Remove ads

Worm Morality Debate Thread

Deadly Snark said:
You'll notice from above that Polokun is actually not talking about this situation but rather something that happened before. When Alexandria hadn't arrive and it was just Taylor and Tagg talking in a cell right after she surrendered.

Which Arrrgh.

Goddamit Polokun. I thought you had a interesting argument for once. Because the entire thing with the death of Alexandria and Tagg is actually a gray case were you could make very good points with.

But no, you had to fuck it up again and bring up something that is completely irrelevant and is in no way a good argument at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Polukon gonna Polukon.

Polokun said:
Taylor has attacked Tagg in the past (Both professionally and literally) and would obviously do so again in the future.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
:jackiechan:

First of all "would obviously do so again in the future"

:Citation Needed:

Yeah sure she turned herself in to negotiate a truce that would end the conflict between her gang and the authorities so obviously she's going to attack the guy she has to negotiate with. :rolleyes:

Secondly you're comparing Coil's blatant and repeated murder attempts that involved literal death traps and armies of mercenaries ordered to shoot to kill with an attack meant to embarrass the heroes and where Taylor could have easily killed Tagg but didn't. If Taylor wanted to kill Tagg she would have done so during her earlier attack.

There's not the slightest comparison between Coil's attempts to murder her and her assault on Tagg.
 
Polokun said:
No, I don't think that would be moral either. I just feel that the justification for killing Coil could just as easily be given for Tagg to kill Taylor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Alright, at least you are consistent. So yes, I agree with you that killing people is not the morale thing to do. That's something that most people agree with.

But shoving away morality for a moment. Let's talk about necessity. Would you say that killing Edchina was necessary after how far she was gone and how much damage she did? And if you think that Taylor is so dangerous to Tagg, then would you say that it would be necessary for Tagg to kill Taylor in order to secure himself? Same thing with Taylor's killing of Coil, who has proven to be snake and tried to kill them again and again, would you say that her killing him was probably necessary in order to insure that he does not try shit against them again?
 
Mook said:
Yeah sure she turned herself in to negotiate a truce that would end the conflict between her gang and the authorities so obviously she's going to attack the guy she has to negotiate with. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Keep in mind the entire "truce" as you put it was in fact a huge blackmail set up because the rest of the Undersiders are now on the attack because she didn't tell them what she was doing. This wasn't a fair negotiation. And she was pretty much forcing them to take said truce as SHE put it, under HER terms. It was coercion, forcing them to do what she wanted.

Mook said:
Secondly you're comparing Coil's blatant and repeated murder attempts that involved literal death traps and armies of mercenaries ordered to shoot to kill with an attack meant to embarrass the heroes and where Taylor could have easily killed Tagg but didn't. If Taylor wanted to kill Tagg she would have done so during her earlier attack.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm talking about when they were just talking. When nothing else has occurred. As in he just pulling his gun out and blew her head off in the middle of conversation.

Deadly Snark said:
But shoving away morality for a moment. Let's talk about necessity. Would you say that killing Edchina was necessary after how far she was gone and how much damage she did? And if you think that Taylor is so dangerous to Tagg, then would you say that it would be necessary for Tagg to kill Taylor in order to secure himself? Same thing with Taylor's killing of Coil, who has proven to be snake and tried to kill them again and again, would you say that her killing him was probably necessary in order to insure that he does not try shit against them again?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Echidna is different. At that stage, she's basically a insane, babbling monster (Not monster in the sense of wholly evil, just completely inhuman)

No I don't believe it would be necessary to kill Taylor, but neither Coil. That's simply my stance, no one has the right to take life, ever.
 
Polokun said:
Echidna is different. At that stage, she's basically a insane, babbling monster (Not monster in the sense of wholly evil, just completely inhuman)

No I don't believe it would be necessary to kill Taylor, but neither Coil. That's simply my stance, no one has the right to take life, ever.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yet you just said that it was alright to kill Echidna. And I assume it would also be alright to kill Jack Slash. They might be inhuman monsters, but they are still living being. Yet you judge that it would be alright to take their lives.

So clearly, sometimes it is necessary and alright to take a life. I agree with you that no one has the right to take a life, but the ever seems to not be truth even by your standards. What you mean is, no one has the right to take a life, unless someone really decides that killing is just the better choice or circumstances are set up that way.
 
Last edited:
Deadly Snark said:
Yet you just said that it was alright to kill Echidna. And I assume it would also be alright to kill Jack Slash.

So clearly, sometimes it is necessary to take a life. I agree with you that no one has the right to take a life, but the ever seems to not be truth even by your standards. What you mean is, no one has the right to take a life, unless someone really decides that killing is just the better choice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Even if that were the case, people can obviously disagree on when that choice applies. And no, I wouldn't kill Jack Slash either.
 
Polokun said:
I'm talking about when they were just talking. When nothing else has occurred. As in he just pulling his gun out and blew her head off in the middle of conversation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm fully aware of the insanely idiot crap you've been spewing in this thread no need to remind me.

