Why are most games like this...

Of course you would you subhuman

Ar tonelico and not just one example within that. First example is spoilers.
The second example is where everyone actually has the shared goal of saving the world. Problem is, the situation's so bad that this is impossible without extreme measures being taken.
The very conflict is over what can even be considered the 'proper method', given the circumstances. They're all incredibly desperate ploys.

Attached: 26701359.jpg (1700x1700, 764K)

Symphogear has a mobage, does that count?

>now that i have powers i will exact revenge, usually involving killing others
>but why does no one try to make me feel better about MY childhood?

Attached: stonetoss face.png (381x363, 214K)

But when in Persona 5 they tried to help Goro reform himself get to the real root of his problem and do what you're asking, everyone on this board shrieked and cried and screamed? Which is it?

Causing suffering in response to one's own suffering is wrong and villains should be brought to justice (or killed, if resisting arrestation).

Loseres are losers for a reason.

But if you kill them you're just as bad as them.

Now now, it's only self-defense.

Sasuga Amerimutt

I'm them, but stronger.

Name 3 games.

>playing JRPGs
what do you even do in this genre?
the turn-based gameplay isn't good enough to be labeled strategy
you can't RP or interact with the world or narrative
what the literal fuck do you do in these movies outside of walking to the next emotionally devoid cutscene?
fucking nips

But your self-defence caused suffering.

Mutts love to repeat putin's idiotic garbage, though.
They're christtards.

Akechi never reformed himself and he murdered the parents of two best girls, so everyone has plenty of reason to hate him, but it never really mattered because he killed himself in the edgiest way possible and didn't bother with redemption.

Attached: 28-tov93_ss-alt005241.jpg (800x449, 82K)

Not really. A dead villain doesn't suffer and the villain's victims will be quite relieved.

Sounds like the same rationale the villain used to justify their own actions.

A vengeful villain only seeks to please theirself. They also want to inflict suffering for as long as possible.
To kill a vengeful villain is to perform the exact opposite. It is a strictly positive action.

Yeah but at least I'm not dead.

Why?

Because we create works of fiction which evoke our own value system. We're mostly incapable of even imagining things which are expressions of mindsets we don't hold. We don't fundamentally care about the villain's welfare, we only care about our own. This fundamental apathy contributes primarily to the creation of evil in the first place. You see it in fiction but also in real life. Take mass shooters for instance. Every time one pops up in the media they're roundly vilified. If we hear an attempt to figure out why they did it, it's superficial and purely academic -- to satisfy our curiosity. Because of this we don't get into a greater conversation about what it is about our society which is creating these people.

Western culture has an actually insane predisposition to attribute everything to personal agency, both good and bad, when in reality we are much more simply just acting out what our lives have taught us to do.

In SMT IV:A, you can help YHVH eat a bullet.

>A vengeful villain only seeks to please theirself. They also want to inflict suffering for as long as possible.
[citation needed]

It's LITERALLY how vengeance work

>A vengeful villain only seeks to please theirself
As opposed to a hero-protagonist?
You can't really believe that people commit selfless actions, do you?
>All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, it is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.
The only question worth asking is:
Are men born into their nature, or are they influenced by their surroundings?
Why is your favorite color X, and mine Y? If we can't understand preferential reasoning, how can we claim to understand complexities revolving ambiguous moral standards that all derive from the same motivation?

Attached: 1562245763769.png (512x870, 98K)

>As opposed to a hero-protagonist?
A world savior. Saving the world feels good, but it's also helping others. Something the villain does not do.

>muh bullying
why are americans so obsessed with bullies?
they're hardly a problem in school and stop existing once you graduate, why can't you retards move on and enjoy your live instead of crying about bullies every chance you get?
extra retard points for complaining about having seen someone else bullied and never having gone through it yourself

So what about vengeful protagonists whose entire motivation is getting payback? They're looking to inflict suffering on someone else and nothing more.

Criminal law doesn't exist to serve justice, it exists to mitigate threats to society (Civil law is where justice is done by making injured parties whole as much as can be done). Therefore, for people who are violent to their core, capital punishment is justified because it mitigates the most societal harm - letting them live just gives them the ability to do more harm in the future.

In real life there are billions of people who are inarguably evil for absolutely no reason, sometimes to their own detriment. Video game villains don't need a sympathetic reason for doing what they do.

Bullying changes some people on a fundamental level in their formative years. If the combination of your early life experiences, genetics, and societal messages didn't manage to create a person able to deal with bullying constructively, it's likely you're going to have issues you need to deal with for the rest of your life.

you could also try to stop being a faggot

Best moment in the series and one of my favourite moments in all of gaming.

In a vacuum it would be continuing the circle too, indeed. In practice the villain doesn't sit on his ass and is actively commiting more evil. On top of getting self-serving vengeance, the hero would also be preventing further evil from happening by killing the villain, and the cycle would end there and then, so it would be the right thing to do.

That line of thinking usually ends with about 15 dead.

Okay, so what if the villain is committing crimes that are morally just yet society sees them as evil?

>Western culture has an actually insane predisposition to attribute everything to personal agency, both good and bad, when in reality we are much more simply just acting out what our lives have taught us to do.
If you lack personal agency, you're not a person and therefore have no rights.

Saruman, in return for their loyalty, attempted to usher in a new age ruled by the peoples of the world who had been neglected and downtrodden.
He worked for neither the "Hero", or the "Villain".
So what was he, then?

Yeah I don't know the solution to people like you who just unironically don't care or aren't smart enough to engage the subject rationally yet paradoxically have enough confidence to not only speak definitively on it, but do so in a disparaging way. You run into a wall when you run into people who can/will only engage on a level that stems from something like "well, what I do..."

>stop existing once you graduate

Yeah, if you live in your mom's basement

Where is this from?

>stop existing once you graduate
You didn't stop being a cunt after finishing school, why would they?

That's not actually something I really care to talk about or consider relevant to my post so I'm gonna give that a hard pass.

>morally just yet society sees them as evil?
That'd be an oxymoron.
If the society in question sees it as evil, it can't be morally just in that same context.

Hitler begs to differ

Morality is fully subjective so that's a non-factor. Do you have an example anyway?

Eh, I can live with that. Unlike the villain. Since they're dead.

No, he tried to usher in a new age where he ruled using the orcs as a mean to power. The fucker is immortal, (can't die from old age/disease?) so he just rules forever.

This
Especially when theyre cute lolis

Attached: majoredeyes.png (850x1134, 919K)

Moral relativism is retarded and so are you.

if you're a socially competent adult

bullies are not the end of the world, in fact they are a minor problem during school years
and yet american media is obsessed with people just portraying individual traits that are associated with bullies
it exaggerates the problem and makes people paranoid about these devious being known as bullies that lurk behind every corner

Villain 100%, how is this even a question?

