magellan will return and win
Ch 534: "Chief Warden Magellan Vs Pirate Luffy" Discussion
-
magellan will return and win
-
Ah, no. I was actually mixing up the two obvious deaths in those few chapters and their not having died. The Easter Egg that I was referring to was the guy who bit his tongue off at the AH and died. He was sneaked in to the happy-dance and then confirmed by Oda in this last SBS. My bad; I mixed up the two fellers.
Can you show me where it is? I searched for it, but I didn't find the Easter Egg… I would like to know where I can read this last SBS you are talking about. Thanks. :D
-
Right, so…my question still stands then: since when were the Tenryuubito meant to be threatening and/or fearful by themselves?
When they went hit for hit with Ussop's butt.
-
I like how Oda has thrown in the occasional tid-bit to at least try to make Magellan "Eevyill". His line about " I wish I could enclose my heart as well," or the lack of any emotional response to the horrific death he causes one of his own, presumably loyal, subordinates. Oh wait, he did have an emotional response to that. He was annoyed that they got in his way. Having seen the calibre of human being that exists at Level 5 (Ace and Jinbei being the exceptions), I can understand that the Chief Warden of Impel Down would be utterly unfeeling toward his charges. But to show the same mocking tone of indifferance to the very people that work for him? That praise him, straight-faced, for his "noble struggle" with self-induced diarrhea?
No.
This guy is cut from the same mold as the Tenryuukuso, with one important difference. He gets away with what he does because he backs it up with his own force, rather than relying on someone else. That, and having his actions go unmonitored by the rest of the world. Spandam was a spastic, deluded, despicable, but goofy, nut. Magellan is a cold-hearted, self-absorbed, ruthless, but goofy, asshole.
-
Magellan is a cold-hearted, self-absorbed, ruthless, but goofy, asshole.
QFT
Right, so…my question still stands then: since when were the Tenryuubito meant to be threatening and/or fearful by themselves?
When he decided to use them as villains. And villains they will be.
When Charlos shot Hacchan, did you feel anything?
I mean….anything?
OH NO! I HOPE HE'S OKAY!
No?
Yeah...thought not. Because they couldn't even kill someone from two feet.
So that fell flat.
Then of course there's the girl's vow to get revenge on them.
Yeah, real threatening sweetie.
What's she going to do? Sick the Marines that are already after the crew anyway, after the crew? Yeah, you do that. Real threatening.
Oda failed. Life goes on. He can go sing nursery rhymes with that cunt who was ecstatic that Lacuba lived.
-
A villain is a villain, whether they use their own physical power or their power over society.
I admit the Tenryu aren't intimidating to me or even the SH crew but that doesn't change that they are villains. How did Oda fail?
To those on Shabondy, they are as terrifying as Jason or Freddy because the citizens are completely helpless against those who are viewed as Gods compared to them.
-
Oda failed. Life goes on.
Hmm; well, to each their own I guess. My concern for Hacchi was lacking because Oda doesn't kill people, and because even if he did I highly doubt he would have killed Hacchi then and there. A gun is a gun and a bullet is a bullet. The person that pulls the trigger doesn't really matter much so long as they hit the target, right? It's the intent, as Ivotas puts it, that counts. So a bomb collar went off around a guys neck, then he was shot, then kicked and pissed on yet lives. Right, so we are forced to believe the guy was just incredibly resilient, no? I mean what am I supposed to believe here? That the Tenryuubito just suck at shooting guns and kicking people? That they used BB guns, Piccolo Pete's, and Moccasins to do their dirty work instead of armor piercing rounds, C4, and steel toed boots?
Like I said, when were they meant to be threatening and fearful by themselves? Rather, wasn't it their status in the world that was meant to cause fear? So Sharlia holds a grudge; am I fearful of her for that? Not particularly, but I bet that will warrant a bounty increase, if not a separate bounty by the Tenryuubito altogether. Is that a big deal to Luffy? No. To anyone else? Yeah, should be. Oda's failure was due to his reluctance to kill someone, not poorly created villainy. Do you consider Enel to be a poor villain? I'm pretty sure his bazillion volt shocks should have killed a few people; Enel as a villain or Oda's reluctance to kill? What about Croc? Planted a bomb in the center of a city that couldn't even kill one man at point-blank; Croc as a villain or Oda's reluctance to kill?
