-factor right?

no. that's just shitty writing.

Originally posted by -Pr-

no. that's just shitty writing. Which one? The telling wolverine that if he kills he's the enemy, the emotional turmoil Cyclops went through since then, or the assigning wolverine to be a killer?


Mind you I'm not arguing with you on Cyclops. That would just be silly.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Which one? The telling wolverine that if he kills he's the enemy, the emotional turmoil Cyclops went through since then, or the assigning wolverine to be a killer?


Mind you I'm not arguing with you on Cyclops. That would just be silly.

just the way it was handled. if cyclops had made x-force as a knee jerk reaction to messiah complex and the danger mutantkind was in, i wouldn't have minded. the fact that he was so calculated about it just irked me, and was out of character.

Originally posted by -Pr-
vampires aren't alive.

Of course they are. They are sentient, intelligent and they feel pain. Just because there different from humans doesn't make it any different.


Originally posted by -Pr-
darkseid was his big exception. he's ALMOST killed plenty of people, but for whatever reason stopped.

Well why can't Joker be an exception millions of lives isn't enough?

Originally posted by -Pr-

it was because dick was hurt. not the bat-family. BIG difference.


P Nightwing is part of the Bat-family. Im talking about a situation where Nightwing and others got killed.


Originally posted by -Pr-
plus, bruce ended up not doing it. nearly doing something doesn't prove that he would take the next step.

Sure it does. Nightwing got badly injured Batman almost killed him, therefore a worse situation could push him over the edge.


Originally posted by -Pr-
just the way it was handled. if cyclops had made x-force as a knee jerk reaction to messiah complex and the danger mutantkind was in, i wouldn't have minded. the fact that he was so calculated about it just irked me, and was out of character.



I don't know about that, there were events that started to slowly piss Cyclops off eg crucifying mutants on the X-lawn.

Originally posted by -Pr-
just the way it was handled. if cyclops had made x-force as a knee jerk reaction to messiah complex and the danger mutantkind was in, i wouldn't have minded. the fact that he was so calculated about it just irked me, and was out of character.

I'll admit that I haven't really read the arc, but is it possible that its a little of column A and a little of column B?

That there was the initial desicion to do this based on the messiah complex, but after that he began to calculate what needed to be done?

It would be a little difficult for me to see someone I veiw as being so strategically brilliant to just give in to a knee-jerk reaction and that be the end of it.

Now you're still the expert and perhaps I'm not really seeing cyclops the way he is and am over looking some of the character flaws in regards to strategy.

Originally posted by -Pr-
it's called consistency. which is as true of most people as it is fictional characters.



Thanks for... complimenting my point? I love you PR.

It doesn't give me a lot of hope though, if people would prefer that Batman is consistently stupid. *sighs* Fans...

Originally posted by Digi
You didn't see any of the comical backlash when Bats killed Darkseid, with a gun of all things? I didn't think I needed to spell it out. Nobody argued that it was immoral, just that it was out of character even for such a situation.

This is the only comic book related site I go to, and I spend less time in this little section then in almost any of the others on the forum. So, yeah you need to spell it out, otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
This is the only comic book related site I go to, and I spend less time in this little section then in almost any of the others on the forum. So, yeah you need to spell it out, otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

No worries. I was just surprised. Final Crisis b*tching was as big as any irrational fan reaction in recent memory, never more so than Batman's actions during it.

With all the stuff that's went down in FC, it surprises me that him killing Darkseid with a gun would garner that much attention. I wonder what people expected him to defeat him with... a batarang?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Thanks for... complimenting my point? I love you PR.

It doesn't give me a lot of hope though, if people would prefer that Batman is consistently stupid. *sighs* Fans...



This is the only comic book related site I go to, and I spend less time in this little section then in almost any of the others on the forum. So, yeah you need to spell it out, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. People love characters for what makes them who they are. One of the appeals of certain characters is CIS. Some people find it stupid when characters don't know when to keep their mouths shut. Others find this an appealing character trait.

I know I like mouthy characters.

If you change certain attributes about a character they are no longer that character.

If batman suddenly started running around wearing a black bodysuit with a big white skull on the chest, no mask and started using guns to kill all of his oppponents he would no longer be batman. And those are only two character traits the costume and the weapon use.

I'm not referring to stupid in a sense like having a character quirk. I'm referring to stupid in the sense of "being a hero" with everyone in your universe licking your nuts like you are some kind of hero when in reality, looking at it from an out of universe perspective, you basically allow criminals you capture to kill innocent people later by putting them in the same prison they've broken out of 5,000 times prior, so often to the point where you expect them to break out and kill people later, ad yet you still just drop them off at the same prison once you catch them, like it's a daycare.

That's the type of stupidity I'm referring to, not a cheesy type of stupidity or a Deadpool type of stupidity, it's more of a constant PIS type of stupidity. Now, yes, I agree with you that even that could be something that people just find attractive about the character, which is fine. I don't find it appealing at all though, personally. I think it's annoying that the Joker, some fool with no super powers, is still alive killing innocent people every other Friday because the people in charge of policing him won't do what needs to be done, for fear of "crossing their own line". I like my heroes to act heroic, my anti-heroes to act in a gray area sort of way, and my villains to act like villains. *shrug*

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm not referring to stupid in a sense like having a character quirk. I'm referring to stupid in the sense of "being a hero" with everyone in your universe licking your nuts like you are some kind of hero when in reality, looking at it from an out of universe perspective, you basically allow criminals you capture to kill innocent people later by putting them in the same prison they've broken out of 5,000 times prior, so often to the point where you expect them to break out and kill people later, ad yet you still just drop them off at the same prison once you catch them, like it's a daycare.

That's the type of stupidity I'm referring to, not a cheesy type of stupidity or a Deadpool type of stupidity.

Yes thats my beef but I just put it down to him being a comic book character. You got to create a reason for Batman villains turning up in the books, but when people try to morally justify it.....man.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm not referring to stupid in a sense like having a character quirk. I'm referring to stupid in the sense of "being a hero" with everyone in your universe licking your nuts like you are some kind of hero when in reality, looking at it from an out of universe perspective, you basically allow criminals you capture to kill innocent people later by putting them in the same prison they've broken out of 5,000 times prior, so often to the point where you expect them to break out and kill people later, ad yet you still just drop them off at the same prison once you catch them, like it's a daycare.

That's the type of stupidity I'm referring to, not a cheesy type of stupidity or a Deadpool type of stupidity. I think insanity is the word you're looking for, though stupidity could certainly be a valid descriptor, hence character induced stupidity. (CIS)

Part of the problem is that the villians themselves have fanbases in the real world. The company could no more kill off a popular villian then they could kill off a popular hero. Because then they'd have to come up with a new villaian and it'd piss off the fans of that character.

...

At which point killing the villian becomes equivilent to arresting them. They're dead/in jail until they ressurect/break out.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I think insanity is the word you're looking for, though stupidity could certainly be a valid descriptor, hence character induced stupidity. (CIS)

Part of the problem is that the villians themselves have fanbases in the real world. The company could no more kill off a popular villian then they could kill off a popular hero. Because then they'd have to come up with a new villaian and it'd piss off the fans of that character.

...

At which point killing the villian becomes equivilent to arresting them. They're dead/in jail until they ressurect/break out.

Well, you've got not disagreement from me, there's definitely a lot of out of universe incentives for why the characters act the way they do. It still bothers me, though. A lot of people don't mind, but the stagnancy and repetition of the characters and plots is one of the reasons why I've just moved on to graphic novels and manga. Spiderman's BDN/OMD pretty much sealed the deal for me.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Well, you've got not disagreement from me, there's definitely a lot of out of universe incentives for why the characters act the way they do. It still bothers me, though. A lot of people don't mind, but the stagnancy and repetition of the characters and plots is one of the reasons why I've just moved on to graphic novels and manga. Spiderman's BDN/OMD pretty much sealed the deal for me.

Hehehe

You moved into Manga to get away from stagnancy and repetition?

Yup. Manga stories end. That alone makes them less repetitive.

Repetitiveness across the entire genre =\= repetition throughout a single neverending story, which is what Marvel/DC comics are. Never ending storylines.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Well, you've got not disagreement from me, there's definitely a lot of out of universe incentives for why the characters act the way they do. It still bothers me, though. A lot of people don't mind, but the stagnancy and repetition of the characters and plots is one of the reasons why I've just moved on to graphic novels and manga. Spiderman's BDN/OMD pretty much sealed the deal for me. These days I get most of my comic knowledge from my friends. I only recently started reading comics again. And I already dread what they're going to do.

I'm not a masochist, I'm loyal to the things I like. I like Jubilee. So I'm only reading to see hat happens to her. she dies or fades into obscurity again and I'll dissappear as well.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Yup. Manga stories end. That alone makes them less repetitive.