Would it really be any better if you cured the guys depression with a speech check?

Focusing on stopping the villain is necessary, but if we consider ourselves representatives or defenders of the collective enough to consider it our responsibility to stop the villain, we must also consider ourselves agents of the process which created that villain, and approach the problem from that direction as well. It's our moral obligation under this framework. Anything else disregards the self serving element of saving ourselves as well and we cannot consider ourselves to be "good."

Ok. fine. Just because I understand why a mass shooter does something doesn't mean I won't still kill the mass shooter. It's quarantine, they're already beyond the point of trying to save them being worth it. It'd be easier just to have more kids and do it right the next time (assuming anything would change)

Okay, mind slave.

Villains frequently make more sense while heroes are all "he did thing which hurt people so he bad"

The ends justify the means was the mantra of any great historic leader

Attached: 1565121839006.jpg (1920x1080, 132K)

Taiwan is somewhat decent, and Hong Kong of course

FFIX

Protag goes to save the villain after he pretty much kills all his friends, tried to end all life, and was by all accounts totally done for

>In a vacuum it would be continuing the circle too, indeed.
By this logic killing the villain would be continuing the circle.

Advance Wars Days of Ruin/Dark Conflict

>tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Saruman

He was a dick and sought power for himself, he razed the Shire and murdered countless innocents out of spite, and was not permitted to return to Valinor after being killed because he was such a huge fucking dick. He was absolutely a villain.

I have to agree, there's no real difference between moral relativity and nihilism. Acknowledging that your own morality is bullshit inherently undermines the idea that anything you do has any value or any kind of good. It's a self destructive thought. Just because you may be wrong about something doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer. It just means you haven't found it yet.

Thanks user

I'm going to with, all murderers deserve to be murdered. It's a basic law that has existed since cavemen and applies to everything.

Mass Effect
You can try to talk Saren down and make him realize he's being an uppity cunt.

>we must also consider ourselves agents of the process which created that villain, and approach the problem from that direction as well
This strictly depends on wether or not our hypothetical vengeful protagonist contributed to the villain's fall to evil. If not, the protagonist bears no responsibility to reflect upon theirself.

Basically everything you said after parents is wrong
The best (or worst) is yet to come

clear and cut cases like ted bundy sure

Yes. That's what I said.

So ruling is intrinsically evil?
Gandalf is also immortal, is it wrong for him to influence the world because of his status?
It's worth noting that just because the Maia are theoretically immortal doesn't mean they can't suffer consequences, as Saruman eventually does, being condemned as a "naked spirit" to wander Middle-Earth, unable to interact with the world around him.
If he had succeeded and gained the power he sought, it's not as if he could not have been overthrown, the same as Sauron.
So what makes Aragorn a rightful ruler, as opposed to Saruman? Surely it can't be as shallow as the base neglect of power? That because somebody is offered power, but refuses it (until they eventually accept it), that makes them worthy? That's a tortured logic at best, and applies to Saruman as well who rejected temptations from either side (Sauron & Gandalf) and formed his own path.

Attached: 73FD68BD-0833-43E9-A4F3-9A5CE8AD678B.jpg (942x1100, 204K)

They obviously didn't bully him enough the first time around

A retarded post, as expected from Negrogatari posters.

>how is this even a question?
I was hoping that user, or you, or somebody might answer that.
I mean you seem so sure of it.

I'm using self-defense because he caused me suffering.

You recognized those pantsu so you must've been invested too

Attached: smugvampire.png (406x589, 366K)

No, I recognized the art style. Besides, you should keep your friends close and your enemies closer, and Gatari posters are indeed the archnemesis.

You misunderstand me. Even if the protagonist had no direct contribution to the villain's fall, if he draws a sense of moral justice from acting in the protection of society, he has also a moral obligation to recognize and make an attempt to rectify the part society played in the creation of the villain. If he doesn't do this, he cannot claim to fully represent that society at all and must be acting primarily out of selfish self interest, as he is a direct beneficiary of the results of his actions as well.

Are we really trying to pretend Saruman isn't a villain now? Edgy contrarians are so boring.

morality isn't real unless god exists and even though he might there's no reason to assume he does

see
Saruman was a dick, he was literally forbade from returning to middle-earth's "heaven" because he was such a fucking dick. He spent the last of his time on middle-earth seeking power for himself, even aiming to supplant Sauron and take the Ring for himself, and fucking murdered hobbits just to piss off Gandalf. He was a villain, that was the whole fucking point. Gandalf was "reborn" as what Saruman was intended to have been.

>if he draws a sense of moral justice from acting in the protection of society, he has also a moral obligation to recognize and make an attempt to rectify the part society played in the creation of the villain
Prove it. A cop doesn't need to fix an economic crisis even if he arrests someone for selling drugs.

The parts of morality which are universal can be drawn from this simple proposition:
>causing pain is bad, and causing pleasure is good
Obviously it requires a lot of extrapolation and application of nuance, but this is a philosophically defensible basic assertion with biological basis

see
This is basic character/plot info from the books, if you're ignorant of all of this I'd assume you've never read them. Saruman is a villain and does villainous things.

Attached: red.jpg (220x271, 25K)

>moral relativist
>but also a christcuck
is there anything worse?

What made The Shire innocent?
Their ignorance of the strife of the world outside of their lands?
Choosing not to make a choice isn't an act of innocence, it's an act of ignorance. That ignorance is precisely what allowed Lotho to orchestrate the scouring, which may have well occurred with or without Saruman.
The Shire didn't deserve to be burned, but did Saruman deserve to be exiled from the Order before that spite-fueled event?

look how the world treats the orcs who dindu nuffin. he gives hope to the downtrodden

>Villain knows what he does is wrong, but his desperation didn't give him a choice

Attached: Ash Cry.jpg (256x197, 5K)

>tortured logic
You mean tortured elves. Advocating that orcs control the earth is the same as demanding that retards control the earth. At best they should be shuttered off to a reservation where they peacefully stop reproducing and cease to exist. They simply aren't decent caretakers of the earth, animals, or other people. They ruin everything they touch. Saruman is using that deformed race to exert his own power. Gandalf fucks off after helping save middle earth, which is what he is supposed to do. Aragorn is a mortal. He will die, which is better than Saruman who will never really die. No matter how much Aragorn can fuck up, his reign will end and someone else will be in charge. Immortal rule by some imperfect being is worse than mortal rule by some imperfect being.

>le what if evil guy did nothing wrong meme
*Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn*

I'm neither. Just because I think morality can't exist without god doesn't mean I believe in god.

>causing pain is bad, and causing pleasure is good
What are "bad" and "good"?

>but did Saruman deserve to be exiled from the Order before that spite-fueled event?
Yes, now go read up on why

It's a discussion of ethics and the nature of not just men, but sentient beings in general.
Your contribution to the conversation is duly noted.

