*SPOILERS* The shot that killed My Love for Anime

[wolfgirl90]

I did not claim that theoretically you were more of a menace than Euphemia, I claimed that actually and practically you are more of a menace than Euphemia. And I did not mean that as an insult but as a Reductio ad Absurdum of your argument that Emphemia was too dangerous to be allowed to live.

I didn't take it as an insult; never said that I did. Its just borderline stupid. I understood what you were getting at, but even suggesting (theoretically or otherwise) that I was "more of a menace than Euphemia" based strictly on military training (or anything else about me) was beyond stupid. I wasn't really insulted; I just stopped caring about your opinion at that point.

The difference between me and Euphemia is that I, with all the training in the world, haven't killed anybody. Euphemia not only has but was in the process of actively doing it. Hell, one of the reasons why we imprison and execute prisoners is to prevent them from ever doing what they did again. Are you saying that this preemptive action is wrong?

Also, I have yet to actually give my true opinion about Euphemia's death in the context of the cartoon (in the context of real life we have but not for the cartoon). While I have said that Lelouch killed Euphemia to get her to stop, I didn't say I thought that she HAD to die (I already knew she was going to die in the first place; whether she HAD to or not has never really been my concern).

Since neither you, nor I, nor any of our readers, believe that we should be killed to prevent the slight possibility that we might kill someone in the future, we are logically forced to conclude that it can not be right to kill a confined prisoner to prevent the even slighter possibility that they might kill in the future.

With the exeption that we actually DO kill confined prisoners. Its called the death penalty.

So you call good and noble characters goody-goody characters, trying to reduce their goodness to silliness.

No (you were better off asking my point, rather than assuming and getting it wrong). I call them "goody goody" because often times (but not all the time), these characters are so innocent, so naive, to the point where it is a fault. While they want peace, they often do not understand the issue that is causing the problem in the first place, only looking from the outside in. Euphemia was one of those people who wanted peace and understood that the people wanted peace but didn't understand the WHY (she knew what Japan wanted but didn't really understand WHY) and developed her own solution from her rather basic understanding of the situation (which is what happens when you are a sheltered princess who doesn't leave the palace until half her teen years have passed by).

The thing with anti-heroes and Byronic heroes is that they exhibit qualities that we, as humans, can often relate to. Anger, confusion, self-hatred, self-destructive, struggling with integrity. These are things we can identify with. With Euphemia, there is not much to identify with, unless you are someone who is innocent, a pacifist and and naive to a fault (which you are not, by the way).

There are a lot of literary novels in which nobody ever does something major evil or even in which nobody does any minor evil either.

Okay, since you said "a lot of literary novels", I expect you to name several, as you brought it up (you have the burden of proof here so I am not out of line or expecting too much of you by asking) and I doubt that you have read anything with characters doing anything seriously evil since you obviously have a problem with that. So this should be simple for you.

As I have said before, the problem with you is that you expect two sides, the "good" side and the "evil" side, and you don't expect these sides to touch. This doesn't even happen in Harry Potter or Star Wars, so its not going to happen in Code Geass (and it really shouldn't surprise you when it doesn't).

However, in MANY stories, the most thought provoking ones, the sides not only mix but sometimes indistinguishable. In Code Geass, the point is not really to find who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are (this is something you figure out on your own) but noticing that the best of intentions can have evil in them.

The clearly good guy doing a clearly good thing to defeat the clearly bad guy who was doing a clearly bad thing is a story that has been told many times (Disney thrives on that sort of thing).

[Aozora*Pen]

Agreed. ^ It does make the anime more interesting. For example in the beginning you can say that Suzaku is good, but not at the end.

Even Euphemia might have her own ulterior motives.

[Hollow Lelouch]

Agreed. ^ It does make the anime more interesting. For example in the beginning you can say that Suzaku is good, but not at the end.

Even Euphemia might have her own ulterior motives.

Her ulterior motives were clear. "Lelouch. Now it can be like before!"
And Suzaku. He's still a good guy in R2, he's just angry as hell.

[Aozora*Pen]

Her ulterior motives were clear. "Lelouch. Now it can be like before!"
And Suzaku. He's still a good guy in R2, he's just angry as hell.

That is one creepy motive. It echoes Charles', if you realize.

More cold-blooded, too.

AND I just watched the episode with Euphemia's murder in it again. And felt that it was totally justified.

[Hollow Lelouch]

That is one creepy motive. It echoes Charles', if you realize.

More cold-blooded, too.

AND I just watched the episode with Euphemia's murder in it again. And felt that it was totally justified.

No, when she said that, she meant: "Lelouch, now you don't have to be Zero anymore, so we could be together again."

Cold-blooded Suzaku is excusable. We're just lucky he didn't go nuts in R2.
I'd be cold if my best freind betrayed me, and killed the only real reason for living I had in cold blood. (Well, he thought it was in cold blood.)

And it was justified in the sense that there was nothing else that could have been done to save her, and that if she were left alive, she'd never have a single moment of happiness again.

[proEuphie]

No, when she said that, she meant: "Lelouch, now you don't have to be Zero anymore, so we could be together again."

Cold-blooded Suzaku is excusable. We're just lucky he didn't go nuts in R2.
I'd be cold if my best freind betrayed me, and killed the only real reason for living I had in cold blood. (Well, he thought it was in cold blood.)

And it was justified in the sense that there was nothing else that could have been done to save her, and that if she were left alive, she'd never have a single moment of happiness again.

Everyone who is alive, even those being tortured, is enjoying more pleasure than anyone who is dead. Even the worst life is infinitely better than death. And emotionall pain does not seem to be as painful as physical pain which sometimes causes agonizing screams. If anyone would be better off dead, it is people suffering agonizing pain and screaming and begging for death, which Euphemia was not doing. And even some of those unfortuantels are sometimes mistaken about being better off dead.

I quote my post # 138 from page 6 of this thread:

Everyone who is alive is having a better existence than anyone who is dead. Being alive is not just having a beating heart, but experiencing things and doing things and thinking and feeling and being conscious. The idea of a mercy killing for someone like Nina or Euphemia on account of the relatively minor negative experiences you expect them to suffer is laughable. The negative experiences you imagine are minor compared to those of many real persons who did not commit suicide and did not get mercy killings and lived on for decades in reasonable happiness.

And for all we know somebody who suffered and endured worse than what you expect Nina or Euphemia to suffer if not killed may someday read your posts and think that the people who believe that Nina or Euphemia were better off dead and needed mercy killings were somewhat less than perfect thinkers.

I do not believe that anybody is better off dead under any circumstances. However, suppose that we agreed that some people might sometimes be better off dead under some circumstances. Then what would be the decision process to decide when someone is better off dead? It would seem obvious to demand that the person in question should think that he or she or it needs to die, and asks to be killed.

But sometimes someone might wish for death and later be glad that he didn't die, and realize that he made a mistake in the long term when he begged for death.

I had several operations when I was a very young child. One of my earliest memories is of a sad and unhappy night in a hospital bed. If this was after an operation, and if the anesthetic was not the exact correct dose for a child of my weight, I might have felt some residual physical discomfort from the operation, which might have kept me awake. But whatever the cause, I remember it as a long and seemingly endless period of unhappiness.

That night seemed so long that the rest of my life might almost seem like a happy dream that I might wake up from to find myself back in that hospital bed.

How many millions and even billions of sick and injured and wounded men and women and children have suffered not merely what I suffered that night, but pain and misery tens of times as intense, or hundreds of times as intense, or thousands of times as intense, and not just for one night, but for several days and nights, or for weeks, or months, or years, before they died or recovered? How many millions and billions of persons have had black periods of pain and despair in their past, periods which seemed so endless at the time that they sometimes feared that their years of happier life afterward were just a pleasant dream from which they might wake up to find themselves back in their time of horror?

