Remove ads

With This Ring (Young Justice SI) (Thread Twelve)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Out of curiosity, @Mr Zoat, what's the plan for Paul if "The Main Man" Lobo shows up?



This genocidal, bounty-hunting nutjob killed, (almost), his entire race for a science project when he was a kid.

He gave himself an "A" for it too!

I sincerely doubt Paul will have as cordial a relationship with him as Guy Gardner does!
 
Xavier Bronze said:
Caligula was insane. He believed himself to be a literal God among men, and that delusion resulted in possibly thousands of workers being driven to death constructing monuments to his glory. Now, if you were a Roman citizen during his reign, would you be worrying about capturing Caligula alive so that he could be put through some kind of therapy that might not even work? Would you delay moving against him as his insanity continues to kill more innocent people? Or would you just kill the bastard and end it already?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oi. No using debate fallacies.
 
Mr Zoat said:
Why? Who are the Collectors normally?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Alex remembered them being related to Brainiac, but if you don't remember them at all that casts some doubt on the veracity of that memory...

Monshroud said:
Out of curiosity, @Mr Zoat, what's the plan for Paul if "The Main Man" Lobo shows up?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Lobo was in an episode of Young Justice season 2. Batgirl and Wonder Girl fought him and didn't die, so he's not as brainlessly OP here as in the comicbooks.



Marcus.D.Basterd said:
Oi. No using debate fallacies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sorry, what fallacy, specifically? In the quoted post, I used a relevant example of a similar ethical dilemma, taken from a more familiar historical context. Bringing up related situations and precedent is standard fare in most ethics debates.
 
Mr Zoat said:
Why? Who are the Collectors normally?

In an unrelated topic, I was wondering earlier about how old Sinestro is. He joined the Green Lantern Corps as a university professor, so if we assume that their education system and ageing is similar to ours he would have been about 30. Then he was in the Corps long enough to become First Lantern. If we assume that he was fired 2002, then he's been a Yellow Lantern for 9 years. If we assume that single minded focus sent him from Green Greenie to First Lantern in 20 years, he's around about 60.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Jack chance noted that most green lanterns don't go much beyond a couple of years on the job before being killed and that the current green lanterns of earth are considered seasoned veterans. The 'veterans' don't have more than a decade plus on the job (at least i don't think so) so it would be reasonable to assume Siniestro went from green recruit to first lantern fairly quickly to make him noteworthy. So i would say Siniestro probably spend less than a decade as a normal green lantern, then was promoted to first, and worked as first lantern for a couple of years more.

So while 20 years as a lantern is a fair assessment of his time on the corps, it could be a little lower (like a dozen) without breaking SOD.
 
Last edited:
Xavier Bronze said:
Alex remembered them being related to Brainiac, but if you don't remember them at all that casts some doubt on the veracity of that memory...



Lobo was in an episode of Young Justice season 2. Batgirl and Wonder Girl fought him and didn't die, so he's not as brainlessly OP here as in the comicbooks.





Sorry, what fallacy, specifically? In the quoted post, I used a relevant example of a similar ethical dilemma, taken from a more familiar historical context. Bringing up related situations and precedent is standard fare in most ethics debates.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Appeal to emotion, and possibly a straw man argument: For one thing; you can't use the suffering of non-objective groups, as the worked to death people would be to the mook, as a data point when arguing about the responsibility a insane individual has for their actions, and for another; Orange Light enlightend entities can hardly be compared to "a Roman citizen", and further more; What a Roman citizen would do under those conditions should have no baring on what the optimal course of action to reduce suffering/increase quality of life as much as possibly is.

And on top of that you go and drop a appeal to authority/tradition on me when i call you out on it. Shame on you.
 
Chaoswind said:
Jack chance noted that most green lanterns don't go much beyond a couple of years on the job before being killed and that the current green lanterns of earth are considered seasoned veterans. The 'veterans' don't have more than a decade plus on the job (at least i don't think so) so it would be reasonable to assume Siniestro went from green recruit to first lantern fairly quickly to make him noteworthy. So i would say Siniestro probably spend less than a decade as a normal green lantern, then was promoted to first, and worked as first lantern for a couple of years more.

So while 20 years as a lantern is a fair assessment of his time on the corps, it could be a little lower (like a dozen) without breaking SOD.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I assume that the Green Lantern survival rate is skewed by high 'infant mortality', or people quitting when the nature of the job is fully explained.
 
Xavier Bronze said:
But the Reach are. And Paul can't meaningfully fight the Reach until he takes down Larfleeze. I'm not saying killing him is moral. But it practically means that many, many people will be saved that would be gotten to too late otherwise. If there are a dozen innocents held captive inside the Death Star, which is blowing up a planetary population every month, it is impractical to try and rescue those dozen people before you blow up the station. Sometimes the good thing to do isn't always the best thing to do.

...Hang on, I'll just let Meryl Streep explain this one for me.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


I can...barely understand what she's saying/singing. Context please? What's going on?

