*SPOILERS* The shot that killed My Love for Anime

[wolfgirl90]

I saw Allelujah/Hallelujah blow up a building with children in it. And nobody who has commented about those actions has ever said that the children were about to test a new long-range super weapon by blowing up cities full of people, or that there was any other urgent need to blow up the building right then. Nobody who commented said that it would have been impossible to take the time to evacuate the children before enemy reinforcements arrived. Celestial being could have taken the time to come up with a plan to destroy the lab without killing the Children.

Nobody has said anything about this because it really doesn't matter. The Super Soldiers were going to grow up to pretty much be war machines, with or without Allelujah's intervention (Allelujah is simple proof of how a Super Soldier can return to fighting without wanting to fight). Also, Celestial Being DID NOT give him the order to destroy the research institute; Allelujah did that all on his own. He merely got approval from Veda (if you need information about Veda, watch the series that you apparently want to discuss but don't actually want to watch).

When Allelujah got to the institute, he hesitated, wanting to get the children out and give them good lives. Then Hallelujah gave him two choices: he could either take over Allelujah and pull the trigger himself (putting Allelujah in a false sense of righteous, saying "well, at least I didn't pull the trigger") or Allelujah could do it himself. Allelujah chose the latter.

Do I "approve" of what he did? Did he do the "right" thing? I can't say. Not because I don't have any morals but because I could care less because none of this is real. I never "approve" or "disapprove" of what a character did because frankly I don't care and would rather stay in the realm of reality (unlike you).

But even if blowing up the children in episode 11 was the only evil thing that Celestial Being ever did, I would never confuse the concept that victory for Celestial would be less of disaster for the world than victory for their enemies with the idea that any member of Celestial being was good enough to deserve even the least little bit of sympathy or love or respect, or with the idea that any member of Celestial Being deserved to live.

I don't doubt that, HOWEVER, since you haven't seen the whole series and refuse to do so, this little moral rant of yours about Celestial Being is merely laughable to me, troll.

By the way, do you realize that you are going off-topic in YOUR OWN thread? To derail a thread that doesn't belong to you is one thing, but to derail YOUR OWN thread because of your need to be right all the time (any reason why you couldn't simply IGNORE the whole Gundam thing?) is hilarious on many levels.

Do you even want to have a debate anymore or do you just want to prove yourself right about everything (good luck with that)? Again, I will give you a choice: to ignore all the Gundam talk and get back to your "debate" (chuckle, chuckle) or you can continue to drag your thread through the mud with your relentless need to be right and to prove all of us wrong. Your call.

[proEuphie]

Nobody has said anything about this because it really doesn't matter.

How can you say that it doesn't matter whether there was any military reason for destroying the lab right then? If there was no urgent need to destroy the building immediately in order to prevent many more immediate deaths blowing up the lab was an act of murder.

The Super Soldiers were going to grow up to pretty much be war machines, with or without Allelujah's intervention (Allelujah is simple proof of how a Super Soldier can return to fighting without wanting to fight).

So what. It is evil to look that far into the future to find reasons to kill people.

Suppose that when you were in grade school there were agents passing by from some foreign country with bad relations with the U.S., a country which might be at war with the U.S. in a few years. Possibly Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or Iran, or the Taliban's Afghanistan, or North Korea, etc.

Suppose that Agent One said: "Listen to the children sing so sweetly. It reminds me of my childhood back home."

And Agent two said: "Bah! They are singing a patriotic song, a song to encourage them to love their country, join their military when they grow up, and fight their country's enemies. And our people might be their country's enemies when they grow up. We should blow up the school now to keep that from happening."

And agent One said: "No! Probably no more than a few of them will ever be in the military, and we can't be certain that there will ever be a war between our countries. It would be terrible to kill a bunch of children because of speculation about the future!"

Who would you have preferred for personal reasons to win that debate? Do you think that it would have been objectively better for the world as a whole if Agent One or Agent Two won the debate?

Of course the children in the lab were a bit more likely to become future foes of Celestial Being, but that was hardly certain. A lot could happen to the children or to their government or to Celestial Being in the years it would take them to finish training.

Also, Celestial Being DID NOT give him the order to destroy the research institute; Allelujah did that all on his own. He merely got approval from Veda (if you need information about Veda, watch the series that you apparently want to discuss but don't actually want to watch).

I don't want to discuss Gundam 00. If some one manages to persuade me that none of the protagonists of the series ever killed anyone unnecessarily or did anything else evil, then I might watch the series and find things to discuss about it. But as I said, I don't want to to waste my time with any series in which the protagonists are too evil for my standards.

Initiating the mission makes it worse for Allelujah. He personally initiated a mission with no immediate military necessity which involved killing children. That would be like Paul Tibbits persuading President Truman and the Pentagon to let him drop an atomic bomb on some Japanese city instead of just keeping the bombs in storage in case of some dire future military emergency.

If Veda gave approval for the mission that makes Veda as evil as a computer with its degree of sentience can be. And if any Human members of Celestial Being knew the details in advance and did not protest they were guilty of murder. And any members of Celestial being who learned about the mission later and did not try to have Allelujah, Veda, and anyone else with previous knowledge punished became guilty of murder too.

When Allelujah got to the institute, he hesitated, wanting to get the children out and give them good lives. Then Hallelujah gave him two choices: he could either take over Allelujah and pull the trigger himself (putting Allelujah in a false sense of righteous, saying "well, at least I didn't pull the trigger") or Allelujah could do it himself. Allelujah chose the latter.

I would not have made that choice.

This reminds me of a tale about a Japanese warrior who found that his enemy was a cute boy who reminded him of his son, and decided to spare his life. But then he saw some of his comrades coming and knew that if he didn't kill the boy they would and so he killed him.

The warrior thought that it would somehow, by some twisted form of logic, be better for the boy to be killed by someone who didn't hate him or want to kill him, and Allelujah thought that it would do no good to refuse to pull the trigger just for a false sense of righteousness since Hallelujah would pull the trigger if he did not.

And both made the mistake of assuming that if they did not kill another person would certainly do the killing.

But there was no scientific law of nature that made it inevitable that another person would kill. There was only psychological probabilities that indicated another person would probably, not certainly, kill.

If the warrior asked his comrades not to kill the boy, they might have agreed. And if they killed, at least he would have lived for a few more minutes. And if their commander had ordered that no mercy be shown to the enemy, every good and decent samurai should have instantly shot him with an arrow, and then asked the second in command if he wanted to give such an evil order. No good person can ever accept an order to fight without mercy.

If Hallelujah didn't want to kill the children, but only wanted to bully and tempt Allelujah into killing them, Hallelujah might have seen no point in taking over the body and killing them himself. Allelujah did not know for certain that Hallelujah would take over and kill the children.

And how could Allelujah know for certain that Hallelujah would be able to take over his body this time? The fewer times that Hallelujah had taken over the body in the past, the less evidence Allelujah would have to prove that it was hopeless to resist, and the more hope he should have had that he might succeed in resisting Hallelujah's attempt to take over this time. And the more times that Hallelujah had succeeded in taking over and Allelujah had failed, the more evil his decision to join a paramilitary organization like Celestial Being, giving Hallelujah plenty of chances to do evil, instead of locking himself away in a prison, asylum, or monastery, was.

If Allelujah pulled the trigger, the children would be one hundred percent certain to die. But he should have estimated, based on various factors, that if he refused to pull the trigger the probability that the children would die might be twenty five percent, seventy five percent, ninety nine percent, or whatever, but certainly less than exactly one hundred percent. Thus refusing to pull the trigger was not merely giving himself a false sense of righteousness, and pulling the trigger was an act of murder which Hallelujah bullied, tricked, and tempted Allelujah into committing.

Do I "approve" of what he did? Did he do the "right" thing? I can't say. Not because I don't have any morals but because I could care less because none of this is real. I never "approve" or "disapprove" of what a character did because frankly I don't care and would rather stay in the realm of reality (unlike you).

Don't you get emotionally involved with the characters when you read or watch fiction? If so, how can you not feel that you would approve or disapprove of what the characters do if it happened in the real world? how can you not think whether you would approve of a fictional action if it was real?

I don't doubt that, HOWEVER, since you haven't seen the whole series and refuse to do so, this little moral rant of yours about Celestial Being is merely laughable to me, troll.

By the way, do you realize that you are going off-topic in YOUR OWN thread? To derail a thread that doesn't belong to you is one thing, but to derail YOUR OWN thread because of your need to be right all the time (any reason why you couldn't simply IGNORE the whole Gundam thing?) is hilarious on many levels.

Do you even want to have a debate anymore or do you just want to prove yourself right about everything (good luck with that)? Again, I will give you a choice: to ignore all the Gundam talk and get back to your "debate" (chuckle, chuckle) or you can continue to drag your thread through the mud with your relentless need to be right and to prove all of us wrong. Your call.

I didn't start this detour. Someone tried to trick me into watching Gundam 00 (a series filled with tragic and sometimes evil deaths of major and minor characters judging from what various posters have written) saying it was a series in which nobody got killed and I replied that I had happened to see the scene where a lab full of children was blown up and didn't see any point in watching the show or sympathizing with the evil protagonists.

[xXPainful SmilexX]

Somebody recommended, possibly maliciously, that if I was so upset by the violence in Code Geass I go watch Gundam 00 because nobody got killed in it. And I responded that the first time that I had turned into it I sw the scene where one of the protagonists blew up a lab full of children and thus I had no desire to ever watch it again. That has started the discussion.

How can you propose discussing "Was Allelujah wrong to kill the children in the lab?" as if that could possibly be justified?

It wasn't justified, but it's only one event in the show. Celestial Being does much better things in Season 2 when fighting the A-Laws and Ribbons Almark, but you wouldn't know anything about how evil the bad guys were, since you've never seen it.

Because all my life I have seen people be annoying, or harsh, or cruel, or mean, or evil, in situations where I would feel no desire to act in that way, when it seemed pointless to me. Because I read about evil deeds in the history books and the news all the time. Because I know my own occasional evil desires, and see that other people have much stronger evil desires. Because I am depressed by the belief that everyone else in the world is even worse than me.

It's called human nature. You know, on the subject of Gundam 00, you're reminding me alot of an Innovator right now. You know, the lack of human nature and the conceded self righteous behavior.

I did not say crap, much though it may pain you to think that my words might possibly be a well considered and accurate judgment.

Yes you do. And it pains me to see you bash some of my favorite characters. It has nothing to do with your correct words.

I don't care how much the members of Celestial Being sacrificed for the world.

So if I kill a few kids, then try to make up for it, it will never matter?

And the same for fictional groups like Celestial Being. Stories in which the protagonists commit crimes and atrocities while saving the world can only suggest to those who watch them that it is right to commit atrocities while saving the world.

