AnimeGalleries [dot] NetAnimeWallpapers [dot] ComAnimeLyrics [dot] ComAnimePedia [dot] ComAnimeGlobe [dot] Com

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 LastLast
Results 376 to 400 of 418

Thread: *SPOILERS* The shot that killed My Love for Anime

  1. #376
    Senior Member proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie's Avatar
    Gil
    9,537.87
    Gender
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-26-2010 01:10 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    someplace
    Threads
    19
    Posts
    464
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollow Lelouch View Post

    As for Euphy; I agree with you in some ways. I wish Euphy didn't have to die, but she did.
    I keep saying that Euphemia did not have to die.

    In episode 23 it looked like there was almost no possible way to stop Euphie in her knightmare without killing her. Then Lelouch or CC used the Slash Harkens at the fingertips of the Gawain to slice up her knightmare without harming her.

    I think that probably the ability of the Gawain's slash harkens to slice up a knightmare was designed to destroy the mecha while leaving the pilot unharmed so that he could be captured for whatever reasons there might be to capture an enemy mecha pilot. Thus when Lelouch or CC read the instructions on how to slice up a mecha with the slash harkens they should have read that the reason for doing so was to capture the enemy mecha pilot alive using the net thrower. Or the lasso. Or the stun ray. Or the electric stun gun. Or the tranquilizer dart gun. Or the super-sticky whip. Or capture him by simply picking him up in one of the Gawain's giant robot hands if the Gawain didn't have a weapons system designed to capture enemies alive.

    Thus Lelouch and/or CC should have known that after destroying a mecha without harming the pilot there would be a simple way to capture the pilot alive. And so they should have known that there was a simple way to capture Euphemia alive after destroying her Kightmare.

    Then, as she crawled out of the wreckage, unarmed, and facing two giant war robots, the question became how would they capture her and what would they do with her afterward. There was obviously no slightest justification for killing her when she would be so easy to capture alive. But Lelouch killed her anyway, taking a considerable risk that she would shoot him back after he shot her. Why? Why? Why?

    PART ONE:

    Some people say that Lelouch killed Euphie to:

    1) Protect the Japanese people or a bunch of them from being killed by Euphemia.

    And protecting people from being killed by person A can be a good and sufficient and valid reason to kill person A under some circumstances.

    But no reason, no matter how holy, or noble, or strong, or compelling, for killing people or even a single person can ever be a sufficient justification unless:
    A) Killing that person or persons is the only way to achieve the goal or purpose used as a justification for killing.
    OR
    B) Achieving the goal or purpose in question without killing would:
    1) be too difficult.
    2) Be too slow.
    3) Be too dangerous for the person(s) making the decision and/or for one or more persons that they want or have to protect.

    C) And of course no justification for killing one or more persons can ever be valid or right unless it is sufficiently good. Of course killing a person or persons to save other persons can sometimes be good, according to some system of ethics, so it is possible that killing Euphemia might be justified by condition C.

    But being justified by Condition C would not be sufficient to justify killing someone unless it was ALSO justified by Condition A, or Condition B1, or Condition B2, or Condition B3.

    A) If Euphemia was confined with good security the chance of her ever killing another Japanese person again would be much less than the chance that any newborn Japanese baby would grow to kill some Japanese person someday. If you're not going to kill all the Japanese babies to prevent the slight chance that a few of them might grow up to kill somebody someday why kill Euphemia who would be so safe, and fast, and easy, to capture, on the slight chance that she might escape to kill someone someday?

    Killing a securely confined person to prevent the slight chance that they might escape to kill again makes less sense than killing a free person to prevent the slight but greater chance that he might kill sometime in the future. When the probability that someone might kill in the future gets that low anyone or everyone in the whole world would have just as much chance of killing someone in the future and thus there would be just as much justification for killing anyone and everyone to prevent them from killing in the future.

    Killing Euphemia fails to meet Condition A. Of course Euphemia was not yet actually captured when Lelouch shot her. Does killing Euphemia meet condition B1, B2, or B3?

    B1) After Euphemia's knightmare was destroyed Lelouch or CC or Kallen could have just reached down with a giant robot hand and picked up Euphemia. How much easier could capturing her get? Killing Euphemia does not satisfy condition B1.

    B2) After Euphemia's knightmare was destroyed Lelouch or CC or Kallen could have just reached down with a giant robot hand and picked up Euphemia. Thus Euphemia would have been captured before Lelouch shot her. If Lelouch shot her soon enough she could have been captured sooner, and thus soon enough. Killing Euphemia does not satisfy condition B2.

    B3) After Euphemia's knightmare was destroyed Lelouch or CC or Kallen could have just reached down with a giant robot hand and picked up Euphemia. Instead Lelouch was lowered from the Gawain while Euphemia was shooting a machine gun at the Gawain. That does not seem very safe. Euphie might have shot up Lelouch's legs before she recognized Zeros' costume, causing Lelouch to plummet to the ground and maybe break his neck. Then she might have sprayed a bunch of machine guns into Lelouch's torso before recognizing Zero's costume. But Euphie's machine gun jammed and she put a new ammo clip into it just as she recognized Zero's costume, a coincidence which may have saved Lelouch's life.

    Then Lelouch walked toward Euphie and passed her within what seemed like touching distance. At that distance he could have got her to look away from him and then shot her in her right arm (and then in her left arm within a second or so, if he didn't think that shooting her right arm would be enough to disable her from using a machine gun).

    Or he could have got her to look away from him and hit her on the head with his gun to knock her out.

    Or he could have stunned her with a stun gun brought from the cockpit of the Gawain where he may have kept one in case he had to use it on Suzaku in somewhat similar circumstances.

    Or he could have asked her to come into his knightmare (where the controls would have been locked as a precaution) and had CC do the memory-sharing thing she did to Suzaku at Narita to make Euphie unconscious.

    Many months ago I listed 15 options which Lelouch had to capture Euphemia instead of killing her. But I think these few are sufficient to make the point.

    Instead Lelouch turned, aimed a pistol and shot at Euphemia from about thirty feet away, taking a risk that she would aim her machine gun at him and pull the trigger at the same time as he fired. The danger was not over once the bullet hit Euphemia. She might not have fallen backwards as soon as being shot. Instead she might have continued to stand and might have shot back at Lelouch, perhaps killing him. And after she fell back on the ground she could have pointed the machine gun at Lelouch and pulled the trigger before losing consciousness after seconds or minutes, perhaps killing him.

    Clearly killing Euphemia in the way that Lelouch did kill her was a lot more dangerous than killing her in other possible ways or capturing her alive in the ways I have suggested.

    Was killing Euphemia the way Lelouch killed her safer for the Japanese than capturing her alive? If she was picked up in the hand of a giant robot as soon as she crawled out of the wreckage of her knightmare she would never have picked up a machine gun. And they could have found other ways to keep her from picking up or keeping the machine gun. And even after she picked up the machine gun there were ways of capturing Euphemia alive which didn't make it any more likely that she would have shot any Japanese people that might have been nearby.

    Clearly capturing Euphemia alive could have been just as safe as or even much safer for Lelouch and the Japanese than killing her the way he chose to kill her. Thus Killing Euphemia fails Condition B3.

    Thus however much protecting the Japanese from Euphemia might be holy, or noble, or strong, or compelling enough to justify taking some types of actions, it fails to satisfy Condition A, or Condition B1, or Condition B2, or Condition B3. And since any reason to kill must satisfy at least one of those conditions in order to be valid, killing Euphemia is not a justified method of protecting the Japenese people from her.

    And killing Euphemia might have resulted in more Japanese deaths than capturing her, and thus have been counter-productive to saving lives.

    When the Black Knights reached Fuji the Britannians were widely scattered to hunt down Japanese survivors and it would take time to find and defeat all the Britannians. And at the start of episode 23 Euphemia had broadcast an order to kill Japanese people. It would take even more time to find and defeat all the Britannians who might be obeying that order elsewhere. The fastest way to save as many Japanese lives as possible was to capture Euphemia and use her as a hostage to try and stop the massacre(s) as soon as possible. Not trying to use Euphemia as a hostage may have condemned tens, or hundreds, or thousands of Japanese to death who could have been saved by using Euphemia as a hostage.

    PART TWO:

    Some people say that Lelouch Killed Euphemia to:

    2) "Save" her from living under the control of the geass command, or from her guilt if she was ever cured and learned what she had done while controlled by it. Apparently they believe that the emotional stress of such circumstances would somehow be worse than death.

    And I replied to such theories in my post # 231. Which is in a spoiler for those who read it already and don't want to read it again.
     


    Even people being tortured have enjoying more pleasure than those who are dead. Even the worst life is infinitely better than death. Emotional 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 unfortunates are sometimes mistaken about being better off dead.

    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.

    One of my early childhood memories is of a seeming endless unhappy night in a hospital bed. 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.

    That was not an unusual experience. Many of my readers can remember similar experiences. And if they can remember similar experiences, like me they can try to imagine experiences that are ten times as unpleasant, or a hundred times, or a thousand times, or ten thousand times. And know that real people have suffered through such experiences so much wore than we have.

    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?

    The example of the wounded rebels in the wagon train begging for death, most of whom recovered and lived reasonably happy lives for decades, shows that even people who are screaming in pain and begging for death can have a brighter future and be glad that they were not killed in answer to their pleas. And they are just a small sample of all the countless thousands and millions of people in history who have begged for death but survived to live a better life and be glad that they had not been killed.

    And Euphemia was not giving even that sometimes deceptive form of evidence that she might be better off dead when Lelouch shot her.

    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. Remember that 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.

    Did Lelouch have a policy of "When in doubt, kill"? If so he was evil. Did Lelouch have a policy of killing everyone who had even the slightest chance of suffering a fate worse than death if not immediately killed, even someone who might have only one chance in ten thousand of suffering a fate worse than death if not killed now? Did Lleouch believe that it was better to needlessly kill 9,999 people who were not going to suffer a fate worse than death, than to run the risk of not killing the one person in ten thousand who would suffer a fate worse than death if not killed? If so, Lelouch was trigger-happy, to say the least.

    The idea that Euphemia's death was justified because of the possibility that she might have been miserable for the rest of her life is no more sensible than believing that everyone in the world should be killed right now because anyone in the world might sometime the future start to be miserable and unhappy for the rest of their life.


    PART THREE;

    And some people write that Lelouch killed Euphemia to:

    3) Gain as much Japanese support as possible for his Black Rebellion.

    But remember what I wrote above about killing Euphemia to save Japanese lives:

    But no reason, no matter how holy, or noble, or strong, or compelling, for killing people or even a single person can ever be a sufficient justification unless:
    A) Killing that person or persons is the only way to achieve the goal or purpose used as a justification for killing.
    OR
    B) Achieving the goal or purpose in question without killing would:
    1) be too difficult.
    2) Be too slow.
    3) Be too dangerous for the person(s) making the decision and/or for one or more persons that they want or have to protect.

    C) And of course no justification for killing one or more persons can ever be valid or right unless it is sufficiently good.

    While killing Euphemia to save Human lives could possibly satisfy Condition C, killing Euphemia to gain support for one's cause can never be holy, or noble, or strong, or compelling enough to satisfy condition C.

    But assume that it could be justified to kill someone to gain more support for your cause. Then killing Euphemia to get Japanese support would be justified IF it ALSO satisfied Condition A or Condition B1 or Condition B2 or Condition B3.

    A) If Lelouch captured Euphemia and made a speech saying that he had seen her be taken over by some kind of mind control, that could get him just as much Japanese support as killing Euphemia. He could say that someone high up at the Toyko Government Center or even at Pendragon must have wanted to sabotage the SAZ plan so much that they brainwashed Euphemia and then remotely triggered her programming during the the meeting with Zero. Euphemia was innocent of desiring to order the massacre but the Britannian soldiers were guilty of willingly obeying her orders as they had obeyed Cornelia's and Clovis's orders to massacre. And Britannian soldiers would continue to obey future orders to massacre until the time, perhaps decades in the future, when Euphemia was freed from her brainwashing or Britannia somehow found another person as good as her. Were they willing to wait until then and endure massacre after massacre, or did they want to rise up and overthrow Britannia's tyranny?

    Such a speech would have got Lelouch about as much support as killing Euphemia and making the speech he did make. And by shifting the blame away from Euphemia it would make it harder for many of the Japanese to be satisfied with avenging the massacre by killing Euphemia and then just quitting the rebellion. The only way to avenge the massacre would be to find and kill whoever had brainwashed Euphemia. And since actually nobody in the Britannian government had brainwashed her, the Japanese would never find the guilty party and quit until Lelouch was ready to manufacture one for them.

    Thus not killing Euphemia could get Lelouch just as much support from the Japanese as killing her. Thus killing Euphemia to gain Japanese support does not satisfy condition A.

    And I already wrote above that killing Euphemia would not satisfy Condition B1 or Condition B2 or Condition B3.