Gantradies said:
yeaaah, id totally watch that show!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oddly enough...you're like the 10th person in my life who has spoken of a desire to watch a show based on me/what's in my head.

Yog said:
Paul's eyes change when he does his thing. Kent Nelson could have noticed that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That was pre-enlightenment though. Back when Paul was using his ring to activate "Ophidian eyes." His merge with the Ophidian and subsequent her heart as his soulifcation seems to have mutated him into a metahuman. One with the ability to see the emotional spectrum...and you know what just hit me? Her heart is still in there (Paul being the there) who is to say that it won't keep....upgrading him?

Monshroud said:
This genocidal, bounty-hunting nutjob killed, (almost), his entire race for a science project when he was a kid.

He gave himself an "A" for it too!

I sincerely doubt Paul will have as cordial a relationship with him as Guy Gardner does!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ugggggggh...please...no 90's anti hero parodies....
 
Xavier Bronze said:
Caligula was insane. He believed himself to be a literal God among men, and that delusion resulted in possibly thousands of workers being driven to death constructing monuments to his glory. Now, if you were a Roman citizen during his reign, would you be worrying about capturing Caligula alive so that he could be put through some kind of therapy that might not even work? Would you delay moving against him as his insanity continues to kill more innocent people? Or would you just kill the bastard and end it already?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Caligula wasn't driven mad by an external source, and certainly wasn't afraid of returning to what he was when said external source was removed. This is a poor comparison.
 
Last edited:
Silverias said:
Black light is not "Death" like you might expect. It's...corrupted. Decay and the horror of death. Remember, the spectrum is EMOTIONAL, Death and life aren't an emotion. White light is life, but only because the beauty of life is the entire spectrum in harmony.

The Black Light of death is more about all of the negative aspects of reality without emotion. All the unfathomable ugliness and yes, death, that comes with it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Another difference is that Death is quite willing to wait for you to die, The Black Light wants everything to die as soon as possible and actively hunts down and kills people.
 
Marcus.D.Basterd said:
Appeal to emotion, and possibly a straw man argument: For one thing; you can't use the suffering of non-objective groups, as the worked to death people would be to the mook, as a data point when arguing about the responsibility a insane individual has for their actions, and for another; Orange Light enlightend entities can hardly be compared to "a Roman citizen", and further more; What a Roman citizen would do under those conditions should have no baring on what the optimal course of action to reduce suffering/increase quality of life as much as possibly is.

And on top of that you go and drop a appeal to authority/tradition on me when i call you out on it. Shame on you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you want to play that game, you're committing the fallacy fallacy. You're pointing out what you perceive to be fallacies in your opponent's presentation and using that to support a claim that the position thus presented is invalid -- this is, itself, fallacious. Your argument is actually weaker than Xavier's.

Furthermore, appeals to emotion are entirely appropriate in discussions of morality, which are inherently emotional. Ethics is an attempt to rationally reason about the right thing to do as detached from emotion, but deciding how to deal with the dangerous, insane individual is going to be heavily weighted by moral decisions. (As opposed to deciding that you should deal with him, which can be managed purely through ethical reasoning.)

Now then, as I do not myself wish to commit the fallacy fallacy, I will also point out that you aren't even arguing about the same thing. Xavier's argument was to show that choosing a less-certain solution to the problem risks extending the suffering of those harmed by it. You chose to argue about a specific point of presentation while neglecting this core point.
 
Coda said:
If you want to play that game, you're committing the fallacy fallacy. You're pointing out what you perceive to be fallacies in your opponent's presentation and using that to support a claim that the position thus presented is invalid -- this is, itself, fallacious. Your argument is actually weaker than Xavier's.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This would be true, and this
Coda said:
Furthermore, appeals to emotion are entirely appropriate in discussions of morality, which are inherently emotional. Ethics is an attempt to rationally reason about the right thing to do as detached from emotion, but deciding how to deal with the dangerous, insane individual is going to be heavily weighted by moral decisions. (As opposed to deciding that you should deal with him, which can be managed purely through ethical reasoning.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
would be relevant, if i was actually arguing anything other then that he is, and should stop, using them while arguing. But, because i don't actually care what people debate as long as they don't use fallacies while doing so, this is a clear example of a straw man arguement.
Coda said:
Now then, as I do not myself wish to commit the fallacy fallacy, I will also point out that you aren't even arguing about the same thing. Xavier's argument was to show that choosing a less-certain solution to the problem risks extending the suffering of those harmed by it. You chose to argue about a specific point of presentation while neglecting this core point.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I am sure that he was trying to do so, which makes it even more important that i point out when, and how, he is failing to do so.

Further more: I am sure that such a factor would be taked into account when calculations of desire are made.
 