See what I mean? I never saw the Tenryuubito threatening or fearful in and of themselves. I saw their power and influence threatening and fearful though. They
killshoot you on a whim because you walk too slow or got in their way, and if you fight back you get the strongest powers in the world thrown at you. If you escape, you get a huge bounty placed on you in order for the Marines to save face. -
Hmm; well, to each their own I guess. My concern for Hacchi was lacking because Oda doesn't kill people, and because even if he did I highly doubt he would have killed Hacchi then and there. A gun is a gun and a bullet is a bullet. The person that pulls the trigger doesn't really matter much so long as they hit the target, right? It's the intent, as Ivotas puts it, that counts. So a bomb collar went off around a guys neck, then he was shot, then kicked and pissed on yet lives. Right, so we are forced to believe the guy was just incredibly resilient, no? I mean what am I supposed to believe here? That the Tenryuubito just suck at shooting guns and kicking people? That they used BB guns, Piccolo Pete's, and Moccasins to do their dirty work instead of armor piercing rounds, C4, and steel toed boots?
Like I said, when were they meant to be threatening and fearful by themselves? Rather, wasn't it their status in the world that was meant to cause fear? So Sharlia holds a grudge; am I fearful of her for that? Not particularly, but I bet that will warrant a bounty increase, if not a separate bounty by the Tenryuubito altogether. Is that a big deal to Luffy? No. To anyone else? Yeah, should be. Oda's failure was due to his reluctance to kill someone, not poorly created villainy. Do you consider Enel to be a poor villain? I'm pretty sure his bazillion volt shocks should have killed a few people; Enel as a villain or Oda's reluctance to kill? What about Croc? Planted a bomb in the center of a city that couldn't even kill one man at point-blank; Croc as a villain or Oda's reluctance to kill?
See what I mean? I never saw the Tenryuubito threatening or fearful in and of themselves. I saw their power and influence threatening and fearful though. They
killshoot you on a whim because you walk too slow or got in their way, and if you fight back you get the strongest powers in the world thrown at you. If you escape, you get a huge bounty placed on you in order for the Marines to save face.Yeah I just shrug off the lack of true death in this series. Its stylistic at this point from a narrative and he still gets across intent without killing extremely well. Thats all you really need in a good villian, someone who has the right intent and potentially the power to pull it off. By themselves the Tenryuubito are some of the weakest beings (don't feel like calling them human, they certainly don't think they are mere "humans") in the series, but its like saying an 8 year old kid can't be dangerous even if he has highly dangerous and loaded gun in its hand. You still take the situation seriously because the out come "could" be bad in the end. The Tenryuubito are a cause and effect villian. You do something to them, you get back something a 100 times worse on your ass.
The very fact that they are willing to kill anyone on sight just because they don't like the look of them AND they have the power to call on all the marines. That means you just don't mess with them. For all you know they could try to harm your friends to spite you instead of actually just going after you. They play dirty and they don't know any better because they are spoiled brats.
-
so again…no chapter this week? or just late spoilers?
-
On a side note on death:
Don't know if it has been discussed but what about that ID Prison Guard who was melting from Mag'z poison? I didn't see anyone give him an antidote…..
-
@Best:
so again…no chapter this week? or just late spoilers?
Spoilers aren't late. They will probably surface in a few minutes. How do I know? Because I am putting my load in the dryer and then going to bed.
@Pirate_King_Sage:
Don't know if it has been discussed but what about that ID Prison Guard who was melting from Mag'z poison? I didn't see anyone give him an antidote…..
Don't worry. He will be celebrating with someone in the background soon enough.
-
Spoilers aren't late. They will probably surface in a few minutes. How do I know? Because I am putting my load in the dryer and then going to bed.
Don't worry. He will be celebrating with someone in the background soon enough.