    And I should point out that:

    1) The failure of the SAZ plan when the massacre started left rebellion as the only hope for more freedom for the Japanese.
    2) Now that the JLF had been destroyed Zero and the Black Knights were the best bet to lead any rebellion.
    3) Zero gained a lot of Japanese support by A) defeating the Britannians at Fuji B) Rescuing the surviving Japanese at Fuji, and C) leading the march to capture Tokyo.

    And it is always better to have support you earned than support you have not earned. When the Black Knights reached Fuji the Britannians were widely scattered to hunt down Japanese survivors and it would take time to find and defeat all the Britannians. And at the start of episode 23 Euphemia had broadcast an order to kill Japanese people. It would take even more time to find and defeat all the Britannians who might be obeying that order elsewhere. The fastest way to save as many Japanese lives as possible was to capture Euphemia and use her as a hostage to try and stop the massacre(s) as soon as possible. Not trying to use Euphemia as a hostage may have condemned tens, or hundreds, or thousands of Japanese to death who could have been saved by using Euphemia as a hostage.

    It is better to earn and deserve as much support as possible and use your propaganda to convince as many people as possible of the true fact that you have earned their support than to earn and deserve a lesser degree of support and then use your propaganda to deny reports that you did not do everything you possibly could to earn and deserve support. By killing Euphemia and not trying to use her as a hostage to stop the massacre(s) Lelouch may have let many Japanese be killed. And so he did not deserve as much support from the Japanese as he would have deserved if he had captured her and tried to use her as a hostage to stop the massacre(s).

    And Lelouch knew that it was not absolutely certain that the enemy would react to each of his moves in a specific way. He knew that various possible enemy actions would change the course of the Black Rebellion drastically. And thus the amount of support he would need from the Japanese people would change drastically. In many situations he would get much more support than he needed even without killing Euphemia. And in many other situations he would need so much support that he could not possibly get enough support even by killing Euphemia. Only in a very few situations would killing Euphemia be both necessary and sufficient to get Lelouch the extra amount of support he needed.

    Did Lelouch have a policy of "When in doubt, kill"? If so he was evil. Did Lelouch have a policy of killing everyone and anyone whose deaths might benefit his plans, even if there was only a slight probability that those deaths would benefit his plans, and even if there was a strong probability that those deaths would harm and even ruin his plans? If so, LeLouch was evil, and senselessly so.

    And there was another reason why Lelouch should not have killed Euphemia to gain as much Japanese support as possible.

    I quote my post # 232, in a spoiler for those who have already read it and don't want to read to again:
     

    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 the Britannian soldiers were slaughtering the Japanese with great enthusiasm and realized there were a lot more shoulders to divert the Japanese hatred onto than in his previous Plan Two, making it easier to turn the Japanese anger away from the obviously insane or mind-controlled Euphemia and onto the Britannian soldiers who had obeyed her even when she was clearly insane or mind-controlled.

    But Lelouch did not do so in his Plan Three, so 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 the leader of the rebellion, as much or mare than propaganda to gain Japanese support.

    So Lelouch had to make the rebel leader 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 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. They would think that 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 they would think 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 probably a lot of other people actually suspected 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 go to meet 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.

    I am really shocked and disgusted by all the expressions of sorrow for Lelouch's death that some people write. They remind me of Kaguya adoring Lelouch so soon after he senselessly murdered Euphemia.



    Thus I show that:
    1) Euphemia did not have to die to save the Japanese from her.
    2) Euphemia did not have to die to save her from a life worse than death.
    3) Euphemia did not have to die to gain Lelouch a necessary and sufficient amount of support from the Japanese. In fact, Euphemia had to survive for Lelouch's plan to succeed. Lelouch had to save Euphemia or fail.

    Thus there was no good and humane reason to kill Euphemia, or even an evil reason that made any sense. And a lot of good and humane, and sensible and pragmatic, reasons to save Euphemia.
    Last edited by proEuphie; 08-14-2010 at 09:54 PM. Reason: spelling correction copy to use elsewhwere

  2. #377
    Great Witch of Britannia wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90's Avatar
    Gil
    37,489.92
    Gender
    My Mood
    Wicked
    Gifts Eva Penpen Wolf Full Moon
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-21-2014 04:53 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, United States
    Age
    24
    Threads
    47
    Posts
    2,029
    Rep Power
    2243
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: DisturbedWiccan PSN ID: Wolfdragon63 Steam ID: Wolfgirl90

    Default

    I merely read the first line and skipped the rest. You need to learn how to summarize your points more; this is a debate about a cartoon not a freaking college lecture (which you probably know nothing about since I find your education lacking). However, I will once again summarize my points (maybe give you some tips on doing the same).

    When it comes to Euphemia's death (you know, the reason you made this thread, something that you seem to forget every time someone says something to you that you MUST argue about), I do not think that it was a murder, neither morally nor legally (legally, one must have BOTH intent and malice or malicious disregard for life in order for a homicide to be murder; Lelouch only had intent). Am I saying that Euphemia HAD to die? No. I really have no opinion on the matter, as far as whether Lelouch did was right or wrong (I will say that if I was in Lelouch's position, I would have killed Euphemia to get her to stopped bloody killing people; her life is not the only one that matters). Why? Because I knew, from the moment that I heard her name, that she was going to die. Common anime sense dictates that if someone is named after a freaking Christian martyr, they are going to die; if you didn't know about the Great Martyr Euphemia (talk about epic foreshadowing), well, sucks to be you if got attached to her and didn't know.

    I have these views because I know how Sunrise works. With stories like this, they have a protagonist (the main character or group) and an antagonist (the character or group that is going against the protagonist), with neither side being designated as the "good" side or the "bad" side; its just two sides to the same situation. If you MUST find a "good" side or an "evil" side, that's up to you, but that is really not the point.

    This is done to show the evils of war. The good guys do not always win (if the "good" guys even exist at all) and the best people, the people who do not deserve to die by any stretch of the imagination, do not always live. Euphemia is great example of this. The reality of it all is that there are people like her who do great things, have the best intentions in the world, but die because of something as tragic as war. Ignoring this fact would just be ignorant.

    I agree with you on one thing: the way that Euphemia died was shocking. Lelouch killing Euphemia was something I hadn't really expected (her death yes; Lelouch being the cause, no) and I understand if a fan of Euphemia, such as yourself (although I question that) would be shocked and upset over this. I also understand wanting to start a thread to discuss this with others. I don't mind that and it makes perfect sense for something like this.

    HOWEVER, while I understand your position, I do not tolerate your methods of presenting it. One of very first things you did when I stated my position was make a thread about it as if I was some sort of extremist that needed to be outed. You also called me a sinner, something I hear enough from close-minded Christians (not saying you are one, but you are pushing it) that I do not need to hear it from someone crying about a cartoon character. You apologized for both...until you did BOTH of them again. Because of all of this (and many other incidents that I could write a book about), I don't care about your position. I have tried, I REALLY have, but I am done taking you seriously. I no longer care about your position or about you; you could mention a time where you fell off a cliff and I wouldn't care, mostly because you would just wrap Euphemia around it.

    So, let's make it clear again, since you only took it seriously once: I don't care about your position, I do not care about Euphemia and I don't care about you. I don't care what you have to say and I have zero obligation to respond to anything that you say. If you want to veer your threads off-track to argue about about something as off-topic and asinine as the logistical failures of empires, that your business; I don't care. However, if want respect from people (as you have absolutely none), something you need if you want to be taken seriously and not the joke that you are, you need to keep your thoughts focused and arrange them in a manner that shows that you are an educated individual, not a ranting hobo on the street.

    The wolf is giving the little bunny another chance. But the wolf still has the little bunny by the tail. Little bunny needs to play nice, as there is only one fate for little bunnies trapped by wolves.
    Last edited by wolfgirl90; 04-25-2010 at 09:21 PM.
    This is my war face.

    This is what happens to trolls who mess with me.

  3. #378
    Senior Member proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie's Avatar
    Gil
    9,537.87
    Gender
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-26-2010 01:10 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    someplace
    Threads
    19
    Posts
    464
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    I merely read the first line and skipped the rest.
    Please read my post # 376. Take a day, a week, a month, or a year, but try to read all of it. Try to read at least one point at a time. I have rewritten all of it, including the parts quoted from other posts.
    Last edited by proEuphie; 04-26-2010 at 01:56 AM.

  4. #379
    Great Witch of Britannia wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90's Avatar
    Gil
    37,489.92
    Gender
    My Mood
    Wicked
    Gifts Eva Penpen Wolf Full Moon
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-21-2014 04:53 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, United States
    Age
    24
    Threads
    47
    Posts
    2,029
    Rep Power
    2243
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: DisturbedWiccan PSN ID: Wolfdragon63 Steam ID: Wolfgirl90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proEuphie View Post
    Please read my post # 376. Take a day, a week, a month, or a year, but try to read all of it. Try to read at least one point at a time. I have rewritten all of it, including the parts quoted from other posts.
    Once again, I will have to ask: WHY? Again, I already know your position. The reason you started this thread was to talk about Euphemia's death and you have talked about it already. You have given your position. I already KNOW what it is and have known since October. Since your last post is really just a rehash of what you have already said (over and over and over again), I do not feel inclined to read all of that AGAIN.

    Especially since I honestly do not care anymore; how many times must I say this before you understand? Your approach needs to change before I can take you seriously again; otherwise, I just respond for the lulz. And while I may be saying this directly to you, I am not the only one here whose eyes roll whenever they see your name attached to a post. I'm just more upfront with it.

    You have slighted me so many times that it just boggles my mind that you would ask me to read a post of yours, as if you were asking for an argument from me (although, you should already know what I am going to do if I respond). I have been holding back on you, as I find your argument to be an understandable and valid one (again, it can get much worse for you here); however, your argument has very false premises, ones that I can't (and won't) agree with on any circumstance.

    So that needs to be understood. With the exception of the fact the Euphemia's death was shocking, I do not agree with you on anything when it comes to this matter and due to your behavior, I have stopped trying.
    Last edited by wolfgirl90; 04-27-2010 at 01:11 PM.
    This is my war face.

    This is what happens to trolls who mess with me.

  5. #380
    Senior Member blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight's Avatar
    Gil
    15,718.21
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    02-01-2014 02:53 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    I live some where in Michigan and thats all Im telling
    Age
    25
    Threads
    44
    Posts
    783
    Rep Power
    241

    Default

    funny how this is one of the most active thread in the code geass forum

  6. #381
    Cardinal of Eden Vital Rolo Vi Britannia has a reputation beyond repute Rolo Vi Britannia has a reputation beyond repute Rolo Vi Britannia has a reputation beyond repute Rolo Vi Britannia has a reputation beyond repute Rolo Vi Britannia has a reputation beyond repute Rolo Vi Britannia has a reputation beyond repute Rolo Vi Britannia has a reputation beyond repute Rolo Vi Britannia has a reputation beyond repute Rolo Vi Britannia has a reputation beyond repute Rolo Vi Britannia has a reputation beyond repute Rolo Vi Britannia has a reputation beyond repute Rolo Vi Britannia's Avatar
    Gil
    13,221.04
    Gender
    My Mood
    Depressed
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    01-13-2011 06:18 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Britannia
    Threads
    13
    Posts
    642
    Rep Power
    269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackrosetwilight View Post
    funny how this is one of the most active thread in the code geass forum
    It's sad actually.


    I have recently transformed into a defender of the mentally ill. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

  7. #382
    Senior Member proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie's Avatar
    Gil
    9,537.87
    Gender
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-26-2010 01:10 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    someplace
    Threads
    19
    Posts
    464
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    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.
    People who are securely confined don't have opportunities to kill people. People who are free do have opportunities to kill people, and those relatively few free persons who do desire to kill sometimes take advantage of their chances to kill. Thus a higher percentage of free people kill than confined people, despite the fact that confined people include a higher percentage of people who desire to kill.

    I wrote that you, and I, and everyone else who is free, is more of a menace that Euphemia was when Lelouch shot her because 1) it would have been even faster, easier, and safer for Lelouch and for any Japanese bystanders for Lelouch to capture her alive as soon as he could instead of killing her when he did shoot her, and 2) once she was captured and securely confined she would be less of menace to people than anyone who is free is a menace.

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    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?
    You claim that Euphemia already killed people but you have not yet killed anyone. How do you know for certain that you have never done or omitted to do something which led or will lead to deaths? How do you know that all of your choices have been innocent of increasing the probability of death for one or more persons?

    For example, you often imply that you want the United States of America to remain an independent government for your lifetime and possibly you may desire that it remains independent for many hundreds or thousands or even millions of years in the future.

    Suppose that the United states was the only independent nation and that all the rest of humanity was united under one government. Peace between the US and the government of the rest of mankind could exist for decades or centuries at a time. But I believe that it would be almost certain that there would be one or more wars between the US and the rest of the world during a period of only a thousand years, and wars would be much more likely within a period of ten thousand years.

    Since the other government would rule twenty times the population and area and natural resources of the US and since the undeveloped areas of the world are expected to become more developed in the future and thus have per capita wealth equal to that of the US, the US would be at a disadvantage in those wars.

