@Light:
…That's it? Two words? You didn't answer to my argument at all! Robin was willing to hand over a mass-destruction weapon and threaten the world stability for the sake of few outlaws she met few months ago. Look, I don't care what anyone thinks about Robin, but you have to admit that she's far from altruistic person!
She did that? when?
@Light:
With all due respect, you read the Water 7 arc right?
ah, sorry.. forgot about that. i thought it was franky they asked to hand over the blue print, i forgot robin have one already made too.
Would you pls stop failing in History he was Never elected Hindenburg Simply made him the cancelor because Guys like his son and franz von Papen adviced him to do so. In which Way can you mistake that for democratically elected?
all credits to benjamminbrown
Would you pls stop failing in History he was Never elected Hindenburg Simply made him the cancelor because Guys like his son and franz von Papen adviced him to do so. In which Way can you mistake that for democratically elected?
If memory serves right, he was choosen to be chancelor because he lead the biggest party in the parlament that wasn't communist.
Besides, how do you elect chancelor, or prime ministers? I thought that in multiple party systems the leader of the strongest party in parlament was elected prime minister, or local equivelent of that.
People voted for the party he led, gave them majority of votes in parlament, and then Hindenburg elected him to be chancelor. What exactly is un-democratic about it?
Why, exactly?
It's not like those theories are bad, per say. They just don't fit your world view, for whatever reason.
Akso, what is freedom then? Or justice, for that matter? You are making the basic mistake of thinking that those values are somehow set in stone, when they are not.
If you set justice as something simply subjective as a philosopher you are cutting a brunch you sit on. If justice is simply subjective, than dealing with is job for psychologist not philosopher.
Technically you can define freedom as lack of rules, but that is most shallow possible definition and not very efficient either. And practically it devaluates freedom as social value by making freedom both unobtainable and possibly harmful to others.
Further more lack of rules isn't concept of freedom Luffy upholds. He is much more about self realisation, lack of subjugation and following positive rules set by himself.
By the way, ever read "Two concepts of Liberty" by Isaiah Berlin? Not even negative freedom is completely devoid of rules.
I do not think they are values carved and set in stone. But at the same time at least justice isn't something that can be arbitrary decide by everyone. Particularly justice. It's not that there is only one valid definition of it, there are many possible. But at the same time there are concepts, that are sometimes called justice, that have no right to the name.
@ Monkey King. Hitler may have not been directly elected for the chancellor, but NSDAP won most votes, so… yeah.
And Darth won't emigrate to Belarus, as current regime there is anti-Polish.
"I'm a bad guy! I don't save the day, I don't fly off to the sunset and I don't get the girl! I'm going home." - MegaMind
The undemocratic Part was the SA-goons who were Standing at the pollcenters everywhere and the whole System from Weimar was undemocratic to Begin with
ah, sorry.. forgot about that. i thought it was franky they asked to hand over the blue print, i forgot robin have one already made too.
She didn't. It was Franky who they asked to hand over the blue print.
Spandam wanted Robin because she could read the poneglyphs and track the existing weapon down.
If you set justice as something simply subjective as a philosopher you are cutting a brunch you sit on. If justice is simply subjective, than dealing with is job for psychologist not philosopher.
Not really. My job here would be to provide concept of Justice that people might follow, and which I personally find most agreeable.
Interestingly enough, it's the justice being objective that would left me with no job at all, since if value is objective, it cannot be denied. Objective values rob me of the quest for searching knowledge, and leave me with simple set of rules I should be preaching instead. What you are proposing is death of philosophy itself, like it existed since ancient times, because all of the most important issues have already been decided, and resolved, and all that's left for me is discussion of theoretical abstracts.
Technically you can define freedom as lack of rules, but that is most shallow possible definition and not very efficient either. And practically it devaluates freedom as social value by making freedom both unobtainable and possibly harmful to others.
Actually, that might be my paper influencing my thinking, because I have Hobbes on mind, but absolute freedom would equal anarchy. Therefore, it would be destructive in nature.