About 12,693 Confederate soldiers were wounded at Gettysburg, about 0.177 or 1 in 5.6 of the 71,699 engaged, and about 0.0084 to 0.021 of the 600,000 to 1,500,000 who served in the rebel army, or 1 in 47.2 to 118. 8,174 Confederate veterans attended the 50th anniversary reunion in 1913. If they came equally from all Confederate units between 58.66 and 171.65 of them would have been wounded at Gettysburg. If they were all veterans of Gettysburg about 1,446.7 of them would have been wounded at Gettysburg, Of course other rebels wounded at Gettysburg were alive who did not attend in 1913, and probably half or about 6,000 of the Confederates who were wounded at Gettysburg were still alive thirty years after the battle in 1893 or forty years after the battle in 1903.

And it seem probable that most of them were glad to be alive and thankful that they survived during most of the time they survived.

but on July 4th and 5th, 1863, many of them were not so happy to be alive, as General Imboden related in Battles and Leaders of the Civil Warhttp://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/books/ba...w.cfm?page=424 in his account of escorting the seventeen-mile-long wagon train with the supplies and the wounded over a mountain road between Cashtown and Chambersburg.

After dark I set out from Cashtown to gain the head of the Column during the night. My orders had been peremptory that there should be no halt for any cause whatever. If an accident should happen to any vehicle, it was immediately to be put out of the road and abandoned. The Column moved rapidly, considering the rough roads and the darkness, and from almost every wagon for many miles issued heart-rending wails of agony. For four hours I hurried forward on my way to the front, and in all that time I was never out of hearing of the groans and cries of the wounded and dying. Scarcely one in a hundred had received adequate surgical aid, owing to the demands on the hard-working surgeons from still worse cases that had to be left behind. Many of the wounded in the wagons had been without food for thirty-six hours. Their torn and bloody clothing, matted and hardened, was rasping the tender, inflamed, and still oozing wounds. Very few of the wagons had even a layer of straw in them, and all were without springs. The road was rough and rocky from the heavy washings of the preceding day. The jolting was enough to have killed strong men, if long exposed to it. From nearly every wagon as the teams trotted on, urged by whip and shout, came such cries and shrieks as these:
"O God! why can't I die ?"
"My God ! will no one have mercy and kill me ?"
"Stop Oh! for God's sake, stop just for one minute; take me out and leave me to die on the roadside."
"I am dying! I am dying! My poor wife, my dear children, what will become of you ?"
Some were simply moaning; some were praying, and others uttering the most fearful oaths and execrations that despair and agony could wring from them; while a Majority, with a stoicism sustained by sublime devotion to the cause they fought for, endured without complaint unspeakable tortures, and even spoke words of cheer and comfort to their unhappy comrades of less will or more acute nerves. Occasionally a wagon would be passed from which only low, deep moans could be heard. No help could be rendered to any of the sufferers. No heed could be given to any of their appeals. Mercy and duty to the many forbade the loss of a moment in the vain effort then and there to comply with the prayers of the few. On ! On ! we must move on. The storm continued, and the darkness was appalling. There was no time even to fill a canteen with water for a dying man; for, except the drivers and the guards, all were wounded and utterly helpless in that vast procession of misery. During this one night I realized more of the horrors of war than I had in all the two preceding years.

If somewhere between one percent and fifty percent of all the wounded men at Gettysburg were in the wagon train and were begging for death that would be about 127 to 6,346 men. And probably about half of those hundreds or thousands of men begging for death survived until 1893 or 1903 and were mostly happy to be alive and glad that they hadn't been killed to put them out of their misery. Some of them would have survived to attend the 1913 reunion and even into the 1920s.

And how many thousand and millions and billions of men, and women, and children have suffered pain too intense to bear and wanted to die, but physically couldn't kill themselves or get someone to do it, and so had to bear the unbearable pain until they died or recovered and lived happier lives and no longer wished that they had died during their periods of pain?

(04/10/10) Euphemia was not writhing and screaming in pain and begging to be killed when Lelouch shot her. She did not seem to be experiencing intense emotions, positive or negative, when Lelouch shot her. If it is ever right to kill someone who is suffering intense physical pain to put them out of their misery, Euphemia was not one of those persons. Lelouch had no evidence that she was suffering intense pain at the moment. Lelouch could only speculate how happy or unhappy she might be in the future if not killed.

And even if she had been screaming and begging for death when Lelouch shot her, the account I quote from General Imboden, one of no doubt countless thousands of examples recorded in history, shows that often people begging for death get over their pain and later are glad to be alive. And emotional stress and sorrow and guilt rarely cause people to loose control and scream in agony the way intense physical pain does, and thus can be estimated to be much easier to bear than intense physical pain.

Your idea that Euphemia's death was justified because you think she would never have a moment of happiness again if not killed is laughable.

[proEuphie]

That is one creepy motive. It echoes Charles', if you realize.

More cold-blooded, too.

AND I just watched the episode with Euphemia's murder in it again. And felt that it was totally justified.

How can you see how easy it would be to capture Euphemia alive and say that murdering her was justified? How? How?

I quote my post # 307 above:

When the massacre started Lelouch had absolutely no reason to decide to kill Euphemia instead of capturing her. It was obvious that capturing her to use as a hostage to stop the massacre would have a good chance of working and saving many more Japanese lives than defeating all the Britannians who were killing at Fuji one by one would have.

And wherever Euphemia's broadcast message to kill Japanese people was received and obeyed other massacres would be started by other groups of Britannian soldiers. It is hardly likely that the black Knights defeated all the other groups of massacring Britannian soldiers before Lelouch found Euphemia and had a chance to use her as a hostage.

Some people believe it was still necessary for Lelouch to kill Euphemia to kill the SAZ plan even after the massacre started, but they are wrong.

Lelouch had bigger fish to fry than the SAZ plan. In order to be an effective hero in Japanese eyes he had to save as many Japanese as possible from the massacre. And the fastest way to stop the massacre and save as many Japanese as possible was to capture Euphemia and use her as a hostage.

And if the Black Rebellion failed who would be more dangerous to the defeated Japanese? A live Euphemia controlled by the geass command but resigned from the imperial family, disgraced, and probably considered insane? Or an enraged Cornelia determined to slaughter as many Japanese as possible to avenge the murder of her beloved sister who had finally wised up and started imitating Cornelia's habit of ordering massacres?

And if Lelouch was killed all his plans and hopes would die with him. Who did Lelouch know who had any desire for him to survive and also had any degree of influence with the imperial government? Euphemia. Therefore he had to keep Euphemia alive in the hope that if the Black Rebellion was crushed she might successfully plead for mercy for him, giving him a tiny chance to start over someday.

Lelouch had no good and decent reason for killing Euphemia that capturing her would not satisfy just as well. And he had no evil but practical reason for killing her that made any sense compared to his practical need to keep her alive.

It was obviously easy for Lelouch to capture Euphemia alive.

When Lelouch looked down on an unarmed Euphemia crawling out from the wreckage of her nightmare, how could he possibly not see that it would be easy to capture her alive?

All he had to do was pick her up in a giant robot hand before she found some weapon which just happened to be lying on the ground. How hard or dangerous could that be?

Some people have suggested that the hands of the Gawain might not be capable of precise control and might squash Euphemia if used to pick her up.

But nightmares are often seen doing things which indicate they should be capable of fine hand control. For example, Lelouch or CC extended the slash harkens from the fingertips of the Gawain to slice up Euphemia's nightmare without harming her right before then. That makes it almost impossible for the Gawain to be too clumsy to pick up people without crushing them. And you would expect that the Gawain came with a "Pick up - do not crush" control to make the fingers close gently so it could safely pick up fragile objects.

Instead of picking up Euphemia Lelouch let her pick up a machine gun and then walked up to her, hoping that she loved and trusted him enough not to shoot him. And he suddenly turned and treacherously shot her. And so he ran a very great risk that she would shoot him back. Even people who are fatally wounded usually have a few minutes to shoot their killers back if the killers just stand there expecting them to drop instantly. And even after Euphemia fell to the ground she might have been conscious and strong enough to point her machine gun at Lelouch and spray bullets at him, probably hitting him at least once.

It would have been much safer for Lelouch to walk up to Euphemia, get her to to look away, and shoot her in the right arm, preventing her for being able to shoot her machine gun, or else hit her on the head to knock her out, or else persuade her to enter the Gawain (after the controls had been locked as a precaution) where CC would use the memory sharing thing she did to Suzaku in "Battle of Narita" to render Euphemia unconscious.