GodKiller999 said:
So? He's been that way for so long that it's just who he is, you'd basically have to kill his self and replace it almost entirely for it to not be insane and what would that accomplish? At that point you could just a person wholesale and just call it a day with somehow similar results. I consider him being insane as being a moot point, same for people like the Joker, it's not like lots of not entirely sane people haven't been killed already, but for some reason we have to give a shit in his case cause he's over some imaginary line in the sand? Please.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Strongly disagree about the whole it's been long enough that it's who he is. Dude is freaking insane, as in he is not a different person. It would be like saying that if someone was drugged to the point of insanity for their entire life that taking them off would be the same as killing the person they are now. In canon when Larfreeze became free of the Orange Light he did not want to go back and was terrified of it. One of Larfreezes greatest desires is to be free of the Orange Light.

As for Joker? It was asked a number of times why OL doesn't just cure him and Zoat mentioned that OLs only available method for curing him involved using the ring to re-write his mind making him a different person. If OL found a way to cure Jack Napier without replacing him with an entirely different person I imagine he would do so. As is a number of attempts have been made but everyone has failed so far. Meanwhile he likely has meta knowledge telling him that it's infact possible to cure Larfreeze without re-writing his mind into a different person.
 
Cheap Orange Knofe said:
I'm curious who his picks are and how well they will perform in their duties.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I wonder if he picks that warlord who showed so much interest in working for him. It looked like he left him in the lurch when he called down Agent Orange. But looks like and did aren't the same thing. If he gave him a small warning...

Well, the dudes an experienced warlord who loves fighting, and doesn't care who for. He looks like he would be perfectly happy championing the Controllers cause, not because he cares, but because it would let him do what he loved anyways.
 
Red Bovine said:
Strongly disagree about the whole it's been long enough that it's who he is. Dude is freaking insane, as in he is not a different person. It would be like saying that if someone was drugged to the point of insanity for their entire life that taking them off would be the same as killing the person they are now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

or like when someone who is drunk all the time go sober.
 
Maxx Crowley said:
I can...barely understand what she's saying/singing. Context please? What's going on?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

After Jack climbs the beanstalk and kills the giant, the giant's wife comes down and starts trampling villages, insisting that people bring her Jack. The "heroes" of course refuse to sacrifice a young boy, even as dozens upon dozens of people continue to die as a direct result. The "evil" witch, played in the movie by Meryl Streep, is the only one who advocates to just give the giantess what she wants so she'll go away and stop killing people.

The key lyric I was referencing is early in the song, "You're so nice. You're not good, you're not bad, you're just nice. I'm not good, I'm not nice, I'm just right." Admittedly it's a very heavy-handed representation of my point. But it's succinct.

Marcus.D.Basterd said:
.. he ... he .. he ..
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

She. Not that it matters.
 
Xavier Bronze said:
No worries. I'm used to it. I have a guy's name and I know it. I'm the only girl I've ever heard of named "Xavier".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not just that. I sometimes call people "She" when i should be saying "They". I have no idea why i am doing it. I used to just say "They", but now i just do this without thinking about it. It's irritating.
 
Marcus.D.Basterd said:
But, because i don't actually care what people debate as long as they don't use fallacies while doing so, this is a clear example of a straw man arguement.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That is, itself, an ignoratio elenchi (a.k.a. irrelevant conclusion) fallacy: at that point, your argument isn't even material to the subject under debate.

Marcus.D.Basterd said:
I am sure that he was trying to do so, which makes it even more important that i point out when, and how, he is failing to do so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
By the same token, it makes it even more important that someone points out that you were failing to accomplish YOUR goal.
 
Red Bovine said:
Strongly disagree about the whole it's been long enough that it's who he is. Dude is freaking insane, as in he is not a different person. It would be like saying that if someone was drugged to the point of insanity for their entire life that taking them off would be the same as killing the person they are now. In canon when Larfreeze became free of the Orange Light he did not want to go back and was terrified of it. One of Larfreezes greatest desires is to be free of the Orange Light.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Depending on the drug it would have likely rewired things to the point where simply taking them off the drug wouldn't simply turn them back to who they were before. In one version of canon that's what happened, we don't know how things are in this case though.
Red Bovine said:
As for Joker? It was asked a number of times why OL doesn't just cure him and Zoat mentioned that OLs only available method for curing him involved using the ring to re-write his mind making him a different person. If OL found a way to cure Jack Napier without replacing him with an entirely different person I imagine he would do so. As is a number of attempts have been made but everyone has failed so far. Meanwhile he likely has meta knowledge telling him that it's infact possible to cure Larfreeze without re-writing his mind into a different person.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Even the Hinon said it wouldn't be as simple as simply taking off the orange light, so I don't really see the difference here? Knowing one version of canon doesn't mean it's actually the way it is here.

And even beyond all that, it's not like Larfleeze was a stand-up guy before all this, so why put his life on such a grand pedestal when countless mooks have been annihilated when some of them were likely far more redeemable than he ever was.
 
Reader mode
27,541 more messages…
Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads
Back
Top