Not arguing that's the only kind of freedom, mind you, but following laws established by society is certainly part of living in said society. I cannot fanthom Luffy abiding the law. I think he would consider it boring.
Further more lack of rules isn't concept of freedom Luffy upholds. He is much more about self realisation, lack of subjugation and following positive rules set by himself.
But at the same time, his morality is highly self-centered and crew/family-centered. There many example of this, most noticably Luffy realising Crocodile from prison for convenience sake, and his brothers sake, as well as him disagreeing with Jimbei, even though the latter clearly stated why acting in the way Luffy does would result in much damage to the FIshman Island.
By the way, ever read "Two concepts of Liberty" by Isaiah Berlin? Not even negative freedom is completely devoid of rules.
… I don't recall. I most definetly read some of his works, but I'm not sure about this specific one. Maybe. I've read many books in those past years, it's hard to remember specific titles on the fly.
I do not think they are values carved and set in stone. But at the same time at least justice isn't something that can be arbitrary decide by everyone. Particularly justice. It's not that there is only one valid definition of it, there are many possible. But at the same time there are concepts, that are sometimes called justice, that have no right to the name.
Value that cannot by arbitrary decided by everyone, by the very definition, is subjective. If even one of this concepts you believe have no right to the name of Justice is considered as such by at least one scholar, then it becomes subjective. It's basic laws of logic. You cannot say that justice being objective is a tautology, because it would simply be not true.
Unless we understand that word differently.
@ Monkey King. Hitler may have not been directly elected for the chancellor, but NSDAP won most votes, so… yeah.
And Darth won't emigrate to Belarus, as current regime there is anti-Polish.
I think he thinks I consider every single authoritorian goverment to be a Gods gift to man and utopia…
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
The undemocratic Part was the SA-goons who were Standing at the pollcenters everywhere and the whole System from Weimar was undemocratic to Begin with
Interesting… Would you point me towards your sources on this one? I never actually found that argument being used. And that time period is a personal hobby of mine, so I'm curious.
The final villain is of course "fleet admiral helmeppo"…revenge of east blue incident aka destroying his luxury lazy life under his dad cap. morgan
we`re waiting for kaido!!!
Question for the Polish gentleman: well, what if there was a society where children, by law, have to drink their mother's menstrual blood whenever she's at that time of the month? If they fail to do so, both the mother and her child(ren) will be imprisoned. In that case, would you say choosing not to abide that law makes them in the wrong? Would you personally want to do that? And before you say: "This is a ridiculous example! Who would actually have that kind of law?" I would have laws a hundred times stranger than that if I were a dictator. Visitors to my country would think they literally stepped onto another planet.
I accept Jesus Burgess as my Lord and Savior 
@Medical:
Question for the Polish gentleman: well, what if there was a society where children, by law, have to drink their mother's menstrual blood whenever she's at that time of the month? If they fail to do so, both the mother and her child(ren) will be imprisoned. In that case, would you say choosing not to abide that law makes them in the wrong? Would you personally want to do that? And before you say: "This is a ridiculous example! Who would actually have that kind of law?" I would have laws a hundred times stranger than that if I were a dictator. Visitors to my country would think they literally stepped onto another planet.
Things just got weird in The Final Villain thread.
What that Weimar was undemocratic or the sa-goons?
Not really. My job here would be to provide concept of Justice that people might follow, and which I personally find most agreeable.
Interestingly enough, it's the justice being objective that would left me with no job at all, since if value is objective, it cannot be denied. Objective values rob me of the quest for searching knowledge, and leave me with simple set of rules I should be preaching instead. What you are proposing is death of philosophy itself, like it existed since ancient times, because all of the most important issues have already been decided, and resolved, and all that's left for me is discussion of theoretical abstracts.
Actually, that might be my paper influencing my thinking, because I have Hobbes on mind, but absolute freedom would equal anarchy. Therefore, it would be destructive in nature.
Not arguing that's the only kind of freedom, mind you, but following laws established by society is certainly part of living in said society. I cannot fanthom Luffy abiding the law. I think he would consider it boring.