And it would have been much safer still to simply pick her up in a giant robot hand as soon as she climbed out of the wreckage of her nightmare.

Since I have shown that Lelouch needed Euphemia alive much more than he needed her dead, taking such an unnecessary risk to kill her instead of capturing her makes Lelouch evil and/or insane in episode 23.

How can anyone watch episode 23 and not realize how easy and safe it would have been to capture Euphemia, and that Lelouch did not have to kill her but chose to kill her for some unknown reason that cold not possibly be good or rational?

Lelouch needed a live Euphemia for the Black Rebellion to have even the slightest chance of succeeding.

In episode 24 Lelouch gloated to his confidante CC that once the rebels proclaimed Japanese Independence in the Tokyo Government Center the Emperor would have no choice but to come to meet Zero. Thus Lelouch revealed that an important part of his plan was the Emperor's visit. And Lelouch revealed that he had no plans to fight off the renewed Britannian invasions which would result instead of the Emperor's visit and that Japan would be ground into the dust in defeat, even with Lelouch in command.

In episode 21 Lelouch was working on plans for a coup. I call those his Plan One. I deduce that those plans probably included starting a violent incident that would start a revolt and marching from the site of the incident to Tokyo to capture the government center and proclaim independence and invite the Emperor to a visit. When the Emperor arrived Lelouch would spring his trap and take over Britannia, locate and eliminate all those who had conspired against his mother, and remake the world to his desire.

After Euphemia proposed the SAZ plan at the end of episode 21 Lelouch developed his PlanTwo. I believe that it was very similar to his Plan One except that he substituted the opening ceremony of the SAZ for the time and place of the rebellion-sparking incident in his Plan One. IN episode 22 Lelouch told Euphemia that he would make her shoot him which would start a riot to start his revolution and he would rise from the deed to prove to the Japanese that he was their true messiah.

And after the massacre started Lelouch quickly started to follow his Plan Three. Since he had no time to plan it should have been only slightly different from his Plan Two.

If Lelouch's Plan Two had any provision for saving Euphemia from the fury of the Japanese -- by claiming that shooting him was not her fault because she had gone crazy, for example -- Lelouch could have adapted that method to his Plan Three. If Lelouch had such a plan to divert Japanese anger away from Euphie in his Plan Two, when the massacre started he would have noticed that since the Britannian soldiers were slaughtering the Japanese with great enthusiasm there were a lot more shoulders to divert the Japanese hatred onto than in his previous Plan Two and thus it would be easier to turn the Japanese anger away from the obviously insane Euphemia and onto the Britannian soldiers who had obeyed even when Euphemia was clearly insane.

But Lelouch did not do so in his Plan Three, which means he probably had nothing planned to protect Euphemia from the misdirected Japanese anger she would face in his Plan Two. Apparently Lelouch didn't care if Euphemia lived or died, or even wanted her dead. Either attitude is evil and disgusting.

Once Lelouch planned to lure the Emperor to a meeting in Tokyo he should have realized that he had to do everything possible to avoid scaring the Emperor away from the meeting. This meant that everything that Zero did had to be considered as propaganda to lull the Emperor into a false sense of security about Zero, even if that meant giving up some propaganda value in gaining Japanese support.

So Lelouch had to make Zero seem like a great defender of the Japanese to gain Japanese support, while not appearing too frightening to the Britannians and especially the Emperor.

So Lelouch should have planned to have Zero, who had claimed to be the murderer of Prince Clovis, "killed" in some spectacular incident and replaced as masked leader of the Black Knights by Lelouch claiming to be someone who approved of Zero's goals but not of Zero's more extreme methods. This "new" leader would denounce the murder of Clovis and any other excessively violent deeds of Zero but but praise all the good that Zero had done and vow to fight Britannia as hard as Zero but without resorting to terrorism or any atrocities.

Lelouch should have realized that the leader of the Black Knights had to seem as honorable, kind, and gullible as possible in order for the Emperor to feel it was safe to come, as well as seeming to be a great defender of the Japanese to keep Japanese support.

So Lelouch should have tried to keep Britannian deaths to a minimum, especially civilian deaths, and he should have tried to keep Cornelia and especially Euphemia alive at all costs.

Lellouch should have known that if Euphemia was killed in the uprising the Emperor would suspect that she had been deliberately killed in the false belief that would hurt the Emperor, who actually did not love his children. Thus he would believe that the rebels and their leader really hated him and it would be suicidal for him to come to Japan for talks. So Lelouch's Plan Two should have had a provision to make certain that Euphemia escaped alive.

And when the massacre started Lelouch should not have thought: "Great! Now that Euphie has started a massacre on live television I don't have to worry about harming Zero's reputation any more and can kill her like I want to." No, Lelouch should have remembered that anyone who knew Euphie even slightly, like her father, would find it hard to believe she would order a massacre. So they would suspect that the massacre story was a lie, and the "live" television included prerecorded computer-generated images switched on at the right moment, such as a "routine" cut from one camera angle to another, or that some kind of mind control had been used on her, perhaps by Zero. General Darlton did ask "What did you do to her?" so presumably a lot of other people actually did suspect that Zero did something to Euphemia even without knowing about geass.

Lelouch should have believed, even after the massacre started, that if Euphie was killed, the Emperor would think "Thank goodness Zero killed Euphemia and revealed how much he hates me. Now I'll never be stupid enough to trust him."

Lelouch should have known that if he killed Euphemia the Emperor would be tens, or hundreds, or thousands, of times less likely to come to Japan and his plan would be tens, or hundreds, or thousands, of times less likely to work. Lelouch saw how easy it would have been to capture Euphemia alive. But he killed Euphemia anyway.

So Lelouch seems to have believed that since he wanted the Emperor to walk into his trap the Emperor would certainly walk into his trap and he didn't have to worry about scaring the Emperor away. So he killed Euphemia and thus doomed his plan to fail even if VV had not been sent to kidnap Nunnally.

So Lelouch seems to have been a homicidal maniac in Episodes 21 to 25 and perhaps many more episodes and yet thousands and thousands of viewers kept on watching the show anyway.

Every time I read someone say that they cried at the ending of Code Geass, after they saw episode 23 where it is so obvious that Lelouch kills Euphemia unnecessarily, and after they saw him order a massacre in the second season, I am depressed and disgusted.

[proEuphie]

Or just plain love
cos they are interesting in ways other characters are not

Really?
Are characters like the Joker and the Daleks ever truly defeated?
I remember one of the new Doctor Who series STILL has the Daleks
And Batman STILL fights the Joker
So they are never truly beaten

Actually many villains are finally defeated and killed in many or all of the stories they appear in. They only seem to keep coming back time after time because each story featuring them is in an alternate universe to the other stories they appear in.

Vader was never truly beaten by the Good guy either
his was a tale of Redemption from Darkness

More like a tale of original childlike innocence corrupted by Evil and descent into Darkness. It is true that many people say that Darth Vader redeemed himself at the end when he turned on the Emperor to save his son Luke.

The ending of Return of the Jedi indicates that the Light Side of the Force believed that Vader had redeemed himself. But I have slightly higher standards. After all, most men want their sons to survive, so Vader had what could be called a selfish personal reason for turning on Palpatine rather than a noble altruistic reason.

The series could have been written so Vader really did redeem himself. Suppose that in Star wars IV: A new Hope The Death Star was first used to destroy an otherwise uninhabited planet where the main rebel base was hidden, killing maybe thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of rebel warriors (though some of them escaped in time and formed the nucleus of the rebel force in later movies) Then Tarken ordered the Death Star to destroy Alderaan and then the other rebel planets. And Darth Vader protested against destroying a planet with billion of inhabitants. And when Alderaan sent out its small fleet of newly built fighters and slightly trained pilots (most of their forces had been sent to the rebel base) in a desperate attempt to stop the Death Star, Vader could have been at least slightly conflicted about defending a military vehicle which was about to kill billions of civilians. Perhaps his reluctance to help kill billions made him a little slow and helped the rebels to destroy the Death Star in time to save Alderaan.