    The most probable results of the existence of an independent US next to a government of all the rest of mankind would be 1) The US decides to join the world government, as the 13 original colonies joined together to form the US and other independent realms such as Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii later the joined the US, to cite just a few of countless historical examples; 2) The US is conquered and annexed by the world government during one of their wars as countless smaller reams have been conquered annexed by larger ones throughout history; 3) The US defeats and conquers and annexes the government of the rest of mankind, thus becoming the new government of the whole world, as tiny Macedon conquered and annexed the vast Persian Empire; 4) The US defeats and shatters the government of the rest of the world, replacing it with many independent governments in its place.

    Thus the existence of the US government and a government of the rest of mankind would probably be a rather unstable situation over the long run, and probably within less than a thousand years and almost certainly within less than ten thousand years the situation would be ended, resulting most likely in the US becoming part of the government of the rest of the world and less likely in the US government becoming the new government of all the world (which would change the US almost entirely) and least likely in the breakup of the government of the rest of the world.

    In the case of a less powerful government such as Russia, China, India...Monaco, Lichtenstein, etc. etc., the odds that it would survive a thousand years or ten thousand years would be much less than for the United States. Thus any person who hopes that his nation will be independent "forever", that it will last for hundreds or thousands of years, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years, millions of years, tens and hundreds of millions of years, etc. must also desire that the rest of the world outside of his country is not united during that period, since such a union would make the continued independence of his government much less likely or even impossible.

    And thus any person who wants his country to continue to have an independent government more or less "forever" must desire that the world will continued to be disunited outside of his country and that wars, thus being possible, will happen between various countries from time to time.

    If you assume that the world population averages about six billion people for that future and that an average of between one person in a million (or about six thousand people) to one person in a thousand (or about six million people) are killed each year, then in a thousand years the continued disunity of the world necessary for his nation to remain independent for that long, will cause between six million and six billion deaths. In ten thousand years there will be between sixty million and sixty billion deaths, in a hundred thousand years there will between six hundred million deaths and six hundred billion deaths, in a million years there will be between six billion deaths and six trillion deaths, and so on. In a billion years there will be between six trillion deaths and six quadrillion deaths.

    Thus any person who desires that his country will continue to have a independent government for the indefinite future and the infinite future more or less desires that countless thousands, and millions, and billions, and trillions of people of countless different nationalities will be killed the wars that will be inevitable in the political situation which is necessary for his government to remain independent "forever". And any patriotic person who does something he hopes will increase the probability that his nation's government will continue to be independent for a long time (which includes the vast majority of the billions of adults on this planet) has taken action which may result in the deaths of countless thousands, and millions, and billions, of people in future ages.

    Thus any patriotic person is willing to risk that countless thousands, and millions, and billions, and trillions, of people of all nationalities will die in the future because of an international political situation which will be favorable for the continued independence of his country's national government (which, if you notice, is not the same same thing as the continued existence of his nationality as an ethnic group). Patriotic people do not limit themselves to policies which increase the probability of death for only a limited number of people. They pursue policies which may result in thousands, or millions, or billions, or trillions, or quadrillions, of deaths.

    While Euphemia, on the other hand, constantly tried to reduce deaths to a minimum, and even after she was given the geass command to kill some or all of the Japanese population there was an absolute maximum number of people that she sought to kill. Her gentleness and nonviolent nature guaranteed, barring another geass command or some other one-chance-in-a-trillion event, that that she would never try to kill any more than that maximum number of people, a few thousand or at most a few tens of millions of people, and that she would be benevolent and protective toward everyone else. Which makes her totally superior to and more harmless than every other Code Geass character of any importance -- even after she was given the geass command.

    Thus any and every patriotic person should be killed as a preemptive measure long before anyone thinks of killing someone as (relatively) harmless as the geass-controlled Euphemia. And if Lelouch sought to kill to protect people from violence he should have killed every other Code Geass Character before killing Euphemia, even the geass-controlled Euphemia.

    Thus your belief that you have not yet killed anyone, and thus are less of a menace than Euphemia, does not seem nearly as convincing once the long term implications of doing anything to increase the probability of the survival of of an independent government for one's country are weighed.

    So when I wrote that you, and I, and each of our readers, is more of a menace than the geass-controlled Euphemia, I meant that you and I and they were as dangerous in the long term as any one of ninety nine percent, or ninety nine point nine percent, of the human race. I did not mean that you or I or they were exceptionally dangerous compared to the average Human. The geass-controlled Euphemia, who was only compelled to kill people up to a certain number and would then stop and return to her kind and gentle and nonviolent self, was much less dangerous than the average Human. She was NOT more dangerous than the average Human despite what so many of you average Humans would like to think.

    Thus writing that you and I and our readers are each more dangerous than even the geass-controlled Euphemia merely means that we are as dangerous as the average Human, and thus more dangerous than Euphemia, even the geass-controlled Euphemia, who was so much less dangerous than the average Human.

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    Euphemia not only has but was in the process of actively doing it.
    Euphemia was not actively killing when Lelouch shot her. She paused for a period which was longer than the period required for Lelouch to capture her alive, and thus she did not count as a person actively engaged in killing people. You can not accurately say that she was killed during the act of killing, and thus that her killing as ethically justified, if she was killed while pausing in her killing long enough to be captured alive during that pause. And the last time before being shot that Euphemia fired a weapon, she fired a weapon that Lelouch let her pick up, a weapon that she picked up AFTER the earliest moment that Lelouch could have captured her alive and stopped her from being a danger to anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    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? With the exeption that we actually DO kill confined prisoners. Its called the death penalty.


    Yes, I am saying that this preemptive action is wrong. There is no purpose or point in executing people who can be confined so that they will have no greater chance of killing someone in the the future than any person who is free will have a chance of killing someone in the future. If there is no right in killing each and every person who is free to prevent the slight chance that he might someday kill someone, then there is no right in killing any prisoner to prevent the slight chance that he might kill someday someone.

    I remind you that I have just pointed out that every patriotic person who takes actions to extend the period when his country's government will be independent is guilty of trying to cause a political situation which can be expected to cause the deaths of far more people than Euphemia was commanded to kill, even if the geass command was interpreted as meaning to kill all the approximately fifty million to two hundred million Japanese people who might have been alive at the time. If you don't believe that it is right to kill all patriots as a preventive measure how can you believe that it could be right to kill Euphemia, who was commanded against her will to kill a much smaller group of people and after a hypothetical success (or being falsely convinced she had succeeded) would have returned to her kind and gentle self and would no longer have threatened anyone?

    Do you know how many historical characters have been captured by their enemies and then executed or simply killed, despite the fact that confining them would have been just as safe for their enemies? And do you know how many of them might be among my favorite historical characters, and how much I might want to go back in time to save them? Do you know how much I might hate certain historical characters for killing individual persons or countless thousands of persons that they did not need to kill? Do you know how much contempt I have for any arguments which may have been used to justify their killings, a contempt which can only be increased when I see those arguments used to justify the killing of an innocent fictional character?

    What do you mean that WE actually do kill prisoners? Have I written anything which implied that I am in favor of the death penalty?

    I suppose that the end result of these arguments will be that I will be totally opposed to the death penalty before I conquer the world. And thus instead of decreeing the Death of the Thousand Screams and the Death of Ten Thousand Screams and the Death of a Million Screams, etc. etc. for various crimes I will have to merely decree The Penalty of a Thousand Screams, the Penalty of Ten Thousand Screams, the Penalty of a Million Screams, etc. etc. Fortunately most people are foolish enough to be more afraid of pain than death, anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    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).
    Why do you write that the Japanese people wanted peace, implying that they did not already have peace? Their land was at peace. There was no war or civil war. There were a few acts of rebellion, a few actions of guerrilla war, and a few acts of terrorism,and the Britannian government responded to those attacks with brutal suppression and even occasional massacres. But it was infinitely more peaceful than the month of war during the Britannian invasion had been.

    What evidence do you have that Euphemia did not understand the issues as much as Cornelia, or Lelouch did? Whey do you assume that Euphemia was a sheltered princess who had merely a basic understanding of the situation? I remind you that in episode 23 Suzaku called Lelouch on Euphemia's cell phone, so Euphemia had a way to contact various people. Do you assume that the palace doesn't have television and doesn't get news programs and documentaries and doesn't have computers linked to some form of internet? Do you assume that the palace doesn't have a library of books and magazines and newspapers?

    It is true that on her deathbed Euphemia asked Suazku to go back to school, meaning high school, and said that she had never finished school, possibly also meaning high school. But in episode 22 there was a mention on a news program of the high school which Euphemia graduated from, if I remember correctly, possibly indicating that Euphemia had graduated from high school and had been unable to finish some other type of school.

    You say that Euphemia never left the palace until she was half way through her teens. Yet she was said to have attended a high school. And in another post you say that she never left Pendragon until she came to Japan in episode 5. But someone could learn a lot about politics and related subjects in Washington DC, Moscow, Bejing, etc., and also in Pendragon.

    And just how sheltered can someone be if when they are nine one of their father's wives who they like is murdered, and then their two favorite siblings are reported killed?

    Lelouch and Nunnally were just as sheltered as Euphemia except for when they were hostages and later when they were on the run during the Britannian invasion, a period of perhaps a few months. Then, except for Nunnally's blindness and paralysis they lead the life of wealthy, sheltered, Britannian students. Lelouch was only a year older than Euphemia and skipped school a lot, so he might not have been as well educated as she was. I doubt that the time he spent gambling on chess games prepared him very well for understanding politics or Japanese public opinion. And there is very little evidence that he spent much time with Japanese people until the series started, and so he might not have been much more in touch with Japanese feelings, except those of the small minority who were active rebels, than Euphemia.

    Kallen was a wealthy, sheltered Britannian girl except when she went out at night to be with a group of Japanese rebels. She neglected her school work even more than Lelouch and may have been less well educated than Euphemia. And until her half brother was killed she might have thought of herself as Britannian and not spent much time with Japanese people learning how they felt. And the ones she did hang out with were dedicated rebels who represented one end of the spectrum of beliefs.

    Suzaku, son of a Prime Minister, probably led a sheltered life until the Britannian invasion. There is little evidence how soon his life returned to being sheltered after the invasions. Apparently he went to live with some relatives and perhaps spent some time in a school to prepare Japanese youths to become honorary Britannians, depending on when he made his decision. I believe he entered the army soon before the series started and thus had been subjected to presumably harsh Britannian military discipline for a comparatively short period before becoming the Lancelot's pilot and soon rising to officer rank.

    Suzaku would have spent more of the last seven years among Japanese people than Euphemia, Lelouch, Nunnally, or Kallen. But it is possible that he spent some months or years in a special school for Japanese boys who wished to join the Britannian army and become honorary Britannians, and thus he may not have been in close contact with the mainstream of Japanese public opinion. Suzaku had not been to school for sometime when Euphemia arranged for him to go to Ashford Academy. If Euphemia had graduated from a high school as episode 22 indicated and/or made the best of the educational opportunities available in Pendragon for a Britannian princess she might have been better educated than Suzaku.

    Thus your opinion that Euphemia was much more sheltered, much less educated, and much less in tune with Japanese opinion that the major characters Lelouch, Suzaku, Nunnally, and Kallen is not very strongly supported by the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    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).
    So you claim that only a anti-hero or Byronic hero can struggle with things that the audience can relate to? Anger, confusion, self-hatred, self-destructive, struggling with integrity? Do you believe that a good person who never does a single major evil deed like killing someone he obviously does not have to, or ordering a massacre, never struggles with things like anger, confusion, self-hatred, self-destruction, integrity?

    The more a person struggles with such things, the less likely he is to do something major evil. Thus the more good a person is, and the less like a anti-hero or a Byronic hero, the more internal struggles he has. The internal struggles keep him from doing evil and from becoming an anti-hero or Byronic hero or a villain.

    For a literary example, Horatio Hornblower, a fictional character who is usually considered to be much more of a hero than an anti-hero or Byronic hero or a villain, is said to be constantly tormented by self doubt and feelings of worthlessness. And in episode 20 Euphemia talks with Nina and realizes that like Nina, she hates herself and resolves to try not to. She declares her love for Suzaku and decides that war and politics are not for her.

    So you say that audiences can only identify with, and thus like, characters who are similar to themselves. You assume that audiences can never bond with characters and like characters because they are different and more admirable than the audience. And thus you claim that audiences can not care for Euphemia very much.

    I remind you that Euphemia is a teenage girl and similar in many ways to a typical teenage girl. Her main distinguishing characteristics are that she is much more innocent and good and heroic than most people and that she probably has a lot more "Anger, confusion, self-hatred, self-destructive, struggling with integrity" than even the average teenager. It is her internal conflicts which help keep her so good and innocent. Thus if people can identify with the internal conflicts of ant-heroes, Byronic heroes, and villains, they can identify with the internal conflicts of good and decent people like Euphemia. Exceptionally good people like Euphemia are so good largely because they have more internal conflicts than average people who in tern are better and do fewer evil deeds than anti-heroes, Byronic heroes and villains because they have more internal conflicts than anti-heroes, Byronic heroes, and villains.