But at the same time, his morality is highly self-centered and crew/family-centered. There many example of this, most noticably Luffy realising Crocodile from prison for convenience sake, and his brothers sake, as well as him disagreeing with Jimbei, even though the latter clearly stated why acting in the way Luffy does would result in much damage to the FIshman Island.
… I don't recall. I most definetly read some of his works, but I'm not sure about this specific one. Maybe. I've read many books in those past years, it's hard to remember specific titles on the fly.
Value that cannot by arbitrary decided by everyone, by the very definition, is subjective. If even one of this concepts you believe have no right to the name of Justice is considered as such by at least one scholar, then it becomes subjective. It's basic laws of logic. You cannot say that justice being objective is a tautology, because it would simply be not true.
Unless we understand that word differently.
I think he thinks I consider every single authoritorian goverment to be a Gods gift to man and utopia...
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
Interesting... Would you point me towards your sources on this one? I never actually found that argument being used. And that time period is a personal hobby of mine, so I'm curious.
Fuck, do not ever accuse me of being objective. Ever. Do not ever, ever. Especially if we discus humanistics. Or of proposing objectivity.
Have you ever heard about intersubjectivity?!! Communication? Consensus? Dialogue?
You are most frustrating person here to argue, because you do not grasp things that should be clear to you as social philosopher, and you do too many fallacies and unwarranted assumptions.
Arbitrary decide by everyone is: A decide arbitrary , B decides arbitrary, C decides arbitrary. That is subjective. Everyone decides separately and arbitrary. Justice can't be arbitrary (subjectively) decided be everyone (not be all, not in dialogue), because such justice couldn't function in society. Justice has to have possibility to function in society. Hence no subjective justice is justice. No objective justice is justice (objectivity has zero to do with humans), no absolute justice is justice. Objective and/or absolute are actually subjective forced on others. You can't say anything is objective - it's simply not true.
If there was a society built around drinking that you'd think that the people would be used to it no?
If there was a society built around drinking that you'd think that the people would be used to it no?
You got me there…ok, what if it wasn't a law until I came to power?
What will stop/prevent Aokiji for having 2nd round with Akainu in the final battle
@Medical:
Question for the Polish gentleman: well, what if there was a society where children, by law, have to drink their mother's menstrual blood whenever she's at that time of the month? If they fail to do so, both the mother and her child(ren) will be imprisoned. In that case, would you say choosing not to abide that law makes them in the wrong? Would you personally want to do that? And before you say: "This is a ridiculous example! Who would actually have that kind of law?" I would have laws a hundred times stranger than that if I were a dictator. Visitors to my country would think they literally stepped onto another planet.
… Okay, I'm going to assume that goverment in question has one certain way of checking that people abide this law.
And I will assume that by wrong, you mean morally wrong.
And then I will say three things:
A) If the decision is made by both sides (namely both children and the mother), then I see nothing morally wrong in their actions, since the law is stupied. They would however need to be ready to face the consequences of this behavior.
B) If the decision is made by only one side, then it would be morally wrong, since it forces the other side to be equally punished for the crime they didn't commit.
C) Yes, being father of a family, I would endorse following that law, since I find performing one disgusting ritual a better alternative to a live in prison. I would not especially care though, since it's should be decision of mother and her children, and even if they not follow it, I will not be punished in any way. Let them make their own decisions.
… Okay, I'm going to assume that goverment in question has one certain way of checking that people abide this law.
And I will assume that by wrong, you mean morally wrong.
And then I will say three things:
A) If the decision is made by both sides (namely both children and the mother), then I see nothing morally wrong in their actions, since the law is stupied. They would however need to be ready to face the consequences of this behavior.
B) If the decision is made by only one side, then it would be morally wrong, since it forces the other side to be equally punished for the crime they didn't commit.
C) Yes, being father of a family, I would endorse following that law, since I find performing one disgusting ritual a better alternative to a live in prison. I would not especially care though, since it's should be decision of mother and her children, and even if they not follow it, I will not be punished in any way. Let them make their own decisions.