Because if it came to that I would gladly sacrifice my morals to change the world. I agree with you. Human nature has corrupted the world so badly that there is no hope. The reason I like these shows is because of that. The whole "is it worth it?" theme. I personally agree with every action Celestial Being made. Now, A-Laws, those guys were evil.

So your deep emotional attachment to the members of Celestial Being fills me with apprehension for the future.

You gave me an idea. I think I'll start a group like Celestial Being. My attachment for them stems from how much they sacrifice. Tieria is the greatest character I have ever seen in anime. Allelujah was the only person in Celestial Being that hated killing people.( Or was almost unwilling to) In my opinion, it made him a bit weak.

[SakuraFox512]

There is no 'delete' for me in quick reply either.... Weird...

O_o...Then why the heck does it show up for me?! *is confused*

@proEuphie

I don't care how much the members of Celestial Being sacrificed for the world.
I don't care how much the German military sacrificed to create a Jew-free world in World War II.
I don't care how much the 911 plotters sacrificed to rid the world of the evils of people like you and me.
I don't care how much the members of the Imperial Japanese military sacrificed to bring all the world under the rule of their divine Emperor as required by the gods.
I don't care how much the Mongol hordes sacrificed to bring all the world under one rule as demanded by the sky god.
I don't care how much the members of the allied military sacrificed to save the world from the Germans and the Japanese in World war II.

The case here for the Celestial Being does NOT match with the rest.

From a sane point of view, the German military's attempt to rid the world of the entire Jewish population wasn't right.
From a sane point of view, the Japanese Imperial Army shouldn't have tried to force the people of the world under the rule of their Emperor as "required by the gods" they didn't even know existed.

I could go on, but all of your "real life" points fall into the same vein.
My point is, you can't logically state you don't care about sacrifices made by Celestial Being since their sacrifices were for a bigger range. How can sacrifices that encompass aiding the world be sensibly compared to sacrifices made for negative things such as wiping out millions? That just doesn't make sense.

If you're talking about the "children" incident from earlier, that's like saying no matter how guilty a person is after doing something bad or how much they try to make up for it that they're still a bad person. :/

Stories in which the protagonists commit crimes and atrocities while saving the world can only suggest to those who watch them that it is right to commit atrocities while saving the world.

Only if everyone in the world watched these animated cartoons with the same views as you
No one takes it that seriously but you!!

So your deep emotional attachment to the members of Celestial Being fills me with apprehension for the future.

It shouldn't.

But even if blowing up the children in episode 11 was the only evil thing that Celestial Being ever did, I would never confuse the concept that victory for Celestial Being would be less of disaster for the world than victory for their enemies with the idea that any member of Celestial being was good enough to deserve even the least little bit of sympathy or love or respect, or with the idea that any member of Celestial Being deserved to live.

Maybe I misinterpreted what you said there (in which case if I did just ignore this part of my post and go on to the rest -- then be clearer about things in your next post) but

Yes, there is a difference in how much of a disaster it would be between the two sides winning.

You know where it's at? The time after one of the sides wins

Since you like equations, I'll play along here:

To elaborate, think of that bad deed the Celestial Being (A) did and for safety's safe in this little equation. Add in a couple (say two) more things you view as nothing but "evil things" the Celestial Being did equivalent to blowing up the lab during war time (they don't have to be from the show).

Now assume the enemy side (B) has done evil equal to those three things plus another three equivalent deeds (A.K.A have done twice the evil within the same amount of time as Celestial Being) and that the evil committed from then on by this side moves at a constant rate of three evil deeds per month*** (***The exact ratio here wouldn't actually matter, meaning feel free to change the number of deeds done within whatever following time frame -- I'm merely choosing this one to demonstrate)

When the war was over, if the Celestial Being won it will have only committed those three "evil" deeds (and then would have done no more) since the fighting would have ceased.

On the other hand, if the opposing side won, it will have already done twice the evil Celestial Being did in the war plus an additional three evils for every month thereafter despite the fact the war ended.


On another note, saying none of them deserved any love, sympathy, or respect or that they didn't so much as deserve to live is an absolutely horrible and amoral statement and actual wishing such on anyone in REAL LIFE would be much worse. I hope you know that (since it matters little to none when you bash animated characters)

[proEuphie]

The case here for the Celestial Being does NOT match with the rest

From a sane point of view the German military's attempt to rid the world of the entire Jewish population wasn't right
From a sane point of view the Japanese Imperial Army shouldn't have tried to force the people of the world under the rule of their Emperor as "required by the gods" they didn't even know existed

I agree that their ideologies were not very sane but they were not as obviously insane and false as you, who have never been indoctrinated in those ideologies, believe -- otherwise tens of millions would not have followed those beliefs.

Any truly rational person would consider the scientific evidence that the European Jews were just ordinary Humans and biologically closer to the Germans than to Chinese or South Americans, to say nothing of Blacks (not that the German racists considered Blacks to be Human either) made it very dangerous to assume that they were foul demons in Human form. A sane person would consider that if the belief that the Jews were a monstrous plague upon humanity was false killing them would be a terrible crime and thus he would have demanded more proof before acting.

But the gullible Germans and millions of other Europeans believed that it had been scientifically proven that the Jews were monsters destined to exterminate all true Humans unless they were exterminated first. They believed that it was kill or be killed.

How many science fiction and fantasy movies and tv episodes have you seen in which some disease, or predatory animals, or demon horde, or even an intelligent alien race, had to be totally exterminated to save the world or the galaxy from them? How many times have you watched heroes realize in horror that if only one female of the menacing species survived long enough to spawn offspring it would be the end for the Human race?

Every time that you have ever identified with the "specicidal" heroes of those stories and hoped they would succeed in saving the world from that monstrous threat, you have in a sense also been identifying with the Nazis seeking to save an ungrateful world from the "Jewish Menace", and all the other countless genocidal groups who have slaughtered hundreds of millions of persons throughout history in the deluded but genuine belief that they were nobly saving their people or even the entire world from a terrible threat.

That is why I require that all protagonists that the audience is likely to identify with in fictional conflicts fight with constant attention to killing as little as possible and achieving their ends in the most humane way possible.

If the Nazis had been determined to achieve their goals as humanly as possible they would have realized that since "Jewish evil" was supposedly genetic they didn't have to kill any Jews to end the imaginary Jewish threat. They could have sterilized all the Jews they caught and kept them locked up in relatively comfortable surroundings (instead of death camps) to keep them from doing any evil for the rest of their lives. When the Nazis were defeated the Jews could be released to freedom. And their numbers would decline until the last babies captured by the Nazis in the 1940s died in the 2050s. But long before then genetic samples could be taken from the surviving European Jews for eventual cloning.

The prospect of ever convincing all humans to limit their fighting to only the causes and reasons I consider good seems almost totally impossible. But if everyone could be persuaded to fight in the most humane way possible with the least amount of killing possible the horror and suffering caused by those who fight for evil or good causes (and believe with equal conviction that their causes are just) would be greatly reduced.

So I see no good in writing stories in which the protagonists do not take extreme care to minimize the death and suffering they cause as they fight to save the world from the latest menace.

I could go on but all of your "real life" points fall into the same vein
My point is you can't logically state you don't care about sacrifices made by Celestial Being since their sacrifices were for a bigger range how can sacrifices that encompass aiding the world be sensibly compared to sacrifices made for negative things such as wiping out millions? That just doesn't make sense

Because all the most evil groups in history believed that their cause was as good, as great, and as noble, as Celestial Being believed their cause was, and just as a good as you believe that Celestial Being's cause was. You can't believe that people are evil if they do terrible, evil, deeds for a cause that they believe is good and just and noble if you define evil as fighting for an evil cause. Because they did not believe that their cause was evil.

But you can consider them to evil if you define their methods as being too evil to ever be used in any imaginable cause, no matter how good or evil it is considered to be. And if you are part of a movement that convinces everyone in the world that such methods are too evil to ever be used for any imaginable cause, then every time in the future that people fight for an evil cause they at least will do far less damage and slaughter than they otherwise would have done.

But if you accept that the methods used are the main thing in deciding whether someone is good or evil, you will have to accept that many of your favorite historical and fictional heroes were just as evil as some of the worst villains in history and fiction.

If your talking about the "children" incident from earlier that's like saying no matter how guilty a person is after doing something bad or how much they try to make up for it that they're still a bad person :/

Well, the more a person tries to make up for doing something evil the less evil and the more good they will try to do the future, and so that will matter to the persons whose lives they affect. But I don't know if any amount of atonement can ever suffice to make someone who at one time did not care enough to avoid unnecessary killing ever become good enough to deserve any sympathy from the audience. I don't think that it is unreasonable to demand avoiding unnecessary killing as a minimum ethical requirement for all fictional protagonists.

Only if everyone in the world watched these animated cartoons with the same views as you
No one takes it that seriously but you!!

Do you know how many people have died because they believed the laws of physics and biology in real life were the same as in movies and television?

It shouldn't

It does.

Maybe I misinterpreted what you said there (in which case if I did just ignore this part of my post and go on to the rest -- then be clearer about things in your next post) but

Yes there is a difference in how much of a disaster it would be between the two sides winning

You know..............the war ended

You did misinterpret. I will rewrite the sentence you quoted into a paragraph of simple sentences.

Suppose that blowing up the children in episode 11 was the only evil thing that Celestial Being ever did. Even in that case I would never feel any sympathy for any member of Celestial Being. If I ever decided to watch a series where the protagonists were so evil, I might be convinced that the villains in the series were much eviler than the heroes. Than I might believe that victory for celestial being would be more of a blessing, or less of of a curse, for the world than victory for their enemies. I might come to desire that Celestial Being won. But I would only feel suspense for the millions and billions of people of that world whose fates hung in the balance. I would never feel any suspense for any member of celestial Being. I would never believe that any of them deserved to win or to live. I would never think that it would be right for any audience member to feel any sympathy for any member of celestial Being. Not after even one unnecessary killing

On another note saying none of them deserved any love, sympathy, or respect or that they didn't so much as deserve to live is an absolutely horrible and amoral statement and actual wishing such on anyone in REAL LIFE would be much worse I hope you know that (since it matters little to none when you bash animated characters)

I said that none of the fictional characters deserve sympathy form the audience or even deserved to live. I said nothing in the posts that you have seen abut desiring that anything bad should ever happen to anybody real, no matter how much I think that they deserve to suffer or even die. There is a big difference between saying that X is so bad he doesn't deserve to be happy or even to live and saying that X is so bad that we need to kill him to make the world a better place.

See my section of text above where I discuss a hypothetical situation where I might believe that the members of Celestial Being were evil and deserved to die and also believe that the world needed them to win (and thus survive).