Repetitiveness across the entire genre =\= repetition throughout a single neverending story, which is what Marvel/DC comics are. Never ending storylines.

That's not true of all comics

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Yup. Manga stories end. That alone makes them less repetitive.

Repetitiveness across the entire genre =\= repetition throughout a single neverending story, which is what Marvel/DC comics are. Never ending storylines.

None of that really rings true. Comics have multiple writers and stories that can change thematically from arc to arc. Batman can have a mystery story arc fallowed by a horror one and then a straight up high octane action affair after that. You are reading Batman stories, not the story of Batman. Comic authors pitch a story arcs, manga authors pitch a story... and extend it with filler until they are allowed to end it by the publisher.

Claiming that comics are more repetitive as a genre than manga is absurd. 99% of Manga - particularity everything popular - is the same generic garbage. Shonen Manga is all pretty much the same, falling into a handful of established archetypes (Dragon Ball Z = Naruto = One Piece = Shaman King; Yu Yu Hakasu = Bleach ect); I don't read Shojo or any of that garbage but my Otaku sister says they are pretty much the same as well. Now I will admit Manga has a surprisingly varied and robust selection of horror series (the art is usually head and shoulders above the rest of manga as well) which is something that western comics is lacking in... but unless you are exclusively reading horror manga you are seriously mistaken. I like reading manga scanlations as much as the next guy, but there is no way in hell it less repetative than comics...

I agree with RE: Blaxican when it comes to Batman. His "morality" is just something I find stupid at times. There was this one scene where he thought Joker had killed Gordan and nearly beat him to death. I liked that. Batman felt more human and realistic at that moment -if that makes sense- to me than any other time I can recall off the top of my head. Also the reason why I liked that moment in Final Crisis.

Thor for example is willing to cross the line when it has to be done. The scene where he kills Loki despite the consequences it will have on him was excellent. He loved Loki and had put up with him that far, but he realized that he wouldn't stop. He had to be put down.

http://i779.photobucket.com/albums/yy73/R-O-G/Thor/DefeatsLoki70.jpg
http://i779.photobucket.com/albums/yy73/R-O-G/Thor/DefeatsLoki71.jpg
http://i779.photobucket.com/albums/yy73/R-O-G/Thor/DefeatsLoki72.jpg
http://i779.photobucket.com/albums/yy73/R-O-G/Thor/DefeatsLoki73.jpg
http://i779.photobucket.com/albums/yy73/R-O-G/Thor/DefeatsLoki74.jpg

Batman should have put a bullet in Joker's brain a long time ago.

I'm off to bed.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
None of that really rings true. Comics have multiple writers and stories that can change thematically from arc to arc. Batman can have a mystery story arc fallowed by a horror one and then a straight up high octane action affair after that. You are reading Batman stories, not the story of Batman. Comic authors pitch a story arcs, manga authors pitch a story... and extend it with filler until they are allowed to end it by the publisher.

Claiming that comics are more repetitive as a genre than manga is absurd. 99% of Manga - particularity everything popular - is the same generic garbage. Shonen Manga is all pretty much the same, falling into a handful of established archetypes (Dragon Ball Z = Naruto = One Piece = Shaman King; Yu Yu Hakasu = Bleach ect); I don't read Shojo or any of that garbage but my Otaku sister says they are pretty much the same as well. Now I will admit Manga has a surprisingly varied and robust selection of horror series (the art is usually head and shoulders above the rest of manga as well) which is something that western comics is lacking in... but unless you are exclusively reading horror manga you are seriously mistaken. I like reading manga scanlations as much as the next guy, but there is no way in hell it less repetative than comics...

Do you know who Frieza is?

No Frieza is far too obscure and rare. dur

So you don't know who Frieza is?

If you don't know who Frieza is then maybe you shouldn't try to compare anime. dur

Do you think it's probable that when you turn on your TV to watch the newest episode of Dragon Ball Z tomorrow, the story is going to be about Goku fighting Frieza?

I guess the sarcasm of my post was lost.

If you are going to bring up a character to test someones knowledge of anime / manga, maybe there is a better choice than arguably the most famous villain from the most popular anime / manga of all time? Seriously, that's like asking me someone if they've ever heard of this character called the Joker.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I guess the sarcasm of my post was lost.

If you are going to bring up a character to test someones knowledge of anime / manga, maybe there is a better choice than arguably the most famous villain from the most popular anime / manga of all time? Seriously, that's like asking me someone if they've ever heard of this character called the Joker. Do you know who lucy is? And I'm refering to a specific Lucy here. Or do you know who Collet Farandole is?

Unfortunately I know who both those characters are. You have a thing for beast girls with kitty ears I see.

Elfen Lied and Magic Teacher Negima? Read some manlier manga.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Unfortunately I know who both those characters are. You have a thing for beast girls with kitty ears I see.

Elfen Lied and Magic Teacher Negima? Read some manlier manga. Incorrect on the first one(I did say I was thinking of a specific one so that should have been a clue that it wouldn't be the first lucy to pop up in a google search) and correct on the second one though With such a specific name I have no way to verify you didn't just search it out particularly calling negima unmanly.

Although now that you've misidentified a character... I have no idea what that means.

I just guessed which Lucy based on Collet and my assumption you liked catgirls. lol If it is Lucy from Fairy Tail, that would be better than Elfen Lied.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I just guessed which Lucy based on Collet and my assumption you liked catgirls. lol If it is Lucy from Fairy Tail, that would be better than Elfen Lied. Not that Lucy either.

The lucy I'm thinking of is alot more obscure, and you'd have had to have read pretty far into the story to meet her.

I'll give you a hint its a manga that has not been turned into an anime.

Also, while I do like catgirls, Collet is not a catgirl.

I strongly doubt that you've read negima based on a number of factors such as incorrectly identifing the species/race of the character in question as well as accusations that it is unmanly coupled with your previously stated aversion toward shojo manga (Negima is not a shojou manga it runs in weekly shonen magazine in japan. The same magazine that runs Fairy Tail.

I can't think of any more Lucy's from any manga that hasn't been turned into an anime. Is she a completely ancillary character?

As far as I'm concerned any sort of animal ears = catgirl.

I haven't read any Negima, but I have seen a few episodes of the anime when hanging out with my sister. It was pretty terrible, maybe the manga is better but nothing in the anime inspired me to check it out.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I can't think of any more Lucy's from any manga that hasn't been turned into an anime. Is she a completely ancillary character? I don't think so. She at one point in time saves the life of the main character.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
As far as I'm concerned any sort of animal ears = catgirl. While catgirls are the most prolific of the moe anthropomorphism of kemonomimi and my favorite they are not the only ones that exist.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I haven't read any Negima, but I have seen a few episodes of the anime when hanging out with my sister. It was pretty terrible, maybe the manga is better but nothing in the anime inspired me to check it out. The manga is much better than either of the anime, at least in my opinion.

Also I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss all shojo out of hand, have you read magic knight rayearth?

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I guess the sarcasm of my post was lost.

It's actually the other way around.



And it appears that you're incapable of answering simple questions.



A yes or no will suffice... I'm trying to make a point to you in a manner that will make you go: "Oooooooohhh... I see what you're saying." Let's see how successful I am.

Originally posted by Deadline
Of course they are. They are sentient, intelligent and they feel pain. Just because there different from humans doesn't make it any different.

read what you wrote again. that last sentence.

vampires aren't alive. at best, they're undead. that's not alive.



the last time joker threatened the multiverse, they beat him without having to kill him.



i never said nightwing wasnt a part of the bat-family. my point was that killing dick is not the same as killing tim or cassie or stephanie. dick is probably the person bruce loves most in the world, and even when he thought he was dead, he was able to stop himself from killing alex luthor.



based on what?



he was fine when the crucifying happened. he was fine when jean died. he was fine on the breakworld.

cyclops has gone through MUCH worse trauma than he has in recent years and been fine. losing jean more than once, losing maddie, what happened at genosha, house of m and decimation, and he still kept his head in the game. messiah complex just doesn't compare.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'll admit that I haven't really read the arc, but is it possible that its a little of column A and a little of column B?

honestly, and i don't mean to be short, but no.



actually, surprisingly scott has been governed by his emotions more than once. it's just usually the case that he can reign them in at the time, or that his idea turns out to be the right one anyway. he's not as cold and detached a leader as some might think (not you, but some people).



to be perfectly honest, my problem isn't even that he set up x-force. it's that he plays such a large role. if he had told wolverine "i'm setting up a team to go out and deal with threats before they happen. you're the trained killer, you're in charge", i would have been fine. But that, coupled with the willfull (almost) murder of thousands of skrulls using a mutated strain of the legacy virus and a couple of other decisions truly make me believe that cyclops has gone off the deep end.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Thanks for... complimenting my point? I love you PR.