And your gunna leave the dried clothes in the dryer while your sleeping? That's alot of ironing! You can avoid that if you would just hang up and fold as soon as they are done :)
Whatever it takes to get spoilerz!!
Don't worry. He will be celebrating with someone in the background soon enough.
LoL! I can imagine him living with a half-melted face and body, cheering on the ID Army while fighting Luffy.
This makes me wonder if Roger is really REALLY dead…..probably is but hey, with all this anti-death aura floating around OP, I wouldn't be surprised.
-
Hacchin should have died, his death would have given the whole story a little more meaning.
as many people say killing is an overused plot device, it STILL is a good plot device, death is just part of life, its hard to have an easy to believe drama when you have laughs, desire, sadness, envy, cruelty, etc, but misteriously not death?
I still have my hopes for the death of anything though, yes, one piece needs it, I dont think I could stand another Enies lobby (whitebeards upcoming war) where no one dies at all.
-
dammmit oda~ give us some awesomeness this time, last chapter was this chapter was really lame, so I want some Haki with no end. If Luffy happens to lose again, i dont know it would be too terrible.
I think we should expect mr3 and bug to be drawn to luffy at some point as well as bon. luffy definetly will use Haki, beat up mag and ending up at the kitchen, eating there going down to lvl 5 kicking some asses and saving ace, fishman and kicking crocs ass again. then he sees someone unexpected and this will be another epic from oda.
-
@ Greg:
No much how much they fail nothing you said really convinces me that there's not a dark theme coming around with them. They failed to kill somebody from close range. So what, the pure will and the status to do so whenever they like is what scares the shit out of me. That they are incompetent to do so (in the end) doesn't change the fact that this entire development is a very dark theme.
For my taste at least it's much darker then a simple fight between two friends (Luffy vs. Usopp). It's definitely not a fun development but nothing that makes me go "wow, there is some seriously wrong things going on in the world of OP". It's just two idiots fighting. I've had that in my own circle of friends too. However people who treat others as slaves, torture them and dispose of them as if they are trash is nothing that I have close to me nor is it something I even want to get close to. That's why I agree with however said the Tenryubito thing is a darker theme then the Luffy vs. Usopp thing. The failure of killing doesn't change a thing.
@Zik:
This solely depends on what you think to be evil. You see a group of ppl from afar stoning a girl to death. Is evil not afoot?
No. Evil is something that clearly comes from evil intention. Something like the example above is simply just a very VERY bad thing but not evil from a philosophic point of view.
-
Oda's failure was due to his reluctance to kill someone, not poorly created villainy.
Which came at the price of their lack of being able to do anything threatening despite having the supposed authority authority to do so.
You metioned Luffy's bounty might raise. But that goes back to what I said.
So his bounty raises. So the Marines come after him. Not like they aren't already. Like they really need ANOTHER reason. It's redundent actually.
You know just pondering. If anything their royalty should have given them time for hunting for sport and shit. You'd think if anything they'd be dead shot, especially sine they carry around pistols they can use at any time.
Just ick. Ick with a side of ick.
So what, the pure will and the status to do so whenever they like is what scares the shit out of me.
I understand your view but…sorry. Makes them humorous in my eyes. Like a clown show almost.
It's definitely not a fun development but nothing that makes me go "wow, there is some seriously wrong things going on in the world of OP".
I guess that's just me then. While I never could have anticipated their presence, just the fact that 5 people determine many of the world actions was enough to give me an inkling that some fucked up shit goes on in high places so I wasn't really shocked by that.
However people who treat others as slaves, torture them and dispose of them as if they are trash is nothing that I have close to me nor is it something I even want to get close to.
I dunno, again, Arlong scared me a lot more when he made people literally pay for their lives and erm…successfully....killed someone. There's a chance he's the last great villain Oda will make. At least in my eyes.
He treats people like shit physically AND mentally AND he can actually harm you. Ouch. That's trifecta shit right there.
-
I understand your view but…sorry. Makes them humorous in my eyes. Like a clown show almost.