Serious question for you. In your mind what is the purpose of having rules. Because in my mind they're supposed to make life better for people they're not just to be followed for rules sake.
And then I will say three things:
A) If the decision is made by both sides (namely both children and the mother), then I see nothing morally wrong in their actions, since the law is stupied. They would however need to be ready to face the consequences of this behavior.
B) If the decision is made by only one side, then it would be morally wrong, since it forces the other side to be equally punished for the crime they didn't commit.
C) Yes, being father of a family, I would endorse following that law, since I find performing one disgusting ritual a better alternative to a live in prison. I would not especially care though, since it's should be decision of mother and her children, and even if they not follow it, I will not be punished in any way. Let them make their own decisions.
This is just my way of viewing this issue, but shouldn't there be an extra, hidden option?
D) The law is absurd and moronic beyond belief, the law itself is shit. Rather than people just blankly accepting it and following it to avoid punishment, they should question it and make an effort to change it. Laws are not static, laws are not unqestionable.
Serious question for you. In your mind what is the purpose of having rules. Because in my mind they're supposed to make life better for people they're not just to be followed for rules sake.
Of course. The example provided was moronic, and so I decided to ignore that part of the issue. It is my beliefe that rules as this should never be established, as they waste resources and bring no profits to the state.
I was asked to not to go that route, if you recall.
@The:
This is just my way of viewing this issue, but shouldn't there be an extra, hidden option?
D) The law is absurd and moronic beyond belief, the law itself is shit. Rather than people just blankly accepting it and following it to avoid punishment, they should question it and make an effort to change it. Laws are not static, laws are not unqestionable.
I operated under assumption that the law was established by some crazed lunatic, and as such, could not be changed without a rather hefty loss of life.
If it was in the power of citizens, they should not allow to pass the law in the first place.
And, as any machiavellian will tell you, intelligent ruler would not pass this law, for it needlessly antagonizes citizens, and brings no benefits.
Serious question for you. In your mind what is the purpose of having rules. Because in my mind they're supposed to make life better for people they're not just to be followed for rules sake.
What?!? The rules were not made by you, if a law fits you doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Laws are made to keep control. Thousands of years ago laws were ridiculous such as don't kill, don't steal, don't commit adulteries and so forth. Clear example of keeping the masses in check.
Nowadays most laws fuck up rich people, because there is no such thing as middle class, poor people get pored and rich people get richer, the richer you get the more you are in control…...
You get my drift fight ?
Of course. The example provided was moronic, and so I decided to ignore that part of the issue. It is my beliefe that rules as this should never be established, as they waste resources and bring no profits to the state.
I was asked to not to go that route, if you recall.
I operated under assumption that the law was established by some crazed lunatic, and as such, could not be changed without a rather hefty loss of life.
If it was in the power of citizens, they should not allow to pass the law in the first place.
And, as any machiavellian will tell you, intelligent ruler would not pass this law, for it needlessly antagonizes citizens, and brings no benefits.
So what about a law that interferes with one's personal freedom but provides benefits.
Like making organ donations obligatory, and a relative who tries to prevent the organs of the family member from being taken would have to face punishment. Also being enrolled into experiments without being able to disagree and so forth. I presume more people would benefit from such laws than would be harmed. Would that be ok?
somehow it will be Gol D. Rodger
Darth is interesting person to have around. People start asking questions. That's a very good thing.
It's also interesting how someone, who supports authoritarianism landed in One Piece fandom (given that One Piece has "evil" authoritarian government). What values they see in the story that keep them interested.
"I'm a bad guy! I don't save the day, I don't fly off to the sunset and I don't get the girl! I'm going home." - MegaMind
What will stop/prevent Aokiji for having 2nd round with Akainu in the final battle
Aokiji's interaction with Akainu- "You blew up a ship full of innocents! You bastard! I going to let a scholar escape just screw with you", off-screen 10 days battle without any apparent animosity over its results by Aokiji given his message to Smoker
Smoker's interaction with Akainu -Absolutely zero
Coby's interaction- Witnesses Akainu's brutality first-hand, is directly threated by him over beliefs that are absolutely against his "Absolute Justice", has been build up since captain Morgan's arc as being against asshole Marines who abuse their power and position and care more about the law then doing good, and guess who's the biggest Marine asshole so far.