It doesn't give me a lot of hope though, if people would prefer that Batman is consistently stupid. *sighs* Fans...

not everyone considers him stupid, though...


For Batman in general, there was a scene in the Red Hood series where Batman explained why he doesn't kill. I thought it was brilliantly written tbh. If anyone has it (it's the part where Jason confronts Bruce and asks him why he hasn't killed Joker), i'd appreciate them posting it.

I'm sure DC did their absolute very best to create some sort of justification for him constantly doing something as lame as putting someone in jail knowing that the person is going to break out and kill a bunch of people on the way. I am kind of curious to see said justification myself, for the sake of humor at least.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm sure DC did their absolute very best to create some sort of justification for him constantly doing something as lame as putting someone in jail knowing that the person is going to break out and kill a bunch of people on the way. I am kind of curious to see said justification myself, for the sake of humor at least.

it's his justification for not killing. even if i don't agree with it, and in his place would more than likely kill the joker, his reasons are his reasons. he's not responsible for the prison system in gotham being useless compared to say, metropolis.

DC isn't burying their head in the sand on this one. Bruce has been called on it more than once by other characters including Jason Todd and Damian, iirc.

Bruce admitted that he DOES WANT to kill Joker, and how tempting it was, but he has his reasons for not doing it. Even though i don't agree with them, i still respect that they're his beliefs.

Originally posted by -Pr-
read what you wrote again. that last sentence.

vampires aren't alive. at best, they're undead. that's not alive. Personally, it would depend on the undead as to how I'd treat them. If they're not a threat or can be managed I wouldn't treat them any different from the living. It may be my true neutral nature but the same goes for demons and things that are traditionally evil.

Batman might see things differently. but then again batman covers the entire scale of the alignment chart.

http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg

Originally posted by -Pr-
the last time joker threatened the multiverse, they beat him without having to kill him. I for one am in the boat that would be willing to kill Joker. They managed to stop him that time, but what about next time? Or the time after that? How many lives are worth the Joker's?

but the decision is not mine to make. and like I said before there are outside factors that determine these things.

Originally posted by -Pr-
he was fine when the crucifying happened. he was fine when jean died. he was fine on the breakworld.

cyclops has gone through MUCH worse trauma than he has in recent years and been fine. losing jean more than once, losing maddie, what happened at genosha, house of m and decimation, and he still kept his head in the game. messiah complex just doesn't compare.



honestly, and i don't mean to be short, but no.



actually, surprisingly scott has been governed by his emotions more than once. it's just usually the case that he can reign them in at the time, or that his idea turns out to be the right one anyway. he's not as cold and detached a leader as some might think (not you, but some people).



to be perfectly honest, my problem isn't even that he set up x-force. it's that he plays such a large role. if he had told wolverine "i'm setting up a team to go out and deal with threats before they happen. you're the trained killer, you're in charge", i would have been fine. But that, coupled with the willfull (almost) murder of thousands of skrulls using a mutated strain of the legacy virus and a couple of other decisions truly make me believe that cyclops has gone off the deep end. I didn't know about those events after setting up X-Force.


Originally posted by -Pr-
not everyone considers him stupid, though...


For Batman in general, there was a scene in the Red Hood series where Batman explained why he doesn't kill. I thought it was brilliantly written tbh. If anyone has it (it's the part where Jason confronts Bruce and asks him why he hasn't killed Joker), i'd appreciate them posting it. I haven't read it but I imagine that its something along the lines of the slippery slope. You kill off one villian, it makes it easier to do it again, because hey you did it before. And then the next one, and then next one. then after that you've become a serial killer yourself. Which ultimately means that you've become that which you hunt.

Factoring in the human psyche the adreniline that I imagine it would cause to perform such an act. Before long you might get addicted to that adreniline rush. Then you'd have to fight against yourself to keep from seeking out that ruch in other places. On lesser criminals. Those that aren't a true threat to society. and then when you're done with them what's to stop you from the petty stuff such as jaywalking and littering? And then the innocent people. Before long you've become a monster that needs to be stopped.

People like the "angels of mercy" type odf serial killers are an example of this occurence. They take pity on the patients that are suffering all the time and they ease their pain. The slippery slope I mentioned before occurs and they become fallen angels.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Personally, it would depend on the undead as to how I'd treat them. If they're not a threat or can be managed I wouldn't treat them any different from the living. It may be my true neutral nature but the same goes for demons and things that are traditionally evil.

Batman might see things differently. but then again batman covers the entire scale of the alignment chart.

http://punxter.com/pics/G/RPL.jpg



and i'd be of the camp that if they're vamps and evil, then they need to be put down.



that's exactly what i'm saying. I'd kill Joker in a heartbeat, but just because i don't agree with Batman's POV doesn't mean i think it's wrong.



np. tbh stuff like that is why i don't read x-men anymore. cyclops is corrupt, and willing to do anything to further his goals. that's not a superhero in my book.



iirc it's something along those lines. Bruce wouldn't be the first to kill even within the League, or even the first to be willing (people like Wally and Hal have come awful close and were only stopped by outside events). Even Superman has had to do it as a last resort. Then you have guys like Green Arrow and Barry Allen that have actually killed people and it was in character, and they were still heroes. Bruce wouldn't.

If Bruce went rogue, he'd be hunted by his own family friends. We're talking about people who trusted him implicitly before (Superman, Nightwing etc) because Batman had become the one thing he always said he wouldn't.

Batman was once ready to kill Joker and Jim Gordon had to talk him down. It's not like he doesn't think about it. How easy it would be to kill Joker and be done with it. If he does take that step, though? Gotham loses Batman, which in itself is unacceptable imo.

Originally posted by -Pr-


and i'd be of the camp that if they're vamps and evil, then they need to be put down.To be honest there are very few vampires I like. I hate most vampires. Not because they're evil, but because of how much my friends like them, gets irritating with them always going on about them.

But like I said I'm a true neutral alignment. Simply being evil isn't enough for me. I'll admit there were times when I could understand where Magneto was coming from and was tempted to cheer him on.

Originally posted by -Pr-
that's exactly what i'm saying. I'd kill Joker in a heartbeat, but just because i don't agree with Batman's POV doesn't mean i think it's wrong. Yeah I agree. Some people just shouldn't kill, they should turn it over to those that won't fall on the slope.

Originally posted by -Pr-
np. tbh stuff like that is why i don't read x-men anymore. cyclops is corrupt, and willing to do anything to further his goals. that's not a superhero in my book. I only just started again because Jubilee is back.

Originally posted by -Pr-
iirc it's something along those lines. Bruce wouldn't be the first to kill even within the League, or even the first to be willing (people like Wally and Hal have come awful close and were only stopped by outside events). Even Superman has had to do it as a last resort. Then you have guys like Green Arrow and Barry Allen that have actually killed people and it was in character, and they were still heroes. Bruce wouldn't.

If Bruce went rogue, he'd be hunted by his own family friends. We're talking about people who trusted him implicitly before (Superman, Nightwing etc) because Batman had become the one thing he always said he wouldn't.

Batman was once ready to kill Joker and Jim Gordon had to talk him down. It's not like he doesn't think about it. How easy it would be to kill Joker and be done with it. If he does take that step, though? Gotham loses Batman, which in itself is unacceptable imo. Agreed. Its just not part of who he is. Though I remember that one interrogation while batman was wearing the lasso. So its a strong character on his part to not give into what he wants to do.

You can't put the blame on batman's feet anymore than you can on the government that keeps sending him to arkham, why hay they never sought to do something more permenant to with the joker? It's not like Bats is the only one to know how dangerous he is. It'd certainly be easy enough for someone to take the joker out and then "misplace" the file.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
A yes or no will suffice... I'm trying to make a point to you in a manner that will make you go: "Oooooooohhh... I see what you're saying." Let's see how successful I am.

Well... I guess I'll say no considering DBZ has been off the air for years?

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Well... I guess I'll say no considering DBZ has been off the air for years? http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Z_Kai

I live in Canada.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I live in Canada.

haermm

Originally posted by Deadline
haermm

It's kinda like America... only without Netflix and Hulu...

Originally posted by -Pr-
it's his justification for not killing. even if i don't agree with it, and in his place would more than likely kill the joker, his reasons are his reasons. he's not responsible for the prison system in gotham being useless compared to say, metropolis.

DC isn't burying their head in the sand on this one. Bruce has been called on it more than once by other characters including Jason Todd and Damian, iirc.

Bruce admitted that he DOES WANT to kill Joker, and how tempting it was, but he has his reasons for not doing it. Even though i don't agree with them, i still respect that they're his beliefs.

Absolutely right.