[wolfgirl90]

How can you say that it doesn't matter whether there was any military reason for destroying the lab right then?

It doesn't matter because 1) its a cartoon; one can (or rather SHOULD) only take it so seriously and 2) this is NOT a thread about Gundam, so nobody has to continue the discussion about it. However, since you seem so adamant on throwing a wrench into YOUR OWN THREAD, I guess you seem to be okay with it.

So what. It is evil to look that far into the future to find reasons to kill people.

ONCE AGAIN, I was clarifying WHY Allelujah decided that he needed to kill them, because they were going to grow up to be war machines with or without his intervention and Allelujah himself is proof of that. Clarification does not equal justification, troll. Try to keep up.

I don't want to discuss Gundam 00.

If you don't want to discuss Gundam 00, why are you doing that now, in YOUR thread about Euphemia's murder? Why did you start a thread about the very show that you didn't want to discuss? You are "wasting your time" even now. WE don't have to convince of anything. Whether you watch the show is up to YOU; its not up to US to proof that you should watch. The only that you should is so that, just like with R2, you can truly understand what's going in the show, since you obviously don't, and have a more intelligent debate about it, since you obviously aren't.

Initiating the mission makes it worse for Allelujah. He personally initiated a mission with no immediate military necessity which involved killing children.

Never said it didn't. I don't choose sides when it comes to the actions of cartoon characters. I merely clarified why he did it. I didn't say that reason made him any better of a person or that it was a valid excuse for his actions.

If Veda gave approval for the mission that makes Veda as evil as a computer with its degree of sentience can be.

Sentient? Veda is a super computer. It judges complex outcomes for the good of Celestial Being. That's it. Veda is nonetheless an operating system and while more complex than the Mac, Windows, Linux or other OS on one's computer, Veda is essentially that: an OS. It isn't "sentient".

And if you want to judge Allelujah, Veda (a computer) and anyone else who was involved with Research Institute attack for murder, go ahead and do it in your mind. Like I said, I could care less what you do and what you believe at this point, troll.

If Hallelujah didn't want to kill the children, but only wanted to bully and tempt Allelujah into killing them, Hallelujah might have seen no point in taking over the body and killing them himself. Allelujah did not know for certain that Hallelujah would take over and kill the children.

Oh yes he did. Hallelujah said that if Allelujah wasn't going to do it, HE was. Hallelujah gave him a choice: kill the kids yourself or I will do it for you.

Halleliujah:"...You do have an option; I could take over again. Are you just gonna close your eyes to what you don't wanna do and say you did nothing wrong after it's all over?... You came here to kill! You're killing people because it's your job? At least pull the trigger with your own emotions! Pull it for yourself and do it without mercy! Allelujah!"

Again, don't start an argument you know nothing about. It just makes you look like an idiot. Oh who am I kidding, MORE of an idiot.

Don't you get emotionally involved with the characters when you read or watch fiction?

I DON'T treat characters as if they were real. Sure, there are times that I don't like what a character said or did. Sure, I can be sad or mad about a character's death, but I get over it (something that you seem to be unable or unwilling to do). Also, I don't put blame on the characters; the character technically didn't make the decision their own. I take it up with the AUTHOR since THEY were the ones who created the character, THEY were the ones that made them do what they did. I can't be mad AT a character for doing essentially what the author wanted them to do. Who am I to "approve" or "disprove" of what a character did? And if I felt this why, I would talk to the author, creator, director, NOT get mad at the characters themselves. I don't treat them as real people.

Mad at Allelujah? Mad at Lelouch? Take it up with Sunrise. Ask them why they made the characters do what they did. Don't whine to us about it.

I didn't start this detour.

I didn't say you started it, but you are allowing it to continue and in your own thread. Like I said, you can end this easily by NOT RESPONDING to it and continuing your "discussion". You don't have to respond to anything that anybody says, whether its about Code Geass or Gundam 00.

However, you choose to take the abuse and you really have no one to blame but yourself for that. You don't want to talk about Gundam 00? THEN DON'T. Stop responding to it. Take control of your own thread for once. If you can't, that's your problem.

Like I have said before, you have two choices: continue to derail your thread or put it back on track. If you choose to not to ignore all the Gundam stuff, that's your call; I'm not going to run your thread for you. However, you will continue to prove that you are more about proving yourself right (or proving us wrong) about EVERYTHING instead of having a debate. And do you know what we call people who do that? TROLLS!

[proEuphie]

It wasn't justified, but it's only one event in the show. Celestial Being does much better things in Season 2 when fighting the A-Laws and Ribbons Almark, but you wouldn't know anything about how evil the bad guys were, since you've never seen it.

I don't care how evil the bad guys are, although sometimes it would be nice, for a change, to see bad guys who were nice and good-natured but happened to be indoctrinated in evil beliefs. Like for example, a kind, gentle, easygoing, evil Nazi who couldn't stand killing people but believed he had a sacred duty to rid the world of Jews and so had to force himself to take part in massacres. In real life there were a lot more nice evil Nazis like that than the arrogant, nasty, sadistic evil Nazis in World war II propaganda movies.

What I object to is evil heroes and protagonists. If the "little picture" includes even one unnecessary killing by the protagonists there is no need to see the "big picture" to know that the protagonists are too evil to be protagonists, even if possibly much, much, better than the villains.

It's called human nature. You know, on the subject of Gundam 00, you're reminding me alot of an Innovator right now. You know, the lack of human nature and the conceded self righteous behavior.

Thank you.

So if I kill a few kids, then try to make up for it, it will never matter?

It will matter to every person you do good to and avoid doing evil to trying to make up for it. But I am not confident that even doing infinite good will be enough to make up for killing even just a few kids when you didn't have to, or make you a good person who deserves to be loved and cared about by a hypothetical audience.

Because if it came to that I would gladly sacrifice my morals to change the world. I agree with you. Human nature has corrupted the world so badly that there is no hope. The reason I like these shows is because of that. The whole "is it worth it?" theme. I personally agree with every action Celestial Being made. Now, A-Laws, those guys were evil.

If you sacrifice your morals to save the world you will force innocent people to sacrifice much more than their morals and you will save less of the world than you would have saved if you kept your morals. You will be like the Allies in World War II who saved less of the world because they sacrificed some of their military ethics.

I may have a low opinion of Human nature but the world is not corrupted beyond hope. In the last few centuries the average Human lifespan has doubled, there has been a great increase in personal freedom, and the average material wealth has gone up very greatly.

And the abundance and quality of available entertainment has increased many times. If only there weren't programs like Code Geass and Gundam 00 which excused the evils done by the protagonists in the name of making a better world.

My post # 180 explains in detail my problem with that attitude.

You said that killing the children was unjustified and now you say you agree with everything Celestial Being did. I remind that a computer like Veda should have been programmed to seek every possible advantage in every situation as well as to avid all possible harm. Thus it should have ordered Allelujah to capture the children so they could be reeducated to be loyal to Celestial being and become warriors for Celestial being in the future.

You gave me an idea. I think I'll start a group like Celestial Being. My attachment for them stems from how much they sacrifice. Tieria is the greatest character I have ever seen in anime. Allelujah was the only person in Celestial Being that hated killing people.( Or was almost unwilling to) In my opinion, it made him a bit weak.

I think that I read that Celestial Being has been trying to achieve peace for three hundred years by the time of the series. Compare that to the rapid success of organizations like the Republican party, the Nazi Party, the Mongol Empire, the Islamic Caliphate, etc.

Anyway, be sure to hire good and honorable people to program you super computer instead of the evil people who programmed VEDA.

If Allelujah hated killing people why did he come up with a plan to kill the children and waste their training instead of capturing them and recruiting them for Celestial Being?

Allelujah's unwillingness to kill people didn't make him weak, it made him stronger in resisting his evil side (and episode 11 showed that he needed even more strength to resist it). I suppose you think that Euphemia was weak at the Battle of Narita instead of being the strongest character in the entire series?

[xXPainful SmilexX]

I don't care how evil the bad guys are, although sometimes it would be nice, for a change, to see bad guys who were nice and good-natured but happened to be indoctrinated in evil beliefs. Like for example, a kind, gentle, easygoing, evil Nazi who couldn't stand killing people but believed he had a sacred duty to rid the world of Jews and so had to force himself to take part in massacres. In real life there were a lot more nice evil Nazis like that than the arrogant, nasty, sadistic evil Nazis in World war II propaganda movies.

Why not? Because it makes Celestial Being look good?

What I object to is evil heroes and protagonists. If the "little picture" includes even one unnecessary killing by the protagonists there is no need to see the "big picture" to know that the protagonists are too evil to be protagonists, even if possibly much, much, better than the villains.

ONE time? You are just stupid.

[/color]

Thank you.

Why are you thanking me? You like the idea of being one of the most evil characters in the show?

It will matter to every person you do good to and avoid doing evil to trying to make up for it. But I am not confident that even doing infinite good will be enough to make up for killing even just a few kids when you didn't have to, or make you a good person who deserves to be loved and cared about by a hypothetical audience.

But that makes absolutely no sense at all.

If you sacrifice your morals to save the world you will force innocent people to sacrifice much more than their morals and you will save less of the world than you would have saved if you kept your morals. You will be like the Allies in World War II who saved less of the world because they sacrificed some of their military ethics.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. Not forcing people. It's impossible for someone like you to understand.

I may have a low opinion of Human nature but the world is not corrupted beyond hope. In the last few centuries the average Human lifespan has doubled, there has been a great increase in personal freedom, and the average material wealth has gone up very greatly.

But that has nothing to do with people's happiness.

And the abundance and quality of available entertainment has increased many times. If only there weren't programs like Code Geass and Gundam 00 which excused the evils done by the protagonists in the name of making a better world.

TV shows has nothing to do with the state of the world.

You said that killing the children was unjustified and now you say you agree with everything Celestial Being did. I remind that a computer like Veda should have been programmed to seek every possible advantage in every situation as well as to avid all possible harm. Thus it should have ordered Allelujah to capture the children so they could be reeducated to be loyal to Celestial being and become warriors for Celestial being in the future.

1. Because Hallelujah didn't give him that choice.
2. Veda was only programmed to calculate what was best for Celestial Being. Not for anything else.
3. Allelujah wanted to capture the children, but he knew they could never be happy after what happened to them.

I think that I read that Celestial Being has been trying to achieve peace for three hundred years by the time of the series. Compare that to the rapid success of organizations like the Republican party, the Nazi Party, the Mongol Empire, the Islamic Caliphate, etc.

Actually, Celestial Being never made any moves until the beginning of the series. It took until then to finish all the Gundams. And Republican Party? What? Not the one in America...