You were saying that if Taylor killing Coil counted as self defense (which it does since he has repeadly shown himself to be 100% determined to kill her no matter the cost and he can make the attempt as many times as he likes without anyone else ever knowing about it until he finally succeeds) then Tagg could kill Taylor when she's defeseless and restrained in PRT custody because she attacked him before so that plus her superpowers makes her as dangerous to Tagg as the Joker is to random Gotham residents or Coil towards Taylor.

Its just that its complete and utter bullshit because Taylor's earlier attack on Tagg did not involve her attempting to kill him and him either escaping from her or being rescued by other heroes. It involved him being completely at her mercy and being left mostly unharmed.

So no he can't claim self defense based on her prior actions because her prior actions were not even remotely close to involving murder or even maiming.
 
Polokun said:
Even if that were the case, people can obviously disagree on when that choice applies. And no, I wouldn't kill Jack Slash either.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And why not? Jack Slash is an inhuman, mentally, monster who has caused so much suffering directly and indirectly, and there is a prophecy from the strongest human thinker precog that if he stays alive, the world would end. So why wouldn't you kill him? You would be willing to let millions to billions more die just so you can say that you are morally superior because you don't think killing is right?

I mean, you could try to get your capes to capture him, but then that would likely result in most Hero and Ally Capes dying. So would you be willing to sacrifice them for your own morality?
 
Mook said:
You were saying that if Taylor killing Coil counted as self defense (which it does since he has repeadly shown himself to be 100% determined to kill her no matter the cost and he can make the attempt as many times as he likes without anyone else ever knowing about it until he finally succeeds) then Tagg could kill Taylor when she's defeseless and restrained in PRT custody because she attacked him before so that plus her superpowers makes her as dangerous to Tagg as the Joker is to random Gotham residents or Coil towards Taylor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

She was never helpless. She could have easily just walked out like it was nothing when she sees negotiations break down. Interesting that you ignored my earlier point.

Mook said:
Its just that its complete and utter bullshit because Taylor's earlier attack on Tagg did not involve her attempting to kill him and him either escaping from her or being rescued by other heroes. It involved him being completely at her mercy and being left mostly unharmed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That whole situation could be easily read as "I could kill you, but I just don't feel like it." How exactly is it wrong to want to protect yourself from that?

Deadly Snark said:
And why not? Jack Slash is an inhuman, mentally, monster who has caused so much suffering directly and indirectly, and there is a prophecy from the strongest human thinker precog that if he stays alive, the world would end. So why wouldn't you kill him? You would be willing to let millions to billions more die just so you can say that you are morally superior because you don't think killing is right?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Bad logic. I don't use what may or may not happen in the future as justifications to hand down sentences on people, especially executions. And seriously, don't bring up that "morally superior" argument people keeping bringing up, I could easily just turn around and say you'd let Taylor continue to mutilate and torture people instead of imprisoning her.

Mook said:
Fixed. ;)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fuck you. As much as I do not like her, I wouldn't kill her either.
 
landcollector said:
I recall you stating in the past that the Protectorate should have agreed to Noelle's bargain to have them hand over the Undersiders to her. That's pretty much killing them, you realize...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I said that they should have used the Undersiders as bait to lure her in. That's what you would have read if you actually read what I write, instead of picking and choosing what you like to satisfy all of your own hate-boners towards me.
 
Polokun said:
Bad logic. I don't use what may or may not happen in the future as justifications to hand down sentences on people, especially executions. And seriously, don't bring up that "morally superior" argument people keeping bringing up, I could easily just turn around and say you'd let Taylor continue to mutilate and torture people instead of imprisoning her.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not really bad logic. This is a precog Think who is pretty accurate has stated for a fact that he would end the world, that he is one of the biggest threats to the human race and billions of people, something that he knows and is now actively trying to do. By that point not using that as a good reason to get rid of him and make sure it doesnt happen is like saying that water is not wet and that fire is not hot. You are actively denying reality and endangering billions of people just to satisfy your own morality.

Well, wheter or not I would imprison her would depend on the situation.
 
Deadly Snark said:
Not really bad logic. This is a precog Think who is pretty accurate has stated for a fact that he would end the world, that he is one of the biggest threats to the human race and billions of people, something that he knows and is now actively trying to do. By that point not using that as a good reason to get rid of him and make sure it doesnt happen is like saying that water is not wet and that fire is not hot. You are actively denying reality and endangering billions of people just to satisfy your own morality.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So whatever the precog says, you should follow with 100% obedience?
 
Polokun said:
So whatever the precog says, you should follow with 100% obedience?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If the Precog is basically always correct then yes.

If she is able to be wrong some of the time, then not always. In which case I have to judge based on the other informations I have. And in Jack's case his previous actions and his current actions and his abilities speak for themselves. He is a man who has wreck destruction across the country for no other reasons than the lulz for decades. He has turned and corrupted powerful capes into monsters just like him repeatedly and consistently. He shows no remorse whatsoever he enjoys killing and torturing in all it's forms. He has access to and control of the incredibly dangerous Bonesaw, who by herself could end the world. Once he learned that he is destined to end the world, he gleefully does his best to actively insure that it happens. So yeah, I have no problems with believing that the precog is right and he needed to die yesterday.