I would also add, the issue is with the quality of the prison service or P.I.S. Batman's "not killing rule" is in no way absurd regardless of other opinions, what is absurd is that how a maximum security criminal like the Joker should ever be able to escape. He should be watched around the clock by multiple guards in the most high tech prison available. He shouldn't be behind a glass screen at Arkham.

In fact I think a great Joker centric story could be in the making there, regarding not Batman's no killing rule, rather Prison life for the Clown Prince of Crime. Why a prison and not a mental insitution or vice versa? Exploring these aspects would make a great character study for a good Batman storyline.

Originally posted by Bentley
They're a bunch of murderers, Scott will be drinking wine with the Red Skull soon enough.
Originally posted by Martian_mind
That would be the single greatest plot development and scene in the history of the X-men.

I might even start buying X-Men if they did that.

I'll even start the dialogue rolling. It's a rough draft but it should give the writers some ideas:

Cyclops: Excellent wine, herr Skull.
Red Skull: I see that our tastes are similar, herr Summers. Including, dare I say, a taste for... murder?
Cyclops: HA HA HA HA HAA HAHAAAA!
Red Skull: HA HA HA HAAA HAHAAAA!
Cyclops: HA HA HAA!
Red Skull: More wine, herr Summers?
Cyclops: Please.

Dude, if you think killing vampires because they're undead is an excuse to kill senitent life I don't want to know what you would do to a race of intelligent cows.


Originally posted by basilisk
I might even start buying X-Men if they did that.

I'll even start the dialogue rolling. It's a rough draft but it should give the writers some ideas:

Cyclops: Excellent wine, herr Skull.
Red Skull: I see that our tastes are similar, herr Summers. Including, dare I say, a taste for... murder?
Cyclops: HA HA HA HA HAA HAHAAAA!
Red Skull: HA HA HA HAAA HAHAAAA!
Cyclops: HA HA HAA!
Red Skull: More wine, herr Summers?
Cyclops: Please.


That just rocks.

Originally posted by willRules
Absolutely right.

I would also add, the issue is with the quality of the prison service or P.I.S. Batman's "not killing rule" is in no way absurd regardless of other opinions, what is absurd is that how a maximum security criminal like the Joker should ever be able to escape. He should be watched around the clock by multiple guards in the most high tech prison available. He shouldn't be behind a glass screen at Arkham.

In fact I think a great Joker centric story could be in the making there, regarding not Batman's no killing rule, rather Prison life for the Clown Prince of Crime. Why a prison and not a mental insitution or vice versa? Exploring these aspects would make a great character study for a good Batman storyline. I agree its not absurd but he is pretty stupid though for the worlds greatest detective. Maybe its me but shouldn't a real hero sacrifice their own morality for whats best for the people? His own personal morality seems to outweigh the lives of those that he knows will be put in danger once Joker escapes( its happened enough so he knows how their little game of tag will go). Kinda selfish when you think about it.

Originally posted by HueyFreeman
I agree its not absurd but he is pretty stupid though for the worlds greatest detective. Maybe its me but shouldn't a real hero sacrifice their own morality for whats best for the people? His own personal morality seems to outweigh the lives of those that he knows will be put in danger once Joker escapes( its happened enough so he knows how their little game of tag will go). Kinda selfish when you think about it.

But once he sacrifices his morality, how is he any different from Ras Al Ghul or the Joker himself? After all it was his morality that drove him to be Batman in the first place. He didn't think it right that any kids should have their parents gunned down ever again.

If he sacrifices his morality, why even bother to catch/stop the Joker in the first place? Might as well let him continue his killing spree.

The problem with Batman is that he isn't the Punisher. Once he loses his morality he loses any reason for being a hero. Or being Batman for that matter.

Originally posted by willRules
But once he sacrifices his morality, how is he any different from Ras Al Ghul or the Joker himself? After all it was his morality that drove him to be Batman in the first place. He didn't think it right that any kids should have their parents gunned down ever again.

If he sacrifices his morality, why even bother to catch/stop the Joker in the first place? Might as well let him continue his killing spree.

The problem with Batman is that he isn't the Punisher. Once he loses his morality he loses any reason for being a hero. Or being Batman for that matter.

Except morality is relative, it doesn't adhere to one single guideline that is the same for any action regardless of circumstance. Morality isn't that rigid, it adapts to the situation at hand and changing and evolving your sense of morality isn't the same as "losing it". The reality is that Batman's sense of moral absolutism is incredibly naive and a determent to everyone around him. People die because of it.

Batman's out look is really rather selfish, he just doesn't want to admit that the Joker is right and that it is sometimes necessary to take a life. Batman says "Killing is wrong no matter what," Joker says "If you want to stop me... you are going to have to kill me," and so people die - innocent people - because Batman doesn't want to prove that the Joker is right. Now the problem is that Joker is right, regardless of how Batman feels on the subject (there is more than 60 years of evidence to back it up) Batman just isn't going to admit it, he is so stubborn he is completely fine replaying the same scenario over and over, ad nauseum for an eternity instead of doing what needs to be done. He'd rather innocent people die than admit that the Joker is right. He is essentially putting his own peace of mind above the lives his enemies take as a result of his stance. Sacrificing his own ideals for the benefit of others is much nobler than what he is doing now.

A big part of why Batman doesn't kill the Joker is that he's been told straight up that the biggest reason the Gotham PD looks the other way with his vigilantism is that he doesn't kill. If he were like the Punisher then Gordon would be hunting him down.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Except morality is relative, it doesn't adhere to one single guideline that is the same for any action regardless of circumstance. Morality isn't that rigid, it adapts to the situation at hand and changing and evolving your sense of morality isn't the same as "losing it". The reality is that Batman's sense of moral absolutism is incredibly naive and a determent to everyone around him. People die because of it.

Batman's out look is really rather selfish, he just doesn't want to admit that the Joker is right and that it is sometimes necessary to take a life. Batman says "Killing is wrong no matter what," Joker says "If you want to stop me... you are going to have to kill me," and so people die - innocent people - because Batman doesn't want to prove that the Joker is right. Now the problem is that Joker is right, regardless of how Batman feels on the subject (there is more than 60 years of evidence to back it up) Batman just isn't going to admit it, he is so stubborn he is completely fine replaying the same scenario over and over, ad nauseum for an eternity instead of doing what needs to be done. He'd rather innocent people die than admit that the Joker is right. He is essentially putting his own peace of mind above the lives his enemies take as a result of his stance. Sacrificing his own ideals for the benefit of others is much nobler than what he is doing now.

Well if you adopt the position of moral relativism, Batman's outlook is and isn't naive at the same time. In fact it's only as naive as the next person. After all you said it yourself, it's all relative! Therefore it can't be selfish. Selfishness is considered as something wrong, whereas relativism is just your opinion.

But I'm not here to debate the merits and demerits of moral absolutism vs moral relativism.

If Batman does adopt such a rigid stance then it doesn't adapt to the situation, it is rigid, it is strong, not necessarily naive at all (relatively!!!) and therefore there is nothing right or wrong with it.

In fact the argument that Batman is selfish for not killing the Joker and not doing the necessary thing of taking his life could just as easily flipped around and stated that murder is the easy way out.

Easy way out of what?

Originally posted by basilisk
I might even start buying X-Men if they did that.

I'll even start the dialogue rolling. It's a rough draft but it should give the writers some ideas:

Cyclops: Excellent wine, herr Skull.
Red Skull: I see that our tastes are similar, herr Summers. Including, dare I say, a taste for... murder?
Cyclops: HA HA HA HA HAA HAHAAAA!
Red Skull: HA HA HA HAAA HAHAAAA!
Cyclops: HA HA HAA!
Red Skull: More wine, herr Summers?
Cyclops: Please.



Originally posted by Bentley
Dude, if you think killing vampires because they're undead is an excuse to kill senitent life I don't want to know what you would do to a race of intelligent cows.





That just rocks.

?

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Except morality is relative, it doesn't adhere to one single guideline that is the same for any action regardless of circumstance. Morality isn't that rigid, it adapts to the situation at hand and changing and evolving your sense of morality isn't the same as "losing it". The reality is that Batman's sense of moral absolutism is incredibly naive and a determent to everyone around him. People die because of it.

Batman's out look is really rather selfish, he just doesn't want to admit that the Joker is right and that it is sometimes necessary to take a life. Batman says "Killing is wrong no matter what," Joker says "If you want to stop me... you are going to have to kill me," and so people die - innocent people - because Batman doesn't want to prove that the Joker is right. Now the problem is that Joker is right, regardless of how Batman feels on the subject (there is more than 60 years of evidence to back it up) Batman just isn't going to admit it, he is so stubborn he is completely fine replaying the same scenario over and over, ad nauseum for an eternity instead of doing what needs to be done. He'd rather innocent people die than admit that the Joker is right. He is essentially putting his own peace of mind above the lives his enemies take as a result of his stance. Sacrificing his own ideals for the benefit of others is much nobler than what he is doing now.

you say morality is relative, and yet then you're applying YOUR morality to him. Who says what you said is right? I'm not saying you're wrong. Just different.