Anyway, be sure to hire good and honorable people to program you super computer instead of the evil people who programmed VEDA.

I'll use a computer like in Season 2 that doesn't suggest missions. Since Aeolia doesn't exist, it's gonna be hard to make the Innovades I need for the plan..... Time to get the ol' biology book out.

If Allelujah hated killing people why did he come up with a plan to kill the children and waste their training instead of capturing them and recruiting them for Celestial Being?

Because he thought of it as him erasing his past. However if you actually watched the episode. Hallelujah tells him to do it, but he refuses first.

Allelujah's unwillingness to kill people didn't make him weak, it made him stronger in resisting his evil side (and episode 11 showed that he needed even more strength to resist it). I suppose you think that Euphemia was weak at the Battle of Narita instead of being the strongest character in the entire series?

I believed Allelujah was weak because he should have never become a Meister if he was going to chicken out killing people. The scene on episode 11 made me like him even more.
And no. For one, Cornelia told her not to move the forces at the hospital. And for two, I completely loved Euphemia to a point where you can call me a fanboy. I loved how cute she was and sweet. Every time she avoided killing someone, my liking for her increased. And Eyphy, the strongest character.... No.

[wolfgirl90]

I don't care how evil the bad guys are, although sometimes it would be nice, for a change, to see bad guys who were nice and good-natured but happened to be indoctrinated in evil beliefs.

Wouldn't that contradict your whole "those that don't go against the 'evil' order that they serve deserve to die" thing? Sure, he's a "nice" Nazi, but he's still killing Jews like everybody else, with the same mindset as everyone else (why does him being a nice person excuse the whole genocide thing?), which, according to what you have JUST been saying in the last couple of posts, intention does not excuse the action (just because he had "good intentions" does not excuse his killing of Jews; you JUST said that to us). And since you never made a distinction between real-life Nazis and those portrayed in propaganda movies, you just sound like a hypocrite now (as always).

What I object to is evil heroes and protagonists.

Protagonist: Noun. "The principle character(s) of a literary work (or story).
Antagonist: Noun. "The opposing side of the protagonist"

Who the hell ever said the protagonist was ALWAYS the good guy? Who told you that the main character was always good (unless of course you haven't read anything more complicated than The Berenstain Bears)?

Celestial Being are merely the main characters. That doesn't mean that they are the good guys. And again, the only reason why you should (not saying you have to; I don't care what you do) watch Gundam 00 is so that you can understand what YOU are talking about. Also, didn't I tell you that you could stop talking about it? Go ahead. Stop. Stop right now if you don't want to talk about it anymore.

Thank you.

"Thank you"? Um...proEuphie, that wasn't a compliment, that was an insult and a big one. Being an Innovator is not a good thing (would know if you watched the series, but whatever). You thought Celestial Being was bad? Yeah, the Innovators are worse. And yes, most of their attitude has do with their lack of human nature and self-righteousness (being self-righteous doesn't mean that you ARE right, just that you are crazy).

If you sacrifice your morals to save the world you will force innocent people to sacrifice much more than their morals and you will save less of the world than you would have saved if you kept your morals.

Ah, you have found the moral conundrum of the series, both Code Geass and Gundam 00. Have a cookie.

If only there weren't programs like Code Geass and Gundam 00 which excused the evils done by the protagonists in the name of making a better world.

Who the hell said that they were excused? You have committed yet another logical fallacy. "Those guys said they like Allelujah. Allelujah did bad things. Therefore, they (and ALL people) have excused what he did". You are ignoring the fact 1) those people could just like the character, 2) not everybody who watches the show feels the same way. Its called an ignoratio elenchi, an irrelevant conclusion. Also, do you think that people get their morals from cartoons. Do you think that we should live in a white-washed world where we only see unicorns, sunshine and rainbows?

I remind that a computer like Veda should have been programmed to seek every possible advantage in every situation as well as to avid all possible harm.

"Should have" is the key word. Another fallacy. It called petitio principii, "Begging the question". You are trying to prove your proposition by using an assumption, YOUR assumption. Keep it up, troll. Flexing the fallacy muscles, are we?

I think that I read that Celestial Being has been trying to achieve peace for three hundred years by the time of the series.

"Begging the question" again. You are trying to prove yourself with your own assumption (which is wrong, AGAIN, by the way).

Where the hell did you read that Celestial Being has been fighting for three hundred years? First of all, Celestial Being has only been in existence for about two hundred years, not three. Second, they didn't start their armed intervention campaign until about two hundred years AFTER Aeolia Schenburg died (don't know who that is? Look it up). Third, peace (and I mean WORLD PEACE) was achieved after the defeat of Ribbons and the Innovators, five years after the first armed intervention by Celestial Being. The Republican party, the Nazi Party, the Mongol Empire and the Islamic Caliphate didn't attain WORLD PEACE in five years (if they did at all).

Your move, troll.

If Allelujah hated killing people why did he come up with a plan to kill the children and waste their training instead of capturing them and recruiting them for Celestial Being?

Keep up, idiot. Allelujah at first decided to destroy the INSTITUTE since the INSTITUTE was promoting war by creating Super Soldiers (this is the primary reason why his mission was approved by Veda; the INSTITUTE was the threat, not necessarily the kids). He then realized that he would be killing his kin by destroying the INSTITUTE. He nonetheless decided that he had to destroy the INSTITUTE (along with the children who would have grown up to be war machines, killed or not) before Hallelujah did it for him. Again, not saying that this excuses him from what he did (I honestly do not care).

Also, Veda handles the recruitment of Celestial Being members, not the members themselves.

Allelujah's unwillingness to kill people didn't make him weak, it made him stronger in resisting his evil side (and episode 11 showed that he needed even more strength to resist it).

Considering that you seem to be accusing Allelujah of being evil at every turn, supporting him NOW seems rather hypocritical of you. And considering that he did EXACTLY what his "evil side" told him to do, I wouldn't call that "resistance" by any sense of the word. Really? Of all the episodes that demonstrate Allelujah's strength (as a pilot and a person), you picked that one? Oh yeah, that's right, it the only episode that you have seen (if you even watched the whole thing which I doubt you did).

By the way, you can stop talking about Gundam 00 now. Go ahead. If you don't want to talk about it anymore, stop. Stop responding to it. Its easy. Just stop. You don't have to deal with it anymore. Get back to your little Euphemia thread. Stop the Gundam 00 if you don't want to talk about it. Save your thread if you care anymore. Go ahead. No one's stopping you. You are in control (*cough*). Its your thread. You don't have to respond to it anymore. Just...stop.

[proEuphie]

I believed Allelujah was weak because he should have never become a Meister if he was going to chicken out killing people. The scene on episode 11 made me like him even more.

Having a unsuitable occupation does not make him weak, it makes him someone who chose the wrong job by mistake. He should have corrected the problem by quitting, not by killing people who were no immediate military threat.

How can planning a mission which involves killing children who will not be dangerous for years, during which time peace could come about, and then carrying it out despite a last-minute hesitation, make you like him better? It reduced my liking of him to zero.

And no. For one, Cornelia told her not to move the forces at the hospital. And for two, I completely loved Euphemia to a point where you can call me a fanboy. I loved how cute she was and sweet. Every time she avoided killing someone, my liking for her increased. And Eyphy, the strongest character.... No.[/quote]

After Cornelia was cut off and many of the Britannians were killed by the landslide, someone ordered the troops on the other side of the mountain to come to her assistance. Euphemia and her officers were probably aware of that and probably gave the order. But they knew that Cornelia and other survivors would be in danger for several minutes until the reinforcements arrived, and wanted to do something to help in the meantime.

So the officers said they must move the G1 to help Cornelia (despite it probably being too slow to arrive in time). And Euphemia said that they couldn't, because a field hospital was ahead and the place where they gathered the civilians from the area.

Euphie may have feared that the G1 would crush some of the people ahead. She may have feared tha the JLF would shell the G1, endangering the field hospital and the civilians. She may have feared that whoever started the avalanche would send another one against the G1, sweeping away thousands of civilains gathered into the area.

Then Euphie may have remembered that her officers had probably helped Cornelia plan the Saitema Ghetto Massacre in "Get Cornelia" and were too ruthless to care about possible collateral damage. In any case she added that besides, Cornelia had ordered her not to move.

In that kind of situation people usually give their main reasons first and then add reasons that they think will mean more to the other parties.

It is possible that Cornelia may have planned things to keep Euphemia from charging blindly to her rescue in the one-in-a-million chance that things went wrong. She may have ordered Euphemia not to more forward, she may have put Euphemia in a heavy but probably slow vehicle, and she may have placed a field hospital and the civilians between the battle and Euphemia to keep Euphemia from risking her life to save Cornelia in case anything did go wrong.

So Euphemia was the only character strong enough in "won't power" to not do what she desperately wanted to do when her ethics forbade it. She was the only character ethically strong enough to deserve a position of authority.

[xXPainful SmilexX]

Having a unsuitable occupation does not make him weak, it makes him someone who chose the wrong job by mistake. He should have corrected the problem by quitting, not by killing people who were no immediate military threat.

Allelujah believed the only thing he could do was fight because that's what he was created for. He thought Celestial Being gave him a good reason to fight. It;s not like you can quit Celestial Being once you start. All the Meister's identities and everything about the Gundams(including Solar Reactors) fall under S level Secrecy. It's not like you can just walk out.

How can planning a mission which involves killing children who will not be dangerous for years, during which time peace could come about, and then carrying it out despite a last-minute hesitation, make you like him better? It reduced my liking of him to zero.

It's called Internal Struggle. It's there to make you like the characters more. I wouldn't like anyone if they didn't have something to angst about.

After Cornelia was cut off and many of the Britannians were killed by the landslide, someone ordered the troops on the other side of the mountain to come to her assistance. Euphemia and her officers were probably aware of that and probably gave the order. But they knew that Cornelia and other survivors would be in danger for several minutes until the reinforcements arrived, and wanted to do something to help in the meantime.

Euphy says it. "The Viceroy told me not to move them no matter what."

So the officers said they must move the G1 to help Cornelia (despite it probably being too slow to arrive in time). And Euphemia said that they couldn't, because a field hospital was ahead and the place where they gathered the civilians from the area.

But she also said she had orders not to move it.

Euphie may have feared that the G1 would crush some of the people ahead. She may have feared tha the JLF would shell the G1, endangering the field hospital and the civilians. She may have feared that whoever started the avalanche would send another one against the G1, sweeping away thousands of civilains gathered into the area.

Okay?

Then Euphie may have remembered that her officers had probably helped Cornelia plan the Saitema Ghetto Massacre in "Get Cornelia" and were too ruthless to care about possible collateral damage. In any case she added that besides, Cornelia had ordered her not to move.