Then in Return of the Jedi the second Death Star would be built in orbit around Endor's moon (home of the Ewoks) because Endor itself was a heavily industrialized planet with a population of billions who were enslaved to build the sections and ferry them up to the Death star. When the Emperor revealed that the Death Star was already operational by firing at the rebel fleet, he would say in Vader's presence that after the rebel fleet was destroyed he would destroy Endor's moon, whose natives were causing trouble, and then Endor itself, since the Endorians were no longer needed. Thus when Vader finally turned against Palpatine he would not only be saving his son but also know that he was saving billions of Endorian lives, which would be thousands or even millions of times as many people as he had killed by serving Palpatine.

Thus by preventing the most monstrous of Palpatine's crimes, worse than all of his previous ones put together, Vader could really redeem himself, not merely in the eyes of the Force or soft-headed audiences, but also in my eyes.

Why
That would simpy make them lame
awww evil automated uber killing machine robot got a conscience.....no that would suck
The Daleks are 1000 times more menacing BECAUSE they lack the basic human emotions of love and guilt
they prey upon the human fear of something that is kills not because it hates you but because it has only that mission of killing you

The Daleks were not robots, though sometimes written like they were. There were small, tentacled mutants inside the Dalek travel machines, seen a number of times. The Daleks were written inconsistently, sometimes seeming emotionless and sometimes seeming to have many dark and sinister emotions. I say they would be more hateful if they had consciences and sometimes considered doing good and turning away from evil and wavered, and then turned back to evil. Then the audience would know that they could have done good if they had just tried a little bit harder.

He is still a hero
A good guy
whether you like it or not
but then Euphemia killed civilians[
and yet you can find all kinds of excuses for her

Annakin Skywalker in the Clone Wars series may still be a military hero for the Republic and the Jedi Knights but he is less than a true hero because he never confesses to the Jedi Council that he has needlessly massacred people, including children, and he has never sought psychiatric treatment to increase the probability that he will not give in to his violent and revengeful tendencies in the future.

And he is not a good guy because he could never have committed a massacre unless he was already capable of doing a terrible evil deed without being forced into it by circumstances. And he is not a good guy because he is never shown trying to change himself or seeking psychiatric treatment. He continues to be a warrior making constant life and death decisions despite knowing that there is at least one person whose death could send him over the edge again. And he should know that fighting side by side with other people might make him love them almost as much as Padame and enough to go berserk and avenge their rather likely deaths.

When did Euphemia murder civilians? At the Battle of Narita she refused to do what she desperately wanted to do, rush in to save Cornelia, because it might have endangered civilians. She is the only character in Code Geass who is ever shown caring about the lives of thousands of strangers more than the life of one person, even someone she loves. She was the only character in the series ethically fit to have a command role.

And at Fuji she was given a geass command to kill the Japanese. And she resisted it perhaps thousands of times more than people who were given commands to kill themselves resisted suicide. Euphemia did not adopt an evil goal because she was corrupted by her schooling or the people around her, or violent tv shows, or an evil book advocating mass murder. Instead she rose above all her influences and rejected the evil ideas of her compatriots and their excessive use of violence. Unlike other characters on the show, it took a supernatural command to force her to kill civilians.

And after it took her over she still tired to kill in the most peaceful and least violent way possible, by first asking the Japanese to kill themselves and only ordering the massacre when they naturally did not.

And when she was talking to Lelouch right before he shot her she seemed to have almost entirely freed herself from the control of the geass. And when it tried to take her over again the the sickbay of the Avalon she could still talk and give orders and thus could still kill thousands of people, But the geass stopped trying to control her, so it seems probable she defeated her undefeatable geass command.

That is the only excuse I have made for Euphemia ordering a massacre, and do you know of any other fictional character who had a better one?

Actually that probably is one reason
The Bad guys get to have all the fun
they get to be what people wish they could be
And people like them
because they are INTERESTING and not some paint by numbers good guy (Which is also why people like Anti Heros so much, they have many of the traits of bad guys whilst still being sympathetic to a degree)

I suppose you believe that you are mostly good and that there is a lot of fun in your life. It is perfectly possible to write about people who are good enough to satisfy my low demand that they never kill anyone they know they do not have too, and yet have plenty of interesting qualities and flaws.

Cheer for him then
You see in the anti-hero many people see themselves
someone who is flawed
imperfect
and we know for a fact that war is not all cut and dried Bad Guys vs Good Guys
It can be bad guys vs slightly less bad guys
And sometimes even heroes have to resort to underhanded means to win

I cannot cheer for anyone who does even one thing as evil as Lelouch or Allelujah did.

War is more usually bad guys and worse guys on one side against even worse guys and the worst guys on the other side.

It is far more common for heroes to become villains when they falsely think that they have to resort to underhanded means to win. FDR, Churchill, and Truman are examples of heroes who turned into villains because they falsely believed that they had to resort to underhanded means (mass murder of civilians, to be precise) to win.

[wolfgirl90]

First of all:


Yeah, I don't know who is going to read all of that, but I am not one of those people. Second, and I shouldn't have to say this again so soon, but you have broken the rules yet again. Maybe I should keep tabs on this and put a quarter in a jar for each time you do that and give the money to charity at the rate that you are going.

Everyone who is alive, even those being tortured, is enjoying more pleasure than anyone who is dead. Even the worst life is infinitely better than death. And emotionall pain does not seem to be as painful as physical pain which sometimes causes agonizing screams.

Says the person who lives in a country with no major internal conflicts. Says the person who is most likely sheltered from things such as torture, agony and death, never having seen these things beyond a movie at the local theater.

Sorry, but considering your attitude so far, I will have to assume that you have never had to come to terms with the existence of such things and that you have an EXTREMELY biased opinion since you're typing away in the safety of your own home having never done anything more dangerous than ride in a car. I can tell by the fact that you are implying that someone who is being tortured is "enjoying" his life more than the dead guy. Yeah, go ask the guy being tortured about how he feels about that.

(04/10/10) Euphemia was not writhing and screaming in pain and begging to be killed when Lelouch shot her. She did not seem to be experiencing intense emotions, positive or negative, when Lelouch shot her.

Aww...you sound like one of those vegetarians, the ones who eat plants to avoid causing animals pain, the same ones when confronted with the scientific fact that plants (which, like animals, are living things) CAN react to harm done to them ("pain"), they comeback with the fact that "plants can't scream".

Is that the requirement that we are going by? Euphemia wasn't screaming out in pain, so she was fine? Yeah, respect levels have gone WAY down.

And emotional stress and sorrow and guilt rarely cause people to loose control and scream in agony the way intense physical pain does, and thus can be estimated to be much easier to bear than intense physical pain.

Again, says the person who has most likely never seen neither one beyond a television. In fact, I bet that is how you came to this conclusion.

[MangaFanGuy]

Actually many villains are finally defeated and killed in many or all of the stories they appear in. They only seem to keep coming back time after time because each story featuring them is in an alternate universe to the other stories they appear in.

I guess it depends on the cartoon/comic then
but from my experience it rarely (If ever) happens

It is true that many people say that Darth Vader redeemed himself at the end when he turned on the Emperor to save his son Luke.

Don't forget the part about bringing blance to the force yadda yadda
Remember he was the chosen one

[Your movie idea was terrible and so deleted]

or soft-headed audiences

lol at petty insults

There were small, tentacled mutants inside the Dalek travel machines, seen a number of times.

I just picked them cos they were Iconic
The vision of a dalek screaming EXTERMINAAAAAAAAATE is about the limits of my Dr.Who knowledge

he is less than a true hero because he never confesses to the Jedi Council that he has needlessly massacred people, including children,

bit late for that init?

And he is not a good guy because he could never have committed a massacre unless he was already capable of doing a terrible evil deed without being forced into it by circumstances.

Not being forced into it by circumstances?
how was he not?

She was the only character in the series ethically fit to have a command role.

ahahahahahaha
seriously?
so you think that in a war it is the pacifists you want in charge?

She is the only character in Code Geass who is ever shown caring about the lives of thousands of strangers more than the life of one person, even someone she loves

What about others?
The ones fighting to save their homeland no matter the cost
the ones caring about all of the elevens and trying to set them free?
Why do they not count?