Hm, fail to see how that is humorous.
I guess that's just me then. While I never could have anticipated their presence, just the fact that 5 people determine many of the world actions was enough to give me an inkling that some fucked up shit goes on in high places so I wasn't really shocked by that.
That I also don't understand. To me it isn't the number of people that determine the world actions but their motives that would make me consider some smurfed up shit is going. If they are the perfect leaders who'd give their all for their people wouldn't everything be ok then? Don't see why the numbers are a problem. Didn't Oda himself establish with the Wapol/Cobra comparison that it's leadership quality of the guy at the top itself is what matters?
I dunno, again, Arlong scared me a lot more when he made people literally pay for their lives and erm…successfully....killed someone. There's a chance he's the last great villain Oda will make. At least in my eyes.
Well I guess we have to agree to disagree here then. To me it's the line of thought that makes the dark theme, not the success of an lethal attack. To me Arlong and the Tenryubito are exactly the same on that behalf. They have a scary world view. That they are different because of their success to kill somebody doesn't change the fact for me in the end.^^
Oh, and just before I forget it. IMO Arlong is one class below Crocodile in terms of being a villain. No matter what he did, he at least showed sympathy to his kind while Crocodile didn't show sympathy to anyone and yes, he also killed people. That we didn't see him kill a mother in front of her childs eyes doesn't mean that he wouldn't do it if he had to. At least nothing that we've seen of him gives me the impression that he wouldn't do it.
-
Ivotas–--------------------------------------------------------Greg -
Which came at the price of their lack of being able to do anything threatening despite having the supposed authority authority to do so.
Oda's reluctance to kill anyone, not just someone. By this same reasoning most villains in the series are the same: Enel (Tons), Croc (Luffy, Chaka, Pell), Kuma (Zoro), Etc. Anyway, no point in going in circles.
-
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk99/zkaiser/UOIF.png
Ivotas–--------------------------------------------------------GregSo that would make Greg Blob and me Juggernaut? Thank god it's not the other way around.^^
-
No. Evil is something that clearly comes from evil intention. Something like the example above is simply just a very VERY bad thing but not evil from a philosophic point of view.
Exactly how can you determine what is evil intention if you're not going to determine what is evil?
If you need to know the intention of why a mob of ppl are stoning a girl to death to decide whether it is evil or not I guess that would have to run constant for every heinous act, no? If some guy slaughters a bunch of babies and doesn't have the intent of evil then would it not be evil to you?
-
So that would make Greg Blob and me Juggernaut? Thank god it's not the other way around.^^
That line was also used in The Dark Knight.
-
@Zik:
Exactly how can you determine what is evil intention if you're not going to determine what is evil?
It is evil if somebody does it with the motivation to harm others. In other words willingly commiting a crime against somebody and being fully aware of the harm you cause and liking it.
Not evil is when you commit a crime thinking you're doing the right thing. Looking at whoever you harm to be in the wrong that has to be stopped even if force is required. That's the difference between doing something evil and bad things.If you need to know the intention of why a mob of ppl are stoning a girl to death to decide whether it is evil or not I guess that would have to run constant for every heinous act, no?
A mob is something that always goes out of control, where the individual goes under the movement reaches a momentum. This is not my personal take this is simply has mass movements work.
That said, it of course doesn't count as intentionally evil since because the loss of individualism means that a person doesn't follow his concrete individual will anymore.If some guy slaughters a bunch of babies and doesn't have the intent of evil then would it not be evil to you?
It would be a big crime against humanity but it wouldn't be evil because a person who'd comit such a crime would be deluded to think he's doing the right thing. Heck, there's people who even think if you kill a baby it would descend to heaven because a baby has a pure soul and can't get anywhere else. Of course I don't approve of any such method but I can't deny that such a person, as deluded he/she might be, not only is familiar with the concept good vs. evil BUT also thinks to be fighting evil.