Then it still depends on wether or not the protagonist belongs to the society that lead to the antagonist's fall to villainy.
If the villain has been abused by one village and decides to enact their vengeance on the entire world, a protagonist from an entirely unrelated environment to the antagonist's bears no responsibility to correct the misdeeds of the villain's place of origin.

Even in the case of the protagonist coming from the place which created the villain, it's only right to put an end to the villain's vengeance, as it would still be solving half of the equation to solve the cycle of suffering (the other half being correcting society's misdeeds).

>claim to fully represent that society
Do heros actually claim this? Who the fuck would be so stupid or evil to even want this?

It's a boring lame troll actually

I think the worst part of this era of political trolling is that we can all be aware that you’re trolling, point it out, and try to have fun with it, but you’ll only respond with the same soulless unfunny bait because you don’t know how to reply in a creative way. It’s so boring compared to the golden years of trolling. Your job could be done by AI

Bad is that which is unwanted. Good is the opposite.

Unwanted by who?

Xehanort.

>villain's motivation is very selfless and he genuinely believes he's doing the right thing for everyone
>he shrieks in despair as you land the killing blow and the overwhealming feeling of failure swallows him in his last moments

Attached: 1565262856374.png (628x475, 372K)

By all. Pain is unwanted by all, therefore pain is bad.

Unlikely. People always claim I'm trolling when I'm 100% dead serious about the things I say which they think are batshit crazy. I would give this guy the benefit of the doubt and assume he's genuine. I have read stranger opinions on this site which I think were genuine but insane.

So if and only if something is unwanted by everyone, it's considered morally bad? If one person desired pain for himself and for others, is pain still bad?

I'm asking you.
I know the answer, this is a discussion of points of view, which everybody involved is quickly folding on.
Talking about reading the books like I don't own and read The Silmarillion annually while you fuckers are linking tolkiengateway lmao.

>suffering is an inherent bad
Fuck off hedonist

>political trolling
Don't think anybody mentioned politics until (You), right now.
Not in this reply chain, anyway.

>So if and only if something is unwanted by everyone, it's considered morally bad?
Yes.
>If one person desired pain for himself
No such thing. Even literal pain for masochism is ultimately for pelasure, which is wanted by all, and therefore good.

Fuck off hedonist

>villain accepts his defeat and simply asks you to remember him and his people

Attached: 1562570224604.png (1024x734, 722K)

I mean trolling post 2016 election. It's so lazy and boring as seen by
>woah...what if we made a tortured comparison to try and pretend Saruman wasn't evil...if you pretend hard enough...he's just like you and me.
What a riveting discussion, truly groundbreaking.

best villains

Attached: 1463239052264.jpg (229x186, 9K)

Why is something good if it is wanted by all?

>being condemned as a "naked spirit" to wander Middle-Earth, unable to interact with the world around him
eru, i wish this was me

Attached: 1482318178762.png (306x282, 89K)

The desire to protect people for any given reason makes our responsible for what those people make of their lives; indeed generally the very idea that we should have responsibility (and thus, necessarily, power, as general responsibilty for people's actions means nothing unless coupled with power to enforce or prohibit certain kinds of those actions) over people we've saved is considered a tyrant's thinking.

Neither we can possibly be agents of processes within the villain's brain, which created him. The villains' attempts to place blame outwardly can be safely disregarded as neither realistic, not matching the general practices of humanity.

Finally, the assumption that self-serving motivations preclude actions from being good, requires the assumption that goodness of actions should be judged by neither their achieved results, nor results, clearly intended to be achived (but failing to materialize due to lack of means or unfavorable circumstances), but by something as nebulous and difficult to judge from outside as motivations, which is a fucking retarded proposition.

Hedonists die fast but ascetics never even come to life.
I'm more of a eudemonist anyway.

Attached: 200 IQ.jpg (700x700, 120K)

Pleasure doesn't make you a hedonist. Hedonism is always choosing short term pleasure. Long term pleasure like raising children isn't hedonistic.

>Long term pleasure like raising children isn't hedonistic.
Long term cope

Attached: nofap day 3.jpg (433x576, 142K)

Dude I'm not typing all that shit out when its right there for you to read

Saruman was a dick, he did many, many dickish things. He was wholly self-interested and sought to possess the Ring himself and rule, which was in complete contrast to the purpose for which he had been sent to middle-earth in the first place.

Who said I wanted to be good?

Attached: WGwIqfY.gif (320x287, 981K)

Thanos?

I don't even know what you're saying.

Pretend?
I'm not pretending to do anything. I think Saruman was evil, but it's still fun to practice debate and discuss different POVs.
Remember when you were on the debate team, or had to write a paper regarding a subject of discussion?
You don't necessarily have to agree with a POV to discuss it, or be assigned it. It's a great exercise and practice to study concepts and theories outside of the personal bubble you were born into and influenced by.
It's like everybody on this site treats conversation like a contest or something. Everybody gets so offended when they run out of responses, so instead of just backing out they lash out like they lost the game
I really don't get it. What is everybody else here for if not to discuss anything and everything?
Everybody acting like snowflakes who define themselves by their anonymous opinions.
We can start at the beginning, if we really have to backtrack this far...
>What defines a villain?

A bit redundant, "asian" already implies "subhuman"

if done right yes faggot

Isn't it universally important that the villain was in turn wronged by the society which created him, if you are fighting on behalf of that society? If society created a villain through mistreating him, in fighting him for that society, you also fight on behalf of the part of a society which wronged him. To defeat the villain without also attempting to solve both the underlying cause and its explicit manifestation in the villain, you are acting as an agent of a society which is also villainous, even if the majority of its people are not.

This is pretty hard to answer.
Good, in this context, extends only to the thoughts of all human beings. If, by design, there can not be someone who doesn't see something as good, then it can only be good.

I mean, there is some merit to defining pleasure as a purely desirable thing and pain as a purely undesirable thing, because the difference that is no difference makes no differeence, but I have to disagree with hedonism/utilitarianism.

People suffer irregardless of their lot in life. Everyone suffers, it comes as natural to human beings as breathing. Wanting a world with the least suffering is an easy one, it's the one with zero human beings. Which is why minimizing suffering and maximizing pleasure is a stupid dichotomy to set up morality by. Any abstract virtue system is better than the infinitesimal calculus of hedonism. Even if we take the system on it's own merits, it's totally impractical. If we do action A which causes 10 units of suffering now but 50 units of pleasure 100 years from now, versus 20 units of pleasure now, versus 1000 units of pleasure at an unknowable date in the future, how the fuck do you decide what the best path is if can't 100% predict the future to know what will happen by your butterfly effect choices.

Nah it's pretty easy to answer because it's a hypothetical that can never exist with sufficient number of people alive.

What "POV" the one that hinges on a version of the character that doesn't exist?