    Only poor and cliched writing leads many people to assume that anti-heroes, Byronic heroes, and villains have more internal conflicts than average people and that average people have more internal conflicts than exceptionally good people. Actually it is having fewer internal conflicts that permits anti-heroes, Byronic heroes, and villains to do what other people consider forbidden and evil.

    So teenage girls should be able to identify with Euphemia for the ways she is like a reasonably average teenage girl and all people (except for anti-heroes, Byronic heroes, and villains, because they don't have many internal struggles) should be able to identify with Euphemia because of her internal conflicts and struggles with "anger, confusion, self-hatred, self-destructive, struggling with integrity."

    As you read above, I consider all patriotic people to be evil. And thus I consider everyone I know to be evil and have internal struggles over whether it is right to love them. And thus I identify with Euphemia who probably believes that everyone she knows is evil and probably has internal struggles over whether it is right to love them..


    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    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).
    NO, I don't expect a clearly evil side in any fictional story conflict (which can sometimes be as minor as a child trying to sneak cookies out of a jar without being caught)(and yes, a really, really, really, great writer could probably find a way to write a masterpiece about a conflict as minor as that).

    I don't care how good or how evil characters the audience does not relate to are. I have no minimum or maximum standards for characters the audience does not care for and identify with. The antagonists can be much better than the protagonists for all I care, and the turning point of a story could be the protagonists realizing that and joining what they now realize is the better side.

    I don't mind if antagonists are wonderfully good. In fact, in code geass, if Lelouch is the protagonist, someone as wonderfully good as Euphemia is one of the antagonists for a few episodes (while also being the closest thing to a hero in the entire show.)

    Or the antagonists could be as evil as Human imagination can imagine them to be. Or anywhere in between.

    And the same for all other characters.

    I don't care how good or evil characters that the audience likes and cares for are, either. At Least up to a point. Protagonists and other characters the audience cares for can do all kinds of minor or medium evil things.

    A school bully can join the army as a drummer boy or something and become a noble hero willing to sacrifice himself for his cause while still being evil enough to be a bully.

    A minor hoodlum can risk his life to save a stranger and then find that all the media attention he gets for his heroism makes it hard for him to commit any more crimes in secret and gets him in trouble with his gang who believe he is not pulling his weight anymore.

    An embezzler can hear that the relief effort in a famine-stricken area desperately needs millions more dollars to keep hundreds of thousands of people alive, and in a fit of compassion divert his ill-gotten gains to the relief organizations knowing that he doesn't have time to prepare a careful money-laundering scheme and the money will be traced and he will be exposed and sent to prison.

    A man who cheats on his wife can get elected to public office and make reforms that improve (and possibly save) countless lives while still cheating on his wife.

    A nasty, cruel, bitter, unbearable scientist who makes life miserable for everyone who works with him can lead the team which finds a cure for the extra-terrestrial disease threatening to wipe out humanity.

    And so on and so on.

    But I draw the line at letting the audience like and care for characters who do even one major devil deed. That seems so warped and perverted and disgusting to me that it makes me feel like puking.

    I can't stand it if any characters that the writers expect that the audience will feel sympathy for and liking for and identify with and care about and want to see succeed and be happy commit even one major evil deed. I define a major evil deed as killing at least one person when it is clear that there is no necessity to do so.

    It was once estimated that the average American sees abut twenty thousand fictional murders on television by adulthood. And it was worried that seeing all those murders would desensitize the viewers to violence.

    I do not see how anything good can come of making the audience like and identify with characters, such as protagonists, and then showing those characters killing people in a situation where they clearly do not have any need to kill, and having the audience continue to care for those characters.

    That seems to me to be saying to the audience that it is still possible to like and admire and care for someone even after he has committed the "minor error" of killing someone he clearly did not have to kill. In real life people often do not instantly shut off all their love for someone they have known for along time when that person is revealed to be a murderer. But I see no benefit, and a lot of harm, in stories and shows in which a fictional character the viewers have known for only about a dozen hours kills someone he clearly does not have to kill and the viewers are not forced to instantly see that he is evil and undeserving of any love or interest from them, but are instead encouraged to continue to be interested in and care for that character.

    and what do you mean that in in Code Geass the point is:

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    noticing that the best of intentions can have evil in them.
    Euphemia was the only character in the show who had the best intentions or even good intentions. All the other characters had bad intentions, because fighting for any cause, no matter how much you believe that it is holy and noble and vital for the salvation of all that is good and decent, is evil unless you resolve to never do anything evil you can possibly avoid and never kill anyone you clearly and obviously don't have to and try to keep the bad effects of your noble quest to a minimum. Only Euphemia tried to do so, therefore all the other characters had bad intentions, no matter how good they believed their goals were. People who think that they are trying to save the world and therefore do not have to care about how much death and destruction they cause have bad intentions.

    So Euphemia was the only character who had good intentions. So where was the evil in Euphemia's good intentions?
    Last edited by proEuphie; 05-02-2010 at 12:39 AM.

  8. #383
    Great Witch of Britannia wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90's Avatar
    Gil
    37,489.92
    Gender
    My Mood
    Wicked
    Gifts Eva Penpen Wolf Full Moon
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-21-2014 04:53 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, United States
    Age
    24
    Threads
    47
    Posts
    2,029
    Rep Power
    2243
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: DisturbedWiccan PSN ID: Wolfdragon63 Steam ID: Wolfgirl90

    Default

    What the...how are you going to ask me to read one of your latest posts but then pull this one out of your butt, quoting a post I made THREE WEEKS AGO!?!?!

    Yeah, I didn't read any of that. I hope you like typing.

    Now I know you are trying to get an argument out of me. Desperate for a rant from the wolf, are we? Not happening. I know your position. I JUST gave you mine AGAIN (since you have clearly forgotten), so like hell am I going to give you a nice long post about the one you made from a three week old post of mine.
    This is my war face.

    This is what happens to trolls who mess with me.

  9. #384
    桜流し
    AnimeLyrics Submitter Lv 2
    Rei has a reputation beyond repute Rei has a reputation beyond repute Rei has a reputation beyond repute Rei has a reputation beyond repute Rei has a reputation beyond repute Rei has a reputation beyond repute Rei has a reputation beyond repute Rei has a reputation beyond repute Rei has a reputation beyond repute Rei has a reputation beyond repute Rei has a reputation beyond repute Rei's Avatar
    Gil
    27,959.78
    Gender
    My Mood
    Psychadelic
    Gifts Hello Kitty Neko Tv Bonsai Tree
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    02-23-2015 11:20 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Age
    22
    Threads
    97
    Posts
    2,696
    Blog Entries
    115
    AL Lyrics
    2519
    Rep Power
    1734
    Gamer IDs

    Steam ID: aozorapen

    Default

    Best thing: Don't give her any more posts. Ah God. Then you don't have to read any of it.

    It's obvious she likes typing.

    ^Looks up. And yes, it is sad.
    Last edited by Rei; 04-30-2010 at 04:35 AM.


    「そんな顔をしないで。また会えるよ、シンジ君」
    ---

    もう二度と会えないなんて信じられない
    まだ何も伝えてない
    まだ何も伝えてない


    I'm sorry (not) sorry.

  10. #385
    Senior Member proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie's Avatar
    Gil
    9,537.87
    Gender
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-26-2010 01:10 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    someplace
    Threads
    19
    Posts
    464
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post

    Again with the petty insults
    Why you gotta be hatin me
    If I was hatin you my insults would not be the type to seem petty to you, would they? I don't think it is very insulting when someone on the other side of a disagreement or argument says that you might be misguided about some things. It is hard to disagree with someone without considering him misguided about the matter in question.


    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    Possibly
    Actually I would want a psycho
    Someone who can easily be made to do stupid things and lose all control
    So you would rather have your people face an enemy controlled by a leader who would lash out impulsively and destructively and be defeated sooner than have your people face an enemy controlled by a leader who would kindly try to kill as few of your people as possible? Does that mean you consider winning more important than keeping the casualties to a minimum?

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    Not my side
    If I was in a war I would want the person who could win
    And why do you think that winning results from fighting the war without any restraints on killing? I ways thought it had more to do with selecting the best strategy. And it would certainly be better for the world as a whole if both sides were lead by people who wanted to keep the killing and destruction down to a minimum.

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    So Euphemia fighting for her cause was wrong?
    That you for misunderstanding what I wrote. I think I wrote that being willing to do anything for your cause was evil.

    I did not mean that nobody should ever be willing to anything, no matter how small, to fight for his side,and thus that everyone must always do absolutely nothing for fight for any cause, especially in war. Although most of the causes that most people have fought for in most wars were so evil that nobody should ever have lifted a finger for them, let alone risked his life and tired to kill other people.

    What I should have wrote was something like:

    "People who fight for a cause can be good, if the cause is a good one. But nobody who fights for any cause, no matter how great and noble he believes his cause is, can be good if he is willing to do anything, no matter how evil, for his cause. There must be things which he considers to be too evil to do for even the holiest and best of causes.

    Everyone who thinks that because his cause is so good he can do anything, no matter how violent and destructive, for that cause and remain good is wrong. There are deeds which make anyone evil, no matter how holy and noble the cause he commits them for."

    So I thank you for misunderstanding and helping me to express my meaning more clearly.

    And then I wrote that Euphemia was the only Code Geass character who didn't needlessly risk peoples's lives with no justification. and you responded:

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    Which Euphemia did
    By bringing all of them together she risked all of their lives (Charles could easily have set a trap for Lelouch there)
    You assume that Euphemia made all the arrangements for the opening ceremony? Don't you think that Cornelia and others had a lot to say? Euphemia knew that Cornelia set traps for Zero before (in "Attack Cornelia"). So she probably got Cornelia to promise that all the troops were being stationed at the stadium only to keep the peace and protect Euphie. She probably got Cornelia to publicly grant a safe conduct to Zero.

    Who would have expected Zero to show up unless Cornelia had given a public promise of safe conduct several days ago and the Emperor had not publicly revoked it despite having ample time to do so? Wouldn't Euphemia ask Cornelia at least once a day if the Emperor had either agreed to the safe conduct or revoked it? Wouldn't Euphemia call off the opening if she suspected anyone was laying a trap for Zero/Lelouch?

    Your suggestion certainly sounds like blaming one of the victims for what happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    So you would prefer the evil dictatorship of a conquering nation?
    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    no
    There have been many governments over the years that have had lots of power but still kept a lot of freedom

    So the systematic oppression of the Japanese, the stripping of their pride by taking away even their identity as a country and the systematic slaughtering of civilians confined to slums was supposedly keeping them free?

    not even close
    what proof do you have that the original government was bad?
    or worse then the brittanians?
    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    lol
    she wanted to restore the Japanese government
    Essentially give Zero exactly what he wanted (Zero being different from Lelouchs goals of revenge here)
    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    like when she procrastinated about sending out Suzaku?
    Tell me how many soldiers died in that time?
    IF she sent him out earlier how many could she have saved?

    think about it
    a military leader needs to not only think about his troops
    but also be decisive
    Hesitations in war cost lives
    Hesitation in battle can cost lives -- especially by a front line soldier. But disregarding the safety of civilians can cost lives, and Euphemia was the only character who was ever shown resisting the temptation to ignore the safety of civilians in battle. And she was strongly tempted to save her sister by taking a rather slight and hypothetical risk of civilian lives and still refused.

    But in that scene Euphemia only hesitated for a few seconds to send in Suzaku. Lloyd and Cecily and Suzaku called and made their offer and Euphemia's officers gave their rather silly objections to using Suzaku in a few sentences which took ten or twenty seconds to say and then Euphemia ordered Suzaku sent in and he zoomed up the trail of the landslide and saved Cornelia and then the Britannians from the other side of the mountain were getting too close and Lelouch ordered a retreat.

    So how many people do you imagine survived the landslide and then were killed by the Black Knights during the few seconds while Euphemia hesitated and/or listened to all the views available? Some people might say that Euphie hesitated too long, others that she decided too fast, and others that she decided at the correct time.

    Or do you believe that Euphemia should have sent in Suzaku in the minutes or seconds (because of cutting from scene to scene we cannot tell how much time elapsed on the G1) between the landslide and the start of the scene where she discussed her options?

    If so, for you it is not enough that when Euphemia was unexpectedly and unwillingly thrust into command she chose the option which resulted in Suzaku kicking the butt of the enemy leader who had just outwitted Cornelia, Britannia's most brilliant general, and thus that Euphie saved a number of lives and gave Britannia a face-saving excuse to call the Battle at Narita a victory instead of a defeat. No, you are not satisfied unless Euphie is such a great military leader that she instantly remembers the presence of Suzaku and the Lancelot and immediately decides to send them into battle.

    Or do you believe that Euphemia should have sent in Suzaku before the landslide happened? Which was:
    1) When the battle seemed to be going well for Britannia.
    2) When there seemed to be no need to risk the life of a boy she was attracted to.
    3) When she would have been exceeding her authority (she was providing logistical support and in command of the medical unit as far as we know).
    4) When she -- with no previous combat experience -- would be criticizing the plans of the commander-in-chief of the Britannian army by implying the forces Cornelia had deployed were not enough.
    5) And when it might have put Suzaku in the path of the landslide and got him killed and prevented him from saving the day.