How moral is it to force someone to kill another person? Even if a person needs to die(and sometimes some people just need to die) IS it right or wrong to force another person to do it?

There is more to the philosophy of Moral Relativism then just the word "relative," guys. It isn't a blanket term that covers every various moral position on life. Yes, while part of the theory is that morality varies from person to person / place to place / culture to culture, Moral Relativity also means you can't judge the morality of an action without first considering the context it was carried out in. That good and evil don't exist in abstract. Batman says murder is evil regardless of the context, and that isn't moral relativity, its moral absolutism. The concept that morality is subjective doesn't mean Batman's outlook falls under the blanket of Moral Relativity, because there is more too it than that. Moral Absolutism is a completely different philosophy and it is one that runs in direct opposition of Moral Relativity...

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
There is more to the philosophy of Moral Relativism then just the word "relative," guys. It isn't a blanket term that covers every various moral position on life. Yes, while part of the theory is that morality varies from person to person / place to place / culture to culture, Moral Relativity also means you can't judge the morality of an action without first considering the context it was carried out in. That good and evil don't exist in abstract. Batman says murder is evil regardless of the context, and that isn't moral relativity, its moral absolutism. The concept that morality is subjective doesn't mean Batman's outlook falls under the blanket of Moral Relativity, because there is more too it than that. Moral Absolutism is a completely different philosophy and it is one that runs in direct opposition of Moral Relativity...

But how does that make him "wrong" though?

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
There is more to the philosophy of Moral Relativism then just the word "relative," guys. It isn't a blanket term that covers every various moral position on life. Yes, while part of the theory is that morality varies from person to person / place to place / culture to culture, Moral Relativity also means you can't judge the morality of an action without first considering the context it was carried out in. That good and evil don't exist in abstract. Batman says murder is evil regardless of the context, and that isn't moral relativity, its moral absolutism. The concept that morality is subjective doesn't mean Batman's outlook falls under the blanket of Moral Relativity, because there is more too it than that. Moral Absolutism is a completely different philosophy and it is one that runs in direct opposition of Moral Relativity...
Ah yes the old "write a paragraph that says nothing of substance when cornered" trick.

Originally posted by -Pr-
But how does that make him "wrong" though? It doesn't make it wrong just somewhat of a fool.

Originally posted by Bentley
Dude, if you think killing vampires because they're undead is an excuse to kill senitent life I don't want to know what you would do to a race of intelligent cows.


Thank you Bentley he missed the point entirely.

Originally posted by Deadline
Thank you Bentley he missed the point entirely.

which was?

I'll post in a while but even before I posted I knew you were going to say that.

Originally posted by Deadline
I'll post in a while but even before I posted I knew you were going to say that.

umm, ok.

What Bentley said, if i'm reading it right atm, actually supports my view anyway. He said that i was trying to justify killing sentient life by likening it to killing vampires.

I wasn't.

They're very different things, at least to me. Particularly the "life" part. Vampires aren't alive.

I can't be bothered reading the whole thread... Someone give me the gist of it...

Had a skim. Killing can be justified. Meh.

Originally posted by -Pr-
read what you wrote again. that last sentence.

vampires aren't alive. at best, they're undead. that's not alive.


I don't need to read it again you're missing the point. Vampires are considered to be dead because they lack something which keeps human beings alive, a soul. If a soul leaves a normal human being he dies, thats not the case with vampires but that doesn't mean they're dead. Vampires are alive they are just different. Robots and androids don't have souls either, are they dead?

You could have a lifeform that is a mass of gelatin. If its intelligent, has emotions and feels pain killing it is still murder.

Originally posted by -Pr-

the last time joker threatened the multiverse, they beat him without having to kill him.


Im not talking about that im talking about Gotham City and the whole world. Joker has still killed alot of people.

Originally posted by -Pr-

i never said nightwing wasnt a part of the bat-family. my point was that killing dick is not the same as killing tim or cassie or stephanie. dick is probably the person bruce loves most in the world, and even when he thought he was dead, he was able to stop himself from killing alex luthor.

That doesn't change the fact that Batman would be even more pissed off if Nightwing + Robin + Cassie were killed. That was my point.


Originally posted by -Pr-

based on what?

Logic. If he nearly Killed Alexander then something worse would need to happen in order for him to kill him and that worse thing is murder.


Originally posted by -Pr-

he was fine when the crucifying happened. he was fine when jean died. he was fine on the breakworld.

cyclops has gone through MUCH worse trauma than he has in recent years and been fine. losing jean more than once, losing maddie, what happened at genosha, house of m and decimation, and he still kept his head in the game. messiah complex just doesn't compare.


No he wasn't fine. Im not going to go through all those examples but some of those examples may have less of an effect due to the context of the situation. At any rate things can have a cumulative effect, somebody can be fine but constant tragedy can eventually make them brutal. Cyclops has always been calculated but not in a brutal fashion, hes just adapting to the circumstances in his own way.

Originally posted by Deadline
I don't need to read it again you're missing the point. Vampires are considered to be dead because they lack something which keeps human beings alive, a soul. If a soul leaves a normal human being he dies, thats not the case with vampires but that doesn't mean they're dead. Vampires are alive they are just different. Robots and androids don't have souls either, are they dead?

You could have a lifeform that is a mass of gelatin. If its intelligent, has emotions and feels pain killing it is still murder. Murder is technically a phrase that belongs to the legal realm. So, sadly, if something doesn't have rights its not considered murder to kill them. I would say that it would be morally equivilent to kill a sentient non-human as it would be to kill a human being.

Like I said before I personally wouldn't kill a vampire simply for being a vampire. It would have to pose a significant threat to society. The same goes for humans. I hold all sentient life equivilent. Personally I rather enjoy stories involving true homunculi as well.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I would say that it would be morally equivilent to kill a sentient non-human as it would be to kill a human being.

Which is my point.

Originally posted by Creshosk

Like I said before I personally wouldn't kill a vampire simply for being a vampire. It would have to pose a significant threat to society. The same goes for humans. I hold all sentient life equivilent. Personally I rather enjoy stories involving true homunculi as well.

Agreed, don't know about the last bit.

Originally posted by Deadline
Which is my point.



Agreed, don't know about the last bit. Homunculus means little human and refers to artificial humans. Such as androids and magical constructs that look human. Data from Star Trek is an example, as is Vision from Marvel comics. And just as Frankenstein's monster is considered a homunculus so to would be a soul/spirit withing an artificial human body.

Originally posted by Deadline
I don't need to read it again you're missing the point. Vampires are considered to be dead because they lack something which keeps human beings alive, a soul. If a soul leaves a normal human being he dies, thats not the case with vampires but that doesn't mean they're dead. Vampires are alive they are just different. Robots and androids don't have souls either, are they dead?

You could have a lifeform that is a mass of gelatin. If its intelligent, has emotions and feels pain killing it is still murder.

vampires are undead. that's a fact in almost every incarnation of the mythology. they aren't alive.

deadman had sentience and intelligence, but he was dead. actually dead.

besides, even if you wanted to argue that, you're talking about your opinion, not fact.



and batman has saved more. if batman kills one person, everyone he could save in the future doesn't get saved. batman has saved the multiverse.



i didn't disagree with that.



but you don't know if he would do it. you can't prove that he would.



cyclops has been through worse than what he went through at the end of messiah complex, and been perfectly capable of carrying on as leader of the x-men without resorting to the kinds of things he's done in the last year or two.

things can have a cumulative effect, but a complete shift in personality isn't what he would have had. this isn't an extension of his character. it's a complete change to try and make him "cool" to all the kids who want their heroes to be anti-heroes.

Originally posted by -Pr-
vampires are undead. that's a fact in almost every incarnation of the mythology. they aren't alive.

deadman had sentience and intelligence, but he was dead. actually dead.

besides, even if you wanted to argue that, you're talking about your opinion, not fact.


I see what you mean, but you understand that killing something sentient is murder? Killing Deadman would still be murder.

Originally posted by -Pr-

and batman has saved more. if batman kills one person, everyone he could save in the future doesn't get saved. batman has saved the multiverse.

He would have saved more if he killed Joker.



Originally posted by -Pr-

but you don't know if he would do it. you can't prove that he would.


The point is based on logic its more likely. Im pretty sure the logic im using can be used as proof.


