Remove ads

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Scrumptious Egoi said:
I feel that at this point, someone should be exposing the way that Paul's morality works.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

He can't be a worse psycho than some of the people in the employ of the "good" guys.
I mean there are the super functionaries, Batman, the shade, doc cranium. Compared to some of the people/things out there, Paul is a paragon of virtue.
Well, except for the genocide, maybe.
 
RichardWhereat said:
Both of those genocides, as per the story, were virtuous.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I might have taken the same actions as OL in those circumstances, but I wouldn't call them virtuous. Necessary, sure.

The difference between necessary and virtuous in this context to me is an action I'll defend versus an action I'll celebrate.

To call genocide virtuous is to label it as something desirable, rather than regrettable. Even if the difference is ultimately semantics because the actions don't change, how you frame something to yourself can change your actions in the future.

EDIT: Though you may be right. OL might just say "want the ends, want the means" and be done with it. He certainly doesn't seem to think about it too much.
 
Last edited:
The primary theory is that he was the mandate-verse version of this guy; Rampotatek (New Earth) However, Zoat said that his family name was Harmonious while his given name was One, and I'm pretty sure that Rampotatek doesn't translate into that.
 
It is an alternate timeline with plenty of more significant changes. Thus, an alternate name would hardly be that weird in comparison.
 
I have to wonder how much vitriol this interview will actually cause, since when you think about most religious fundamentalists justify their actions based on it being what God would want but in this case it's a publicly known fact that an angel met Paul and has ultimately judged him to have done the right thing
 
jonasquinn said:
I have to wonder how much vitriol this interview will actually cause, since when you think about most religious fundamentalists justify their actions based on it being what God would want but in this case it's a publicly known fact that an angel met Paul and has ultimately judged him to have done the right thing
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What in particular makes you think that American fundamentalists would care about the rulings of the angels and deity they worship?
 
Empiricist2 said:
What in particular makes you think that American fundamentalists would care about the rulings of the angels and deity they worship?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Probably more to the point, I think that anyone who doesn't want to change will be going "But that wasn't a real angel, you can't prove that he was, it was obviously the Devil's magic trying to trick us".
 
jonasquinn said:
I have to wonder how much vitriol this interview will actually cause, since when you think about most religious fundamentalists justify their actions based on it being what God would want but in this case it's a publicly known fact that an angel met Paul and has ultimately judged him to have done the right thing
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Trust me on this, Yahweh himself would have to get personally involved in a very intimate way to EVER get most of those people to stop just doing whatever they want, and using him to justify it.
 
Nigritos said:
Regarding Vandal Savage survival:

I think that after the hyenas incident he finally wised up enough to put some back up chunks of himself in his hideouts. Neither the Sun dumping nor cellular disintegration will work now. The telepathic mind damage would not work, seeing as his memory was intact but the brain was not. Soul-killing attacks are the way to go — Assimilation, Omega Effect, Sword of the Fallen, magical soul damage or soul entrapment, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Mmm, meaty Horcruxes. My favorite flavor.

More seriously, I don't think it quite works that way.
 
Yeah Paul continues to be a completely immoral asshole. Is it just me or is he sliding further and further towards being a Perfect Lionheart protagonist.
 
Rule 3: If you disagree with a user, then attack their argument, not the person.
Enochi said:
Yeah Paul continues to be a completely immoral asshole. Is it just me or is he sliding further and further towards being a Perfect Lionheart protagonist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, I'm pretty sure it's just you that's sliding further and further towards being a Perfect Lionheart protagonist.
 
Enochi said:
Yeah Paul continues to be a completely immoral asshole. Is it just me or is he sliding further and further towards being a Perfect Lionheart protagonist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

*sigh* Not this again... look, he has morals. Just because they differ from your morals doesn't mean he's immoral. He's utilitarian: "want the ends, want the means" is the core of his moral code. Whatever does the most good for the most people, out of those that deserve such consideration, is what he considers "good". A lack of concern for social propriety is not a bad thing.

Now, an asshole? Ehhh. He tends to be an ass to people who have drastically lost his respect (the Justice League in the wake of Nabu) or never had it in the first place (Klarion, 'nuff said). Which, you know, I can't really disagree with, except insofar as it becomes imprudent (i.e. it ruins attempts at diplomacy or some such). If more people pushed back against stupidity, bigotry, and senseless greed, the world would likely be a much better place to live in. Maybe he could do it more politely as a whole (I probably would), but being nice to people who don't deserve it is a choice, not an obligation.

Sceptic said:
No, I'm pretty sure it's just you that's sliding further and further towards being a Perfect Lionheart protagonist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This doesn't really seem necessary. I'm tired of this sentiment too, but attack the argument, not the person, please.
 
Last edited:
Empiricist2 said:
What in particular makes you think that American fundamentalists would care about the rulings of the angels and deity they worship?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Maxx Crowley said:
Trust me on this, Yahweh himself would have to get personally involved in a very intimate way to EVER get most of those people to stop just doing whatever they want, and using him to justify it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh I'm fully aware that a not insignificant number of people just use religion to justify their own hatred but I'm sure there's at least a handful of people that will be somewhat reasonable
 
Crimson Doom said:
*sigh* Not this again... look, he has morals. Just because they differ from your morals doesn't mean he's immoral. He's utilitarian: "want the ends, want the means" is the core of his moral code. Whatever does the most good for the most people, out of those that deserve such consideration, is what he considers "good". A lack of concern for social propriety is not a bad thing.

Now, an asshole? Ehhh. He tends to be an ass to people who have drastically lost his respect (the Justice League in the wake of Nabu) or never had it in the first place (Klarion, 'nuff said). Which, you know, I can't really disagree with, except insofar as it becomes imprudent (i.e. it ruins attempts at diplomacy or some such). If more people pushed back against stupidity, bigotry, and senseless greed, the world would likely be a much better place to live it. Maybe he could do it more politely as a whole (I probably would), but being nice to people who don't deserve it is a choice, not an obligation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sorry I should say he is unethical rather then immoral. Though one has to question if one can change their own moral code to have no influence from society is it possible for them to ever be Immoral?
 
Enochi said:
Yeah Paul continues to be a completely immoral asshole. Is it just me or is he sliding further and further towards being a Perfect Lionheart protagonist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, I really have no idea who Perfect Lionheart is, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say its just you.

I've yet to see Paul be immoral during any of this, and asshole is subjective, so if you'd like to go ahead and explain your rational, maybe that would help the rest of us understand your point.

Otherwise I'm just going to assume that you're yet another one of those readers who are pissed off that Zoat DARED to fictionally poke your chosen religion with his fictional avatar in fiction land.
 
Sceptic said:
Hey, I was just answering his question. Since it's not Paul sliding further and further towards being a Perfect Lionheart protagonist, clearly it must just be him, by the process of elimination.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thaaaaaat's not how logic works. At all. Ignored possible outcomes: nobody is sliding towards being a Perfect Lionheart protag, Paul is sliding towards that but is doing so very very slowly, everybody's sliding towards that... Not to mention, they're never gonna listen to you in this argument because you leaped straight to insulting them.

Enochi said:
Sorry I should say he is unethical rather then immoral. Though one has to question if one can change their own moral code to have no influence from society is it possible for them to ever be Immoral?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, again, he has a code of ethics, they just differ from yours. Ethics and morality are essentially the same thing, and as such, are just as subjective.

As for the question, they could still be immoral if they came up with their own moral code, and then proceeded to violate said code.
 
Reader mode
3,016 more messages…
Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads
Back
Top