And honestly, even without the whole "End the world" thing, basically every single person on the planet would still be justified in killing him if they get the chance.
 
Hell, the legal authorities acknowledge this fact with a kill order. Anyone, at any time, can murder Jack Slash and not be charged with *anything* because he's a global threat, and cannot be reasoned with.
 
Fine.

Taylor is an absolute moral paragon of righteousness. She's the friggen messiah, Jesus reborn in how purely good she is. She can do no wrong, will do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise is automatically wrong. And in turn, Wildbow is the absolute genius of a writer that would put EVERY OTHER WRITER who ever existed to shame as everything he writes is absolute pure gold, and anyoen that says otherwise is just an idiot or just "doesn't get it."

Is this what you all wanted me to say?
 
Uh, no. We all know that Taylor is morally complex and has done a ton of shit that is at least questionable. We just don't absolutely hate her with the blinding rage of a thousand burning suns like you do.
 
The Laurent said:
Uh, no. We all know that Taylor is morally complex and has done a ton of shit that is at least questionable. We just don't absolutely hate her with the blinding rage of a thousand burning suns like you do.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nope! Everything she does that could be claimed to be wrong is really just incredibly justified because of the situation! Which is always! Isn't that just wonderfully convenient? XD
 
Polokun said:
Fine.

Taylor is an absolute moral paragon of righteousness. She's the friggen messiah, Jesus reborn in how purely good she is. She can do no wrong, will do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise is automatically wrong. And in turn, Wildbow is the absolute genius of a writer that would put EVERY OTHER WRITER who ever existed to shame as everything he writes is absolute pure gold, and anyoen that says otherwise is just an idiot or just "doesn't get it."

Is this what you all wanted me to say?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Don't be overdramatic and don't try to play the martyr. That was never anyone's point.

Taylor is a human being, who has done both good and bad things. Just as humans are prone to do. No one is simply good and no one is simply bad. Circumstances, parenting, history, personalities, social circles, physical and mental health, all of those and more are what shapes a person.

No one here is saying that Taylor is good two shoe that can do no wrong. Our point has been and always will be that Taylor is a complex human being and like human beings cannot be simply labeled as evil or good.

It just so happens that you are trying to label her purely as a evil monster, who has only done wrong and can do no right. Which is just as inaccurate as saying that she is a saint, which is she is not.
 
Polokun said:
Fine.

Taylor is an absolute moral paragon of righteousness. She's the friggen messiah, Jesus reborn in how purely good she is. She can do no wrong, will do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise is automatically wrong. And in turn, Wildbow is the absolute genius of a writer that would put EVERY OTHER WRITER who ever existed to shame as everything he writes is absolute pure gold, and anyoen that says otherwise is just an idiot or just "doesn't get it."

Is this what you all wanted me to say?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

See this is why people hate debating you since you CANNOT INTO SHADES OF GREY and either you have to always be completely correct or completely wrong with no other options.
 
Deadly Snark said:
Taylor is a human being, who has done both good and bad things. Just as humans are prone to do. No one is simply good and no one is simply bad. Circumstances, parenting, history, personalities, social circles, physical and mental health, all of those and more are what shapes a person.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes! And she's shaped to be a morally righteous person that stands for all that is good in the world!

Deadly Snark said:
No one here is saying that Taylor is good two shoe that can do no wrong. Our point has been and always will be that Taylor is a complex human being and like human beings cannot be simply labeled as evil or good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not in this case! See, every single time she does something "bad"? She's in fact justified in what she does because either the circumstances of the world are just that horrible, or the person she does it to totally deserves it! So it's ok then!

Deadly Snark said:
It just so happens that you are trying to label her purely as a evil monster, who has only done wrong and can do no right. Which is just as inaccurate as saying that she is a saint, which is she is not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's ok! You've convinced me! She's totally right in everything she does! Completely justified and righteous in everything. We should all aspire to have such greatness and moral fiber!
 
Polokun said:
Nope! Everything she does that could be claimed to be wrong is really just incredibly justified because of the situation! Which is always! Isn't that just wonderfully convenient? XD
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Welcome to reality. No human being has ever done anything without having something in their situation or background which justifies it for them.

The thief steals food or money, either to feed his family or to pay off debts that would cripple his family otherwise. The Shopkeeper shoots the thief, because the thief is endagering his livelyhood and thus his family, or he feels that his life is in danger. Both of them are forced into that situation by the economical and social situation of their surroundings, the needs of survival and to provide for one's loved one and their own personalities and histories which guides their actions.

Who is right and who is wrong in that situation? Who is evil and who is good? In the end, all the things that they do which could be claimed to be wrong are really just incredibly justified because of the situation. Life is a bitch like that.

Good and Evil do not exist in the real world. Clear cut situations with clear cut answers are extremely rare.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top