And after it took her over she still tired to kill in the most peaceful and least violent way possible, by first asking the Japanese to kill themselves and only ordering the massacre when they naturally did not.

this has to be the most epic quote ever
most peaceful way possible
beautiful just beautiful

do you know of any other fictional character who had a better one?

depends how you define better?

 

in Tengen Toppa Gurrenn Lagann they massacred the beastmen to free humanity

it was a good excuse (even if it turned out to be later a bad idea)

I suppose you believe that you are mostly good and that there is a lot of fun in your life. It is perfectly possible to write about people who are good enough to satisfy my low demand that they never kill anyone they know they do not have too, and yet have plenty of interesting qualities and flaws.

yes
but in a WAR ANIME people tend to.......you know...die and get killed and kill others even.

I cannot cheer for anyone who does even one thing as evil as Lelouch or Allelujah did.

I don't know who allelujah is (Didn't bother reading that part)

but what lelouch did is peanuts compared to many characters

[Aozora*Pen]

Actually many villains are finally defeated and killed in many or all of the stories they appear in. They only seem to keep coming back time after time because each story featuring them is in an alternate universe to the other stories they appear in.

In what way is Celestial Being (I give you an example since I saw that you believe Allelujah is evil) evil? Therefore I give you the example of Ali Al Sachez.

More like a tale of original childlike innocence corrupted by Evil and descent into Darkness. It is true that many people say that Darth Vader redeemed himself at the end when he turned on the Emperor to save his son Luke.

The ending of Return of the Jedi indicates that the Light Side of the Force believed that Vader had redeemed himself. But I have slightly higher standards. After all, most men want their sons to survive, so Vader had what could be called a selfish personal reason for turning on Palpatine rather than a noble altruistic reason.

The series could have been written so Vader really did redeem himself. Suppose that in Star wars IV: A new Hope The Death Star was first used to destroy an otherwise uninhabited planet where the main rebel base was hidden, killing maybe thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of rebel warriors (though some of them escaped in time and formed the nucleus of the rebel force in later movies) Then Tarken ordered the Death Star to destroy Alderaan and then the other rebel planets. And Darth Vader protested against destroying a planet with billion of inhabitants. And when Alderaan sent out its small fleet of newly built fighters and slightly trained pilots (most of their forces had been sent to the rebel base) in a desperate attempt to stop the Death Star, Vader could have been at least slightly conflicted about defending a military vehicle which was about to kill billions of civilians. Perhaps his reluctance to help kill billions made him a little slow and helped the rebels to destroy the Death Star in time to save Alderaan.

Then in Return of the Jedi the second Death Star would be built in orbit around Endor's moon (home of the Ewoks) because Endor itself was a heavily industrialized planet with a population of billions who were enslaved to build the sections and ferry them up to the Death star. When the Emperor revealed that the Death Star was already operational by firing at the rebel fleet, he would say in Vader's presence that after the rebel fleet was destroyed he would destroy Endor's moon, whose natives were causing trouble, and then Endor itself, since the Endorians were no longer needed. Thus when Vader finally turned against Palpatine he would not only be saving his son but also know that he was saving billions of Endorian lives, which would be thousands or even millions of times as many people as he had killed by serving Palpatine.

Thus by preventing the most monstrous of Palpatine's crimes, worse than all of his previous ones put together, Vader could really redeem himself, not merely in the eyes of the Force or soft-headed audiences, but also in my eyes.



The Daleks were not robots, though sometimes written like they were. There were small, tentacled mutants inside the Dalek travel machines, seen a number of times. The Daleks were written inconsistently, sometimes seeming emotionless and sometimes seeming to have many dark and sinister emotions. I say they would be more hateful if they had consciences and sometimes considered doing good and turning away from evil and wavered, and then turned back to evil. Then the audience would know that they could have done good if they had just tried a little bit harder.



Annakin Skywalker in the Clone Wars series may still be a military hero for the Republic and the Jedi Knights but he is less than a true hero because he never confesses to the Jedi Council that he has needlessly massacred people, including children, and he has never sought psychiatric treatment to increase the probability that he will not give in to his violent and revengeful tendencies in the future.

And he is not a good guy because he could never have committed a massacre unless he was already capable of doing a terrible evil deed without being forced into it by circumstances. And he is not a good guy because he is never shown trying to change himself or seeking psychiatric treatment. He continues to be a warrior making constant life and death decisions despite knowing that there is at least one person whose death could send him over the edge again. And he should know that fighting side by side with other people might make him love them almost as much as Padame and enough to go berserk and avenge their rather likely deaths.

Do tell me why we are going into such great detail into Star Wars. When we should be discussing Code Geass.

When did Euphemia murder civilians? At the Battle of Narita she refused to do what she desperately wanted to do, rush in to save Cornelia, because it might have endangered civilians. She is the only character in Code Geass who is ever shown caring about the lives of thousands of strangers more than the life of one person, even someone she loves. She was the only character in the series ethically fit to have a command role.

And at Fuji she was given a geass command to kill the Japanese. And she resisted it perhaps thousands of times more than people who were given commands to kill themselves resisted suicide. Euphemia did not adopt an evil goal because she was corrupted by her schooling or the people around her, or violent tv shows, or an evil book advocating mass murder. Instead she rose above all her influences and rejected the evil ideas of her compatriots and their excessive use of violence. Unlike other characters on the show, it took a supernatural command to force her to kill civilians.

And after it took her over she still tired to kill in the most peaceful and least violent way possible, by first asking the Japanese to kill themselves and only ordering the massacre when they naturally did not.

And when she was talking to Lelouch right before he shot her she seemed to have almost entirely freed herself from the control of the geass. And when it tried to take her over again the the sickbay of the Avalon she could still talk and give orders and thus could still kill thousands of people, But the geass stopped trying to control her, so it seems probable she defeated her undefeatable geass command.

That is the only excuse I have made for Euphemia ordering a massacre, and do you know of any other fictional character who had a better one?

She murdered civilians when she started gunning them down! At the opening of the SAZ! How is that not murdering???

>>I give you the example of Odysseus, who would not willingly kill citizens if there was no need to.

The producers were going according to her 'docile' character. So if you had been observing, they were making the situation ironic in the form that Euphemia asks them softly in an oh-so-innocent way to commit suicide. And then going: "I'm sorry, of course you can't do that." And then ordering Britannian troops to gun them down.

Right BEFORE Lelouch shot her she was engaged in finding a loaded gun. By which she could kill more civilians. That is not being freed from control of the Geass.

I suppose you believe that you are mostly good and that there is a lot of fun in your life. It is perfectly possible to write about people who are good enough to satisfy my low demand that they never kill anyone they know they do not have to, and yet have plenty of interesting qualities and flaws.

Oh are you trying to talk about yourself, then?

I cannot cheer for anyone who does even one thing as evil as Lelouch or Allelujah did.

Lelouch did it for Nunnally. Right to the end. And must I give you a spoiler since you so obviously HAVE NOT WATCHED the series or have been unable to comprehend it, that Allelujah fired that shot because Hallelujah was in his ear, confusing him extremely in a really traumatizing sort of way? Oh, and: Do You Even KNOW who Hallelujah is? Do not talk about what you have not watched. You are merely proving your incompetence.

Seeing this, it is apparent that you only care about the result, like the children that Hallelujah/Allelujah killed. You seem almost like Lelouch. IF you know what I'm talking about.

War is more usually bad guys and worse guys on one side against even worse guys and the worst guys on the other side.

Really? Are you admitting that you ARE one, then? Since your ancestors have probably fought wars before. No them = no you. Be grateful that you were even born.

It is far more common for heroes to become villains when they falsely think that they have to resort to underhanded means to win. FDR, Churchill, and Truman are examples of heroes who turned into villains because they falsely believed that they had to resort to underhanded means (mass murder of civilians, to be precise) to win.

I say: Look at the other edge of the dice. Or the other side of your piece of paper.

[wolfgirl90]

They only seem to keep coming back time after time because each story featuring them is in an alternate universe to the other stories they appear in.

