[Zolda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

People's alignment can change, not that they're always "misunderstood" if they have good traits and aren't all bad. Takatora is one of the redeemed (anti-)villains. Regardless of his intentions, his planned action is to commit genocide the rest of 6 billion human race (other than 1 billion saved with Sengoku Driver) with Scalar System in the name of 'saving them', though better than Helheim, it's still the lesser evil to it to kill most vs Helheim's kill all. He stops being villainous when he abandons that and agrees to work with Kouta in negotiating with Overlords instead and cleaning up what Yggdrasill has done in the end.

Whaaattt??? Since when could Takatora's intention be disregarded? Since when did he do everything he did to commit genocide? He did what he did out of necessity. He did what he did out of an ethical dilemma that resulted from his limited logistic, and more importantly, his limited understanding of Helheim, NOT out of a malevolent intention to commit genocide on 6/7th of the Earth's population. The resulting depopulation (which you labeled as genocide) was a known, expected, necessary consequence that resulted from the very limited amount of the rare metals required to manufacture the generic version of Sengoku Driver, and probably also after taking Yggdrasill's manufacturing capabilities into account. He knew very well the good and bad consequences of his actions due to the aforementioned limitations.

If he had access to higher amount of the rare metals, then he'd have definitely planned and done things differently. If he had known that Helheim wasn't just a virulent, supernatural flora, then he'd have definitely planned and done things differently. If he had known about the existence of Overlords and that Helheim could be controlled by Overlords, then he'd have definitely planned and done things differently. If he had known that Helheim would give the ultimate control to the sole challenger who managed to be the victor, then he'd have definitely planned and done things differently. He was willing, but unable. If he had had access to sufficient logistic and knowledge, he would've saved all humans, and the majority of events in Gaim wouldn't have happened. It would've become humans vs Helheim/Overlords war, not humans vs humans infighting with Helheim invasion looming behind the scene. What kind of villain do you think Takatora was? A Geats villain? LOL.

Just because people can change doesn't mean that everyone changes. Some people change, while some other never change. Takatora was never a villain at heart. He never had any malevolent intention. His intention was heroic, but in the context of the situation at the time (his limited knowledge and logistic), it resulted in bad outcomes. He's what I call an apparent villain/faux villain. His villainy was only an apparent one that arose out of necessity due to an ethical dilemma, not a true villainy that arose out of malevolent intentions. Even then, a malevolent intention, when put in the right context, can sometimes results in a greater good, like what I explained in regards to Ozymandias. This is what I meant by putting intentions in the context of a situation.

Oh, and have you noticed the striking similarity between Gaim's and Zangetsu's designs? From the motif of the undersuits, to the transformation scenes of the Orange and Melon armors, to how strikingly similar the shapes of their helmets were. Those were the visual clues that show that both Kouta and Takatora were actually two people with similar intentions and ideals in two different contexts and vantage points. It took several moments of conflict until they realized and uncovered how similar their goals actually were.

Things aren't always what they seem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

Well obviously these are good things to do, though these seem to be all something reactive to visible bad. Other than stopping what's already bad, trying to prevent bad things to happen again is also important though, what causes those criminals to emerge, or the creation of that totalitarian dictator. Examining and addressing the root cause in a flawed system where society may create its own monsters. Though of course the method used to do this shouldn't be an extreme one.

Also about a visible bad, there may be bad things which is subtle and perpetuated because it's normalized over time by people who do not think about things from the standpoint of others - evil becomes commonplace; it becomes the everyday. Ordinary people going about their everyday lives become complicit actors in systems that perpetuate evil. Such as for example, abusive parents, teachers, or other authoritarian figures who excuse their actions as giving "tough love" and have the public buy their words, or undermining bullying and depicting it as "passage of life", or getting mental issues like depression stigmatized, making those bad actions swept under the rug.

Dealing with kinds of above one may need to have someone challenge the principles those people have inherited, to ensure they stand up to their individual scrutiny, becoming more aware of biases and learned behaviors? But this may be what's seen as "moral policing", unless this is also what you also have in mind and maybe have other ideas to deal with. There are also people who'd dismiss and shut up those who bring up about something terrible being normalized, which'd further let these f*cked up stuff perpetuated as the one who brought that point up is the one who takes blame.

As I expected, you view yourself as some kind of moral warrior who has the authority to fix all root of all problems and imperfections in the world. You view yourself as the white knight, the messiah, or the savior who can save humanity from itself. You view your one-size-fits-all solution as the ultimate moral panacea that can cure all ills of the society. You think you're in some kind of crusade to realize a grand, moralistic utopia of some kind. You view yourself as the real world version of Ace Ukiyo. No wonder you idolize him.

Like I stated before: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". You better tone down your white-knightism/hero syndrome, unless you want the society to shun you and view you not as a hero, but alas, a villain. That's why I said that you should watch Fourze episodes 23-24. If you choose to be the real world Ace Ukiyo and continue your moralistic crusade, then go ahead. It's your life. Just wait until reality comes knocking on your door. It seems like only the severe pains of real life can knock some sense into your head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

A help being "needed" or not can really vary between person, circumstances, etc. Like one may excel through a quiz while someone else struggles with it. It can't be known if a help is needed (including their response afterwards) or not unless someone shows concern and tries to offer help. I'm also someone who don't like being helped and want for my abilities to be acknowledged, but then again, still I can't really hold it against those who display concern on me, and I shouldn't discourage that good deed even if I personally don't like it. If one don't want help, I think it's fine if they relent their offer and acknowledge it, but that can be known by offering them.

If you're not naive, you can often tell which one is which. And, more importantly, it's one thing to offer good deeds, it's another thing to enforce good deeds. What a nosy, moralistic, self-righteous busybody moral warrior/white knight is doing is virtually enforcing good deeds. You basically view yourself as a moralistic god who has the authority to enforce good deeds on others and enforce the same rule on society. An offer is vastly different from an enforcement. See the simple difference there, Ace Ukiyo? Smh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

Regulating and solving all their problems... actually there can be complaints that feel Ace does too little to utilize his powers to make everything better, such as only providing some assistance (e.g. to Kousei) while watching over rather than directly intervening to save Neon and eliminate Beroba, describing that as being cold and unfeeling. Dunno if regulating behavior is exaggeration here, as it seems that what he did other than fighting parts, was only to return the memories of each person deprived by the DGP, because brainwashing is wrong, and the 'policing' was only done once to Keiwa who lost his way, not others like Michinaga or Win.

Can't you see it already? The majority of those Redditors probably have the same white-knightism/hero syndrome that you do. That's why they wanted everything to be better. That's why they wanted Ace Ukiyo to create a world where everyone could be happy.

To say that Ace Ukiyo's moral policing was behavior regulation is a very very very severe understatement. What he ultimately created was a world where he had a total control as a God. No, not just a god, but a literal God with a capital G who could manipulate everything without exception. He ended up as a God that exerted his divine, absolute powers on mere mortal humans (aka the Sims/the inhabitants of DGP's world simulation). A God that exerts his powers on puny, weak humans is just a weak, coward God that deserves no worship. He was a villainous, totalitarian God. He ended up as an even bigger villain than Sueru had ever been. That's the ultimate irony that seemed to go waaaayyyyy over the writers' heads.

Perhaps Yuuya Takahashi has never heard of this famous adage by Lord Acton:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Don't worry. It's not all bad news though. A real human from Sueru's real world can simply press a button to reset or turn off DGP's world simulation, and Ace Ukiyo's reign of moralistic terror will end in an instant that no one inside DGP's world simulation can even realize what's happening, including Ace Ukiyo The God himself. Gigantic LOL @ Geats. Haha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

While it's important for someone to think about long-term consequences in how their actions may impact others, outcome is still a circumstance out of your control. Sometimes good things can come out of a bad situation or a bad thing, or even due to someone doing something knowing full well it's wrong and will cause harm. However, people should not misconstrue that just because something good was born out of something bad/evil, does not make that something good, just because the end result was good does not mean that the bad guys did something good. The opposite is also true- you can act with the intention of trying to make things better but because of things you cannot change, what you did actually make things worse, that does not make you a bad person.