    But when it is a matter of mere seconds, it seems pointless to quibble about when she made up her mind. When an unexpected disaster puts someone in command who is offered several options and chooses one of them and using that option restores the fortunes of their side as well as is possible, that person unexpectedly thrust into command is usually considered to have made a good decision and to have been a successful commander and even the (command-level) hero of the battle.

    I is rather odd for you to suggest that Euphemia was some kind of menace on the battlefield because her momentary hesitation at Narita might possibly have cost a few lives, when she was the only commander in the entire series who ever displayed sufficient respect for the lives of non combatants. All the others showed a callous disregard for human life, culminating in the use of F.R.E.I.J.A. in the second season to slaughter tens of millions of people.

    I wrote in my post # 358 that if the beastmen wee massared in Guerren largen they could have been defeated without being massacred. (see also my post # 389 below)

    "No it wasn't. By definition, if they massacred the beastmen they had the power to not massacre them, to defeat them without massacring them. Thus they could have freed Humanity without massacring the beastmen and thus massacring the beastmen was an evil mass murder without any reason. No cause, however good, can ever justify unnecessary violence such as massacres."

    Andy you replied in post # 361:

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    How?
    I don't know how because I didn't watch the show. But when you wrote that the beast men were massacred you wrote that killing them was not necessary to defeat them.

    let me quote a few definitions of the word massacre:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/massacre
    massacre
    - 3 dictionary results

    mas•sa•cre
       Show Spelled [mas-uh-ker] Show IPA noun, verb,-cred, -cring.
    –noun
    1.
    the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
    2.
    a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
    3.
    Informal. a crushing defeat, esp. in sports.
    –verb (used with object)
    4.
    to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.
    5.
    Informal. to defeat decisively, esp. in sports.
    Use massacre in a Sentence
    See images of massacre
    Search massacre on the Web
    ________________________________________
    Origin:
    1575–85; (n.) < MF massacre, n. deriv. of massacrer, OF maçacrer, macecler, prob. < VL *matteūcculāre, v. deriv. of *matteūca mallet (see mashie, mace1); (v.) < MF massacrer

    —Related forms
    mas•sa•crer  Show Spelled[mas-uh-krer] Show IPA, noun
    un•mas•sa•cred, adjective

    —Synonyms
    1, 2. carnage, extermination, butchery, genocide. 4. slay. See slaughter.
    Dictionary.com Unabridged
    Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
    Cite This Source
    |
    Link To massacre
    Explore the Visual Thesaurus »
    Related Words for : massacre
    butchery, carnage, mass murder, slaughter, mow down
    View more related words »

    massacre
    1580s, from M.Fr. massacre "wholesale slaughter, carnage," from O.Fr. macacre, macecle "slaughterhouse, butchery," perhaps from L. macellum "provisions store, butcher shop." The noun is attested from 1580s. Related: Massacred.
    Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
    Cite This Source
    mas•sa•cre (mās'ə-kər)
    n.
    1. The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly.
    2. The slaughter of a large number of animals.
    3. Informal A severe defeat, as in a sports event.
    tr.v. mas•sa•cred (-kərd), mas•sa•cring (-krĭng, -kər-ĭng), mas•sa•cres

    1. To kill indiscriminately and wantonly; slaughter.
    2. Informal To defeat decisively.
    3. Informal To botch; bungle: massacred the French language trying to order dinner.

    [French, from Old French macecle, macecre, butchery, shambles.]
    mas'sa•crer (-kər-ər, -krər) n.
    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
    Cite This Source


    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/massacre
    Noun
    Singular
    massacre Plural
    massacres

    massacre (plural massacres)
    1. The intentional killing of a considerable number of human beings, under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people.
    the massacre on St. Bartholomew's Day
    St. Valentine's Day massacre
    Amritsar massacre
    the w:Wounded Knee massacre
    2. (obsolete) Murder.
    o 1593, William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Richard the Third
    The tyrannous and bloody act is done,—
    The most arch deed of piteous massacre
    That ever yet this land was guilty of.
    [edit] Synonyms
    • butchery, carnage
    Massacre denotes the promiscuous slaughter of many who can not make resistance, or much resistance.
    o 1592, William Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus, I,v
    I'll find a day to massacre them all, And raze their faction and their family
    Butchery refers to cold-blooded cruelty in the killing of men as if they were brute beasts.
    o 1593, William Shakespeare, Richard III, I,ii
    If thou delight to view thy heinous deeds, Behold this pattern of thy butcheries
    Carnage points to slaughter as producing the heaped-up bodies of the slain.
    o 1674, John Milton, Paradise Lost
    Such a scent I draw Of carnage, prey innumerable!

    [edit] Verb
    Infinitive
    to massacre Third person singular
    massacres
    Simple past
    massacred
    Past participle
    massacred
    Present participle
    massacring

    to massacre (third-person singular simple present massacres, present participle massacring, simple past and past participle massacred)
    1. (transitive) To kill in considerable numbers where much resistance can not be made; to kill with indiscriminate violence, without necessity, and contrary to the usages of nations; to butcher; to slaughter - limited to the killing of human beings.
    o 1849, Thomas Babington Macaulay, The History Of England From the Accession of James II
    If James should be pleased to massacre them all, as Maximilian had massacred the Theban Legion

    You wrote that the beast men were massacred and thus you wrote that it was not necessary to kill them to defeat them. If you can massacre people, slaughter unnecessarily people who can made little or no resistance, you already have military superiority and are already in a position to make them do what you want. You chose, presumably because it seemed toke the best word, to use the word which says that it was not necessary to kill the beast men.

    (see also my post # 389 below)


    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    Which I beleive you have claimed is never
    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    Generally the bad guys

    Try Azrael from Gundam Seed
    Last edited by proEuphie; 05-03-2010 at 12:15 AM.

  11. #386
    Senior Member blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight has a reputation beyond repute blackrosetwilight's Avatar
    Gil
    15,718.21
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    02-01-2014 02:53 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    I live some where in Michigan and thats all Im telling
    Age
    25
    Threads
    44
    Posts
    783
    Rep Power
    241

    Default

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... so who's been reading these post lately?

  12. #387
    Great Witch of Britannia wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90's Avatar
    Gil
    37,489.92
    Gender
    My Mood
    Wicked
    Gifts Eva Penpen Wolf Full Moon
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-21-2014 04:53 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, United States
    Age
    24
    Threads
    47
    Posts
    2,029
    Rep Power
    2243
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: DisturbedWiccan PSN ID: Wolfdragon63 Steam ID: Wolfgirl90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackrosetwilight View Post
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... so who's been reading these post lately?
    Not me. I skipped the last two proEuphie put up, since it was obvious that she was begging for a rant from me...or someone. Not sure what she's trying to do now.

    I skimmed the last one and decided to skip that one too, considering proEuphie decided to counter MangaFanGuy's use of the word "massacre", even though HER OWN SOURCES back him up.

    This is my war face.

    This is what happens to trolls who mess with me.

  13. #388
    Member RaNdOmNaMe has a reputation beyond repute RaNdOmNaMe has a reputation beyond repute RaNdOmNaMe has a reputation beyond repute RaNdOmNaMe has a reputation beyond repute RaNdOmNaMe has a reputation beyond repute RaNdOmNaMe has a reputation beyond repute RaNdOmNaMe has a reputation beyond repute RaNdOmNaMe has a reputation beyond repute RaNdOmNaMe has a reputation beyond repute RaNdOmNaMe has a reputation beyond repute RaNdOmNaMe has a reputation beyond repute RaNdOmNaMe's Avatar
    Gil
    878.87
    Gender
    My Mood
    Bookworm
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    05-18-2011 12:08 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    MLIA PARADISE
    Threads
    2
    Posts
    45
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    well i dont think euphies killing was cruel. well ya it was bloddy and gory but it wasnt really her fault. not leleouch's fault either. just that the geass went out of control, and leleouch had to kill her otherwise everyoned be dead. i feel sorry for both euphie and lelouch tho. they both liked eaach other nad it had to end like that
    DO NOT THROW SOULS.

    Being Meguca is suffering...


  14. #389
    Senior Member proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie's Avatar
    Gil
    9,537.87
    Gender
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-26-2010 01:10 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    someplace
    Threads
    19
    Posts
    464
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    Not me...I skimmed the last one and decided to skip that one too, considering proEuphie decided to counter MangaFanGuy's use of the word "massacre", even though HER OWN SOURCES back him up.
    You skimmed post # 385 too rapidly if you assumed that I was somehow arguing against my own point.

    In post # 321 on page 13 MangaFanGuy said:

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    He is still a hero....
    ......but then Euphemia killed civilians
    and yet you can find all kinds of excuses for her
    And in post # 333 on page 14 I replied:

    Annakin Skywalker in the Clone Wars series ....

    .....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?

    In post # 335 on page 14 MangaFanGuy replied:

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    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)
    And in post # 358 on page 15 I replied:

    No it wasn't. By definition, if they massacred the beastmen they had the power to not massacre them, to defeat them without massacring them. Thus they could have freed Humanity without massacring the beastmen and thus massacring the beastmen was an evil mass murder without any reason. No cause, however good, can ever justify unnecessary violence such as massacres.

    Euphemia's massacre at Fuji was totally unnecessary. But she believed that it was somehow necessary, like those who ordered thousands of other massacres. But unlike other real or fictional people who ordered massacres, Euphemia did not come to believe it was necessary by accepting the evil ideas of her society, or by rejecting the good ideas of her society, or by listening to someone who appealed to her darker emotions, or reading an evil political essay, or any of the other ways which other people come to accept evil ideas at least partially of their own free will. Instead she was given a supernatural command to order a massacre against her wishes which she resisted as much as she could. Thus she has a much better excuse than the characters you mention.

    IN post # 361 on page 15 MangaFanGuy quoted my "No it wasn't. By definition, if they massacred the beastmen they had the power to not massacre them, to defeat them without massacring them." and replied:

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    How?
    And I wrote in my post # 385 on page 16 :

    I don't know how because I didn't watch the show. But when you wrote that the beast men were massacred you wrote that killing them was not necessary to defeat them.

    And then I quoted dictionary definitions of the word massacre, to make the point that MangaFanGuy had proven himself wrong by choosing to use the word "massacre" as a correct description of what was done to the beastmen.

    In my post # 376 at the top of page 16 I write:

    Some people say that Lelouch killed Euphie to:

    1) Protect the Japanese people or a bunch of them from being killed by Euphemia.

    And protecting people from being killed by person A can be a good and sufficient and valid reason to kill person A under some circumstances.

    But no reason, no matter how holy, or noble, or strong, or compelling, for killing people or even a single person can ever be a sufficient justification unless:
    A) Killing that person or persons is the only way to achieve the goal or purpose used as a justification for killing.
    OR
    B) Achieving the goal or purpose in question without killing would:
    1) be too difficult.
    2) Be too slow.
    3) Be too dangerous for the person(s) making the decision and/or for one or more persons that they want or have to protect.

    C) And of course no justification for killing one or more persons can ever be valid or right unless it is sufficiently good. Of course killing a person or persons to save other persons can sometimes be good, according to some system of ethics, so it is possible that killing Euphemia might be justified by Condition C.

    But being justified by Condition C would not be sufficient to justify killing someone unless it was ALSO justified by Condition A, or Condition B1, or Condition B2, or Condition B3.

    And then I continued to demonstrate that killing Euphemia did not satisfy Condition A, Condition B1, Condition B2, or Condition B3.

    The definitions of massacre which I quoted have expressions such as "unnecessary slaughter" "excessive killing" etc.,etc. Thus by definition all massacres do not satisfy condition A because they are not the only way to achieve the goal of those who massacre but are excessive or unnecessary killings. (Unless of course, the killing of the people being massacred is the vile and evil goal of those who massacre).

    And definitions of massacres say that those massacred are only able to make a little or even no resistance, that they are mostly helpless. Thus people who are massacred are people who have already been defeated and are already militarily helpless and harmless and cannot do anything to hinder those who massacre them from achieving their goals.

    Thus not massacring the beastmen would not have made achieving the goals of those who massacred them too difficult, slow, or dangerous. Thus massacring the beastmen does not satisfy Condition B1, Condition B2, or condition B3. Thus the goal of those who massacred the beastmen does not excuse or justify massacring them, since the definition of massacre shows that the massacre was unnecessary to achieve that goal.

    I have not seen the show and thus it is possible that killing all of the beastmen was justified or excusable. But if MangaFanGuy was correct to say that they were massacred then the massacre was neither excused nor justified by the goals of those who massacred them. Because the definitions of the word massacre stress unnecessary killing and useless slaughter.

    But Euphemia still has the best excuse any fictional character ever had for ordering a massacre: the geass made her do it. Thus she has to be found not guilty by reason of a geass command.
    Last edited by proEuphie; 05-02-2010 at 09:51 PM.