This has nothing to do with anything....

In that kind of situation people usually give their main reasons first and then add reasons that they think will mean more to the other parties.

I never said Euphy was bad or didn't want to save the people.

So Euphemia was the only character strong enough in "won't power" to not do what she desperately wanted to do when her ethics forbade it. She was the only character ethically strong enough to deserve a position of authority.

Morally, Euphy was strong. But I do find it a tad bit annoying when characters refuse to kill when they have to.
You should watch Gundam 00, you remind me of an Innovator version of Saji Crossroad. You're self righteous and act like you're God. That's an Innovator. And you judge people without understanding anything, that's Saji.

[wolfgirl90]

Having a unsuitable occupation does not make him weak, it makes him someone who chose the wrong job by mistake.

Your opinion honestly.

How can planning a mission which involves killing children who will not be dangerous for years, during which time peace could come about, and then carrying it out despite a last-minute hesitation, make you like him better? It reduced my liking of him to zero.

Other people have standards for characters just like you do. By the way, didn't I tell that you could easily avoid talking about a show and a character that you don't like by NOT talking about it? Why are you still talking about it?

So the officers said they must move the G1 to help Cornelia (despite it probably being too slow to arrive in time). And Euphemia said that they couldn't, because a field hospital was ahead and the place where they gathered the civilians from the area.

In addition to the fact that Cornelia told her not to move any.

Euphie may have feared that the G1 would crush some of the people ahead. She may have feared tha the JLF would shell the G1, endangering the field hospital and the civilians. She may have feared that whoever started the avalanche would send another one against the G1, sweeping away thousands of civilains gathered into the area.

The key word is "MAY". Again, this the logical fallacy of "begging the question". You are using your OWN assumption of Euphemia and her actions to prove your point. That doesn't work here. Its one thing to present them as a hypothesis but not to present them as fact. Try again.

Then Euphie may have remembered that her officers had probably helped Cornelia plan the Saitema Ghetto Massacre in "Get Cornelia" and were too ruthless to care about possible collateral damage. In any case she added that besides, Cornelia had ordered her not to move.

Again, the key word is "MAY".

In that kind of situation people usually give their main reasons first and then add reasons that they think will mean more to the other parties.

Whatever you say. Personally Euphemia might have been wasting time by putting her personal convictions above her sister's orders (its not as if they were in conflict with each other, so why bother). But, again, whatever.

So Euphemia was the only character strong enough in "won't power" to not do what she desperately wanted to do when her ethics forbade it. She was the only character ethically strong enough to deserve a position of authority.

Again, your opinion. I honestly think that Euphemia was politically inept, naive to a fault and ignorant of certain socioeconomic principles. That usually happens to characters who are pacifists. And this is Sunrise, so Euphemia is not a unique character; she's basically a carbon copy of Lacus Clyne and a much weaker version of Relena Peacecraft. I never really liked pseudo-pacifistic characters.

When it comes to Narita, that doesn't really show Euphemia's "won't power" (hehe..."won't power"; yeah whatever, troll). She could easily be parroting her sister. There are two sides to it: she couldn't move because the G1 was the field hospital AND she couldn't move because her sister told her NOT TO MOVE. This shows that she either has strong morals, can follow order from her sister or both. However, it doesn't exclusively prove your point because it also proves mine.

Also, all the "won't power" that this girl supposedly possessed didn't stop her from being controlled by the Geass and murdering thousands of people.

[proEuphie]

Wouldn't that contradict your whole "those that don't go against the 'evil' order that they serve deserve to die" thing? Sure, he's a "nice" Nazi, but he's still killing Jews like everybody else, with the same mindset as everyone else (why does him being a nice person excuse the whole genocide thing?), which, according to what you have JUST been saying in the last couple of posts, intention does not excuse the action (just because he had "good intentions" does not excuse his killing of Jews; you JUST said that to us). And since you never made a distinction between real-life Nazis and those portrayed in propaganda movies, you just sound like a hypocrite now (as always).

Protagonist: Noun. "The principle character(s) of a literary work (or story).
Antagonist: Noun. "The opposing side of the protagonist"

Who the hell ever said the protagonist was ALWAYS the good guy? Who told you that the main character was always good (unless of course you haven't read anything more complicated than The Berenstain Bears)?

Celestial Being are merely the main characters. That doesn't mean that they are the good guys. And again, the only reason why you should (not saying you have to; I don't care what you do) watch Gundam 00 is so that you can understand what YOU are talking about. Also, didn't I tell you that you could stop talking about it? Go ahead. Stop. Stop right now if you don't want to talk about it anymore.

So who are the good guys in Gundam 00? A number of other posters have described the opponents of Celestial Being as being much more evil, so if Celestial being is too evil to be the "good guys" by my standards, who is good enough? Maybe innocent bystander # 4, seen for two seconds fleeing for his life during the battle in episode 16. perhaps? If so, he would be too unimportant to the plot to be worthy protagonist, leaving nobody worthy of the role.

And while the protagonists don't have to be the best guys, they can be the second best or third best guys if they are among the (mostly) good guys, I need no sense in choosing protagonists from among the bad guys.

"Thank you"? Um...proEuphie, that wasn't a compliment, that was an insult and a big one. Being an Innovator is not a good thing (would know if you watched the series, but whatever). You thought Celestial Being was bad? Yeah, the Innovators are worse. And yes, most of their attitude has do with their lack of human nature and self-righteousness (being self-righteous doesn't mean that you ARE right, just that you are crazy).

That was only an insult to someone who has seen the series and has decided that the Innovators are evil. I have not seen the series and don't have the faintest idea how good and/or evil the Innovators are.

But the fictional Innovators are only a subset of real and imaginary inhuman people. Do you consider great apes, cetaceans, and elephants to be people? If not, then the lower limit of intelligence and other higher qualities required to classify as a person can be only slightly subhuman. While it is theoretically possible for intelligent beings to be almost infinitely superior to Humans. Thus calling a person inhuman is placing him in a category which ranges from only very slightly subhuman to almost infinitely superhuman and thus indicates that he is very probably much superior to Humans.

Ah, you have found the moral conundrum of the series, both Code Geass and Gundam 00. Have a cookie.

There is no moral conundrum. My sentence you quoted was a warning to not give up one's ethical standards even if one believes (as countless billions before have in your opinion and my opinion wrongly believed) that one is fighting to save the world. If either series had a situation where someone had to give up his moral standards in order to save the world, that would be different, then there would be a conundrum in that series. But I am not aware of such a situation in either series.

Who the hell said that they were excused? You have committed yet another logical fallacy. "Those guys said they like Allelujah. Allelujah did bad things. Therefore, they (and ALL people) have excused what he did". You are ignoring the fact 1) those people could just like the character, 2) not everybody who watches the show feels the same way. Its called an ignoratio elenchi, an irrelevant conclusion. Also, do you think that people get their morals from cartoons. Do you think that we should live in a white-washed world where we only see unicorns, sunshine and rainbows?

I have said that I find it inexplicable that so many posters continue to like protagonists enough to watch the rest of a series once the protagonists have committed even one inexcusable crime. Whatever problems I might have with dealing with the discovery that someone I loved did something evil, I have no problem with shutting off my liking for, and interest in, a fictional character I have seen for just ten or twenty hours the moment I decide that he has done something evil.

People get their morals from everywhere. You got your morals from tens of thousands of sources, some of them no doubt thousands of times as influential as others, but even the weakest sources acting to reinforce some of the stronger ones and weaken some of the other stronger ones.

Once, when I was a child I was puzzled by by watching a cartoon in which there seemed to be great animosity toward little boys in sailor suits with glasses and buck teeth, and years later I realized that it must have been made in World War II and the "little boys" were caricatures of Japanese sailors. That cartoon was one of countless thousands of pieces of anti-Japanese propaganda which helped make the American public accept the mass murderous attacks on Japan by the U.S. Army Air Force in 1845 (oops, 1945).

"Should have" is the key word. Another fallacy. It called petitio principii, "Begging the question". You are trying to prove your proposition by using an assumption, YOUR assumption. Keep it up, troll. Flexing the fallacy muscles, are we?

Oh, what a weird assumption I made, assuming that good strategy includes searching for every possible advantage and not just looking for every possible disadvantage.

"Begging the question" again. You are trying to prove yourself with your own assumption (which is wrong, AGAIN, by the way).

Where the hell did you read that Celestial Being has been fighting for three hundred years? First of all, Celestial Being has only been in existence for about two hundred years, not three. Second, they didn't start their armed intervention campaign until about two hundred years AFTER Aeolia Schenburg died (don't know who that is? Look it up). Third, peace (and I mean WORLD PEACE) was achieved after the defeat of Ribbons and the Innovators, five years after the first armed intervention by Celestial Being. The Republican party, the Nazi Party, the Mongol Empire and the Islamic Caliphate didn't attain WORLD PEACE in five years (if they did at all).

Your move, troll.

I wrote that [I] read that Celestial Being had been trying to achieve world peace for three hundred years, not fighting to achieve world peace, since I did not know when they started fighting..

And if it is only two hundred years, then they have tried various methods unsuccessfully for a "mere" two hundred years before deciding to fight for peace.

I compare that to the much shorter periods that the Republican Party, the Nazi Party, the Mongol Empire, and the Islamic Caliphate took to achieve a large part of their original goals. Since the Caliphate and the Mongol Empire planned to conquer the world, world peace was a part of their goals which they failed to achieve, though they did make very large conquests in much less than the 200 years that Celestial Being failed to much any progress in.

Keep up, idiot. Allelujah at first decided to destroy the INSTITUTE since the INSTITUTE was promoting war by creating Super Soldiers (this is the primary reason why his mission was approved by Veda; the INSTITUTE was the threat, not necessarily the kids). He then realized that he would be killing his kin by destroying the INSTITUTE. He nonetheless decided that he had to destroy the INSTITUTE (along with the children who would have grown up to be war machines, killed or not) before Hallelujah did it for him. Again, not saying that this excuses him from what he did (I honestly do not care).

Also, Veda handles the recruitment of Celestial Being members, not the members themselves.

Considering that you seem to be accusing Allelujah of being evil at every turn, supporting him NOW seems rather hypocritical of you. And considering that he did EXACTLY what his "evil side" told him to do, I wouldn't call that "resistance" by any sense of the word. Really? Of all the episodes that demonstrate Allelujah's strength (as a pilot and a person), you picked that one? Oh yeah, that's right, it the only episode that you have seen (if you even watched the whole thing which I doubt you did).