Just take the rethorical speeches of each leader that takes people to follow them into war. No matter if it is Hitler, Bush, Hussein or Bin Laden. None of them says stuff like "We are the evil ones", "Satan is on our side" or "We me destroy everyone who's good in this world", no! Of course all of them are saying stuff like "We are the good ones", "God is on our side" or "We must destroy everyone who's evil in this world". With that I'm not trying to say that they are doing good things. But people who follow them think so because otherwise nobody would follow them if those bastards would say what they really think. I'm not saying good intentions can't lead to hell (because history has times and again proven the opposite) but that the philosophic concept of evil is much worse then of a bad thing. This is why people often do bad things because they think that the evil that needs to be fought is far worse. Of course such people never realize that in the end the crimes they commit are a very bad thing itself.
I'm not the only one who thinks like that. There's tons of metaphysic books in philosophy that write about this problem.
That line was also used in The Dark Knight.
What I said or what Zkaiser posted? Would surprise me if it's anything other than the latter.
-
immoveable object= no motion = 0 velocity
unstoppable force= neverending forceforce =/= velocity
if an immoveable objects can never move then it has either won (if it's where it likes to be) or lost( not where it likes to be)
however a force which is unstoppible is always active, so even if it's won it won't stop and so it means can never justify the ends because the end is noexistant in comparison.
also thos who think i got the names the wrong way round, i say no. you can't have a immoveable force because force cannot be quantified into a point in space and so cannot motion.
-
I'm just happy that I'm not the Blob.^^
-
I'm just happy that I'm not the Blob.^^
remember last weeks naruto? greg is a friggin ROCK!!!…and you're just a tiny kyubi
:) -
^ what are you talking about?
-
You'z trollin!
-
Por Que!!!!!!
Wha? -
Not evil is when you commit a crime thinking you're doing the right thing.
That's definitely your subjective opinion. In this case a person can commit the most atrocious crimes in human history but if that person thinks they're doing the right thing or I guess for a greater good that person would not be evil.
It would be a big crime against humanity but it wouldn't be evil because a person who'd comit such a crime would be deluded to think he's doing the right thing.
So a person who commits an evil act/crime and thinks they're doing the right thing is ALWAYS deluded? If that's the case you're equating some mental defect with evil deeds where a person thinks they're in the right.
Just take the rethorical speeches of each leader that takes people to follow them into war. No matter if it is Hitler, Bush, Hussein or Bin Laden. None of them says stuff like "We are the evil ones", "Satan is on our side" or "We me destroy everyone who's good in this world", no! Of course all of them are saying stuff like "We are the good ones", "God is on our side" or "We must destroy everyone who's evil in this world". With that I'm not trying to say that they are doing good things.
This is my main point. Just because a person thinks what they're doing is the right thing doesn't mean they are not evil or that the act is not evil. If this is how you define evil then it's almost non-existent, especially after you talk about separating something evil and something bad lol.
I'll end this here since this topic overall is objective. If you're willing to realize that those ppl (Hitler, Bin Laden, etc.) who commit crimes but don't believe them to be evil because they think they're doing the right thing then the term evil becomes completely subjective and dependent on a person's perception of any said act. A person can do evil, know it's evil and yet still do the right thing. Take those hypotheticals like "Would you kill one person/baby to save millions?" The act is evil and you know killing is wrong. More so killing innocent babies is especially heinous but the end result would be considered right by many/some. Can you truly say a person in that situation is evil then?
Take some foreign custom for example, where saying "Hi" to each other may be a greeting to us but in some tribe to a kid on the other side of the planet it may mean "You are evil manifested and have come to lay waste to humanity"(it's out there but you get my point). The kid may want to kill you or worse to prevent you from what he thinks you're about to do where as you had no intention of evil doing but will be seen as such.
Or Watchmen for another example (the graphic novel) was Ozymandias act of killing millions of New Yorkers not evil? or was it justified since the end result was him bringing humanity together? Rorschach and Doc Manhattan had two completely different takes on it. Was Dr. Manhattan evil for killing and thus silencing Rorschach from revealing the truth? So what was it, Ozymandias evil mastermind who happened to bring peace to the world or savior of mankind that made unwilling/unknowing sacrifices?