Originally posted by -Pr-

cyclops has been through worse than what he went through at the end of messiah complex, and been perfectly capable of carrying on as leader of the x-men without resorting to the kinds of things he's done in the last year or two.

things can have a cumulative effect, but a complete shift in personality isn't what he would have had. this isn't an extension of his character. it's a complete change to try and make him "cool" to all the kids who want their heroes to be anti-heroes.

I don't agree people in the real world can start of as passive and can become more brutal. I don't see how Cyke is any different.

Originally posted by Deadline
I see what you mean, but you understand that killing something sentient is murder? Killing Deadman would still be murder.

that's your opinion, and that's fine. i don't agree, but i have no problem with that.



no, he wouldn't, because he'd be in prison, and the millions he's saved since would have died.



not to me. batman has been tempted to kill before, and has resisted the temptation. that's experience. he knows how to deal with the urge. while it's conceivable that you're right, and i have no issue with that, it's not proof to me.



people in the real world also have some sort of underlying psychosis, or have a psychotic break, a trigger of sorts.

cyclops didn't have that in messiah complex. his character had actually just been developed some more as someone who was finally comfortable in his role as leader while still being what he was. it was matt fraction that changed that.

Originally posted by -Pr-
that's your opinion, and that's fine. i don't agree, but i have no problem with that. What would be your opinion on the morality of killing an entity like Data?

Originally posted by Creshosk
What would be your opinion on the morality of killing an entity like Data?

Yeah I was getting to that....I got this Cresh! durhulk

Originally posted by Creshosk
What would be your opinion on the morality of killing an entity like Data?
I go by the Venture Bros definition of murder:

"Unless he's made out of parts of old dead people its still murder."

The X-Men aren't the same team they were when Cyclops was a teenager. They are no longer a peace keeping and public relations team out to garner good press by fighting evil mutants. They are focus solely on the protection and survival of the handful mutants left. Their mission statement has been completely revised in the last decade, it's pretty foolish to think that their method's wouldn't evolve as well. Cyclops' is a different leader than Professor X and he is fighting a different battle, there is no room for him to be the same person he was when he was 15.

If Cyclops hadn't adapted to the situation at hand someone else less capable would have had to step up and take his place... so he adapted. Scott Summer's isn't a "peace time" or a "war time" leader, he is a leader... period. It's easy for people not in a position of power, like Beast, to put on the Monday morning quarterback hat and talk out of his ass, because he has the luxury of his decisions not mattering but Cyclops' choices have repercussions for an entire species. He's done what he's had to do, not what he wanted to do but when you are in charge what is necessary sometimes supersedes what is right. Real leaders make the hard choices, thats what Cyclops has done.

Some people are just upset he is no longer the stagnant 2 dimensional cardboard stand in for Clark Kent he used to be. He got all his cub scout badges, now its time for him to be a man.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
The X-Men aren't the same team they were when Cyclops was a teenager. They are no longer a peace keeping and public relations team out to garner good press by fighting evil mutants. They are focus solely on the protection and survival of the handful mutants left. Their mission statement has been completely revised in the last decade, it's pretty foolish to think that their method's wouldn't evolve as well. Cyclops' is a different leader than Professor X and he is fighting a different battle, there is no room for him to be the same person he was when he was 15.

If Cyclops hadn't adapted to the situation at hand someone else less capable would have had to step up and take his place... so he adapted. Scott Summer's isn't a "peace time" or a "war time" leader, he is a leader... period. It's easy for people not in a position of power, like Beast, to put on the Monday morning quarterback hat and talk out of his ass, because he has the luxury of his decisions not mattering but Cyclops' choices have repercussions for an entire species. He's done what he's had to do, not what he wanted to do but when you are in charge what is necessary sometimes supersedes what is right. Real leaders make the hard choices, thats what Cyclops has done.

Some people are just upset he is no longer the stagnant 2 dimensional cardboard stand in for Clark Kent he used to be. He got all his cub scout badges, now its time for him to be a man.

You smacked it.

The way the X-Men have been written though is awful. Scott is supposed to be a brilliant tactician yet he admits to winging most of his decisions. Plus for some reason he enjoys beating on dinosaurs for shits and giggles.

Emma Frost is a shadow of her former self. Someone should just shoot her and put her out of her misery.

Beast is a rabid dog that pees on your grave.

Ororo try as she might, is still a housewife who can't hold her own intellectually against the likes of Scott, Reed Richards and now Logan. T'challa has trained her well.

Charles Xavier is senile but in this case at least they are consistent.

I am enjoying Dr. Nemesis and Namor though.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I go by the Venture Bros definition of murder:

"Unless he's made out of parts of old dead people its still murder."


Ouch, I don't want to get a trasplant and meet you.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
The way the X-Men have been written though is awful. Scott is supposed to be a brilliant tactician yet he admits to winging most of his decisions. Plus for some reason he enjoys beating on dinosaurs for shits and giggles.

Emma Frost is a shadow of her former self. Someone should just shoot her and put her out of her misery.

Beast is a rabid dog that pees on your grave.

Ororo try as she might, is still a housewife who can't hold her own intellectually against the likes of Scott, Reed Richards and now Logan. T'challa has trained her well.

Charles Xavier is senile but in this case at least they are consistent.

I am enjoying Dr. Nemesis and Namor though. I like the beastly beast, he should roll with it instead of dive in self-loathing as he usually does. That would be some actual character development for him IMO.

These x-men have simply migrated towards magneto's sphere of morality. Logan was never outside of it to begin with.

I wouldn't call them 'counter-terrorists' though, they're a cell devoted to the preservation and emancipation of their larger group through use of subversive violence against their persecutors. More akin to national liberation guerrilla fighters than anything else.

Originally posted by 753
I wouldn't call them 'counter-terrorists' though, they're a cell devoted to the preservation and emancipation of their larger group through use of subversive violence against their persecutors. More akin to national liberation guerrilla fighters than anything else.

I think that is a pretty accurate description of the X-Men as a whole, but I was just referring to the sub-faction of X-Force as a Counter Terrorist cell, not the entirety of the X-Men.

Originally posted by 753
These x-men have simply migrated towards magneto's sphere of morality. Logan was never outside of it to begin with.

I wouldn't call them 'counter-terrorists' though, they're a cell devoted to the preservation and emancipation of their larger group through use of subversive violence against their persecutors. More akin to national liberation guerrilla fighters than anything else.

I agree although I would add that this is not an evolution of Xavier's dream, rather a degeneration of it.

Originally posted by willRules
I agree although I would add that this is not an evolution of Xavier's dream, rather a degeneration of it.

I'd say it's more of a concision that Magneto wasn't nearly as off base as they thought he was in the early years.

Originally posted by willRules
I agree although I would add that this is not an evolution of Xavier's dream, rather a degeneration of it. meh I'd call it a lateral move

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I'd say it's more of a concision that Magneto wasn't nearly as off base as they thought he was in the early years.

I still see that as a degeneration for Team Xavier. Anything less than a peaceful solution is, well a violent one. Very little middle ground there. It's debatable the X-men were on the right tracks (in terms of fulfilling Chuck's plans) before all this anyway.

Originally posted by willRules
I still see that as a degeneration for Team Xavier. Anything less than a peaceful solution is, well a violent one. Very little middle ground there. It's debatable the X-men were on the right tracks (in terms of fulfilling Chuck's plans) before all this anyway.

16 million mutants murdered at the hands of giant robots and a bald women, a mutant destroyed half of New York and started marching people into ovens while another mutant lost her marbles and warped all of reality to fit her M.O.T.T. father's image. Charle's dream was nothing more then the ramblings of a senile man. Heck Charles himself pretty much proved that his dream was a pile of crap when all his skeletons came out of the closet. There is no difference between him and some dirty hippy shouting for world peace.

The current vision is neither Charle's "dream" nor Magneto's vendetta. It's a third way, only problem is I've never seen Scott as a visionary.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
16 million mutants murdered at the hands of giant robots and a bald women, a mutant destroyed half of New York and started marching people into ovens while another mutant lost her marbles and warped all of reality to fit her M.O.T.T. father's image. Charle's dream was nothing more then the ramblings of a senile man.


Not sure if that was his fault.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak

Heck Charles himself pretty much proved that his dream was a pile of crap when all his skeletons came out of the closet.

Well his dream was a pile of crap but to be fair those skeletons were some retcon shit. I only know about Danger but im not sure if that makes him entirely full of shit.

Originally posted by Deadline
Not sure if that was his fault.

It's not his fault but he was naive. His vision didn't account for events such as those sending human/mutant relations back to the stone age.




X-Men TAS misrepresented Charles gravely. Charles was a complete bastard in Uncanny X-Men 1. Sure there's no crime in being a grumpy old man who is still grieving over the loss of his legs but he used to mindwipe people left right and centre. Plus sending a bunch of very green teenagers to fight Magneto would be seen as pretty ridiculous thing to do in this day and age. Also when he recruited his O5 he did everything and anything to get them to join the team. Went even as far to mindwipe Beasts parents. Charles was not a nice man in those early issues.