I haven't contradicted myself. I strongly believe that it would be a much, much, better world if all members of every present and future military and paramilitary, police, criminal, terrorist, guerrilla, etc. etc. type of organization were totally opposed to killing anyone under any circumstances. So naturally I don't want to agree with anyone who believes that a particular fighter who doesn't want to kill must be weak instead of having other reasons for his attitude.

By the way, you can stop talking about Gundam 00 now. Go ahead. If you don't want to talk about it anymore, stop. Stop responding to it. Its easy. Just stop. You don't have to deal with it anymore. Get back to your little Euphemia thread. Stop the Gundam 00 if you don't want to talk about it. Save your thread if you care anymore. Go ahead. No one's stopping you. You are in control (*cough*). Its your thread. You don't have to respond to it anymore. Just...stop.

You stop misquoting and misrepresenting what I wrote about it and I will stop writing about it.

[Rolo Vi Britannia]

So who are the good guys in Gundam 00? A number of other posters have described the opponents of Celestial Being as being much more evil, so if Celestial being is too evil to be the "good guys" by my standards, who is good enough? Maybe innocent bystander # 4, seen for two seconds fleeing for his life during the battle in episode 16. perhaps? If so, he would be too unimportant to the plot to be worthy protagonist, leaving nobody worthy of the role.

You do realize the battle on episode 16 took place in a desert where no one lived. Celestial Being does some bad stuff, but development makes shows good. I'd hate for someone to act perfectly good through the whole show.

And while the protagonists don't have to be the best guys, they can be the second best or third best guys if they are among the (mostly) good guys, I need no sense in choosing protagonists from among the bad guys.

So they are worthy?

That was only an insult to someone who has seen the series and has decided that the Innovators are evil. I have not seen the series and don't have the faintest idea how good and/or evil the Innovators are.

I can think of a simple way to fix that. Skip season 1 where they do bad stuff and watch season 2. You'll see the Innovators(Only really in season 2) and Celestial Being acting as good guys.

But the fictional Innovators are only a subset of real and imaginary inhuman people. Do you consider great apes, cetaceans, and elephants to be people? If not, then the lower limit of intelligence and other higher qualities required to classify as a person can be only slightly subhuman. While it is theoretically possible for intelligent beings to be almost infinitely superior to Humans. Thus calling a person inhuman is placing him in a category which ranges from only very slightly subhuman to almost infinitely superhuman and thus indicates that he is very probably much superior to Humans.

What? Are you even talking about he Innovators anymore?

There is no moral conundrum. My sentence you quoted was a warning to not give up one's ethical standards even if one believes (as countless billions before have in your opinion and my opinion wrongly believed) that one is fighting to save the world. If either series had a situation where someone had to give up his moreal princibles in order to save the world, that would be different, then there would be a conundrum in that series. But I am not aware of such a situation in either series.

Because, I've said it before, you don't get it.

I have said that I find it inexplicable that so many posters continue to like protagonists enough to watch the rest of a series once the protagonists have committed even one inexcusable crime. Whatever problems I might have with dealing with the discovery that someone I loved did something evil, I have no problem with shutting off my liking for, and interest in, a fictional character I have seen for just ten or twenty hours the moment I decide that he has done something evil.

Remember what people were saying about you being self righteous? No one actually thinks that way because when people watch a fictional series, they aren't looking for morals, they're looking for a good plot and characters filled with depth.

I wrote that [i] read that Celestial Being had been trying to achieve world peace for three hundred years, not fighting to achieve world peace, since I did not know when they started fighting..

Perfect reason why you should shut up or watch the series.

And if it is only two hundred years, then they have tried various methods unsuccessfully for a "mere" two hundred years before deciding to fight for peace.

The plan was to fight from the beginning. It just took 200 years for them to build the Gundams.

I compare that to the much shorter periods that the Republican Party, the Nazi Party, the Mongol Empire, and the Islamic Caliphate took to achieve a large part of their original goals. Since the Caliphate and the Mongol Empire planned to conquer the world, world peace was a part of their goals which they failed to achieve, though they did make very large conquests in much less than the 200 years that Celestial Being failed to much any progress in

I just explained why this was wrong.

I haven't contradicted myself. I strongly believe that it would be a much, much, better world if all members of every present and future military and paramilitary, police, criminal, terrorist, guerrilla, etc. etc. type of organization were totally opposed to killing anyone under any circumstances. So naturally I don't want to agree with anyone who believes that a particular fighter who doesn't want to kill must be weak instead of having other reasons for his attitude.

But this will never happen.

You stop misquoting and misrepresenting what I wrote about it and I will stop writing about it.

Stop spamming.

[wolfgirl90]

So who are the good guys in Gundam 00? A number of other posters have described the opponents of Celestial Being as being much more evil, so if Celestial being is too evil to be the "good guys" by my standards, who is good enough?

There is one main character who is. She is not a part of Celestial Being and is actually against what they do. She is Sunrise's pacifistic princess #12. I am not going to tell you who it is since if you don't want bother with watching Gundam 00 (or talk about it...by the way, why are you STILL talking about it?), I am not going to bother to explain the characters to you. What point would there be in that?

That was only an insult to someone who has seen the series and has decided that the Innovators are evil. I have not seen the series and don't have the faintest idea how good and/or evil the Innovators are.

Okay...but again, it was an insult at your expense, and yes, it makes more sense if you know who the Innovators are. Whether you care about it or reacted to it or not does not matter to us.

While it is theoretically possible for intelligent beings to be almost infinitely superior to Humans. Thus calling a person inhuman is placing him in a category which ranges from only very slightly subhuman to almost infinitely superhuman and thus indicates that he is very probably much superior to Humans.

Your "theory" has a problem. I do not consider animals to be below or above humans. In fact, I do not bother to compare them because animals are merely non-human. The Innovators are the same way.

Also, none of us used the word "inhuman", which has the limited definition of lacking of human compassion, cruel, cold or monstrous when it comes to the Innovators. Since the word "inhuman" isn't relevant in any other way (and since we NEVER used the word), your point is moot, and you committed the logical fallacy of irrelevant conclusion (even if your definition of inhuman was relevant, your entire theory only works if I answer yes to your first question).

If either series had a situation where someone had to give up his moreal princibles in order to save the world, that would be different, then there would be a conundrum in that series. But I am not aware of such a situation in either series.

Both series raise the question of whether true peace can be attained through violence. If one raises up with violence, can they create peace? Can peace be attained by armed intervention? Is peace really "peace" if it was attained through the wrong methods? That's the moral conundrum. Giving up morals to save the world is ONE type of conundrum, but not the only one, troll. Try to keep up.

I have said that I find it inexplicable that so many posters continue to like protagonists enough to watch the rest of a series once the protagonists have committed even one inexcusable crime.

And again, you are free to state your opinion. This is a forum after all. However, you are not a person who is in a position to judge others, which is ALL you are doing right now. You are not debating. You are not holding an intelligent discussion about a heavy cartoon. You are just whining like a child about people who disagree with you (so far, most of your threads have started because you felt you needed to "address" to something someone said to you).

You are not a troll because you disagree with us. You are free to disagree. You are free to state why you disagree. However, you are not free to judge people's actions, character, or morals because of a cartoon (a cartoon you have only seen ONE episode of). THAT is what makes you a troll.

I wrote that [i] read that Celestial Being had been trying to achieve world peace for three hundred years, not fighting to achieve world peace, since I did not know when they started fighting..

You don't know a lot of things about Celestial Being so you are honestly the last person who should be talking about their history, a history you don't know at all, so you should just stop now before you hurt yourself.

So naturally I don't want to agree with anyone who believes that a particular fighter who doesn't want to kill must be weak instead of having other reasons for his attitude.

No problem with that. HOWEVER, you can't criticize Allelujah's actions, call him evil and all those who like him evil and then turn around and defend him because someone called him weak (again, you can't say anything about a character you know nothing about). Considering that the ONLY thing you know about Allelujah is that he has an "evil" side and killed a bunch of children, you are the LAST person who should be defending him on any front. That's called contradiction, troll.

You stop misquoting and misrepresenting what I wrote about it and I will stop writing about it.

Hehe...Sorry, but I don't take requests from trolls. I have zero respect for you at this point (and I am not the only person who takes you as a huge joke). Like I said, you need respect from fellow members to be taken seriously. You have none. Therefore, everything you say flies right over my head as nonsense (since that is what the majority of your posts are: nonsense).

Also, I told you to stop for your own benefit, not my own; I honestly couldn't care less if you continued to talk about Gundam 00 or not. YOU said that YOU didn't want to talk about it. And I said that if YOU didn't want to talk about it, YOU easily stop this by NOT RESPONDING to posts that deal with Gundam 00. And that if you do, it just proves that you are a troll that just wants to argue rather than hold a discussion.

You don't care about this thread anymore, do you? I mean, I wouldn't blame you; no one else seems to care (I don't care). Maybe you can another thread about how Euphemia is goddess or something. That could be fun. (note: if you actually make a thread like that, you will be more than a troll).

[proEuphie]

And what were those things about Euphemia that made you like her? If I recall correctly, you admitted that you didn't really care about Euphemia initially, so whatever actions she did obviously didn't work the first time. You only started to care about Euphemia after she died. That whole "alternative universe" argument doesn't really work because you don't (and can't because she's not real) have a personal relationship with Euphemia. Comparing either my or your (theoretical) relationships to a cartoon character really doesn't work (and once again calls to question your value of human life).

I said that I considered her a very nice and good minor character until I saw her murdered and began to think about it. Then I realized that I had been letting my moral standards slide in the case of Code Geass and that that just about every other character in the series was evil. But her actions worked the first time because I considered her to be obviously the best person in the series.

Yes the alternate universe argument works as an analogy to explain why alternate universe Euphemias are not the same as the Euphemia I saw.

Yes, the story of Nightmare of Nunnally does diverse at a point but diverges after Clovis' death. She ends up sharing the position of Governor-General with Cornelia rather than becoming a Sub-Viceroy. This is why Euphemia is more politically active (and more politically successful) here than in the anime. So again, what about Euphemia in the anime made you like her and how different do you think she could possibly be? Really the only difference between Euphemia in the anime and Euphemia in NoN is that she isn't introduced via a fall out of a window.

Things about Euphemia which impressed me in the anime:

1) the part where she rushed between two nightmares to stop their fight. The part where she revealed her identity to try to get the other hostages released. 3) At the battle of Narita when she refused to endanger the lives of civilians (obeying orders from Cornelia was just an afterthought) and sent in Suzaku despite the advice of her officers and her reluctance to endanger him. 4) Resisting Lelouch's geas command, even if unsuccessfully. 5) defeating her geass command in the sickbay of the Avalon. Etc., etc., etc.

How many of them does she do in NoN?