That is a load of bull if I have ever seen one. You are NOT about to tell me that each time the Joker (or any other villain) appears its in an "alternate universe" to the original story. Your stupidity knows no bounds, does it?

The series could have been written so Vader really did redeem himself.

Your storytelling is really sub-par, so for the sake of not wanting my brain to melt, I just going to skip over it.

At the Battle of Narita she refused to do what she desperately wanted to do, rush in to save Cornelia, because it might have endangered civilians.

No, try again. Euphemia didn't move because of the field hospital that was ahead, the fact that the G-1 was basically the command center AND because HER SISTER told her NOT TO MOVE. Civilians were never part of the equation. By participating in the battle, instead of outright protesting it (and she wasn't dragged along; she volunteered to be there), she has a hand in every death (civilian or otherwise) that occurred because of Britannia.

You are big on guilt by association, so there is no real way of countering this one without you looking like an idiotic, hypocritical Euphemia butt-kisser. Oh wait, that's what you are already.

And she resisted it perhaps thousands of times more than people who were given commands to kill themselves resisted suicide.

And you are basing this off of...what, exactly? Or are you just bending over and pulling this out of your butt like you always do?

And after it took her over she still tired to kill in the most peaceful and least violent way possible, by first asking the Japanese to kill themselves and only ordering the massacre when they naturally did not.

Aww...I guess this shows how nice and uncorrupted she was. Oh wait. What did she do RIGHT AFTER asking the Japanese to kill themselves and the order? She freaking shot one HERSELF! Then got a machine gun and started to kill Japanese like a bully to an anthill.

Wow, she was nice for 5 whole seconds before switching to bloody, unrestrained violence which can only be be described as genocide. She is truly an inspiration.

I suppose you believe that you are mostly good and that there is a lot of fun in your life.

I suppose you believe that you are also mostly good...which you are not, based on your views and actions so far.

Again, using the phrase "they know they do not have TO (proofread please)" begs the question of when is it okay to kill someone, which is much more complicated than you realize, since you have most likely NEVER have had to come to terms with actually having to kill someone. Like in the case of Mulan, she didn't HAVE to kill Shan-Yu, since she 1) killed most of his army, 2) had the Emperor taken to a safe place and 3) had him pinned down. Is she evil for killing him?

War is more usually bad guys and worse guys on one side against even worse guys and the worst guys on the other side.

And yet you don't mind if Euphemia (willingly) participates in it? You don't mind if she becomes Empress and basically invades every country so that they will be part of Britannia in the guise of peace (which was your idea by the way, before you start accusing me of making stuff up like you)? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E!

[Hollow Lelouch]

Yeah. Having no control over your actions, and being a slave to mind control. Sounds worse than being in horrible pain to me.


Also: As for Allelujah: Yeah. Kids who would end up as Super Soldiers. Kids who were being subjected to excruciating surgeries, only to end up as disposable machines for war. I'm sure they hold it against him.

You seem... like a true anime villain to me, you hypocrite. Light Yagami does the same thing you do. "The world is rotten! The ones who are making it rot deserve to die! It'll be a better world where only those I deem to be righteous will live!"
only, you're worse.
I hope you never get a death note. If you did, the entire human race would die out, because they may have made some kind of mistake in their lives.

You and Ribbons Almark should go down to the self proclaimed perfect god club and spend all day agreeing with each other. You are seemingly evil, or at least you must be insane in some way.

If you double post again (Or as in this case TRIPLE POST)
I will report you. just try me. I have nothing to lose. What's stopping me? The hope that you will get off yourself, and realize that you have been spending the last year wasting your time on something that doesn't matter, and apologize. I'm waiting.

Oh, and I just went back to your first page and read this:

Okay, it was among the worst FICTIONAL murders ever shown on television. (And you may have seen documentaries of the holocaust, but have you ever seen film of the actually killings?)

Yeah. I've seen video of Fidel Castro murdering people.(I guess that his death doesn't matter, though. He was over 40.)
One of my neighbors lost his son in 9/11. THAT was worse than a piece of paper getting shot by another peice of paper.
Again, I am a Euphy fan, but you seem hell bent on crushing her already (Undeservingly) small fanbase.
Also:

I suppose you believe that you are mostly good and that there is a lot of fun in your life.

Yes. But anime characters are not real people. What kind of idiot wants to watch a good guy who has never done a bad thing in his life, try to beat another good guy who has never done anything bad in his life.
It kills the story's depth and realism.

[Aozora*Pen]

^@Hollow Lelouch: I've tried reporting her before. For spamming. They didn't bother.

[Rolo Vi Britannia]

Yes. But anime characters are not real people. What kind of idiot wants to watch a good guy who has never done a bad thing in his life, try to beat another good guy who has never done anything bad in his life.
It kills the story's depth and realism.

Actually, he/she thinks that the villain should be evil, but but their standards, they'd be evil if they even THOUGHT about killing someone. Or if they didn't get them self killed trying to stop someone else for killing people.

[blackrosetwilight]

I quote from my post # 307:

quote from post 307... come on you honestly think I would go look for it. you're really blowing this out of proportion here. we all know lelouch killed euphy no one is denying that but that didnt make him evil and that is what everyone has been trying to tell you.

[wolfgirl90]

Yeah, proEuphie doesn't really care about what the villain does. She pretty much expects the villain to be evil, so it doesn't bother her when the villain decides to commit an act of "evil", as that is what they are supposed to do.

The issue (for her) comes when the supposed "hero" does something "unnecessarily evil" (in her eyes) in order to do something "good" or to achieve a "good" end. In this case, Lelouch killing Euphemia when she could have been saved (according to proEuphie; for me, I knew she was going to die as soon as I heard her name, so her death doesn't affect me at all). Its not about the fact that he killed AT ALL, since she let his MANY other killings slide, but the fact that, in the case of Euphemia, he didn't need to kill her (again, according to proEuphie). Since she thinks that ANYONE, regardless of reason, who kills someone that they didn't "have to" kill (whatever that means to her) is evil, Lelouch is automatically evil (to her).

The problem with this way of thinking is that it begs the question of when is it okay to kill someone without it being murder. This way of thinking is not bad in and of itself (its how we figure out things such as self-defense), but proEuphie's thinking is EXTREMELY skewed. Because of proEuphie's attitude so far, I can tell that she has NEVER been in a situation where she has had to make that decision or has been in a situation where she has had to come to terms with potentially killing someone, so her opinion is really based on nothing (as far as experience is concerned). Its easy to say things like that when you have never been put into that type of situation.

She basically requires (as if she is in a position to "require" anything) that the "good" side and the "bad" side never touch each other (with the "good" side being the protagonist; main focus shouldn't be given to the villain), that they be segregated and easily distinguishable from each other.

However, this is not the case for many, many stories. This is not the case for: Harry Potter, Fritz the Cat, Doctor Who, Heroes (yeah, not even in Heroes) Star Wars, Othello (hell, most works of Shakespeare), Artemis Fowl, Ulysses, Citizen Kane, Paradise Lost, Grendel, The Dark Tower, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Lord of the Rings, 1984, Catcher in the Rye, A Clockwork Orange, Crime and Punishment, Watchmen, Trainspotting, The Godfather, The Chronicles of Narnia, Gone with the Wind, Batman, Pirates of the Caribbean, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and its spin-off, Angel), Berserk, Godchild, Dragonball Z, X-Men, V for Vendetta, Deadpool, Assassin's Creed, God of War, Hellblazer, No More Heroes, Far Cry, Sonic the Hedgehog (the franchise itself, not the character), Prince of Persia, Vertigo, Vampire Chronicles, Metal Gear Solid, Gears of War, Devil May Cry, Catwoman, The Punisher, Sin City...

...I could go on and on and on, quite honestly, as these were just things that just popped to my head. Based on all of those examples, proEuphie shouldn't have been all too surprised when Lelouch killed Euphemia or that the creators made him do it; people have been messed up stuff like that for a long time.

By the way, proEuphie, you still have yet to have given me any stories that fit the description of "in which nobody ever does something major evil or even in which nobody does any minor evil either". You said that there are "a lot" of these, so I am asking you give me a few of them. Actually, I asked you quite a while ago.

Still waiting.