  15. #390
    Great Witch of Britannia wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90's Avatar
    Gil
    37,489.92
    Gender
    My Mood
    Wicked
    Gifts Eva Penpen Wolf Full Moon
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-21-2014 04:53 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, United States
    Age
    24
    Threads
    47
    Posts
    2,029
    Rep Power
    2243
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: DisturbedWiccan PSN ID: Wolfdragon63 Steam ID: Wolfgirl90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proEuphie View Post
    You skimmed post # 385 too rapidly if you assumed that I was somehow arguing against my own point.
    I didn't say that you were arguing your own point (just that your point is unfounded). What I said was that you were contesting him, but your own sources back him up. The word "massacre" is used in more ways than to just mean "unnecessary killing of people". Plenty of your own definitions say that. "Indiscriminate", "wanton", "slaughter". These are all words used in YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS. So, your argument holds no ground (as if ANY of your arguments ever do).

    Also, I know you changed your post since you first posted it. You do know that each time you edit, I can see both the time AND date in which you do so? You can hardly accuse me of skimming your posts too fast when you keep changing them.

    And again, I already gave you a position on this matter. If you would like to argue THAT, feel free to do so. However, don't be surprised if I skim through posts you made based on other posts people made a long time ago.


    If you still don't want your own thread back on track...well, you see why people call you a troll, right?

    This is my war face.

    This is what happens to trolls who mess with me.

  16. #391
    Senior Member proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie's Avatar
    Gil
    9,537.87
    Gender
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-26-2010 01:10 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    someplace
    Threads
    19
    Posts
    464
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaNdOmNaMe View Post
    well i dont think euphies killing was cruel. well ya it was bloddy and gory but it wasnt really her fault. not leleouch's fault either. just that the geass went out of control, and leleouch had to kill her otherwise everyoned be dead. i feel sorry for both euphie and lelouch tho. they both liked eaach other nad it had to end like that
    My point for more than a year was that Lelouch did not have to kill Euphemia to save everybody or even a single person. Please read my posts # 376 and 382 on page 16 of this thread.
    Last edited by proEuphie; 05-02-2010 at 10:21 PM.

  17. #392
    Great Witch of Britannia wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90's Avatar
    Gil
    37,489.92
    Gender
    My Mood
    Wicked
    Gifts Eva Penpen Wolf Full Moon
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-21-2014 04:53 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, United States
    Age
    24
    Threads
    47
    Posts
    2,029
    Rep Power
    2243
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: DisturbedWiccan PSN ID: Wolfdragon63 Steam ID: Wolfgirl90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proEuphie View Post
    My point for more than a year was that Lelouch did not have to kill Euhpemia to save everybody or even a single person. Please read my posts # 376 and 382 on page 16 of this thread.
    You didn't read her post did you? She said nothing about whether Euphemia "had" to die or not.

    You need to cover up; your idiocy is showing.
    This is my war face.

    This is what happens to trolls who mess with me.

  18. #393
    Senior Member MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy's Avatar
    Gil
    6,170.72
    Gender
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    07-03-2010 10:07 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Age
    26
    Threads
    3
    Posts
    308
    Rep Power
    428

    Default

    I don't think it is very insulting when someone on the other side of a disagreement or argument says that you might be misguided about some things.
    but it does have the effect of seeming arrogant
    Almost as if you consider the others persons arguments below you
    and that is insulting
    So you would rather have your people face an enemy controlled by a leader who would lash out impulsively and destructively and be defeated sooner than have your people face an enemy controlled by a leader who would kindly try to kill as few of your people as possible?
    Yep
    Does that mean you consider winning more important than keeping the casualties to a minimum?
    That is not what I said
    but if the commander is indecisive and weak then they are more likely to get people killed
    They will need to give up many strategic advantages for the sake of their principles
    Where two psychos leading could destroy themselves in a short while
    Two weak sissies could see a war drag on for ages because neither one has the intestinal fortitude to take the risk of casualties and gain the strategic superiority which could see the war come to an end

    You don't win wars large scale wars without casulaties
    And why do you think that winning results from fighting the war without any restraints on killing?
    Did I say that?
    I said I wanted the person who could win
    I do strongly believe war must be regulated to prevent atrocities
    but I don't think hamstringing tactical advantage for the sake of ideals is the right way to do it
    Fight and fight with dignity and honor but be prepared for casualties (Both Soldiers and Civilians)
    I think I wrote that being willing to do anything for your cause was evil.
    So Euphemia didn't believe whole heartedly in her cause?
    So then she is just a Hypocrite is she not?
    You assume that Euphemia made all the arrangements for the opening ceremony?
    considering it was her plan
    yeah that is probably a safe assumption for me
    Your suggestion certainly sounds like blaming one of the victims for what happened.
    no it was merely a hypothetical
    And lets look at it
    1/Charles would have had no qualms about just detroying them all (Cornelia and Euphie included) simply by ordering a general attack on the stadium so all your talk about amnesties and safe passages is moot to the point of Charles blatant a-holeism
    2/It was EUPHIES plan which brought the japanese to the place where they were sitting ducks
    et me quote a few definitions of the word massacre
    and your point is?
    Unlike other characters on the show, it took a supernatural command to force her to kill civilians.
    So?
    It took a mental breakdown and the insidious influence of the dark side (Aka Supernatural command) for him to kill innocents (Annikin)
    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 this makes it better?
    How is this anything other then just sadistic
    "Kill yourself or I will kill you"
    so it seems probable she defeated her undefeatable geass command.
    mere speculation
    Last edited by MangaFanGuy; 05-02-2010 at 08:33 PM.

  19. #394
    Great Witch of Britannia wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90's Avatar
    Gil
    37,489.92
    Gender
    My Mood
    Wicked
    Gifts Eva Penpen Wolf Full Moon
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-21-2014 04:53 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, United States
    Age
    24
    Threads
    47
    Posts
    2,029
    Rep Power
    2243
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: DisturbedWiccan PSN ID: Wolfdragon63 Steam ID: Wolfgirl90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    That is not what I said
    but if the commander is indecisive and weak then they are more likely to get people killed
    They will need to give up many strategic advantages for the sake of their principles
    Where two psychos leading could destroy themselves in a short while
    Two weak sissies could see a war drag on for ages because neither one has the intestinal fortitude to take the risk of casualties and gain the strategic superiority which could see the war come to an end

    You don't win wars large scale wars without casulaties
    Which is something I have to wholeheartedly agree with.

    Pacifists do not belong in the military. Plain and simple. In fact, one of the first things that the military will ask you is if you are against the idea of war, whether through religion or personal morals and ethics. If you say that you are, you are not qualified to serve (yes, the military bars conscientious objectors from serving). The needs of the military come before you own personal needs; if this is something that you can't do, don't join.

    I would raise an eyebrow if the leader I was fighting against was a "pacifist" and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be lead by a pacifist because I do not know how they will react. Again, they could be like Relena and decide that attacking is necessary or Marina who would rather die. Or be like Euphemia and lock up. If I am fighting, I want to be lead by someone who is prepared to fight, NOT someone who not only doesn't want to, but is against the very idea.

    Euphemia may have participated in the Battle of Narita, but what she did could hardly be called great leadership or proof that she should lead the world (
     
    while this is ultimately what Euphemia did in Nightmare of Nunnally, she had more leadership and military experience
    ). The battle ended in a Pyrrhic victory despite Euphemia's presence (that is something nobody should be proud of) and the ONLY other conflict she was ever in was the Orange Skirmish and even then, she arrived right at the end and issued only one order: stand down. Hardly general material.
    This is my war face.

    This is what happens to trolls who mess with me.

  20. #395
    Senior Member MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy's Avatar
    Gil
    6,170.72
    Gender
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    07-03-2010 10:07 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Age
    26
    Threads
    3
    Posts
    308
    Rep Power
    428

    Default

    If you say that you are, you are not qualified to serve
    Or at minimum cannot serve in a combat role
    Would a military not be able to use pacifists for Supply/Administration and support roles that don't actually involve combat?

    I think Pacifists can be in the military but never soldiers and certainly not leaders

  21. #396
    Senior Member proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie's Avatar
    Gil
    9,537.87
    Gender
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-26-2010 01:10 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    someplace
    Threads
    19
    Posts
    464
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    You didn't read her post did you? She said nothing about whether Euphemia "had" to die or not.

    You need to cover up; your idiocy is showing.
    You didn't read our posts did you?

    RaNdOmNaMe wrote in post # 388:

    Quote Originally Posted by RaNdOmNaMe View Post
    well i dont think euphies killing was cruel. well ya it was bloddy and gory but it wasnt really her fault. not leleouch's fault either. just that the geass went out of control, and leleouch had to kill her otherwise everyoned be dead. i feel sorry for both euphie and lelouch tho. they both liked eaach other nad it had to end like that
    And I replied in post # 391: My point for more than a year was that Lelouch did not have to kill Euphemia to save everybody or even a single person. Please read my posts # 376 and 382 on page 16 of this thread.

    RaNdOmNaMe wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by RaNdOmNaMe View Post
    just that the geass went out of control, and leleouch HAD to kill her otherwise everyoned be dead.
    and:
    Quote Originally Posted by RaNdOmNaMe View Post
    nad it HAD to end like that
    (boldface added by proEuphie).

    you claim about RaNdOmNaMe that:
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    She said nothing about whether Euphemia "HAD" to die or not.
    (boldface added by proEuphie).

    RaNdOmNaMe wrote twice in six sentences that Lelouch HAD to kill Euphie, And I replied that Lelouch did not HAVE to kill Euphemia to save anyone and that it did not HAVE to end like that. And I referred her to my post # 376 which ends with:

    "Thus I show that:
    1) Euphemia did not HAVE to die to save the Japanese from her.
    2) Euphemia did not HAVE to die to save her from a life worse than death.
    3) Euphemia did not HAVE to die to gain Lelouch a necessary and sufficient amount of support from the Japanese. In fact, Euphemia HAD to survive for Lelouch's plan to succeed. Lelouch HAD to save Euphemia or fail.

    Thus there was no good and humane reason to kill Euphemia, or even an evil reason that made any sense. And a lot of good and humane, and sensible and pragmatic, reasons to save Euphemia."


    Thus despite what you wrote, RaNdOmNaMe DID claim that Lelouch HAD to kill Euphie and that Euphie HAD to die. And thus I responded to RaNdOmNaMe correctly by referring her to my post # 376 which ends with the summation quoted above stating that Euphemia did not HAVE to die and Lelouch did not HAVE to kill her. In fact Lelouch HAD to save Euphie for his plans to work.

    So you and RaNdOmNaMe HAVE to accept that I proved RaNdOmNaMe's opinion wrong in post # 376, written before she wrote her post, or else read my entire post # 376 to see if it does prove that Lelouch did not HAVE to kill Euphemia.

    To quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    You didn't read her post did you? She said nothing about whether Euphemia "had" to die or not.

    You need to cover up; your idiocy is showing.
    Last edited by proEuphie; 05-03-2010 at 09:31 PM. Reason: minor stylistic change -05/03/10

  22. #397
    Senior Member proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie's Avatar
    Gil
    9,537.87
    Gender
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-26-2010 01:10 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    someplace
    Threads
    19
    Posts
    464
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    In post # 393 MangaFanGuy wrote:
    "That is not what I said
    But if the commander is indecisive and weak then they are more likely to get people killed
    they will need to give up many strategic advantages for the sake of their principles
    Where two psychos leading could destroy themselves in a short while
    two weak sissies could see the war drag on for ages because neither one has the intestinal fortitude to take the risk of casualties and gain the strategic superiority which could see the war come to an end.

    You don't win wars large scale wars without casualties"


    In post # 394 wolfgirl90 wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    Which is something I have to wholeheartedly agree with.

    Pacifists do not belong in the military. Plain and simple. In fact, one of the first things that the military will ask you is if you are against the idea of war, whether through religion or personal morals and ethics. If you say that you are, you are not qualified to serve (yes, the military bars conscientious objectors from serving). The needs of the military come before you own personal needs; if this is something that you can't do, don't join.

    I would raise an eyebrow if the leader I was fighting against was a "pacifist" and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be lead by a pacifist because I do not know how they will react. Again, they could be like Relena and decide that attacking is necessary or Marina who would rather die. Or be like Euphemia and lock up. If I am fighting, I want to be lead by someone who is prepared to fight, NOT someone who not only doesn't want to, but is against the very idea.

    Euphemia may have participated in the Battle of Narita, but what she did could hardly be called great leadership or proof that she should lead the world (
     
    while this is ultimately what Euphemia did in Nightmare of Nunnally, she had more leadership and military experience
    ). The battle ended in a Pyrrhic victory despite Euphemia's presence (that is something nobody should be proud of) and the ONLY other conflict she was ever in was the Orange Skirmish and even then, she arrived right at the end and issued only one order: stand down. Hardly general material.
    Apparently you have no objections to posters who are more or less on your side making illogical statements and going or staying off topic.