Then comes the long list of retcons from X-Men Hidden years to Deadly Genesis.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
It's not his fault but he was naive. His vision didn't account for events such as those sending human/mutant relations back to the stone age.


No im sorry hes managed to stop alien invasions and other threats you are just mentioning his failures nobody is perfect.


Originally posted by ExodusCloak

X-Men TAS misrepresented Charles gravely. Charles was a complete bastard in Uncanny X-Men 1. Sure there's no crime in being a grumpy old man who is still grieving over the loss of his legs but he used to mindwipe people left right and centre.

I suspect he might have had some good reasons.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
Plus sending a bunch of very green teenagers to fight Magneto would be seen as pretty ridiculous thing to do in this day and age. Also when he recruited his O5 he did everything and anything to get them to join the team. Went even as far to mindwipe Beasts parents. Charles was not a nice man in those early issues.


He sent teenagers probably because thats what readers wanted to see. Batman did it with Robin.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak

Then comes the long list of retcons from X-Men Hidden years to Deadly Genesis.

Oh well thats just the writers trying to change him into a dick.

Originally posted by Deadline
No im sorry hes managed to stop alien invasions and other threats you are just mentioning his failures nobody is perfect.

Umm. No. I am not blaming him for those events. I am saying that his vision is/was too narrow minded as it did not account for situations like those I listed. He himself did not object to killing Wanda Maximoff. He is a hypocrite of the highest order regarding both the use of his powers and his ethos mainly because it's just not practical.



He had good reason to make Beasts parents forget him? Really? I will quote Claremont on this as it's one of the few times we actually agree on something...Xavier was creating his own army of child soldiers.



Doesn't make it any less of a bastard move from a story perspective. Especially since all the writers have picked up on it even back then with Byrne and Claremont.




He was a dick from issue 1 (Stan Lee) I'm not sure if that was intentional though. He was a dick under Stan Lee and Roy Thomas's pen. Under Byrnes pen under Claremonts pen. Plus a plethora of newer writers.

I think it was just Lobdell's pen where he wasn't so bad. Oh wait no that was pre and post Onslaught. He was a dick.

Also funny enough it was not what people wanted to see. Because Uncanny X-Men got cancelled after 66 issues and had to be relaunched with an older team.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Read some manlier manga. What would you define as "manly", anyway?

There's this one series I watched the anime of and the the mangs of, these are some of the events:

In the anime:
On their way to fight the antagonist, the protagonist's closest friend's are all killed. Leaving the protagonist all alone in the middle of nowhere. Upon arriving at the location of the antagonist the love interest shows up possessed by the antagonist. The love interest winds up dieing. The protagonist goes on to fight the antagonist. The protagonist wins the fight and then dies.


in the manga:
First, the love interest is killed off by the antagonist in front of the protagonist, and the protagonist blocks the incident out of their memory. Then the protagonists closest friends are murdered in front of the protagonist, and the protagonists newest friends trigger the protagonist's memories of the love interest's death, sending the protagonist into a near breakdown. Next, some more of the protagonist's friends are killed one by one, the protagonist again loses their memory, and then the protagonist's pets and newest friends are killed. The protagonist nearly gets burned to death by one of the antagonist's minions and is forced to watch another friend get impaled by another minion. If poor the protagonist hasn't had enough to deal with, it gets even worse when they turn up at the antagonist's base and is forced to fight their reanimated friends and the love interest. After having the crap beaten out of them, the protagonist manages to get their strength back and kill the reanimated friends, only for the antagonist to toss the love interest off a cliff, which winds up killing the protagonist's child.

Would you read that manga, or watch that anime?

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
Umm. No. I am not blaming him for those events. I am saying that his vision is/was too narrow minded as it did not account for situations like those I listed. He himself did not object to killing Wanda Maximoff. He is a hypocrite of the highest order regarding both the use of his powers and his ethos mainly because it's just not practical.



Neither did magneto's vision or anyone else's for that matter. Those facts were completelly unpredictable and impossible to cope with. What other philosophical current would have yielded better results? Nobody could anticipate things like that and everyone was powerless to stop them.

The fact that he did not object to the killing of the SW simply shows he did not believe any other alternative was possible. On the other hand, he does believe that coexistence with the humans and less than lethal use force in most situations are. He's saved the world a lot as others pointed out.

He was always distant and arrogant, but the retcons are what made him such a hypocritical ******* as far as the use of his powers go.

Originally posted by 753
Neither did magneto's vision or anyone else's for that matter. Those facts were completelly unpredictable and impossible to cope with. What other philosophical current would have yielded better results? Nobody could anticipate things like that and everyone was powerless to stop them.

The fact that he did not object to the killing of the SW simply shows he did not believe any other alternative was possible. On the other hand, he does believe that coexistence with the humans and less than lethal use force in most situations are. He's saved the world a lot as others pointed out.

He was always distant and arrogant, but the retcons are what made him such a hypocritical ******* as far as the use of his powers go.

Scotts vision or whatever you want to call it works for the very reason that his ethos is adaptable. He dropped X-Force as soon as he believed it was not needed. The problem with Xavier and Magneto is they never adapted their visions as the problem grew. Now, while I believe that I don't like that the writers went that way. I don't like that Wolverine is going to take the hit for Scott.

My problem with Xavier is that he had a no kill policy under any circumstances. Killing people like Sabertooth, Mystique, Emma Frost etc.. would have saved a lot of pain. However when it comes to Wanda it's alright. The fact that he was so adamant about it before and then to suddenly change his mind. He has yet to admit that in the MU it's sometimes necessary. At least Wolverine has the guts to admit that not letting Phoenix kill Selene was a mistake.

I wouldn't have called him hypocritical at the start because he never preached ethical use of his telepathy back then. However when he started training Jean telepathically he berated her and started taking the high ground when it came to messing with people's minds when he clearly had no qualms about it early on in his career.

Originally posted by Creshosk
What would be your opinion on the morality of killing an entity like Data?

data, i would consider murder, but i don't know if batman would.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
The X-Men aren't the same team they were when Cyclops was a teenager. They are no longer a peace keeping and public relations team out to garner good press by fighting evil mutants. They are focus solely on the protection and survival of the handful mutants left. Their mission statement has been completely revised in the last decade, it's pretty foolish to think that their method's wouldn't evolve as well. Cyclops' is a different leader than Professor X and he is fighting a different battle, there is no room for him to be the same person he was when he was 15.

If Cyclops hadn't adapted to the situation at hand someone else less capable would have had to step up and take his place... so he adapted. Scott Summer's isn't a "peace time" or a "war time" leader, he is a leader... period. It's easy for people not in a position of power, like Beast, to put on the Monday morning quarterback hat and talk out of his ass, because he has the luxury of his decisions not mattering but Cyclops' choices have repercussions for an entire species. He's done what he's had to do, not what he wanted to do but when you are in charge what is necessary sometimes supersedes what is right. Real leaders make the hard choices, thats what Cyclops has done.

Some people are just upset he is no longer the stagnant 2 dimensional cardboard stand in for Clark Kent he used to be. He got all his cub scout badges, now its time for him to be a man.

posts like that are the reason nobody gives cyclops the f*cking credit he deserves.

he had adapted fine to bigger threats over the years without a complete character shift, which is what fraction did.

cyclops grew plenty over the years, and just because he's suddenly "cool" people seem to think that's somehow f*cking better and more developed. my arse.

Originally posted by ExodusCloak
The way the X-Men have been written though is awful. Scott is supposed to be a brilliant tactician yet he admits to winging most of his decisions. Plus for some reason he enjoys beating on dinosaurs for shits and giggles.

Emma Frost is a shadow of her former self. Someone should just shoot her and put her out of her misery.

Beast is a rabid dog that pees on your grave.

Ororo try as she might, is still a housewife who can't hold her own intellectually against the likes of Scott, Reed Richards and now Logan. T'challa has trained her well.

Charles Xavier is senile but in this case at least they are consistent.

I am enjoying Dr. Nemesis and Namor though.



finally. i won't even get started about fraction's raping of the character as a leader.

also, when did scott drop x-force?

Originally posted by -Pr-
data, i would consider murder, but i don't know if batman would. Where do you draw the line?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Where do you draw the line?

me personally?

i honestly don't know, considering the fact that i think some humans deserve to die.