So I think if any Marine would take down Akainu/fight alongside Luffy to take down Akainu/ try to seriously take down Akainu and lose so that Luffy can avenge him, it would be Coby. Aokiji might have a brief fight with him in the chaotic war though.
So what about a law that interferes with one's personal freedom but provides benefits.
Like making organ donations obligatory, and a relative who tries to prevent the organs of the family member from being taken would have to face punishment. Also being enrolled into experiments without being able to disagree and so forth. I presume more people would benefit from such laws than would be harmed. Would that be ok?
Hmm…
The first of your propositions I fully support. I mean, that person is dead. It's sad and all, but why should we be stopped from using the corps for the benefit of the living?
As per your second suggestion, see, here you are not thinking like a Machiavellan would. Why would you use random people? Use death row prisoners instead. They are dead anyway, so they can always contribute something more to the society, instead of just being killed.
And then you can "leak" videos of what happened to the more unfortunate ones, and crime rate either will fall, or stay the same. You win either way.
Darth is interesting person to have around. People start asking questions. That's a very good thing.
It's also interesting how someone, who supports authoritarianism landed in One Piece fandom (given that One Piece has "evil" authoritarian government). What values they see in the story that keep them interested.
Honestly? Good storytelling. And besides, I'm rooting for villains, remember? 
… No, I mean Austria.
Ok, so in the past three hundred years, one of like ten occupiers.
Picksy choosy aren't we.
Funnily enough, we had democracy for about 8 years.
Connecticut's had it for probably 400 years given the Puritans were big on that sort of thing.
You want to talk?
Lessee though, it's almost like democracy (like anything in life young man) can be a difficuilt transition.
Now, problem here Poland, is that you'd have to either exist in a vacuum, or be some sort of insane nationalist who thinks no one else matters for "OUR EIGHT YEARS IN THE 30's DIDN'T WORKKKK" means anything.
I feel like I'm talking to someone who had their first sip of wine and was like "EW GROSS HOW COULD I EVER LIKE THIS" or something.
More than anything I wonder what your explanation is that democracy has worked out in Western Europe, Latin America, the edges of East Asia, and Britain's English speaking colonies like muah…but because Poland has a rough time it's bad?
What are you saying? That democracy doesn't work in...Poland? That it's not for you? Sonderweg and all that jazz? Because that's only way this makes any "sense".
Oh by the way, cooperating with the occupier would mean my state/country wouldn't exist.
It didn't work out. At all.
Yes yes, the 30's was an unfortunate period where the great depression ran roughshod on many fragile young democracies. This is kind of like insisting flowers can't grow because you tried planting in a hurricane.
And if you evidently have intricate knowledge of my country history, please, share. I haven't seen you use a good argument in the matter yet.
There's also the irony that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had nascent and for it's time advanced democratic aspects where the kings were elected (by the nobility). So it's kinda lol if that was your idea of the GOOD OL AUTHORITARIAN DAYS.
Harshly crushing the Ukrainians sure worked out too didn't it, not like it began the tipping point where Russia started gobbling you up.
… Hitler was democratically elected leader.
hahahha, they jiggered the crap out of that election, and actively violently chased down rivals in parliament to beat them into submission and out of the way.
Saying that was a democratic election is hilarious.
And somehow I don't see how not having authoritorian goverment magicaly ends the threat of them existing in neighboor countries.
Why are you even saying this when the authoritarian government you had was the one crushed by both neighboring authoritarian govenrments lol.
But right now NATO is the reason Russia doesn't even dream of coming back through Belarus at you, and guess what the countries of NATO are (kinda sorta in Turkey's case). Democracies? I should know, I live in the biggest leading one.
Or are you saying that, say, Putin will just step down if ask nicely? Yeah, they are totally not going to do anything to us, we have DEMOCRACY on our side!