I mean hell Benjamin Linus from LOST, evil or not? Many of the fandom have opposing views as to if he's just a plain evil bastard(and has deluded himself to think he's doing the right thing) or if he follows the policy of the ends justify the means and is in truth "the good guy" like he says.
You can't definitively say what is evil and what is not based off of the perpetrator's view point on their plan or actions. There's definitely a gray area (may be why we have gray matter).
So yea I'll end my off topic-ness here. As far as my opinion/view point on evil and all that it entails I take what is evil or the "Is this evil?" question on a case by case basis. I can't just write it off as if you think it's the right thing your crazy and if you know it's not then you're evil.
-
@ Zik: As I said, it's not my very own point of view it's how moral philosophy (and also theology) has definied it through the centuries. I simply concur with it. And I'm not making things up here. There wouldn't be any need for me to do so.
-
So that would make Greg Blob and me Juggernaut?
It means I OD and you beat your mother.
-
This post is deleted!
-
It means I OD and you beat your mother.
What's an OD? And please, no references to my family. Thanks.
-
-
What's an OD? And please, no references to my family. Thanks.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to the actual characters; The Blob & Juggernaut not your mother.
@Ivotas:@ Zik: As I said, it's not my very own point of view it's how moral philosophy (and also theology) has definied it through the centuries. I simply concur with it. And I'm not making things up here. There wouldn't be any need for me to do so.
No. That's what some philosophers and theologists define it as. Also if you agree with their view point isn't that you adopting as well and making it your own? Someone comes up with an answer and ppl years later agree with it. Wouldn't it now be their viewpoint as well? If not what is your viewpoint? or do you not have one?
-
I think Magellan's fruit is definitely one of the strongest paramecia it could also be called a psuedo logia.
-
What's an OD? And please, no references to my family. Thanks.
Woah, calm down cowboy. I'm talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_Ledger and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Bale which is who ZKaiser was originally referrencing.
0:12 -
Woah, calm down cowboy. I'm talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_Ledger and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Bale which is who ZKaiser was originally referrencing.
0:12I'm perfectly aware what Zkaiser was refering to. But I still don't get what the "beat your mother" statement has to do with it. The clip doesn't help clearing it up either.
@Zik:
I'm pretty sure he was referring to the actual characters; The Blob & Juggernaut not your mother.
Well so far I'm just as baffled as before what I refered to so I'd simply like to have it cleared up.
No. That's what some philosophers and theologists define it as.
Which are the people that defined the moral code for the world we're living in.
Also if you agree with their view point isn't that you adopting as well and making it your own? Someone comes up with an answer and ppl years later agree with it. Wouldn't it now be their viewpoint as well? If not what is your viewpoint? or do you not have one?
Of course it also becomes my viewpoint when I concur with such theories. I thought you were saying that what I suggested so far about the difference between evil and bad is something that I completely made up myself and doesn't apply to the real world at all, which simply is not the case. That's why I brought about philosophy and theology into play. So the point I made about the difference between evil and bad still stands.
-
I'm perfectly aware what Zkaiser was refering to. But I still don't get what the "beat your mother" statement has to do with it. The clip doesn't help clearing it up either.
Then perhaps reading the Wikipedia link I intentionally provided to explain would help? ^_^; I'll just copy and paste:
On 22 July 2008, Bale attended a London police station by appointment and was arrested in connection with an alleged assault on his mother, Jenny, and sister, Sharon, who called the authorities.[53][54] After being held for more than four hours,[55] he was released on bail, pending further investigation.[53] He has denied these allegations.[55] On 14 August, British police declared that they would take no further action against him.[56] The charges were dismissed for lack of evidence.[57]
-
Then perhaps reading the Wikipedia link I intentionally provided to explain would help?
No offense but you could have get straight to the point instead of linking to Wikipedia profiles of actors, which are quite lenghtly. Did you really expect me to read through all that stuff to understand what you meant?