    MangaFanGuy wrote:But if the commander is indecisive and weak then they are more likely to get people killed
    they will need to give up many strategic advantages for the sake of their principles


    You did not point out that he wrongly assumed that only an indecisive and weak commander would ever adjust his plans to avoid risking civilian casualties. You could have said that it is possible for a strong and decisive leader to be concerned with avoiding civilian casualties.

    You did not point out that MangaFanGuy assumed that following ethical principles in warfare always results in giving up many strategic advantages. If that really was the case you or MangaFangGuy would have been able to point out that historians commonly believed that the losers in World War I and World War II might not have lost if they committed more atrocities or that the winners might have won sooner if they committed more atrocities. But there is no such opinion among historians.

    MangaFanGuy wrote: Where two psychos leading could destroy themselves in a short while
    two weak sissies could see the war drag on for ages because neither one has the intestinal fortitude to take the risk of casualties and gain the strategic superiority which could see the war come to an end.


    I am surprised that you did not remind him of the most famous example of two psychos fighting each other, the war between Hitler and Stalin on the Eastern Front in World War II, and discuss how many millions of lives were saved because they were not two weak sissies. And again you could have pointed out that a commander doesn't have to be a weak sissy to try to avoid slaughtering civilians or wasting the lives of his men unnecessarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    Which is something I have to wholeheartedly agree with.

    Pacifists do not belong in the military....Again, they could be like Relena and decide that attacking is necessary or Marina who would rather die. Or be like Euphemia and lock up.
    Excuse me, when did Euphemia "lock up"?

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    Euphemia may have participated in the Battle of Narita, but what she did could hardly be called great leadership or proof that she should lead the world (
     
    while this is ultimately what Euphemia did in Nightmare of Nunnally, she had more leadership and military experience
    ). The battle ended in a Pyrrhic victory despite Euphemia's presence (that is something nobody should be proud of) and the ONLY other conflict she was ever in was the Orange Skirmish and even then, she arrived right at the end and issued only one order: stand down. Hardly general material.
    I quote my post # 385 above:
    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    like when she procrastinated about sending out Suzaku?
    Tell me how many soldiers died in that time?
    IF she sent him out earlier how many could she have saved?

    think about it
    a military leader needs to not only think about his troops
    but also be decisive
    Hesitations in war cost lives
    I replied:

    "Hesitation in battle can cost lives -- especially by a front line soldier. But disregarding the safety of civilians can cost lives, and Euphemia was the only character who was ever shown resisting the temptation to ignore the safety of civilians in battle. And she was strongly tempted to save her sister by taking a rather slight and hypothetical risk of civilian lives and still refused.

    But in that scene Euphemia only hesitated for a few seconds to send in Suzaku. Lloyd and Cecily and Suzaku called and made their offer and Euphemia's officers gave their rather silly objections to using Suzaku in a few sentences which took ten or twenty seconds to say and then Euphemia ordered Suzaku sent in and he zoomed up the trail of the landslide and saved Cornelia and then the Britannians from the other side of the mountain were getting too close and Lelouch ordered a retreat.

    So how many people do you imagine survived the landslide and then were killed by the Black Knights during the few seconds while Euphemia hesitated and/or listened to all the views available? Some people might say that Euphie hesitated too long, others that she decided too fast, and others that she decided at the correct time.

    Or do you believe that Euphemia should have sent in Suzaku in the minutes or seconds (because of cutting from scene to scene we cannot tell how much time elapsed on the G1) between the landslide and the start of the scene where she discussed her options?

    If so, for you it is not enough that when Euphemia was unexpectedly and unwillingly thrust into command she chose the option which resulted in Suzaku kicking the butt of the enemy leader who had just outwitted Cornelia, Britannia's most brilliant general, and thus that Euphie saved a number of lives and gave Britannia a face-saving excuse to call the Battle at Narita a victory instead of a defeat. No, you are not satisfied unless Euphie is such a great military leader that she instantly remembers the presence of Suzaku and the Lancelot and immediately decides to send them into battle.

    Or do you believe that Euphemia should have sent in Suzaku before the landslide happened? Which was:
    1) When the battle seemed to be going well for Britannia.
    2) When there seemed to be no need to risk the life of a boy she was attracted to.
    3) When she would have been exceeding her authority (she was providing logistical support and in command of the medical unit as far as we know).
    4) When she -- with no previous combat experience -- would be criticizing the plans of the commander-in-chief of the Britannian army by implying the forces Cornelia had deployed were not enough.
    5) And when it might have put Suzaku in the path of the landslide and got him killed and prevented him from saving the day.

    But when it is a matter of mere seconds, it seems pointless to quibble about when she made up her mind. When an unexpected disaster puts someone in command who is offered several options and chooses one of them and using that option restores the fortunes of their side as well as is possible, that person unexpectedly thrust into command is usually considered to have made a good decision and to have been a successful commander and even the (command-level) hero of the battle.

    I is rather odd for you to suggest that Euphemia was some kind of menace on the battlefield because her momentary hesitation at Narita might possibly have cost a few lives, when she was the only commander in the entire series who ever displayed sufficient respect for the lives of non combatants. All the others showed a callous disregard for human life, culminating in the use of F.R.E.I.J.A. in the second season to slaughter tens of millions of people."

    And I might add that since the G1 was rather similar to a giant tank it might not have been fast enough to reach Cornelia before the Britannian reinforcements from the other side of the mountain reached her and thus that sending it to help her might have been useless and unnecessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    Euphemia may have participated in the Battle of Narita, but what she did could hardly be called great leadership or proof that she should lead the world The battle ended in a Pyrrhic victory despite Euphemia's presence (that is something nobody should be proud of)
    What she did at Narita is certainly proof of humane leadership and competent military leadership, since she did choose what was the best military option despite the advice of her military officers. And it makes her clearly the best character in the series to lead the world. If she was leading the entire world there would be no wars among her followers (by definition of "lead the world") and thus any inadequacies she might have had as a military leader would have been irrelevant. And she would have been the least likely to use her position of leadership to do anything cruel to any group of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfgirl90 View Post
    and the ONLY other conflict she was ever in was the Orange Skirmish and even then, she arrived right at the end and issued only one order: stand down. Hardly general material.
    In "I command you, Suzaku Kururoghi" Euphemia was in a command role in another conflict. And in episodes 22 and 23 she commanded at the Fuji Massacre, which hardly counts as a military conflict, since the Britannians were basically chasing and shooting down unarmed civilians until the Black Knights arrived, and the geass command made Euphemia incapable of keeping her troops together to ward off any attacks since that would have meant letting a lot of victims escape.

    However, when Lelouch arrived in episode 22 he parked his Gawain knightmare close to the stadium and Euphemia's position. And when he reached the Gawain at the end of the episode it should have still have been close to Euphemia and in the middle of the action.

    But when first seen in Episode 23 Lelouch and the Gawain were leading the Black Knights toward the Stadium. Lelouch had headed for the Black Knights, found them,and then turned back toward the stadium. Had Lelouch headed for the Black Knights right after the end of episode 22 or had he been driven away by the Britannians, possibly due to whatever leadership Euphemia might have offered during that hypothetical conflict?

    You seem to value military leadership highly, but Euphemia did show great political leadership, cutting the Gordion knot of "no concessions until the rebellions stop, no stopping the rebellions until concessions are made" and ending the rebellions in Japan by offering the SAZ plan. Her plan did make peace with all of the rebel groups including the Black Knights, and Lelouch graciously said that Euphemia had been his greatest enemy.

    Only a cruel twist of fate (and bad scriptwriting) kept it from being a permanent peace.

    All in all, Euphemia did pretty well for someone who came to believe that politics and war were not for her, and compared to most famous military and political leaders at her age, and she had more accomplishments to show than Lelouch did at her age.
    Last edited by proEuphie; 05-03-2010 at 11:13 PM.

  23. #398
    Senior Member MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy has a reputation beyond repute MangaFanGuy's Avatar
    Gil
    6,170.72
    Gender
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    07-03-2010 10:07 PM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Age
    26
    Threads
    3
    Posts
    308
    Rep Power
    428

    Default

    You did not point out that he wrongly assumed that only an indecisive and weak commander would ever adjust his plans to avoid risking civilian casualties
    Wrong
    I never said a strong commander would never do this (He certainly could if he wanted or believed it would not be detrimental to do so)
    Just that your pascifist "lets not kill anyone if we can" commander MUST always do this even when it means giving up a strategic advantage
    You could have said that it is possible for a strong and decisive leader to be concerned with avoiding civilian casualties
    I think his priority would not be avoiding them but minimising them within the tactical framework and situation
    You did not point out that MangaFanGuy assumed that following ethical principles in warfare always results in giving up many strategic advantages. If that really was the case you or MangaFangGuy would have been able to point out that historians commonly believed that the losers in World War I and World War II might not have lost if they committed more atrocities or that the winners might have won sooner if they committed more atrocities. But there is no such opinion among historians.
    I believe I said
    they will need to give up many
    strategic advantages
    Take for example the Destruction of Hamburg in WW2
    It was not a strategic advantage to destroy it
    so it falls outside what I claimed
    D-Day does count as a good example of what I mean
    They could have retreated early to avoid casualties (civilian and soldier alike) but they didn't so that they could again a huge tactical advantage
    Your commander would never have considered brilliant military strokes like D-Day, Market Garden, Al-Alamein, Gallipoli, etc
    all carried huge risk and loss of life for strategic superiority

    Although through all of this I fail to see your link between "strategic advantages" and "atrocities"
    An atrocity is not a strategic advantage nor are they essential for achieving/maintaining one
    However if faced with a situation where to achieve a stategic advantage which entails you risking the lives of civilians (Such as when you assault a city) then your pascifist commander would be hamstrung into abandoning this chance for any advantage
    whereas a stronger commander would take the risk and while he would not actively be trying to afflict civilian casualties he would certainly allow the possibility of them
    I am surprise that you did not remind him of the most famous example of two psychos fighting each other, the war between Hitler and Stalin on the Eastern Front in World War II, and discuss how many millions of lives were saved because they were not two weak sissies.
    They were hardly Psychos
    Stalin while crude actually had a reasonable military ability and while he was unconcerned and brutal he was far from psychotic also especially in the later stage of the war he even built a reasonable command team to fight for him
    Hitler also had very good and capable people around him who were able to grandly execute their tactics

    Psychos would be much like the retreating Japanese Army towards the end of the war
    They simply threw away all tactics for sheer psycoism
    And again you could have pointed out that a commander doesn't have to be a weak sissy to try to avoid slaughtering civilians or wasting the lives of his men unnecessarily.
    no
    but your commander would simply avoid everything where possible and not bite the bullet, take the losses and gain a clear superiority
    Last edited by MangaFanGuy; 05-03-2010 at 04:11 AM.

  24. #399
    Senior Member proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie is infamous around these parts proEuphie's Avatar
    Gil
    9,537.87
    Gender
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-26-2010 01:10 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    someplace
    Threads
    19
    Posts
    464
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    Wrong
    I never said a strong commander would never do this (He certainly could if he wanted or believed it would not be detrimental to do so)
    And I say that a strong commander who has defeated his most terrible enemy, his own evil desires, would be willing to do so even when it WOULD be detrimental to his cause to do so.

    A strong commander, who has conquered his self, knows that many people have fought for evil causes in the post and done many terrible deeds for those evil causes because they falsely believed those evil causes were great and noble causes.

    He knows that one way to prevent people from committing terrible evil deeds for evil causes in the future is to teach everyone to think carefully and rationally about the causes they are considering fighting for, to reduce the probability that they will fight and do terrible evil deeds for evil causes.

    And he knows that another way to prevent people from committing terrible evil deeds for evil causes in the future is to teach them that in war winning isn't everything nor the only thing. Winning is an important goal for those who are convinced that it is right to fight for their cause, but it is not the most important goal. Reducing the death and destruction in the war is a far more important goal than winning, no matter how important you may believe winning is.

    And he knows that no matter how holy and noble and righteous his cause is (in his opinion) he still has to consider reducing the death and destruction in the war to a minimum to be even more important than winning. Lest he be considered an evil brute by future people who have proven that his "just" cause was actually evil, and in order to teach by setting an example for future warriors, by practicing what he preaches. No matter how much he wants to wage an all-out total war to make sure that HIS cause wins.

    At Narita Euphemia had the humility to know that she did not have the ethical authority to risk the lives of thousands of civilians in an effort to increase the odds of success for her cause that she believed in, and so she met the minimum standard necessary to be a good and decent and humane commander, alone among Code Geass characters. And she also refused to endanger civilians even to try to save her beloved sister, a much harder test which few commanders have to face in their careers, except in so far as their sense of responsibility for their followers may lead them to care for their men as much as if they were family.

    Euphemia was the strongest commander in Code Geass, because she was the only one who defeated her most terrible enemy, her own evil desires, and the only one who even tried.

    In post # 393 you wrote;

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    You don't win wars large scale wars without casualties
    But some large scale wars have been won with a a lot fewer casualties than they could have been won with, because leaders tried to reduce casualties as much as possible.