[blackrosetwilight]

By the way, proEuphie, you still have yet to have given me any stories that fit the description of "in which nobody ever does something major evil or even in which nobody does any minor evil either". You said that there are "a lot" of these, so I am asking you give me a few of them. Actually, I asked you quite a while ago.

Still waiting.

I know one Pokemon... Oh wait never mind I forgot about the manga pretty awesome by the way.

[proEuphie]

That is a load of bull if I have ever seen one. You are NOT about to tell me that each time the Joker (or any other villain) appears its in an "alternate universe" to the original story. Your stupidity knows no bounds, does it?

The 1989 movie Batman shows the origin of Batman and the Joker and how they become foes, and ends with the Joker's death. There is no room in the movie's story for other encounters between Batman and the Joker. So every other Batman story in which the joker appears MUST be in an alternate universe to Batman (1989). EXCEPT FOR ANY HYPOTHETICAL ONES WHICH TELL HOW THE JOKER SOMEHOW SURVIVED HIS PLUNGE OFF OF GOTHAM CATHEDRAL.

Do you know how many movies, tv episodes, comics and other Sherlock Holmes stories Professor Moriarty has appeared in and how many times he was killed in various circumstances?

I say that alternate universes can explain many contradictions within the "canonical" Holmes stories. For example, "The Final Problem" says that Holmes only became aware of Moriarty a few months before they apparently fell to their deaths at Reichenbach Falls, and "The Empty House" tells how Holmes reappeared and told Watson that only Moriarty died. But in The Valley of Fear the Scotland yard inspector says that Holmes has been trying for years to convince them that Moriarty is the criminal mastermind of London. This is a direct contradiction to "The final Problem" and thus puts the novel in an alternate universe to "the Final Problem" and "The Empty House".

In a non canonical novel by John Gardner Holmes and Moriarty made a deal at Reichenbach that each would stay away from England for several years. In The Seven Percent Solution Holmes is cured of addiction by Sigmund Freud and leaves to travel the world for several years, telling Watson to make up some story to explain his absence. "You can tell your readers that my mathematics tutor killed me." He suggests carelessly. Thus Moriarty is innocent of being a criminal mastermind in that story, Which must be in an alternate universe to all the ones where he is a criminal mastermind.

And so on and so on with famous villains in pop culture.

No, try again. Euphemia didn't move because of the field hospital that was ahead, the fact that the G-1 was basically the command center AND because HER SISTER told her NOT TO MOVE. Civilians were never part of the equation. By participating in the battle, instead of outright protesting it (and she wasn't dragged along; she volunteered to be there), she has a hand in every death (civilian or otherwise) that occurred because of Britannia.

How do you know there was a field hospital ahead (and not inside the G1 as you used to say)? Because Euphemia said so, citing it as a reason not to move the G1. In the SAME sentence where she said that the civilians had been evacuated to the area ahead of the G1, citing it as another reason not to move the G1, and MAKING THE CIVILIANS PART OF THE EQUATION. After giving the reasons that she cared about, she then added that Cornelia had ordered her not to move the G1, remembering that military officers were much less willing to disobey orders than civilians. (And considering how often military officers disobey orders, there is no reason to believe that a civilian like Euphemia would consider Cornelia's orders more sacred than Cornelia's life.)

I say that by being at Narita to prevent Cornelia from committing any massacres and slaughters Euphemia had a hand in preventing every excessive death that did not happen there, and gave life to everyone (civilian or otherwise) who otherwise would have been massacred by Cornelia's orders.

According to your standards, by joining the US military you have had a hand in every death in the past, the present, and the future, happening because of the US -- including hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in war crimes in 1945.

You are big on guilt by association, so there is no real way of countering this one without you looking like an idiotic, hypocritical Euphemia butt-kisser. Oh wait, that's what you are already.

I have said that the only way that a member of the Britannian government or military could be good was if he or she did something to reduce the amount of excessive killing and destruction in Britannia's wars. Euphemia clearly did that by going to Narita to make sure that Cornelia didn't massacre anybody there, and by personally not charging ahead to rescue her sister because of the possibility that doing so might endanger the lives of civilians.

Because of the death, devastation, horror, and suffering caused by war, war is one of the greatest evils invented by Humans. Among modern types of governments, making war is the only function which independent governments have that dependent governments do not also sometimes or usually have. Thus the function of the independence of independent governments is to fight wars and inflict death, horror, suffering and sorrow on their own people and the people of other independent governments.

Thus the only type of war which can be justified is one to totally conquer and annex a formerly independent government and eliminate its evil power to make war. So I see no guilt in the Britannian conquests to be associated with Euphemia -- only guilt in the overly violent and destructive nature of the Britannian way of war, which Euphemia is shown acting to reduce.

And you are basing this off of...what, exactly? Or are you just bending over and pulling this out of your butt like you always do?

Euphemia clearly tried to resist the geass command. unlike anyone else except for Nunnally in the second season. Thus Euphemia and Nunnally are different from other geass subjects in two ways: 1) they are consciously aware of the geass command trying to take control, and 2) they clearly try to resist, which means they resist tens, or hundreds, or thousands, or millions, of times harder than other geass subjects, such as those ordered to kill themselves, do.

Aww...I guess this shows how nice and uncorrupted she was. Oh wait. What did she do RIGHT AFTER asking the Japanese to kill themselves and the order? She freaking shot one HERSELF! Then got a machine gun and started to kill Japanese like a bully to an anthill.

Wow, she was nice for 5 whole seconds before switching to bloody, unrestrained violence which can only be be described as genocide. She is truly an inspiration.

Examine the case of a person, a member of a group like the Nazis (or thousands of other groups in history) who believes that a group like the Jews (or thousands of other groups in history) are horrible evil demons that the world would be better off without. And because of this belief the person helps to slaughter, rape, rob, imprison, torture, enslave, expel, and otherwise abuse the members of the despised group.

How can this person be considered to be evil? He sincerely believes that what he is doing is right and necessary, just as much as you may have believed that it was right and necessary for you to go to school, pay taxes, get a job, do chores, etc. etc. etc.

If belief in the goodness of what one is doing matters, this hypothetical evil person, similar to countless millions in history, is just as good and innocent as you are, and thus should not be hated and despised anymore than you should be.

But his beliefs are senseless and wrong. Yes, but he sincerely thinks they are sensible and right.

The only way to blame someone for wrong and misguided beliefs is to say that he should have known that his beliefs were wrong and misguided and mistaken. And the only way to do that is to demand that everyone examine all their beliefs with logic to try to find any flaws in them. And they should attack and examine all of their beliefs about when the use of violence is justified first, to make sure that before they come to a situation where they consider using violence they have examined their beliefs with great care, hoping to find and correct any errors before they can act on them.

Euphemia grew up largely or entirely surrounded by evil Britannian beliefs, but rejected them. She was much of a rebel against Britannian ideas as Lelouch, who fought against Britannia using evil Britannian methods. Euphemia clearly did not let even her sister Cornelia influence her into believing that massacres were ever justified. It took a geass command to force Euphemia to do something evil that average Britannians considered to be perfectly acceptable and normal.

And there is one other way to condemn a person who uses violence which his warped and twisted beliefs justify to him. And that is to condemn what he does, and say that what he does can never be justified even by the belief that doing such deeds is necessary to save the world.

Suppose that a group of people believe that another group of people are evil demons who must be removed from existence, or exterminated, to save the world fro m their vile influence. If these people also believe that any goal, no matter how vital and important and justified, must be accomplished using the least violent methods possible, how would they handle the task of eliminating the despised group? By seizing, sterilizing, and confining them so that they cannot do their evil deeds, and letting them die out of old age. In a century or so they will all be gone and the world will be freed from their supposedly vile presence.

So the way to prevent misguided people from using horrible, evil, disgusting violence in their misguided attempts to make a better world is to try to convince everyone in the world that using horrible, excessive, evil, disgusting acts of violence is never justified even when one is certain that he is acting for the greater good. Everyone needs to be reminded of the acts of violence committed in the past by people whose justifying beliefs are now considered to be false and disproved, and to be reminded that people in the future could consider our own beliefs to be false and disproved.