Its no one else's fault you're ignorant of the character and why he's a villain.

Being a devil's advocate is a really boring and stupid thing to do and high school debate was never about having a discussion it was also just about winning through the most underhanded and annoying methods possible
WHYDOYOUTHINKEVERYONETALKEDLIKETHISITWASSOTHEIROPPONENTHADTROUBLEKEEPINGUPANDCOULDN'TCOUNTERASEFFECTIVELY the exact opposite of a discussion.

It's not a great practice since like you're doing it just devolves into >w-well what if what if what if what if
it's boring and never goes anywhere. Driving your car in a loop is the same, maybe you should just do that instead?

>Why are most games like this?
Games? Try all forms of media, pal.

You're just adding an escape hatch
>hedonism isn't hedonism if we stretch it in time

You’re assuming society actually wronged him.

>Wanting a world with the least suffering is an easy one, it's the one with zero human beings. Which is why minimizing suffering and maximizing pleasure is a stupid dichotomy to set up morality by.
Does not follow.
You're just asserting it without any arguments.

Hardly. The collective is not one coherent blob of people. There are a million collectives with different needs and whatnot. If the people in one city bullied a guy so hard that he fled to my city and started murdering people, the blame is not on my city when I shoot the guy, nor am I require to fix the problems of the first city.

>it's a "MUH BULLIED BACKSTORY" villain
>his death scene is actually sad

Attached: 1552880525072.png (513x551, 490K)

Undertale

Divine law > duty ethics > utilitarianism > hedonism
Somebody prove me wrong?

>I was wronged by a select group of people
>TIME TO BOMB INNOCENTS
The only piece of media I've ever seen where the hero actually protects a corrupt official from a villain seeking revenge is Western super hero media.

>actually complaining about this
>people in this thread actually agreeing with this
You fags would LOOOOOOVE Steven Universe then if you actually think that's something to complain about

Multispectral hyperfag. "many colours" indeed. Go suck on a mill Sanny.

I'm pretty sure John wanted Ross to fuck off and he didn't want to help him

Zero humans = zero human suffering
Do you disagree?

So the person that murdered the murderer should be murdered too right? And the person that murdered the murderer that murdered the murderer should be murdered too right?

Attached: 1566502294916.jpg (500x375, 20K)

>Are there any MCs who genuinely wanted to help the villain and resolved the conflict by using proper methods?
Xillia and Xillia 2

Attached: d83b9a12e67561f3d1aa9c6901ea2455.jpg (1200x630, 180K)

I'm not asking for the damn paragraphs from the book, I'm asking for (You)r reasoning.
Haven't you ever been in a book club before my dude? You don't just sit there and read the book, you discuss passages and your opinions on them.
He was a dick, especially after his fall, so lets go back to what I originally inquired about like twenty fucking minutes ago.
>Did he deserve to be expelled from the Order of the Istari?
>>If so, why?
>>inb4 he was a dick who scoured the shire; this occurs after his expulsion
>He sought power and to rule; are these intrinsically evil?
>>What makes them so?
>What makes Aragorn a worthy ruler, but Saruman unworthy?
>>inb4 tax policy
Here's an animoot of a dog smiling to let you know there are no hard feelings. Just tryin' to have some early morning fun discussing characterization and depth of development.
To that extent, who cares what he was originally was sent to Middle-Earth for? Why did Eru sing realities into existence? Why does his opinion/reasoning as a "supreme being" matter?
What sang into existence the reality that Eru existed in?

Attached: A3DD1DA1-39E7-46E6-B7C9-E3DFCF9BAE03.gif (368x368, 1.72M)

> If, by design, there can not be someone who doesn't see something as good, then it can only be good
There isn't a single thing on the planet that universally brings people pleasure, so what you mean is pleasure itself? Feeling happy or feeling pleasure is good, right? But why? Why are positive feelings a good thing?

But that is the proper method. Revenge should be condemned and most of those types of characters are unreasonable enough the only solution to beat them into submission.

Necessary evil

Probably, human beings may live their live by hedonistic tendencies all the god damn time, but I'm not one of the people to think that it's the morally correct way to live your life. It figures that I have trouble understanding a philosophy that starts with the terminology of animalistic desires and fears and extrapolates/abstracts them to the idea of collective goodness.

Not a POV from the book, just a viewpoint in general.
If I'm ignorant, then this is your chance to enlighten me.

>People suffer irregardless of their lot in life. Everyone suffers, it comes as natural to human beings as breathing. Wanting a world with the least suffering is an easy one, it's the one with zero human beings. Which is why minimizing suffering and maximizing pleasure is a stupid dichotomy to set up morality by.
A world without beings capable of suffering would have no suffering indeed. However, giving up because of this unattainable hypothetical world would be silly.
We are here now and out presence can't be undone. So, with the hand that was dealt to us, it's up to us to always strive to reduce our suffering and improve our happiness. It's true that we cannot reduce suffering to zero and reach a peak of happiness, but any effort that reduces suffering and improves happiness is a worthwhile one.

>If we do action A which causes 10 units of suffering now but 50 units of pleasure 100 years from now, versus 20 units of pleasure now, versus 1000 units of pleasure at an unknowable date in the future, how the fuck do you decide what the best path is if can't 100% predict the future to know what will happen by your butterfly effect choices.
We can't be happy at all by letting the fear of the unknown rule us. If, by all known metrics, one thing is good and doesn't seem to cause suffering, but reveals to cause suffering later on, we can't blame ourselves for lacking an unbtainable degree of foresight.

nah, just keep fucking girls with your futa cock

Saruman was expelled from the order by Gandalf the White after he'd tried to kill the Fellowship. This was after Gandalf refused to join him and he declared his allegiance to Sauron. Please don't be disingenuous

>There isn't a single thing on the planet that universally brings people pleasure
Mastrubation does.
>Feeling happy or feeling pleasure is good, right? But why? Why are positive feelings a good thing?
It's a good thing because it is dictated by our biology.

>unattainable hypothetical
>We are here now and out presence can't be undone.

Attached: mike eyebrow.png (1920x1080, 1.97M)

*This was after he imprisoned Gandalf for refusing to join him

You're a moron. So the only moral thing to do is pursue pain? Now you're just a masochist.

That's a truism.
The sentence after it is the asserted one. There is a hidden implication that zero humans = bad and no argument for it anywhere in the post.

Obviously. It's what they deserve, but mercy is about forgiving those that don't deserve to be forgiven. It's not a moral obligation, it's only a choice that you have to make yourself.

>ctrl f
>what if 1 of 8
>7/8 are your posts mocking mine instead of responding with a counterpoint
It was nice trying to talk to you, but you're just making shit up now and attacking me personally.
If my arguments are easily broken down, then do it with your own logic. Otherwise I'll never get better.
I'm unconvinced you can, at this point. You're just a waste of time. Theoretically, anyway, cause y'know time is- eh, it's not worth it.
Godspeed, user.