    For example, General William T. "War is Hell" Sherman sought to avid fighting bloody battles as much as he could during late 1864 and early 1865. He wanted to defeat the southern rebels while killing as few of them and his own men as possible. His march from Atlanta to the sea, and then his march north into South Carolina and North Carolina, were intended to march through largely undefended territories, foraging off the land and impoverishing the locals, vividly demonstrating that the Confederacy and the state governments were powerless to protect their people and oppose the Union armies.

    Sherman was not exactly a pacifist but his almost neurotic desire to avoid fighting and slaughter as much as possible and reduce battle deaths to a minimum for his side and the other side helped make him the general he was, and he is usually considered to have been a great general who greatly contributed to winning the War of the Rebellion.

    Euphemia probably had a much stronger desire than Sherman to reduce battle deaths to a minimum and thus MIGHT (not certainly, might) not have been as effective a combat commander as Sherman. But as a supreme political leader in time of war who was in charge of grand strategy and persuading the public that the cause was worth fighting for and only rarely leading a military operation in person (as Abraham Lincoln help plan and lead the capture of Norfolk during the Rebellion) Euphemia could have been the equal of Abraham Lincoln, Churchill, or FDR, and would have tolerated no atrocities from her military.


    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    Just that your pascifist "lets not kill anyone if we can" commander MUST always do this even when it means giving up a strategic advantage
    And I fail to see the crippling disadvantages in always giving up a strategic advantage to save the lives of civilian bystanders. For example:

    1) A pacifistic "lets not kill anyone" commander could (if his side had the proper technology and tactics) theoretically open the war with an attack which captured alive the entire armed forces and military and government leaders of the enemy side and thus forced them to agree to this terms. Thus the war would be over before the enemy could fight battles against him and discover that he would give up a strategic advantage to protect civilian bystanders and find ways to take advantage of it.

    2) A pascifist "lets not kill anyone if we can" commander could see that his country (A) and country B are drifting toward war in a few years and that the current leaders of Country A are building weapons which would cause a lot of civilian casualties if used. But the weapons systems which Country B has or is building would not cause nearly as many civilian casuaties if used.

    So he could gain control of Country A (by an election or a coup, etc.) and secretly scrap the destructive weapons systems which the previous administration built and secretly design and build new weapons systems specifically to counter the most important weapons systems of Country B. When the new weapons were ready he could announce that he was scrapping the old weapons systems (actually already scrapped) and starting to design and construct new weapons systems (actually already built) to nullify the weapons systems of Country B.

    Then the leaders of Country B could choose to either take the destruction of the old weapons systems which could have slaughtered many civilians as a sign to mend their quarrel with Country A or else choose to attack Country A now that the old weapons systems were gone and before the new weapons systems were in place. And if Country B attacked he could used his already completed new weapons systems to counter the major weapons systems of Country B and probably defeat them without causing much loss of civilian lives.

    So in just a few minutes I thought of two scenarios out of many other possible ones by which a pascfisitc "lets not kill anyone" commander could win wars without his tendency to give up strategic advantages to avoid the loss of civilians lives being a disadvantage.

    Of course those two possible strategies would not always work every time they were tried. But of course history is full of examples of the use of more bloodthirsty strategies by leaders who cared much less about avoiding civilian casualties. And those strategies failed HALF THE TIME and succeeded only HALF THE TIME they were tried, if you assume that each war has a losing side which tries only one strategy for the duration of the war.

    Always giving up strategic advantage to protect civilians lives would be a disadvantage for a commander. But every commander in every war has a number of disadvantages just as strong as that one anyway, The ones who win do so despite having a number of big disadvantages.

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    I think his priority would not be avoiding them but minimising them within the tactical framework and situation
    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    I believe I said
    they will need to give up many
    Take for example the Destruction of Hamburg in WW2
    It was not a strategic advantage to destroy it
    so it falls outside what I claimed
    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    D-Day does count as a good example of what I mean
    They could have retreated early to avoid casualties (civilian and soldier alike) but they didn't so that they could again a huge tactical advantage
    Of course retreating early would have been a very big set back for the war effort and so the allied leaders were very unliely to decide to do so. The US and the UK originally promised Stalin they would open a second front, (preferably by a cross - channel invasion of Europe) in 1942 but were delayed by the operations in north Africa, Sicily, and Italy which Stalin had to be content with for two years.

    The two-year delay could have been used to design and produce weapons specially for D-Day,

    For example, special bombers which could fly slow and low to get under the fog and clouds and see their targets on top of the Normandy cliffs and bomb them accurately instead of slaughtering French cows miles inland. Of course those bombers would have been sitting ducks, so perhaps they could have flown just as slow (for accurate bomb dropping) but higher among the cloud cover (or make their own clouds with smokescreens) and lowered periscope devices to below the clouds to locate their targets.

    But who could imagine such an upside down periscope? People as smart as the people who invented submarine periscopes by World War I, or people as smart as the World War I German Zeppelin designers who invented observation cars which could be lowered below the cloud level to spot and report targets. Or people merely smart enough to remember the Zeppelin observation cars from World War I.

    And those bombers would not have to drop explosive bombs on their targets and on French Civilians if they missed their targets. They coud have dropped volitile gases and/or dusts such as coal dust and grain dust which would float in the air but not ignite until the Germans fired at the bombers or the Allied fleet or the soldiers landing on the beaches and then Kaboom! French civilians who were bombed by mistake would have been safe unless they lit a match or made a spark before the gas and/or dust blew away. German soldiers would have been safe too if they only shot after the previous gas and/or dust had blown away and before they were bombed again, which would be very short intervals if there were enough bombers and bombs.

    So here is an example of a practical weapons system which would have humanely reduced French civilian casualties, been even more militarily effective than the bombers actually used as it increased German casualties on the cliffs above the beaches, and saved more lives in total by preventing almost all Allied casualties during the landings. A weapons system which might have been invented by Allied planners more concerned with avoiding civilian casualties.

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    Your commander would never have considered brilliant military strokes like D-Day, Market Garden, Al-Alamein, Gallipoli, etc
    all carried huge risk and loss of life for strategic superiority
    Gallipolli and Market garden were failures, you know. Perhaps my commander would have canceled them to avoid useless casualties or reinforced or modified them and enabled them to succeed, making their casualties useful.

    I just gave you an example of how my commander might have improved the preparations for D-Day. El-Alamein was in a very thinly-populated desert where the risk of civilian casualties was very low, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    Although through all of this I fail to see your link between "strategic advantages" and "atrocities"
    An atrocity is not a strategic advantage nor are they essential for achieving/maintaining one
    However if faced with a situation where to achieve a stategic advantage which entails you risking the lives of civilians (Such as when you assault a city) then your pascifist commander would be hamstrung into abandoning this chance for any advantage
    whereas a stronger commander would take the risk and while he would not actively be trying to afflict civilian casualties he would certainly allow the possibility of them
    Perhaps my pacifistic commander might have prepared for such possibilities before the war by starting a massive Manhattan Project type project to develop non lethal weapons so that he could capture a fortification or a city or an army without killing anyone but gaining countless thousands of prisoners to release on parole, or use as hostages, or brainwash into fighting for his cause, etc. etc. And why do you keep insisting that a less scruplous commander must be stronger? See my first section of text above.

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    They were hardly Psychos
    Stalin while crude actually had a reasonable military ability and while he was unconcerned and brutal he was far from psychotic also especially in the later stage of the war he even built a reasonable command team to fight for him
    Hitler also had very good and capable people around him who were able to grandly execute their tactics

    Psychos would be much like the retreating Japanese Army towards the end of the war
    They simply threw away all tactics for sheer psycoism
    Stalin was a psycho who exterminated almost all his top military leaders before the war. Stalin was a psycho who planned to double cross Hitler when he was ready to but refused to believe all the warnings that Hitler was about to strike first and double cross Stalin, thus letting countless thousands or millions of Russian soldiers be surprised and captured during the first days of the war.

    Stalin was a psycho who, when the Germans reported that Stalin's son had been captured, declared that any Russian who let himself be captured was a traitor, thus casing countless thousands of Russian to needlessly fight to the death, merely in order to enjoy causing one person, his son, to commit suicide.

    Hitler was a psycho who refused to allow his top generals, or lower leaders down to noncoms, to manuver for strategic or tactical advantage, forbidding all German soldiers to retreat an inch from any position they were in, commanding them to fight to the death where they were instead. Hitler wasted the lives of millions of German soldiers.


    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    no
    but your commander would simply avoid everything where possible and not bite the bullet, take the losses and gain a clear superiority
    You believe that my commander would be like General William T. "Always a Failure" Sherman, I presume?
    Last edited by proEuphie; 05-04-2010 at 01:04 AM.

  25. #400
    Great Witch of Britannia wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90 has a reputation beyond repute wolfgirl90's Avatar
    Gil
    37,489.92
    Gender
    My Mood
    Wicked
    Gifts Eva Penpen Wolf Full Moon
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Latest Post
    12-21-2014 04:53 AM
    User Info Thanks / Tagging Info Gifts / Achievements / Awards vBActivity Stats
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, United States
    Age
    24
    Threads
    47
    Posts
    2,029
    Rep Power
    2243
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: DisturbedWiccan PSN ID: Wolfdragon63 Steam ID: Wolfgirl90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MangaFanGuy View Post
    Would a military not be able to use pacifists for Supply/Administration and support roles that don't actually involve combat?
    For other countries, yes, pacifists are usually assigned non-combat roles. This is usually done because of conscription, when someone has no choice but to serve. In the United States, however, nobody is forcing you to be in the military (right now, its strictly voluntary), so by that same token, if you are against the idea of war, you are barred from the get-go. Even being a military doctor or cook will connect you to war, so if one is against that, they shouldn't join.

    Quote Originally Posted by proEuphie View Post
    Apparently you have no objections to posters who are more or less on your side making illogical statements and going or staying off topic.
    Pardon me, proEuphie, but this is YOUR thread and it is up to YOU to make sure that people are on topic in YOUR thread. Not only do I not have ANY responsibility for what others say to YOU, I honestly do not give a damn. So if YOU can't stay on topic, I am not going to tell others to do so. YOU are off-topic at the moment (we supposed to be talking about Euphemia's "murder", not her speculated combat experience), so YOU are hardly in a position to talk about other people doing the same thing (like I said before, you could just ignore off-topic conversation).

    MangaFanGuy may be "on my side" (I don't know if he is or not, mostly because I do not know what you mean by that), but that doesn't mean everything he says is a reflection of my beliefs. I am not going to say anything about his opinion because his opinion is not wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by proEuphie View Post
    What she did at Narita is certainly proof of humane leadership and competent military leadership, since she did choose what was the best military option despite the advice of her military officers.
    Yeah, by giving one order. Hardly a prestigious record of command. And the battle ended in a Pyrrhic victory, which is something that NOBODY should be proud of. Her "humane leadership" means crap when most of the soldiers died anyway. Using the Code Geass guide, out of the 315 units present at the battle, 277 were lost; if you know how to do basic math, that's a whopping 88%. Yeah, great job Euphemia.

    Quote Originally Posted by proEuphie View Post
    In "I command you, Suzaku Kururoghi" Euphemia was in a command role in another conflict.
    Sorry, but merely being present for a battle doesn't count as a command role, regardless of rank. She walked over to an officer, tried to give a command but couldn't (due to Schneizel), climbed into a Knightmare, gave ONE ORDER (which wasn't even obeyed, since the Gawain still fired on Suzaku and the surrounding area despite Euphemia's warnings that she would be in the same place), then left. Again, hardly a sign of a global leader.

    But anyway, let me repeat myself Miss "I-Don't-Like-It-When-People-Go-Off-Topic-But-I-Do-It-Anyway". Since this thread is about Euphemia's DEATH, way don't we talk about that, shall we?

    I do not think that it was a murder, morally or legally (one must have intent AND malice or malicious disregard for life for a death to be a murder). End of story. Did Lelouch think that Euphemia HAD to die? Yes. Do I think that Euphemia HAD to die? Not really. Is what Lelouch did "wrong"? Yes and No; there is no right answer. Do I believe that what Lelouch did was wrong? Again, not really because I neither approve nor disapprove of the actions of fictional cartoon characters.

    I am not sympathic of Euphemia's death because of two main reasons. First, I knew she was going to die as soon as I heard her name. If you fell in love with her and respected her without knowing about the Great Martyr Euphemia, then it sucks to be you. And second, your whining has made me not care about her anymore.

    If it seems that I am being disrespectful towards you, its because I am. If it seems that I am skimming your posts, its because I am. If it seems that I am nit-picking, its because I am. If it seems that I am not respecting your position, its because I am. If it seems that I no longer care anymore and am spending more time laughing at you than actually pay attention, its because I am. If still want to talk to me, go right ahead. However, I have nothing nice to say to you, so if that's what you want, fine with me. But don't complain later.
    Last edited by wolfgirl90; 05-03-2010 at 10:48 PM.
    This is my war face.

    This is what happens to trolls who mess with me.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. miss murder
    By shinju hoshi in forum J-pop/rock (and other music)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-03-2006, 04:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts