[DreadBringer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zolda

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.

Cool motive, still murder. As have been stated before, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

What do you think the Scalar System is for? Takatora plans to distribute 1 billion Sengoku Drivers to people, then kill the rest to reduce the risk of them becoming Inves in the face of Helheim. I guess I shouldn't use the term genocide here then, but I meant for it as him wanting to do mass killing (thought genocide is for that but I'm mistaken perhaps), of 6 billion humans.

Two things can be awful at once, even if one of them is more bad than the other. Either all humans perish due to Helheim, or majority of humans killed off due to Project Ark. Not to mention, there's the complicated matter of deciding which people "deserve salvation" and which ones get screwed over, which is usually part of such extreme solutions. Implementing a solution where you have to decide who gets sacrificed, what gives Takatora a right to decide for the rest of humanity?

Explains about the misuse of anti-hero term before, to refuse to call out those that don't have malevolent intentions. Yes, anti-villain is for those who aren't villain at heart (their redeeming qualities), but they still perform actions like villains. Bad actions aren't solely driven by malevolent intentions, and moreover, there can be those who deny their malevolent intentions and make excuses. And is everyone else just supposed to shut up and fall in line against people like Takatora, even if the solution is morally unacceptable to them? Just because there's a time crunch, they're just supposed to resign themselves to having to doom some to save others?

If you think that good intentions absolve them from their actions as it'd be only about necessity, let's say, for your examples before of opposing a criminal that hurt your friend/family, or a totalitarian dictator, if they're claiming they do what they do for good, like the criminal claiming they want to get you prepared in dangerous situation, or the dictator claiming they do things like that to preserve peace, then would they still be worth opposing or they're heroes already?

If you'd insist that these well-intentioned extremists aren't bad because they wouldn't have done that if they know better way.... They can also choose to refuse to accept that anyone suffering is a viable option, that there is always another way if they try hard enough, that something better can be achieved if they fight hard enough for those ideals. To not accept whatever cards reality/fate/destiny/etc handed to them. People like Kouta are being like that, to refuse anyone being victimized, be it few, or many, not that few/many lives can be treated like a cattle in the face of many/survival. It'd may be what's called as naive, by in-universe people or fanbase, but dunno why the well-intentioned extremists are believed to guarantee making things better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zolda

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.

Even the criminal or dictator you mentioned as the example of who to oppose, can also make claim like that, where if you'd oppose their actions, they can also claim that you're meddling in other people's (their) business. What to do if the ones who you can act against is the one making claims like that? If it works they'd be free due to them feeling conflicted to intervene or not, it can be also used to gaslight and guilt trip someone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zolda

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.

Creating something doesn't mean one has total control of it? Humans also can create something and their creations can be those that are inanimate objects which control is only about the person who is using it, not its creator. And... the creation is done as a response against Suel trying to erase the world via Grand End. What is supposed to be done then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zolda

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.

Just full of your accusations on me in this part on bad faith. To talk about the consequences being out of one's control, I'm using event scenarios for examples not my personal experiences. Like for example, if a pupil of a martial artist master turns out to using his skills to commit crimes after he trained there, particularly if he has long left said place. There can be room of improvement for the master to take countermeasures to prevent that but doesn't mean that the master is similar to someone who deliberately raised and groomed someone to be a criminal doing their dirty work. Or if someone generously feed a homeless and unknowingly made them sick due to the food being actually expired (e.g. a mistake in the clerk shop). While they can improve by double checking things more, doesn't mean that they're similar to someone who deliberately harmed others, regardless of reason.

Both are the cases of someone trying to do good but unwittingly cause bad outcomes, doesn't mean they're doing bad stuff. For opposite case, there can be cases when someone ends up causing something good, like if someone bombs a building which explosion radius caught a criminal on the run, knocking him down and allowing him to be arrested. Doesn't mean that the bomber did something good, it's unexpectedly accomplishing good by pure chance of a criminal happening to be nearby.