>Mastrubation does.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anhedonia#Sexual_anhedonia

>It's a good thing because it is dictated by our biology.
Literally nothing is dictated by our biology. Please please please tell me you haven't fallen into the trap of thinking empiricism and science can dictate morality.

It's true. We're both here on Earth and there's no magical switch to stop 100% of our species in an instant, without causing suffering.

>villain tells sob story before final battle
>win the fight
>if you kill him you're just as bad as him
>kill him without hesitation
>high fives all around
>NPCs celebrate that the cunt is dead
we need more games like this

Uh huh. What a boring troll

I'm not saying you need to have a responsibility to forcibly enact that change in society. What you do have a moral obligation to do, however, is to try.

Consider this: as children we learn, before we are able to rationally consider the implications, we absorb values from the culture which surrounds us. These are values which become heavily ingrained. Before we are able to fully and rationally discern our motives and the reasons we have them, we are acting along these guidelines which we have implicitly accepted. We don't have the power at this point to do anything about it -- we are miniature I/O machines which will grow into larger, more complex I/O machines. Society collectively manages the input. The collection of these inputs eventually delineates the output, and what society has collectively decided are acceptable inputs have -- in a very major way -- created the villain, through its collection of individual outputs. Society has, in this way, created the villain, on a macro level. The rational adults have the power to shape what are acceptable inputs, yet through their negligence, they allow a villain to be created.

In this context, the all-powerful protagonist slaying the villain is the ultimate and final injustice. He has been created by it and dies at the hand of someone who values it despite its injustice. Without an attempt at reconciling any of these issues, the protagonist is almost a secondary villain himself.

no lie I want his robe though, that shit sounds trippy as Hell

>Villain uses the hero to enact his master plan and remove any obstacles that would obstruct it
>Villain then betrays the hero and is shocked when the hero comes to kick his ass

Attached: 1563153986568.jpg (301x299, 20K)

>villain is doing the harsh but necessary thing to prevent some great disaster
>once you ruin all his plans unaware of anything but the immediate negative effects of them you are left to solve the problem
>the clearest path to saving everyone is picking up right where he left off

Not now, but in the future there absolutely will be, or we'll die off before we get to that point anyway.

>Debate team is about having a discussion
youtu.be/fmO-ziHU_D8?t=36

Bullying doesn't ever stop, what are you talking about.

Fable 3

>unattainable hypothetical
Lethal infection exists. Maybe you can find a way to mass produce the serum so that you can end all suffering, or at least all future potential suffering. Strictly speaking if humans continue to exist, there will be a baseline amount of suffering. That amount of suffering will accumulate for as long as they exist, so the potential future amount of suffering will always be greater than the suffering you cause by killing everyone.

What the fuck are you even trying to say here?
Did you ran out of arguments so hard that you're going with something that isn't even a strawman but a pure fabrication?

Then it will open up a new dilemma.
Is removing all suffering worth also removing all possible happiness? Or rather, is low suffering more valuable than high happiness?
I think this is an entirely different debate, and one far more opinionated than the idea that "suffering bad, happiness good".

This is why I rather have villains that are pure assholes and not "muh tragic backstory".

Attached: tudio.png (500x368, 170K)

>Please please please tell me you haven't fallen into the trap of thinking empiricism and science can dictate morality.
The animal, subhuman thinking that is=ought is very common around here.
Plenty of vermin who thinks that their desire to breed is a proof of breeding being the reason to exist.

But Dio does have a tragic backstory.

>Is removing all suffering worth also removing all possible happiness?
Yes.

Attached: AN equation.png (557x126, 13K)

>Don't forget, you're hime forever

You can go to the grocery store without causing suffering and now you're concerned that you can't kill someone without causing suffering? Fucking idiot. The suffering cause by killing seven Billion people will never be greater than the suffering that their Trillions of descendants will have by just existing, and even if humanity becomes extinct, the suffering of extinction is equal to to the suffering you would cause by killing everyone.

What he wrote:the west
What he meant: America (i.e. cali, texas, and new york only)
What it actually means: if you divide the map diagonally in half this part of the world will be on the left and include several european countries

You don't have to tell me twice, Yea Forums talking about philosophy is the definition of dunning kruger.

You implied seeking any sort of pleasure even wholesome pleasure is hedonism so I straw manned you. Get fucked on small son. That's what you get for being dumb.

Not feeling pleasure at a given moment is not bad, but being incapable of feeling pleasure necessarily means there is no drive to exist at all.

That has nothing to do with that image because in the proposed solution no one exists anyways.

Yes because the western tactics of protecting our precious snowflake children has given us such stable adults in the millennial generation

>I was wronged by a select group of people
>TIME TO GO SHOOT UP WALMART

That's just asian culture in general. China is the same, shed your individuality, become part of the insectoid colony.

Vayne was a good boy.

Attached: Vayne-transforms.png (1920x886, 1.03M)

Yes? Your point being?

I don't remember what happens, it's been years since I played DoR. She kills the bad guy, right?

This is correct though

>But Dio does have a tragic backstory.

His dad was a shithead, so what?

Yeah, she delivers that line before shooting him

>Pretty much a japanese problem
Then why is it mostly in Western games?

If it happens in reality, it's realistic in fiction as well?

>Infection
I knew HIV was man made

Our current society thinks it's morally just to snip off baby dicks and kill babies as long as they haven't popped out of their mom yet. Those things seem pretty evil.

Oh I see. I never said it was unrealistic though, just that a villain being wronged doesn't automatically make him in the right.

>and kill babies
?

God, on the contrast I hate how Japanese games try to make me sympathize with villains with a variety of excuses regardless of shitty things they did.
>My childhood sucked. Nobody cares about me. I got bullied
>So my resolution is to end humanity and kill not involved people with it.
>Waaah Hero whose parent got killed because of me comes ganging up on me, wait till you hear my side of story and you will know who is the real villain!

He's anti abortion which makes him a retard. Crime rates plummeted when abortion was legalized.

>I hate how Japanese games try to make me sympathize with villains
Name 5

Sidebar, this actually the problem with racism. It's not too much discrimination, it's too little. The people who don't discriminate are the ones who shoot up a random mall of people who never did anything personally to them.

The people who discriminate the most are the ones that know who exactly caused their problems and who to kill. Like the guy who kills the man who sleeps with his wife.

Yeah, his asshole father died when he was young which caused him to spend his youth with a loving and filthy rich foster family. So tragic. Much suffering.

Said society also produced countless other fully functional and upstanding citizens.
A few exceptions to the rule does not mean the entire system should be overthrown.
It was not "society" that wronged them, but a small dirty corner within the society that molded them into such, that corner needs to be cleaned.