Whaaattt??? Outcome is still a circumstance out of your control? *facepalm* Some things are out of anyone's control, but NOT everything is out of control. Some things are within control. Know which one is which and don't conflate each other. You must take full responsibility of all the consequences of your actions, be it good or bad, whatever your initial intention is. You can't bask in your self-righteous, moralistic light of glory, and yet when it comes the time to assess your accountability, you run away and shout "Outcomes are out of my control!" as an excuse. That's pathetic. Avoiding responsibility and accountability is the main sign of cowardice, weakness, and ethical immaturity.

You seem to have some kind of victim mentality where you view everything is outside your control. If you do think that outcome is out of your control, then you'd be more cautious and prudent in your actions, NOT recklessly and mindlessly applying your extreme moralistic mentality on everything. If outcome is out of your control, then you should be more careful, NOT careless. Smh.

If the bad things that result from your naive good intentions only happen once or twice and or have minor negative consequences, then you could probably use your favorite "I'm not a bad person."/"I'm just a person that wants to do good deeds."/"It's a coincidence."/"The outcome is beyond my control."/etc lines as excuses. On the other hand, if your naive good intentions often result in frequent screwups and or create major, serious, irreversible negative consequences, then I bet that no one in their right, sane mind will ever buy your favorite excuses.

Robert Hanlon postulated Hanlon's razor aka his famous adage that stated: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." In real life, however, malice is often hard to distinguish from stupidity. If you screw up several times and is still unable to read between the lines and is still unable to connect the dots from your intentions to your actions to your consequences, then only one conclusion can be taken: Your stupidity equals malice. This is what people mean when they ask "Is he a crook, or is he just a fool?" every time a screwup happens. This is just a reworded explanation of my previous points about the relationship between ethics and risk.

It seems like your main (or perhaps, only) motive to do good deeds is to be seen as a good person by other people, not because you want to do the right thing. It seems like you gain some kind of gratification or pleasure from being viewed as a good person by other people. Yet, when it comes the time for evaluation of the actual consequences of your seemingly good deeds done out of seemingly good intentions, you avoid it by using your favorite excuses above. It seems like, to you, the end is achieved by doing good things, not doing the right things. That's why you avoid responsibility and accountability at all cost. Maaannn... Doing good things is not necessarily doing the right things.

See? This is what I meant by your severe inability to understand context and nuance. Just because I said that consequences matter, doesn't mean that you can easily disregard intentions. Put intentions and consequences into their own contexts. Smh. It seems like you're living solely inside your head. It seems like you've never experienced unintended negative consequences in real life. Of course in your imagination everything is always perfect, simple, and straight forward. Of course in your imagination all problems in the world can always be solved with good intentions and good deeds. Real life, however, is not perfect. Real life has 10 ways to turn your one good intention into 100 royal screwups. Real life has real consequences which can vastly differ from what you think inside your head. Never assume that what's inside your head will always congruent with what's outside your head, ever. In real life, a line from point A to point B is often not a straight line, but an ultra-curved, ultra-tangled line that can also give rise to other ultra-curved, ultra-tangled lines, and create a positive feedback loop that a small input in the name of good intentions can be amplified and give rise to huge, unexpected, negative outcomes that can destroy the whole system. In the real world, there's no Goddess of Creation. In the real world, there's no Power of Creation.

"Welcome to the real world, Ace Ukiyo."
~ Morpheus, probably. LOL.

I don't think that you're unable to understand my points. It's more like you're unwilling to understand my points. So, I better stop my response here. Let me end it with one sentence:
Good luck with your (real) life, Ace Ukiyo.