Although, I guess this only matters if one liked Euphemia for the character that she is: open minded, kindhearted and innocent to a fault; she appears this way in the anime and she appears this way in NoN.

You confuse the character that Euphemia HAS with the character that she IS. Calling her open minded, kindhearted and innocent to a fault is only correct if Euphemia is some kind of supernatural manifestation or personalization of those traits, thus making her far more important, and her death a much more terrible loss to the world, than anyone has ever suggested before.

The important thing about real and fictional people is not their personalities but their identities. For example, if someone that you knew died, would you be comforted by being told that his or her personality was measured to be personality type 57B 29, and there are 34,705 other living people in the world with personality type 57B 29 who are just like him or her? No, you would mourn the loss of his or her identity and self.

A person's identity is everything that he or she has ever experienced, thought, felt, and done. A person's personality is the probability that he or she will behave in a certain way in a certain situation. It is incorrect to say "the character that Euphemia is: open minded, kindhearted and innocent to a fault". That is merely her personality (and a very good one). The character that Euphemia is in the anime is the person who has experienced, thought, felt, and done everything that she did in the anime (and off screen).

The character of Euphemia inNoN probably shares the vast majority of her past experiences with the Euphemia in the anime. But their experiences that are shown are probably differenct in significant ways.

If one only cared about Euphemia's actions and only wanted to see those EXACT actions (whether she succeeded or not), I guess one would be out of luck (

 

unless they wanted to see Euphemia succeed in everything that she had planned to do in the anime before she died

). Of course, that would lead to a weird discussion with Sunrise:

Euphie fans: "How could you kill off Euphemia?! She was so kind and innocent!"
Sunrise: "Yes, we know how popular Euphemia was and upset you were, which is why brought her back and made her a main character in Nightmareof Nunnally."
Euphie fans: "That doesn't matter...she still died in the anime! The anime Euphie is the only one we loved and the only one we care about!"
Sunrise: "If that's the case, what do what us to do about it?
Euphie fans:

How do you know everything that Euphemia planned to do in the naime, and thus that she succeeded in doing all that in Non? And succeeding while having different experiences is being an alternate universe version of a character.

Euphie fans:

We want a sequel to Code Geass in which the world reverts to war and violence soon after the Zero Requiem, since it had absolutely no chance of ever achieving anything lasting.

We want Euphemia to come back to life and save the world, because, despite the low probability of Euphemia coming back to life and saving the world, that probability is still infinitely greater than that of any of the other characters, or any combination of them, ever saving the world --they are to evil too ever know what must be done to save the world.

We want you to lie and say that this was your original plan and the first two seasons were just setting the stage for the main story of how Euphemia saves the world from the mess that the other characters made.

Well, I'll let you answer that one. If another Euphemia isn't what you want (because they are not continuing Lelouch of the Rebellion, so you can just forget about her coming back this way), then are you just upset over her death? And if that's the case, don't you think that nearly THREE YEARS (the episode where she died premiered in March 2007 in Japan; so yeah, its been almost three years since her "death") is a little long too still be whining about the death of a cartoon character?

I want them to do a sequel to I]Lelouch of the[/I] Rebellion in which Euphemia comes back to life and saves the world from the mess that Lelouch made. And they will do that if there is enough demand. I have only been whining, as you call it, for less than a year and a half. And as long as their evil plot twist continues to dictate what I think about and controls my life I will continue to whine. When it stops interfering with my life then it will be time for me to stop whining, as you call it. But there will never be a time for me to stop plotting how I will respond to what they have done to me and the time they have taken away from me, until I have responded adequately.

Do want her to come back in anime form, do you want her to be brought back to life or are you just on a soapbox to announce to everyone how shocking her death was (something that most people, including myself, are not even arguing against) and to reveal how "sad" you were?

What I want Is a sequel anime in which the Euphemia killed in the anime comes back to life. And a sequel manga in which the Euphemia who was killed in the manga comes back to life. And other stories abut other Euphemias who were never killed. And I want Lelouch to be hated and despised by everyone who ever knows about him.

[wolfgirl90]

This is fun. I wonder when this thread will be closed for length? That should be interesting. Anyway...

You confuse the character that Euphemia HAS with the character that she IS.

No I'm not. As I have told you on MANY occasions, Euphemia is not a unique character by any sense of the word. Pacifistic princess? Sunrise has done that character many times. It doesn't help that she looks almost exactly like Lacus Clyne (and even has the type of relationship as Lacus Clyne). Euphemia represents a Sunrise archetype; she's not a unique character. Yeah, you can be a Euphemia fan based on the character itself (something that you really didn't pay attention to until after her death), but there is a line between being a devoted fan and a whiny little fangirl disguised as a troll.

The character of Euphemia inNoN probably shares the vast majority of her past experiences with the Euphemia in the anime. But their experiences that are shown are probably difference insignificant ways.

Not that I care what you say anymore, but you need to seriously make sure that you using correct grammar (this has been a serious problem of yours...do you not read your posts?). Unless of course you want me to think that you are MORE of an idiot?

We want a sequel to Code Geass in which the world reverts to war and violence soon after the Zero Requiem, since it had absolutely no chance of ever achieving anything lasting.

This is hilarious. First of all, Sunrise is not going to change its story for Code Geass. They haven't done that before and they are not going to do it for a bunch of whining Euphemia fans who can't get a firm grip on reality.

Second, the Zero Requiem lead to peace, but no where in the series does it say that this peace was going to be everlasting. It worked, but no one knows how long it will work. That's made clear in the end, though if you actually WATCHED any of the episodes involving the Zero Requiem, you would have known that.

I want them to do a sequel to I]Lelouch of the[/i] Rebellion in which Euphemia comes back to life and saves the world from the mess that Lelouch made. And they will do that if there is enough demand.

Well, right now its just you. And you are doing it on a random anime forum. What, you think Sunrise is just going to magically check posts here and conform to your will (again, you are the only one here whining about Euphemia's death)? If you have a problem, take it up with THEM, not us.

Code Geass director Goro Taniguchi has stated that Lelouch of the Rebellion is done, that they are not going back to it anymore (and he wouldn't have brought this up if a million people hadn't been in his face about making a squeal to it). And Euphemia may been popular enough to warrant a higher status in a alternative manga, but not that popular to get a series (she was competing with Lacus Clyne, who Euphemia is basically a clone of, for popularity).

What I want Is a sequel anime in which the Euphemia killed in the anime comes back to life.

Well, that's not going to happen. First, like I said, Lelouch of the Rebellion is done. No more anime or mangas about it. Its done (if you have a problem whine to Sunrise about it, not us because we can't do anything about it and we don't care). Second, if you want a story about a Euphemia who was never killed, well, I have been telling you that Euphemia never died in Nightmare of Nunnally.

And so long as everyone is free to their opinion (especially on the Internet), so long as the world doesn't operate on a strict "black-or-white" basis (that believe is for children), some people are going to find a way to like Lelouch. And if that's something that is going to occupy your life, well, you need a new life, troll (assuming, of course, that you even have a life to begin with).

If you want Sunrise to change their ways, to change their "evil plot twists", talk to THEM about it. You know, people who might care and can do something about it. However, WE can't do anything and WE don't care. So write a letter. Visit them. Protest. WHATEVER! Do something other than be here since, at the moment, you are wasting time here while you could be protesting to them about a cartoon (*chuckle*).

But I hope you know conversational Japanese and have a firm understanding of Japanese business etiquette. I would help you with that, being linguistically and culturally fluent in Japanese myself but...yeah, I don't like you enough for that (actually, I just don't like you). Good luck looking it up though, troll (its been working for you so far).

[Rolo Vi Britannia]

Did you notice how she doesn't reply to certain people, like me. I guess I'm too smart for her.

[blackrosetwilight]

Did you notice how she doesn't reply to certain people, like me. I guess I'm too smart for her.

maybe because you're a boy lol

[proEuphie]

Did you notice how she doesn't reply to certain people, like me. I guess I'm too smart for her.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

[proEuphie]

I think that it is terribly misguided based upon your rather basic understanding of the Geass order and your rather amusing attempts at being right at every single argument you participate in.

To dumb things down for you, Lelouch ordered Suzaku to "live" because Suzaku was willing to sacrifice his life in order to keep Zero in place while the Britannian army blew up the place. This order caused Suzaku to care about his life above everything else, including his direct, level one orders to not move, allowing Lelouch to escape. This is THE ONLY REASON why Lelouch gave the order. Its not until later on in the series when he decides to use this order to his advantage to make Suzaku his comrade.

Lelouch did not give the order for ANY OTHER REASON other than to get Suzaku to care more about his life than his orders so that he would be able to escape. It had absolutely nothing to with getting Suzaku to quit the military, to become his comrade, to survive until the next battle or to escape the situation to continue fighting. Keep up the good work.

I was discussing the possible ways that the geass command could be interpreted and what effects those would have on Suzaku's behavior after the incident.

So you seem to be absolutely positive that Lelouch's intent and concern was only with the moment and that he gave no thought to the effect on Suzaku's later behavior.

So it seems certain that his geass command should have controlled Suzaku for a short time and then stopped, leaving Suzaku free. That leaves the origin of Suzaku's geass in the second season a mystery. Perhaps the second season is in an alternate universe to the first season, one where Lelouch gave a somewhat different command to Suazaku.

Again, your logic is misguided, and this time, its mostly because you didn't even watch the series where this all happened and you adamantly refuse to do so because of "morals". While you had plausible possibilities, you only went with the one that you WANTED to be true (and ran with it as if it were true; you have a knack of doing this).

For your information, only your first "possibility" is correct. Charles added his Geass command to Lelouch's; he didn't cancel it out and does not have the power to do so (the closest thing he can do is seal the Geass ability of the user but this only applies to the USER and does not cancel out commands that have already been given).

I believed that the first possibility was the correct one. I listed the other two because I was replying to a poster who seemed to believe Charles had ended or greatly modified Lelouch's geass command to Shirley. This would mean that Charles could have ended or greatly modified the command to Euphemia, making her less dangerous. Thus the poster seemed to believe in a situation where Euphemia could be at least partially cured, thus making his excuses for her death even less valid.

If the first possibility is the only true one, then Charles could not have cured Euphemia's geass command. But there are also some advantages in that situation for my point of view.

Lelouch's command to Shirley was to forget all the memories that were tormenting her, such as her torn feelings about him (loving him as Lelouch but hating him as Zero), her guilt for "killing" Villetta (who was still alive after Shirley shot her) and the various events surrounding the death of her father. Charles' command to Shirley was to basically forget that Nunnally was Lelouch's sibling and to accept Rolo as Lelouch's sibling. His command DID NOT overwrite Lelouch's; his command was merely added to the one that was already in effect. Shirley does not get ANY of those memories back (such as how her father died, her conflict with Lelouch, shooting Villeta, the fact that Nunnally was Lelouch's sister, etc) until Jeremiah uses the Geass Canceler on her, canceling out BOTH Geass commands.