I'm not even following here. Are you saying to have an effective military you can't be a democracy?? What lolll
Just as we did last time.
When you were authoritarian and lost. Yeah.
When US and UK decided that it would be great if their allies would be helped by fucking Stalin after the war. Boy, betting on democracy sure bringed us a lot of good things.
I'm not even sure what you're saying. That we threw you under the bus after the war?
Yeah sorry, Soviet troops made it halfway through Germany and Stalin wasn't big on giving back things he took.
So basically what it is now, only with goverment actually doing something? I fail to see democracy doing better job in any way, shape or form.
Do…you not get what happens in Police States? What do you imagine they do to keep order.
In your imagination do you think it's a socially accepted dictatorship? That exists because people want it?
… Saving the world from whom, exactly?
Ancient weapon wielding Blackbeard.
And then Greece was a democracy.
Look at how wonderful they are doing now. Ain't it great, that democracy you preach so much?
I've been to Greece, and they'd run you out on a wire for suggesting the Regime of the Colonels was the good ol' days and that democracy is bad.
Unless of course you really are a fascist and go hang out with Golden Dawn.
Let's not even get into the Cypriots.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
And, as any machiavellian will tell you, intelligent ruler would not pass this law, for it needlessly antagonizes citizens, and brings no benefits.
Except we live in reality, and mistakes will always be made no matter it's a leader or the electorate. That's why sane countries allow for changes to laws.
You know it's funny with the exception of the Civil War here, we've changed lots and lots of laws here when we came to agree for the most part that it was time for change.
Change is reality to. Making room for that is reality.
Take a good long look at this list. Starting with 11 that's stuff added after the initial founding of the US.
Frankly listening to this talk, it's you who's the idealist isn't it. You talk about things being perfect, perfect leaders making perfect choices. What planet does that happened on?
Worse yet in the authoritarian mode where the people don't even choose the leader, so you just have to hope he's good.
Like I thought, your view on dictatorship is entirely idealistic. That a great smart guy who knows everything and does everything right (according to specifically your own beliefs) is in charge. That's obscenely idealistic.
Hmm…
The first of your propositions I fully support. I mean, that person is dead. It's sad and all, but why should we be stopped from using the corps for the benefit of the living?
OK, I think I get you, I don't agree with you but I see where you're coming from.
As per your second suggestion, see, here you are not thinking like a Machiavellan would. Why would you use random people? Use death row prisoners instead. They are dead anyway, so they can always contribute something more to the society, instead of just being killed.
And then you can "leak" videos of what happened to the more unfortunate ones, and crime rate either will fall, or stay the same. You win either way.
Numbers. It depends on the justice system but how many death row prisoners would there be, not enough to produce valid results I suppose. You would need labor camps on the scale of Nazi Germany to obtain a sufficient amount of subjects, which would at least mean a system where people would be sentenced to death faster for rather small offenses, at least that's how I see it.
@Light:
It was only dumb luck they happened to be smitten by Buggy! They were still the world's most dangerous criminals and murderers.
No they weren't. They were select guys almost entirely from the first couple of floors, a floor SO dangerous that it was filled with people of Buggy's caliber.
The world's most dangerous and evil people were on the 6th level.
Luffy's intentions, (and his ignorance towards possible consequences) were perfectly clear! Did you even read the chapter were Hannyabal called him out of this?
Luffy didn't let those people out either though. Buggy and Mr. 3 did almost all of that.
…That's it? Two words? You didn't answer to my argument at all! Robin was willing to hand over a mass-destruction weapon and threaten the world stability for the sake of few outlaws she met few months ago.
…there's a very severe problem with making this your argument in a pro-WG argument. You realize what that is?
They do always happen to save the day, but that's only because they happened to befriend a few guys at the island they were visiting. It still doesn't include rest of the island's population (even if they're understandably grateful for saving them), or people on places they don't visit. What the hell are you even arguing about? That SHs are just misunderstood heroes? They're not! They are far better than most of the pirates sailing around but they're still not heroes!
Yeah they are though.