There's nothing wrong with killing babies even after they're born so long as they're not self aware yet. Or rather, if it is morally wrong, it's only as wrong as it is to kill equivalently intelligent animals.

I don't know what bottom of the barrel JRPGs you guys play but every Japanese game or anime I've ever played or watched ends with the villain defeated and their plans ruined regardless of how much the MC sympathizes with them.

>bullying isn't a big deal
>just man up
>stop being a faggot
>bullies will stop if you stand up to them
>NOOO OH MY GOD WHY IS HE SHOOTING EVERYONE, NOOOO THIS IS TERRIBLE WHY DID THIS HAPPEN AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Attached: 1526958487256.png (984x704, 179K)

We can make crime rates drop to 0 by abolishing all laws

graduate kid

Xenoblade Chronicles. It started out as I MUST STOP THE VILLAIN, but then it became WHY DON'T YOU BE MY FRIEND VILLAIN

and then everything was ruined forever.

Attached: 1562975826854.png (509x607, 268K)

>Are there any MCs who genuinely wanted to help the villain and resolved the conflict by using proper methods?
Tales of Graces does this. That game sucks ass.

>So what makes Aragorn a rightful ruler, as opposed to Saruman?

Because he's the heir to the throne of Gondor and humans have a right to be ruled by one of their own rather than a fucking evil angel devil thing.

The anti-abortion religious crowd would never accept that argument cause they'd point out that line in Genesis about animals being not as important. You won't convince them.

>b-but it's WHOLESOME
No, subhuman vermin - ie. you - breeding is not wholesome.
And it would still be hedonism if it was.

That's less a tragedy, and more the punchline to a cosmic joke.

>Causing suffering in response to one's own suffering is wrong

Why?

>humans have a right

Attached: jay laugh.gif (173x267, 2.51M)

>I don't know what bottom of the barrel JRPGs you guys play but every Japanese game or anime I've ever played or watched ends with the villain defeated and their plans ruined regardless of how much the MC sympathizes with them.

this.

>bullying stops existing once you graduate
hahahahahahaha

>hard times make strong men!!!

Attached: geyrope.jpg (409x540, 124K)

Stupid counter argument.
I'm better than you in every way. You're clearly stupid as fuck for starters

ah yes, the technically correct solution, almost as useful as the make a speeding limit lower to stop people speeding.

I commit selfless actions all the time because I’m a good person and genuinely care about others. It feels good to help out even if you get nothing in return. The reward is showing people that good really exists and we are capable of it

It's implicit that the villain is wrong on some level. He's doing [villainous things] to get back at the specific people who wronged him, and probably by extension the society which shelters them while punishing him. My point is that in killing the villain, you reaffirm the constructs which created the villain, which is morally wrong without making an attempt to reconcile with the villain, and further goes on to fail to address the problems which will ultimately create another villain. Or is society pushing itself forward at their expense?

>but then it became WHY DON'T YOU BE MY FRIEND VILLAIN
Except Mumkhar died.

Crime rates plummeted because there were 60k-90k less niggers being born every year, user, not because poor people couldn't kill their own children out of a selfish desire to abstain from responsibility.

it's true unless you never develop beyond the mental capacity of a child

>guns? They are not the problem i swear!
This one always makes me chuckle.

It kind of does.
I mean, if there's abuse in the workplace you can easily get someone fired.

Yes, and?

I disagree. Stopping a villain from killing innocents doesn't mean you endorse the greedy scientist who experimented on him unethically and killed his sister or whatever.

>t. Mutt
You people are retarded, most countries would just kill themselves instead of autistically shoot people

>Ar tonelico and not just one example within that. First example is spoilers.
>The second example is where everyone actually has the shared goal of saving the world. Problem is, the situation's so bad that this is impossible without extreme measures being taken.
>The very conflict is over what can even be considered the 'proper method', given the circumstances. They're all incredibly desperate ploys.
Nice example user. Yeah, Ar tonelico whatever else its problems did well in that in a way I can't think of a lot of other games doing. Ideally sure everyone keeps the situation from ever getting so utterly awful in the first place.

But if it does, it's quite conceivable to end up in a scenario where EVERY possible response results in a pile of bodies or suffering. Now what? You can have 100% legit conflict over who pays and how much with strong arguments on every side. And with everything on the line of course some sides will use force, and some will seek revenge on those who fucked everything up in the first place.

Attached: 1156294399899.jpg (2000x2000, 745K)

It turns out that things that happen to you growing up matter. I mean it was obvious since the beginning but slow people like you still have a lot of growing up to do to catch up to our current understanding of things

Would people still advocate circumcisions if babies could fight back?

Poor kids not being born makes things better.

If you are not given rights and dignity on the base assumption that you are a person, you will lack personal agency. You got it the wrong way round.

Austria is a prosperous nation with high living standards
Their downfall into degeneracy has begun but it will take years for the statistics to reflect the damage their culture is inflicting on itself
Russia is shit and has always been shit, statistics reflect that

>comes up behind you and beats the shit out of you until you’re near death or permanently disabled
>small problem

Reading the Silmarillion was kind of weird. It's obvious that before the dunedain came from numenor that everybody left after the cataclymic war between the Valar and Morgoth became just the most backwards of savages and that the dunedain civilized them, but it's just a bit weird because they establish a permanent hierarchy where the dunedain are on top and in control, and it makes you wonder if the dunedain will ever let the men of twilight rule themselves or if they're goal is to intermarry so much that the two distinct people becomes the same race.

????

That means the real solution to crime is no niggers, not killing unborn children.

It's even better to do good actions and get something in return.

What's wrong with killing unborn children?

>subhuman retard broke when it ran out of arguments
As expected

>assault and attempted murder are the same as bullying
good job retard

I'm about to hit 30, I'm not gonna grow up all that much anymore
But at least I managed to grow into a socially competent person that isn't paranoid about schoolyard bullies

>couldn't even assemble their own party of ferociously loyal subordinates who have suffered under similar circumstances
Pathetic, villain-kun!

Attached: 1560960055594.png (293x364, 59K)

They're not children when they're a cluster of cells. Unwanted children shouldn't be forced to live.
You never made an argument, you just bitched about mine. I'm too good for you.

>implying all that crying isn't the passive-agressive tactics of asymmetrical warfare.

>degeneracy
"Argument" discarded
>b-b-b-but it will get worse, I swear! you'll see! just around the corner!

have sex

Attached: fact.jpg (207x253, 8K)

I want to se the villain use the power of friendship with his respected underlings.

No, they wouldn't. They also wouldn't if babies could speak. It's why no one bothers trying to convince a man in his 20s to circumcise. The only people anyone tries to convince to circumcise are the parents of a newly born son where the father was also circumcised, because they're the only ones who can be convinced.

Haha that’s a selfish mentality but not necessarily wrong. The power in being truly selfless is when the person you helped is confused and wondering why you helped them the only answer they can logically conjure up is, “Well I guess he/she was just trying to help.” I’ll accept a reward if the person cares enough to share one (but not money usually unless I’m really broke lmao) but otherwise I don’t really care. I have enough things I love in my life that living in of itself is enough of a reward for me

No workers for my factor-I mean god will be upset haha yes thats why its wrong

Not just around the corner but a few years into the future
It takes a while for a whole nation to shift even when on a slippery slope and statistics take even longer to catch up

Because creating a self-perpetuating phenomenon makes a mockery of God. That's why tit for tat is rogueish, while pissing your good will away makes you a saint.

When do they become children?

Personal agency isn't a cognitive function, It's an assumption of responsibility. We demand that people have personal agency not because of empirical data, but because of necessity. Not requiring an entity which is supposedly equal to you to not have personal agency is a level of retardation most people just don't have.

>stupid counter argument
I imagine Plato said something similar when confronted with a plucked chicken.

>slippery slope
The subhuman retard is digging itself in!

Wrong series to post that response to. Humans have the most rights and are Eru's favorite.

Attached: file.png (296x429, 235K)

If babies could bite, punch, and kick those that try to operate on them, would circumcisions still proceed? Im pretty sure that when it is done on young children and adults they are put under anasthesia but they dont do that for newborns because it fucks with their brains.

yes that is exactly what austrians are doing

Bullying in American schools is more code for violent beatings based on race or crime.

In Japan they get some occasional incidents of people nuts when bullying to similar extremes that become ingrained in the public consciousness bit like the story of the kids beating a homeless guy.

This. i bet he can't even inspire followers so much that they bring him back from the dead hundreds of years in the future.

I'm smarter than Plato and that stupid hobo.
Dunno, whenever the law says they do I guess. Once they can survive without their mother seems like a good answer to me. Otherwise they're basically just a tumour.

>The power in being truly selfless is when the person you helped is confused and wondering why you helped them the only answer they can logically conjure up is, “Well I guess he/she was just trying to help.”

Can you rephrase this sentence is a more coherent way? I can't parse the syntax.

No but what's that got to do with whether it's right or wrong? People wouldn't eat apples if they could fight back either but that wouldn't make eating apples wrong.

>villain is a psycho murderer
>but actually they're just kind of fucked in the head due to their situation
>their only real personal desire is to be with someone or be given a chance at life

Attached: b1a123535a09045dd597d38f19551588.png (774x1109, 614K)

Yes. Actually it’s the same sometimes. Also nobody cares about your dumbass caveman opinion. You’re still a child

>I commit selfless actions
>It feels good to help out even if you get nothing in return.
>The reward is

Does no one here remember nihilistslike Akagi talking about moral fags 10 years ago and how even selfless acts aren't selfless because you get something out of them or some shit?

Play Last Scenario for the PC also known as the best RPG Maker game ever made.

>self-perpetuating phenomenon
like having children? like teaching people anything? like having any organization?
I don't understand where you're going with this.

>Tfw no option to befriend or dick the villian

Attached: 1560562400147.jpg (1725x1080, 529K)

Yes, but you are acting on behalf of the conditions which allowed that scientist to do that to him. Even if he did it illegally, the scientist himself>But at least I managed to grow into a socially competent person that isn't paranoid about schoolyard bullies
Yeah but you also grew up into a person completely unable to view the problem in any way that isn't strictly your own point of view. Not him, but I'm almost 31 myself since we're sharing. I've been an infantryman at the height of the war in Afghanistan, a professional musician, and a bunch of other things. I'm not gonna suck my own dick but I'm pretty fucking tough. I can endure a lot, and I have in my life. The hardest thing that I've had to deal with is continuing to unpack the impact being bullied in high school had on me. Some otherwise tough people have a really hard time with it -- I know that as an objective fact from my own subjective experience. Bullying is an indefensible fucking cancer that serves no constructive purpose in modern society. It's a pestilence and it needs to be rooted out -- we'd all be much better for it, even if it means the bully needs to sit with his insecurity for a bit.

If you’re good for no reason the only reason is that you’re good.

>I’m smarter than Plato

Attached: C48E528B-3DEF-4D67-BDB8-06263F9DA291.png (300x297, 7K)

> Refusing to understand the issue is wrong!
> What? A culture doesn't agree? Fuck trying to understand them, beat them up!

Why can't americans stop posturing for five seconds? They're just weird, man. You don't try to understand Japs or Germans, just accept the mutts are strange as well.

>uses a knife and homemade explosives instead
checkmate, atheist

>Yes, but you are acting on behalf of the conditions which allowed that scientist to do that to him
Kidnapping people is illegal user, the person who wronged him also acted outside of society's boundaries

feuniverse.us/t/why-fire-emblem-isnt-what-it-used-to-be/2643

I'd crush him in an IQ test I'm smarter than any roman. Most modern men would.

>I'm smarter than Plato
Woah ok buddy

That makes no sense. So there isn't a reason why you're good but at the same time being good is the reason why you're good? Is English not your first language?

inb4 (you)s

>plato
>roman

So we allow the government to decide when someone is or is not human. We also can kill our kids until they're, what, 3 or 4 years old? A 4 year old won't survive on their own. They need an adult to provide food and shelter.

Nah, he probably just intends to let savages be savages. just far away from him.

It would be wrong because apples have feelings and they dont want to be eaten
Like how others have feelings and dont want to be killed

Modern men aren't smart, they just have access to the internet. You're a good example of that.

Mumkhar wasn't a villain, Mumkhar was a cunt.

Attached: Candy edit.png (357x1784, 48K)

>Villain explains his motives and it's hard to find a fault in them
>Protagonist is not convinced though, and is hellbent on putting a stop to his plans
>You play the final fight as the villain, your plan that will benefit all in the long run hinging on you defeating the stubborn "hero"

Too bad there's not a single videogame out there that does this

God, you're so pretentious but so fucking stupid. You ask these empty, reductive questions just so you can pretend to be a moral skeptic or whatever. I hope you at least on some level know that half of your questions are flat-out invalid.

Yeah, all those horrible, horribly common knife+explosives rampages!
Who cares about those 50+ victims killed per year from shooting, think about those 5 victims who have to be hospitalized every 5 years from the knifing rampages!

IQ test doesn't measure philosophical skills, dumb american. Modern men aren't philosophically smarter.

>hurr hurr me internet tough guy
all that effort teaching you, and your bullies still can't stop you being a fag

Attached: 1540672904527.webm (668x720, 1.8M)

Did they not teach basic philosophy to whatever school you went to?

I didn’t know IQ tests measured arrogance

In neverwinter nights (real spoiler ahead) you can become the villain in the end

because it'd be a total waste of time. Why invest all that time into a mission if it turns out you were wrong from the start? Why not stop playing video games and go outside if your time is going to be wasted THAT HARD.