Anyone who kills people that he clearly sees to not have to be killed because of immediate military necessity should be considered evil. I consider that I am being moderate in not stating that anyone who ever kills anyone in any military or paramilitary situation is evil. I think that everyone can clearly agree that if someone sees that he does not have to kill someone because of immediate military necessity -- that he can let them go or capture them with results that are just as good as killing them for saving the lives of innocent people and/or the people he wants to protect -- and decides to kill them anyway for some reason, that person is evil.

Euphemia clearly believe that excessive violence was evil and did all that she could to curb it. If she had been given a geass command to cause the extinction of the Japanese people she would have carried it out in the most humane way possible by trying to capture, sterilize, and confine all the Japanese people until they all died of old age.

But she was given a geass command to kill the Japanese. That meant to cause their deaths as soon as possible. That left extremely little room for her to do anything to reduce the evilness of carrying out the task she was compelled to carry out. But she found a way. She resisted the pressure from the geass command to instantly order a massacre long enough to politely ask the Japanese to kill themselves, hoping and praying that if they did so willingly and using the methods which scared them the least the horror and terror of dying would be reduced at least a little bit for them.

Only when the Japanese did not kill willingly themselves did the geass command force her to use the more violent and brutal method of ordering and participating in a bloody massacre.

I suppose you believe that you are also mostly good...which you are not, based on your views and actions so far.

OH, what a terrible, evil person I am, demanding that warriors follow a strict code of not killing anyone when it is clearly not necessary to do so! What a terrible, terrible, world it would be if warriors reduced their killing rate a little bit!

Again, using the phrase "they know they do not have TO (proofread please)" begs the question of when is it okay to kill someone, which is much more complicated than you realize, since you have most likely NEVER have had to come to terms with actually having to kill someone. Like in the case of Mulan, she didn't HAVE to kill Shan-Yu, since she 1) killed most of his army, 2) had the Emperor taken to a safe place and 3) had him pinned down. Is she evil for killing him?

So you say that a person should decide when it is right to kill AFTER choosing to go in a situation where they might kill. No, a person should not join an organization where they might kill other people until AFTER they have already decided when killing is justified -- otherwise they might find to their horror that they have joined an organization which kills unnecessarily.

You sure make it sound like Mulan was evil for killing Shan-Yu. I don't remember that scene very well, and don't remember how dangerous Shan-Yu was when he was killed and how much time Mulan had to decide what to do. But at least Mulan was not sitting in a giant war robot looking down on a person crawling unarmed out of the wreckage of their vehicle and knowing that she was in total control of the situation and the other person was totally at their mercy.

And yet you don't mind if Euphemia (willingly) participates in it? You don't mind if she becomes Empress and basically invades every country so that they will be part of Britannia in the guise of peace (which was your idea by the way, before you start accusing me of making stuff up like you)? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E!

If war is so evil, it must be abolished. If wars are going to be fought in the future, the best case is that those wars will be wars of conquest to overthrow the evil institutions, independent governments, which fight wars and tame those independent governments by making them dependent governments which cannot fight wars.

If you can justify a policy of waiting around until some enemy emerges, defeating them, waiting around until another enemy emerges, defeating them, and so on for hundreds and thousands of years, for tens and hundreds of thousands of years, for millions of years, over and over again, war after war, thousands and thousands of wars, millions and billions of deaths, for all the future, then I can justify a policy of invading and annexing every independent government so that comparatively soon there will be no more independent governments and no more wars.

Or to put it in words that you can understand:

Universal empire good, nation bad.
Conquest good, resistance to conquest bad.
(And negotiated union even better than conquest).
Crushing rebellions good, rebellions bad.

[The Truth in Blue]

Wow. This thread is about batman now.

[Hollow Lelouch]

Proeuphie, are you Wolfgirl's Cubia? Seems like it.

[blackrosetwilight]

Proeuphie, are you Wolfgirl's Cubia? Seems like it.

oooo dot hack reference nice

[MangaFanGuy]

Universal empire good, nation bad.

ummm

Conquest good, resistance to conquest bad.
(And negotiated union even better than conquest).

uh guys

Crushing rebellions good, rebellions bad.

OMG it's true
ProEuphie is Thomas Hobbes

This sounds exactly like his philosophy

But then all these points generally fail
Universal empire is good in theory but would be a Bureaucratic nightmare plus would be very open to corruption and stagnation (Just look how hard it is to get nations to co-operate)
Conquest is good? how? when? always? so does this mean people shouldn't have resisted the Nazi invasions? Japanese Invasions? Crusades?
Crushing rebellions is good and all rebellions are bad.....like always? So basically you would oppose the American war of independance? Spartacus trying to free slaves? The formation of many modern states? (French Republic? Modern Spain? etc)

[wolfgirl90]

Yeah, proEuphie, totally didn't read most of that. Hope you didn't say anything important, because I would have missed it. Oh wait, you never say anything important. So its okay then.

So every other Batman story in which the joker appears MUST be in an alternate universe to Batman (1989).

Is that your logic? That since the Joker died in Batman, he is dead in canon and that ALL depictions of him afterward are in some "alternate universe" that doesn't matter? Batman had been around since 1939; logic would dictate that this movie wouldn't be canon or would be slightly less canon than, say, the comics its BASED OFF OF. Are you telling me that 50 years of history (including Batman's origins and his meeting of the Joker) are negated by the creation of this movie, that this movie is the only canon history of the Batman series? Man, you really are stupid.

Thus the only type of war which can be justified is one to totally conquer and annex a formerly independent government and eliminate its evil power to make war.

HAHAHAHA!! Oh wow, you are serious? I think I will continue laughing then (ignorant hypocrite).

OH, what a terrible, evil person I am, demanding that warriors follow a strict code of not killing anyone when it is clearly not necessary to do so! What a terrible, terrible, world it would be if warriors reduced their killing rate a little bit!

Oh, I didn't say that because of your pacifism. Oh heaven's no. I said that because despite your pacifistic views, you have no problem with the idea of a nation invading another in the guise of peace, or having an "evil" person die or thinking of ways on how they should die (like suggesting that Naraku be dragged by horses until he died).

And you said that I had latent violent tendencies. You are not much better.

You sure make it sound like Mulan was evil for killing Shan-Yu. I don't remember that scene very well, and don't remember how dangerous Shan-Yu was when he was killed and how much time Mulan had to decide what to do.

I didn't make her "sound" like anything; you came to that conclusion on your own. I didn't change any of the circumstances; everything I said is what happened in the movie. I didn't say that she was evil; just that, using your standards, she would be.

Shan-Yu wasn't very dangerous at the time (though he did massacre quite a number of villages and a nice chunk of Imperial forces before the movie was over), what with most of his army killed. While she initially didn't have a plan while she was being chased by him, she only looked at the fireworks tower for two seconds before deciding to launch him into it.

In fact, let's watch. I mean, this thread his already gone to hell, no point in saving it.

+

Universal empire good, nation bad.
Conquest good, resistance to conquest bad.
(And negotiated union even better than conquest).
Crushing rebellions good, rebellions bad.

Oh I understand it perfectly (I am still laughing quite hard at your words right now; sweet, delicious ignorance). Except, you are not the only person who has thought this way. Of course, each time someone tried it, it has failed. Notice the lack of empires. Simply attacking someone for no reason kinda has this little side effect of PISSING THEM OFF, especially if that reason is the total annihilation of their culture, identity and way of life so that they can live in peace. In order to prevent conflict, thoughts and actions need to be controlled (for a WORLD government, this is necessary; look at what free speech did to the USSR) and in order to do that, the government needs to rule with an iron fist, with fear to prevent people from even thinking about going against the government.

Sure, everything is all well and good when we all have the same thoughts, ideology and identity, but we never will and since we are not the Borg or live in Neon Genesis Evangelion, you shouldn't expect it to be this way (it wasn't this way when we lived in caves, its not the way we live now).

Proeuphie, are you Wolfgirl's Cubia? Seems like it.

I think she is closer to the Artificially Intelligent Data Anomaly (AIDA).

[Memento Mori]

ProEuphie, here's a tip. Putting all of your words in bold will not make them any more attractive to read.