Luffy clearly stated this himself, how much more proof do you need?
You're really bad with like reading, aren't you. Luffy says he isn't a hero, so he's not a hero?
Yeah this isn't your forte.
Maybe their crimes will be pardoned at the end, but like I said they're not angels, and could still be causing trouble and could still get their bounties raised which could give Coby and Smoker excuse to chase them, if only too see whether they could capture them or not.
You failed to mention any troubles here aside from the tired Impel Down example. Which is a highly isolated event.
Numbers. It depends on the justice system but how many death row prisoners would there be, not enough to produce valid results I suppose. You would need labor camps on the scale of Nazi Germany to obtain a sufficient amount of subjects, which would at least mean a system where people would be sentenced to death faster for rather small offenses, at least that's how I see it.
Mhm… You are right on this one.
But even so, political damage made to your image by using innocent people as test subjects would be, in my opinion, a to high price to pay.
You would have to manipulate them somehow into doing it. For example, allow to participate in medical tests instead of military service. Or something to that effect.
@LordEnel:
What?!? The rules were not made by you, if a law fits you doesn't mean it will fit everyone else.
Laws are made to keep control. Thousands of years ago laws were ridiculous such as don't kill, don't steal, don't commit adulteries and so forth. Clear example of keeping the masses in check.Nowadays most laws fuck up rich people, because there is no such thing as middle class, poor people get pored and rich people get richer, the richer you get the more you are in control…...
You get my drift fight ?
With all these mega corporations running out lives US feels like an oligarchy now of CEOs
@Monkey:
No they weren't. They were select guys almost entirely from the first couple of floors, a floor SO dangerous that it was filled with people of Buggy's caliber.
The world's most dangerous and evil people were on the 6th level.Luffy didn't let those people out either though. Buggy and Mr. 3 did almost all of that.
Here we see a bunch of Ivankov's okamas releasing rapists and murderers. And just to remind you, those flamey things are there because this is level 4, where people of Daz Bones caliber were kept.
Even Buggy destroyed a town once over kids making fun of his nose. A pirate of any caliber is still highly dangerous to civilians, even in One Piece world!
I don't know what you're even trying to defend here anymore. Luffy caused prison break, and released dangerous criminals, deal with it!
…there's a very severe problem with making this your argument in a pro-WG argument. You realize what that is?
What pro-WG argument are you even talking about?
You're really bad with like reading, aren't you. Luffy says he isn't a hero, so he's not a hero?
Yeah this isn't your forte.
Guess we are interpreting hero differently here. As far as I'm concerned, a hero is someone with heroic motivations, such as greater good. Luffy on the other hand only wants help his friends. I admit that SHs do have moments when they help someone they don't know, like with Caesar's kids, (Actually was there even any other moment?), but they're still antiheroes at best.
You failed to mention any troubles here aside from the tired Impel Down example. Which is a highly isolated event.
Even Impel Down qualifies no? And so does Robin's Pluton case! It just shows that SHs are willing to go extreme lengths for their and their friends' good, even at the cost of world stability! Even at the new world order, a rogue group like that could still be a potential threat, which could be a reason to go after them.
I don't know what's the point of this tough. We're just repeating the same arguments over and over again and neither of us is changing their mind. You know what, unless you're bringing some actually new and good argument in the mess don't expect me to respond! 
I don't care if you think you have won, since you obviously would never admit defeat anyway!
Even if an emperor had the might to take down one of his competitors, in doing so he'd leave himself open to the other two.Just like how Kaido tried to stab Whitebeard in the back when he was fighting the Marines.A attacks B, A is winning but look out there's C and D all fresh and pumped to tear into his battleworn fleet.
I always thought that Kaidou planned to take on Whitebeard after he finished the war. With all the big ones too tired to have chance. If he's lucky some death.