Originally posted by -Pr-
me personally?

i honestly don't know, considering the fact that i think some humans deserve to die. Well, yes. though I mean in a more general sense. what qualities must one posses to be considered murder if they're killed?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Well, yes. though I mean in a more general sense. what qualities must one posses to be considered murder if they're killed?

murder is a legal definition to me, so it's entirely relative.

what i would consider murder would be the willfull killing of any live, sentient/self-aware being. the live part is important.

can you kill deadman, say? sure, if you consider it possible to kill something that's already dead. is it murder? not imo.

it's my opinion, so i know some will disagree.

Originally posted by -Pr-
murder is a legal definition to me, so it's entirely relative.

what i would consider murder would be the willfull killing of any live, sentient/self-aware being. the live part is important.

can you kill deadman, say? sure, if you consider it possible to kill something that's already dead. is it murder? not imo.

it's my opinion, so i know some will disagree. What qualities must one posses to be considered alive?

Originally posted by Creshosk
What qualities must one posses to be considered alive?

life, really. plants are alive. insects are alive, but do we consider it murder every time we take a fly swatter and flatten one? i don't, but i consider them alive all the same.

so we go in to self awareness, which is a key part when talking about murder for me. data has self awareness. then he has the ability to grow and evolve, even if it's not physically. it could even be argued that he has a soul if you really wanted to.

that and to not be stated to be something else. deadman isn't "alive". he's dead. hence the name. do i think a character should act less shocked and horrified if someone obliterated the skinny b*stard? of course not.

it's all semantics imo.

Originally posted by -Pr-
life, really. plants are alive. insects are alive, but do we consider it murder every time we take a fly swatter and flatten one? i don't, but i consider them alive all the same.

so we go in to self awareness, which is a key part when talking about murder for me. data has self awareness. then he has the ability to grow and evolve, even if it's not physically. it could even be argued that he has a soul if you really wanted to.

that and to not be stated to be something else. deadman isn't "alive". he's dead. hence the name. do i think a character should act less shocked and horrified if someone obliterated the skinny b*stard? of course not.

it's all semantics imo. What would constitute life then though? On a scientific sense the currently accepted qualities that constitute life.


Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.


Vampires fit all those qualities. One in particular is even capable of catching a cold and sweating.

Originally posted by Creshosk
What would constitute life then though? On a scientific sense the currently accepted qualities that constitute life.


Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.


Vampires fit all those qualities. One in particular is even capable of catching a cold and sweating.

you are right, though i was using solely DC vampires as part of my argument.

plus, vampires are generally stated to be undead, not alive. that's true in DC too iirc.

Originally posted by -Pr-
you are right, though i was using solely DC vampires as part of my argument.

plus, vampires are generally stated to be undead, not alive. that's true in DC too iirc. So the difference between someone who is alive and someone who is undead is the alignment of the energy animating them?

Language rather breaks down in this area.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So the difference between someone who is alive and someone who is undead is the alignment of the energy animating them?

Language rather breaks down in this area.

it can be, yes.

aye, it does.

Originally posted by -Pr-
it can be, yes.

aye, it does. So what of undead who are animated by positive forces? Such as an Arch-litch as opposed to the regular variety?


Horrendously so.

Undead -> Dead but still animate.
Dead -> Not alive
alive -> Living
Living-> Posessing life
life -> See the qualities I mentioned before that some undead have.

Son of a *****.


The fact that undead are mostly fictional is probably why the area is so weak. Not a lot of philosophers quantified the concept of undead.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So what of undead who are animated by positive forces? Such as an Arch-litch as opposed to the regular variety?


Horrendously so.

Undead -> Dead but still animate.
Dead -> Not alive
alive -> Living
Living-> Posessing life
life -> See the qualities I mentioned before that some undead have.

Son of a *****.


The fact that undead are mostly fictional is probably why the area is so weak. Not a lot of philosophers quantified the concept of undead.

what's an arch-litch?

and you're right, it isn't.

look at buffy for example. vampires in that tend to be animated dead. they have feelings to an extent. sentience. hunger. they feel temperatures iirc. what would they be classed as? undead? or alive?

Originally posted by -Pr-
what's an arch-litch? a non-evil litch. http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Archlich

Originally posted by -Pr-
and you're right, it isn't.

look at buffy for example. vampires in that tend to be animated dead. they have feelings to an extent. sentience. hunger. they feel temperatures iirc. what would they be classed as? undead? or alive? If they are evil and harmless should killing them be wrong? If they are good, should killing them be wrong?

Is it at the same point amongst the living that it should be considered acceptable to kill an undead?

Sorry, I'm a platonic Nightmare fetishist so this is an area of school of thought that interests me.

Mind you the platonic part means without the sexual quality. What some people consider nightmare fuel or even high octane nightmare fuel doesn't bother me as much, outside of my weakpoints.

Originally posted by Creshosk
a non-evil litch. http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Archlich

If they are evil and harmless should killing them be wrong? If they are good, should killing them be wrong?

Is it at the same point amongst the living that it should be considered acceptable to kill an undead?

Sorry, I'm a platonic Nightmare fetishist so this is an area of school of thought that interests me.

Mind you the platonic part means without the sexual quality. What some people consider nightmare fuel or even high octane nightmare fuel doesn't bother me as much, outside of my weakpoints.

ah.

tbh at times i'd fall in to that category too, so i can see where you're coming from.

personal bias, for me, is always going to play a role in things like this. i could think all vampires are evil, but (assuming they existed) what happens when you fall in love with one? trying to shoe-horn things in to categories is always going to be a problem, as your perceptions can always be turned on their heads.

Originally posted by -Pr-
ah.

tbh at times i'd fall in to that category too, so i can see where you're coming from.

personal bias, for me, is always going to play a role in things like this. i could think all vampires are evil, but (assuming they existed) what happens when you fall in love with one? trying to shoe-horn things in to categories is always going to be a problem, as your perceptions can always be turned on their heads. Or what if someone you liked became a vampire?

Vampires by their nature ARE evil. But evil doesn't necessarily mean harmful.

By some definitions catwoman was at one point in time considered evil. But death would have been considered rather harsh in my opinion.

Then you get characters like Magneto, who while evil certainly means well.

But as I said before my alignment is true neutral.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Or what if someone you liked became a vampire?

Vampires by their nature ARE evil. But evil doesn't necessarily mean harmful.

By some definitions catwoman was at one point in time considered evil. But death would have been considered rather harsh in my opinion.

Then you get characters like Magneto, who while evil certainly means well.

But as I said before my alignment is true neutral.

ah. and mine isn't...

just because my mind is made up for now, doesn't mean it can't be changed in the future...

Originally posted by -Pr-
ah. and mine isn't...

just because my mind is made up for now, doesn't mean it can't be changed in the future... I imagine yours to be a higher alignment. Probably neutral good. You have a bit harsher view of evil than I do.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I imagine yours to be a higher alignment. Probably neutral good. You have a bit harsher view of evil than I do.

possibly. i do tend to root for the good guys more often than not.

though you should see me in GTA lol...

Originally posted by -Pr-
possibly. i do tend to root for the good guys more often than not.

though you should see me in GTA lol... Well, video games are kinda different. They allow us to do things we either wouldn't or couldn't do normally.

There have been times when I've felt more sympathetic toward a villian, or outright hated the good guys.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Well, video games are kinda different. They allow us to do things we either wouldn't or couldn't do normally.

There have been times when I've felt more sympathetic toward a villian, or outright hated the good guys.

i was the person that laughed gunning down the civilians in the infamous "No Russian" level in Modern Warfare 2 also. Maybe it's just the ability to compartmentalise, or to know that in real life, you can't get away with the things you'd do in a video game.

It all depends on portrayal for me. I can sympathise with a villain even if they're wrong, and i can think that the heroes have crossed a line they shouldn't have.

Of course, though, i've always held the opinion that a hero that does something that makes sure he can never look himself in the mirror the same way again just to save everyone else, is something to be admired (Captain Sisko with the Romulans, Cyclops with X-Force, Superman with the three kryptonians even).

Originally posted by -Pr-
i was the person that laughed gunning down the civilians in the infamous "No Russian" level in Modern Warfare 2 also. Maybe it's just the ability to compartmentalise, or to know that in real life, you can't get away with the things you'd do in a video game.

It all depends on portrayal for me. I can sympathise with a villain even if they're wrong, and i can think that the heroes have crossed a line they shouldn't have.

Of course, though, i've always held the opinion that a hero that does something that makes sure he can never look himself in the mirror the same way again just to save everyone else, is something to be admired (Captain Sisko with the Romulans, Cyclops with X-Force, Superman with the three kryptonians even). Or the operative from serenity?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Or the operative from serenity?

nah, he was the bad guy lol.

Originally posted by -Pr-
nah, he was the bad guy lol. Well yes. We knew that from the get go. But in his mind he was working for the good cause and Mal was standing in the way. when he got an eyeful of that transmission, he changed his tune. Imagine if we didn't have the viewer knowledge or we followed him around?