Because of this, your entire argument that Charles would have been able to change Euphemia's memories to make her "safer" around others is moot, because Charles does not have the power to rewrite Lelouch's commands. When it comes to Lelouch's commands, he can only give commands IN ADDITION TO the ones that are already in effect; he can't prevent them from working altogether.

So perhaps if Euphemia lived, Charles might have been able to change her interpretation of "Japanese" in the command to mean Japanese Beetles or Japanese Maples, or made her think that the command included a chronological limitation of some kind ("until 10 pm", "for three days", "after January 1, 2317" ,etc.).

If the first possibility is the only true one, then Charles could not have completely cured Euphemia's geass command and might or might not have been able to affect it enough to stop her from trying to kill Japanese people. But there are also some advantages in that situation for my point of view.

The poster believed that Shirley's geass command was similar in type to Lelouch's command to Euphemia and that it lasted for over a year, making Shirley forget for over a year. But I think it only controlled Shirley for a few minutes or seconds, long enough to make her forget, and then ended forever. Shirley could not remember because her memories had been locked up and were unavailable. Thus that was an example of a geass command similar to Euphemia's which did not make the subject do things for over a year.

If you are right, as you no doubt are, about Charles being unable to remove Shirley's geass command, it lasted for over a year and through over twenty episodes until Jeremiah's geass canceler was used on her.

So if she had been constantly controlled by the command for that year, when the geass canceler was used on her she would have forgotten everything which happened during that year and wondered where she was and how she got there. Did you see her do that?

And if the geass command had been controlling Shirley for that year and twenty-odd episodes to keep her forgetting her troubling memories, every close up of her eyes would have shown red circles around her irises that would show to the audience that she was being controlled by a geass command.

I conclude that Shirley's geass command does not prove that a vague geass command like Euphemia's can control someone for a year.

[Rolo Vi Britannia]

maybe because you're a boy lol

Maybe... What does that make her then?

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Nervous laughter, huh?

[wolfgirl90]

This took me a whooping 5 minutes to write because it was so simple. Enjoy.

So you seem to be absolutely positive that Lelouch's intent and concern was only with the moment and that he gave no thought to the effect on Suzaku's later behavior.

I am. Lelouch was trapped. He was about to be killed because Suzaku was willing to give up his life to make sure that Lelouch wouldn't be able to move. Because of this, Lelouch gave him the command to "Live" so that Suzaku would care about his life more than his orders. Its not that hard to grasp, troll.

So it seems certain that his geass command should have controlled Suzaku for a short time and then stopped, leaving Suzaku free.

Noooo. Remember, there needs to be a time limit stated in the command. Otherwise, the command keeps going until the stated condition is met. The command to live forced Suzaku to care about his life above anything else not just in that one instance (Lelouch would've had to state that in his command in order for that to be the case), but in each instance where he was willing to just die.

Thus the poster seemed to believe in a situation where Euphemia could be at least partially cured, thus making his excuses for her death even less valid.

That wasn't the case. Even if you were just replying to someone (that someone being Rolo vi Britannia; its not really a secret, just use his name), you still ran with it as fact and still continue to do so. Also, he was talking about Charles and Lelouch's Geass on SHIRLEY. Euphemia had nothing to do with it. That's called an irrelevant conclusion and a logical fallacy. Well done!

If the first possibility is the only true one, then Charles could not have cured Euphemia's geass command. But there are also some advantages in that situation for my point of view.

Such as?

So perhaps if Euphemia lived, Charles might have been able to change her interpretation of "Japanese" in the command to mean Japanese Beetles or Japanese Maples, or made her think that the command included a chronological limitation of some kind ("until 10 pm", "for three days", "after January 1, 2317" ,etc.).

What did I JUST say? Charles CAN NOT change a Geass command that has already been placed. He can not modify the command. The command is "Kill the Japanese". Charles can't do ANYTHING about that command (and probably wouldn't).

But I think it only controlled Shirley for a few minutes or seconds, long enough to make her forget, and then ended forever.

Considering that Lelouch made her forget about many things (and not just about him), that is not really valid.

If you are right, as you no doubt are, about Charles being unable to remove Shirley's geass command, it lasted for over a year and through over twenty episodes until Jeremiah's geass canceler was used on her.

Yes, that's right. Glad we could have this talk.

So if she had been constantly controlled by the command for that year, when the geass canceler was used on her she would have forgotten everything which happened during that year and wondered where she was and how she got there.

Forgetting everything that happened doing a command is (so far) only relevant when one is doing a physical command and only if the Geass command comes to a natural end. In Shirley's case, the Geass command didn't just end, it was broken altogether, making the Geass and the command void. Because of this, everything that she had forgotten came rushing back without her forgetting the memories she had gained for the year. This also happened when C.C broke Charles' Geass on Lelouch; he got his memories back while retaining the memories of the past year.

When Shirley's Geass was broken, she was left standing stiff as those memories came rushing back and came to realize that her life, for an entire year, had been a lie. Though you would have known this if you watched the entire series, troll.

I conclude that Shirley's geass command does not prove that a vague geass command like Euphemia's can control someone for a year.

Irrelevant conclusion once again, troll. Not every character under a Geass command has red irises (this applies to Lelouch, Nunnally and Shirley among others) but EVERY character with red irises is under a Geass command.

Its obvious that the Geass command that Lelouch gave Shirley was still in effect because his command to her was to forget the things that were troubling her (shooting Villetta, the circumstances of her father's death, Lelouch being Zero, her conflicting feelings towards Lelouch, etc). She didn't remember ANY of those things until AFTER the Geass Canceler was used on her. Same with Charles' command to forget that Nunnally was Lelouch's sister; she didn't remember that until the Canceler was used on her.

Even Suzaku's even vaguer command to "Live" lasted for well over a year just like Shirley's command to forget, so your point is moot and also runs on a pretty bad logical fallacy.

[proEuphie]

Both series raise the question of whether true peace can be attained through violence. If one raises up with violence, can they create peace? Can peace be attained by armed intervention? Is peace really "peace" if it was attained through the wrong methods? That's the moral conundrum. Giving up morals to save the world is ONE type of conundrum, but not the only one, troll. Try to keep up.

I find that a very strange question or conundrum.

There have been countless wars in history, and hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people have been killed in them, to say nothing of those who were wounded, enslaved, driven from their homes, raped, impoverished, lost loved ones, traumatized for life, or otherwise adversely affected. And almost all of those wars were fought for goals less noble and beneficial than peace, and inflicted their horrors for causes less noble and beneficial than peace.

So unless you can point to a post where you wrote that you confidentially expect that the war on terror will result in final and permanent world peace that will last for the rest of history, I believe that you seem to expect that wars will continue for unknown future ages and seem to be relatively non horrified and non depressed by that prospect.

If the thought of endless future wars does not seem to horrify or depress you, and if countless millions of people do not care about the distant future at all and would not care much if someone predicted countless future wars for ages to come, I see no reason for me to be horrified or depressed by the idea that few real or fictional wars might be fought with the goal of ending war and making peace. If those hypothetical wars were unsuccessful they would probably not result in much more carnage and horror than typical wars fought for less exalted goals, and if successful they would have much better results than typical wars with perhaps no more horror and suffering than typical wars.

So I don't see anything wrong with eternal world peace as a result of war and violence. Especially as compared with cycles of alternating war and peace for countless ages to come as a result of war and violence.

Perhaps you mean true peace is some kind of spiritual condition superior to peace established through wars, deterrence, alliances, surrender, treaties, negotiation, and politics. But a lesser kind of peace has seemed very desirable to countless millions and billions of people though out history who welcomed the end of various wars with rejoicing and a lifting of their fears.

Our perhaps you mean true peace is a kind of friendship between people and is much better than peace enforced at the point of a gun. But peace in the sense of friendship between peoples flourishes during a state of non war type peace and withers away during times of war.

For example, the Sioux and their Northern Cheyenne allies were once enemies of the Crows, the Shoshones, the Arikaras, the Chippewas, the Pawnees, the Utes, etc. etc. etc. And many of the other tribes were once enemies of each other but willing to bury the hatchet to fight their common enemies the Sioux and Cheyenne. But the US government enforced peace between all those tribes by violently taking control of them and forcing them to subject themselves to its higher authority. And now members of all those tribes feel perfectly peaceful with members of the other tribes, now that there haven't been any acts of mass violence to avenge in over a century.

Peace in the sense of non war produces feelings of peace between peoples.

Since I have never heard anything about our current military conflicts being expected to produce permanent world peace and since you enlisted in the U.S. military anyway, I assume that you see no moral dilemma in achieving victory for one side in a struggle between two relatively minor segments of the world's population over issues that will have relatively minor impact on the course of world history for the next ten thousand years compared to achieving total and permanent world peace. So I do not see why you would see any conundrum in achieving a much greater and better goal, peace, through the methods that you are willing to help our government employfor a lesser and not as good goal.

I have never read anything about any one expressing a conundrum about whether victory or the possession of Province A or secure trades routes or any other usual goal of war would really be true victory or true possession of Province A or true secure trade routes if achieved though war, violence, and the wrong methods.

Or perhaps you do not mean war and violence so much as the more evil forms of war and violence. I say that for the survivors of a successful war to make peace, the peace will be just as good a peace and as just as true a peace no matter how evil and wrong the methods used to achieve it were.

However, the more survivors there are to enjoy a peace achieved though good or evil means, the better it will be. So the goal for all would be peace makers and anyone else who goes to war for any reason is to try to achieve their goals with the absolute minimum possible violence, destruction and killing.

That is what I object to in the methods of Lelouch and Celestial Being. Excessive violence and killing.

[wolfgirl90]

So unless you can point to a post where you wrote that you confidentially expect that the war on terror will result in final and permanent world peace that will last for the rest of history, I believe that you seem to expect that wars will continue for unknown future ages and seem to be relatively non horrified and non depressed by that prospect.

Those weren't my personal thoughts, you stupid troll. Try to keep up.

Both Code Geass and Gundam 00 raise the question of whether or not its okay for peace to be attained by violent means. Do the ends justify the means? Is it okay for one to blow up an entire city to attain peace? Is it okay for a private military organization to violently intervene in conflicts or start ones of their own (e.g blowing up a building containing an organization the promotes war) to obtain peace? Its not that hard to grasp, honestly.

Those where general hypothetical questions, not my own views on the subject. I didn't give my thought on those questions, so your little point is a moot one. Nice try, though troll.