@|HeRo|:
The final villain is of course "fleet admiral helmeppo"…revenge of east blue incident aka destroying his luxury lazy life under his dad cap. morgan
I fully support this. Helmeppo for the win, er, final battle. Zoro will fight Coby, who shifted to Akainu's ideology, and armadillo penis rainbows will fall from the sky. It all makes sense; every last word. You've got my vote, thats for sure.:ninja:
Blackbeard as final villain? Ahaha that's a good one 
Blackbeard as final villain? Ahaha that's a good one
Haha, 2 + 2 = 4?? Yeah ALRIGHT buddy
That thead sure is fun. Every couple of months someone comes there so we can repeat the same old debate for 10 pages or more. And then it dies again.
@Light:
Guess we are interpreting hero differently here. As far as I'm concerned, a hero is someone with heroic motivations, such as greater good.
I didn't read the whole conversation but that bit bugged me. Doing something for "greater good" is not a heroic motivation and it doesn't describe fighting for other people.
It is a choice, often a difficult one and by no means always justified by the right motivations if it is possible to distinct what is a right one at all.
The final villain? You mean One Piece is going to end?!?!? :sad:
Anyways, I just can't see Doflamingo being taken down. I don't know why.
He just seems to have so much "presence".
How time changes
Still think Dragon is gonna be the big surprise villain. Dragon seems to have been planning everything many steps ahead of the World Government, and I think he'll play a role bigger than the Yonkou will. No one suspects him because of how much the Revolutionaries are allied with Luffy. This could all be part of Dragon's plan to use Luffy as a pawn to help overthrow the World Government, but Luffy won't side with Dragon because he wants to be King of the Pirates (free from ANY form of government).
This would open up incredible dynamics between Luffy and Sabo, brothers pitted against each other due to the sides they chose.
Still think Dragon is gonna be the big surprise villain. Dragon seems to have been planning everything many steps ahead of the World Government, and I think he'll play a role bigger than the Yonkou will. No one suspects him because of how much the Revolutionaries are allied with Luffy. This could all be part of Dragon's plan to use Luffy as a pawn to help overthrow the World Government, but Luffy won't side with Dragon because he wants to be King of the Pirates (free from ANY form of government).
This would open up incredible dynamics between Luffy and Sabo, brothers pitted against each other due to the sides they chose.
Luffy don't gives a shit to whonever rules the world and Dragon doesn't seems to have interest to use Luffy to whatever he plans.
Dragon doesn't seems to have interest to use Luffy to whatever he plans.
The things he did and said in Loguetown imply that Luffy's very existence(as long as he's not on the side of the WG) is an asset to him.
The things he did and said in Loguetown imply that Luffy's very existence(as long as he's not on the side of the WG) is an asset to him.
No it didn't. All he pointed out was Luffy's desire for freedom.
Luffy being a pirate was referred to as good by Dragon.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
How time changes
That was cool.
Although, looking at the dudes latest posts in 2013, he was into my little pony. I thought that was interesting.
Luffy don't gives a shit to whonever rules the world and Dragon doesn't seems to have interest to use Luffy to whatever he plans.
We don't know anything about Dragon or his motivations.
Crackpot theory incoming - but what if Dragon was able to force Roger to reincarnate into Luffy? We know that Devilfruits work this way, and return to the closest possible fruit when its user dies. The Will of D could be tied to this somehow, and the 'soul' is reborn in another. What better plan to turn the world around than unleashing another Roger? Dragon's motivation would then be all about preparing his forces to strike at the world government at the right time - when they're weakened by the coming of the new 'Roger'. Luffy is the ultimate trump card, and Dragon knows he doesn't need to do anything to guide what is about to happen, he just has to ride the storm and pick up the pieces left in its wake.
If I could vote, it would be Blackbeard. I predict he's gonna ave 3 devil fruits and maybe kill someone important to Luffy (Shanks? Sabo?).
Luffy being a pirate was referred to as good by Dragon.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
That was cool.
Although, looking at the dudes latest posts in 2013, he was into my little pony. I thought that was interesting.
That last part actually made me laugh so hard after I actually went off to check his My Little Pony posts :wassat:
Guess BB has competition. Kidd for Shanks.
Ouch, BB doesn't look that certain anymore, does he?
BlackBeard won't be the final villan.