Anyways, I appreciate the clarification but in the end it's still nothing I consider funny. I know that you meant no harm but you should be aware that there's some cultures that take everything about the family serious, me belonging to one of those. So even if it was just a joke I hope you'll remember for the next time that this is a matter I do not like to have addressed to in such a manner. Hope you understand and respect that.
-
Did you really expect me to read through all that stuff to understand what you meant?
I'm sorry, I thought 'beating your mother' would directly send one to the section labeled 'Controversy'.
I know that you meant no harm but you should be aware that there's some cultures that take everything about the family serious, me belonging to one of those. So even if it was just a joke I hope you'll remember for the next time that this is a matter I do not like to have addressed to in such a manner. Hope you understand and respect that.
I understand it now that you calmly took time to explain yourself instead of getting huffy about it ;)
Did it ever occur to you that I might have an issue with being called 'fat' though and don't find that very funny either?
ie. Insults aren't fun, even when you're being cute. ZKaiser made a funny comparison and it's become a topic in and of itself in a chapter thread.
Must be Friday.
-
magellan is gonna win! so stop fighting eachother and enjoy the next chater that is coming up SOON!
-
Which are the people that defined the moral code for the world we're living in.
You don't get what I'm saying? I said some philosophers and theologists, therefore some other philosophers and theologists will define it differently and they too would be the people that define the moral code for society.
Of course it also becomes my viewpoint when I concur with such theories. I thought you were saying that what I suggested so far about the difference between evil and bad is something that I completely made up myself and doesn't apply to the real world at all, which simply is not the case. That's why I brought about philosophy and theology into play. So the point I made about the difference between evil and bad still stands.
I never said that. Don't know where I implied that either. Just to be clear.
-
Did it ever occur to you that I might have an issue with being called 'fat' though and don't find that very funny either?
Well yes, but the difference here is though that the one thing is between only the people involved in the discussion and the other thing involves relatives of people who are not involved in the discussion at all. Of course that doesn't mean that you can't be offended by it. In otherwords whatever you throw at me personally is fine but nothing that goes against my relatives. And seeing what kind of person you've been so far in all our chitchats you definitely struck me as the kind of person who'd take it the right way.
ie. Insults aren't fun, even when you're being cute. ZKaiser made a funny comparison and it's become a topic in and of itself in a chapter thread.
No, they are not. Unless of course it happens between people who are used to do that on a friendly basis, which as I just stated is something I always took for granted here. If that's not the case then my deepest apologies.
@Zik:
You don't get what I'm saying? I said some philosophers and theologists, therefore some other philosophers and theologists will define it differently and they too would be the people that define the moral code for society.
I see. Well yes of course you'll find opposing ideas everywhere, even on that field. However an opposing idea is only that good as the argumentation you're basing it on, which in this case isn't pretty good considering that the moral code of society is always the result of those idea(l)s that succeeded against the rest.
I never said that. Don't know where I implied that either. Just to be clear.
Well my bad then.^^
-
I see. Well yes of course you'll find opposing ideas everywhere, even on that field. However an opposing idea is only that good as the argumentation you're basing it on, which in this case isn't pretty good considering that the moral code of society is always the result of those idea(l)s that succeeded against the rest.
A moral code isn't based on or the result of an idea succeeding or not. With that train of thought if the opposing idea "succeeded" then that would in your mind be the one in the right.
Also saying the case isn't good is incorrect since the opposing idea will always remain valid. Morals aren't simply if it works then its the right one and all opposing ones won't hold up. It doesn't work that way in the least bit. That's evident due to human history.
-
@Zik:
A moral code isn't based on or the result of an idea succeeding or not. With that train of thought if the opposing idea "succeeded" then that would in your mind be the one in the right.
That's what I meant. I just were a bit unlucky with the wording. But the point still remains that the moral code I discribed not only exists but is the dominant one as it is now.
-
That's what I meant. I just were a bit unlucky with the wording. But the point still remains that the moral code I discribed not only exists but is the dominant one as it is now.
I'm not entirely sold that only a moral code can truly define what evil is, so far seems like the best foundation to base the definition on that humans(as of now) can come up with.