My point was that someone would find another way to kill people that bullied them, user. The root cause isn't guns because anything can be used to commit murder. Taking rights away just because bad things happen isn't the right course of action.

It made perfect sense the first time and it makes perfect sense the second time. Being good is simply about being good. Nothing more or less. It’s a simple concept

The bullied exist to give confidence and bonding time to bullies. They serve a purpose and should be grateful they have a positive impact on society.

Modern men are philosophically as smart as a wet paper bag. They get their ideas of philosophy from smoking pot and watching documentaries on aliens.

>he cannot claim to fully represent that society
Ok? I don't remember running for office.

No my schools taught me nothing. I had to teach myself everything I know about anything

That wasn't the point of my post, but you know that.

Americans aren't taught philosophy in school because otherwise they would question their shit culture and leaders.

The label of goodness and the desire to be good is surely a simple concept, but why someone is good is not. Human beings are not simple concepts, they're puddles of contradiction, paradoxes, and falsehoods. If somebody actually ends up being truly good, it would the most important thing in the world to know why and how they became good.

How are plot twists any more a waste of your time than a narrative that is played completely straight? In fact, one could argue that a straightforward narrative that you can predict what will happen by page and age 5 is much more a waste than something that comes out of left field.

We actually are. Not sure what shit tier public ghetto schools you went to.

>Modern men aren't philosophically smarter.
He might not be all that wrong about this, even if by accident.

Ancient men were mostly peasants. Vast majority of the society spent their life farming.
Their philosophical skills were barely above animal level and animal philosophy is basically "breeding good, dying bad".

While most modern men are just normies whose philosophy doesn't differ much from that of an animal, even the pretentious hipsters are above that.
Something as obvious to us as "you don't need to live your life like others want you to" would be pretty much heresy level to peasants who have never even heard of the word "philosophy".

The internet is serious business. ;_;

Switzerland
>Just because this country has guns and no mass shootings doesn't mean the problem isn't guns! There is nothing wrong with having a fear-mongering media omnipresence, a complete lack of mental healthcare, negligent parents, and children allowed to brutalize and ostracize other, weaker children without fear of adult reprisal, it's the guns!

Trust me fucko, the problem is the Americans, not the guns.

Attached: 1306899022259.jpg (564x436, 50K)

nothing is selfless if you twist it enough

Guns enable school shootings.
Without guns, he'd kill at best 3 people.
With guns, he kills 30.

There are pro-gun arguments that work, but "people will just do school stabbings" is certainly not on the list.

>Isn't it universally important that the villain was in turn wronged
No.

Oh, look, someone making interesting points on Yea Forums.

Attached: 1546510363684.png (1602x334, 129K)

I always personally assume it's like Stan's jacket from Monkey Island combined with Joseph's fucking outstanding 4k def 256-colour coat.

Attached: PFWOLfq.gif (200x269, 28K)

Knives enable school knifings.

Attached: ben-franklin-liberty-security-lose-both-poster.jpg (450x302, 26K)

Obsession over """""tropes""""" is incredibly cringy. Who gives a shit as long as the story is well told

>hurr durr me so cool and manly, me not care about years of regular beatings, mockery, and having no friends
Speaking of internet tough guys

Is making empty statements and "what if the bad guy was actually the good guy woaaaaah" considered an interesting point to you? If so that's kind of embarrassing

>Without guns, he'd kill at best 3 people.

If he was retarded and just ran in swinging a knife. But what if he methodically lured people into remote corners of the school and killed them there with no witnesses and just kept on doing that until the jig was up, at which point he could still commit to the wild swinging?

No they don't faggot.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child#Raised_by_dogs
>Madina, a three-year-old girl. Madina lived with dogs from birth until she was three years old. She slept with them in the cold, ate food with them, and played with them. Her father left her after she was born, and her mother became an alcoholic. She never looked after Madina since she was always too drunk and Madina would chew on bones from the floor with the dogs. When social workers found Madina in 2013, she acted like dogs and was not wearing any clothes. Madina was being taken care of and the doctors said that she was mentally and physically healthy even after what she had gone through

Side note; dogs are better at raising human kids than women are.

Attached: 1533783488647.jpg (706x706, 32K)

I am.
Same shit, all a bunch of manlet pedos.
I meant connected with a cord, don't be obtuse, you're as dumb as plato lol.
Yes we are. Nutrition and education.
A grade 8 education puts you on par with some of the greats of the ancient age.
It's just facts.
There's no accident. I know what I'm saying.

>"breeding good, dying bad
You realize this animal philosophy is actually much better than modern men's philosophy "not breeding is good, death is taboo"?

Read as "I am unable to question my own viewpoint"

You are a dickhead.

Guns are the great equalisers, purpose built killing machines. Short of your deranged shooter having access to chemical weaponry ( which would require knowledge of chemistry and practical application ) or bombs ( ditto ) there is no more effective way for Joe Chucklefuck to kill en masse.

Sure, Joe Chucklefuck might start an online hate campaign, or stab someone ( which requires a much higher level of courage and conviction because you can't disassociate during the act, unlikely to be possessed by an angry shooter ) but there will never be more effective a way to do it than guns.

People don't need guns.

We see zero reports about anyone preventing a shooting by shooting the shooter, they're shit for self defence too.

Ban guns.

Shoot yourself.

>if he teleported behind them and unleashed jutsu no oppai, he'd get 200 kills
Except it doesn't happen, while 10+ kills in a school shooting is totally expected.

>theirself
What the grotesque shit is this? Just stop using the "singular they". Any person with unknown sex is a he.

This
Only the lowest IQ posters forgive all the villains crimes because they fell for the villain's semantics

This is just the background of your average school shooter
Only replace "powers" with "guns" and the "power of friendship" with "social media"

>fall of the west can be directly traced to communism and judaism
>somehow individuality, a trait absent in both, is to blame for those 2 things

Attached: 1551179848603.gif (225x225, 46K)

You're not supposed to eat babies.

sticks on the ground means poked out eyes

Read as "I am unable to question my own viewpoint"

>t. John Marston

>Valid counter! But what about this purpose crafted, highlu specific scenario that could only be pulled off by John Rambo, the fucking predator or a playthrough on whichever Hitman game has the worst AI?

Nice.

>Making people guide you somewhere remote in the guise of being new to the school is apparently the same as some anime bullshit

You underestimate how trusting people generally are if they do not suspect danger.

>Your job could be done by AI

It is, just look at /pol/ nowadays.

Attached: 1554419262913.png (188x192, 52K)

Sorry to say, I can't relate. Just be yourself and you ain't never gotta worry about none of that.

Why not? It's natural for living creatures to eat failed offspring to gain energy to create better offspring.

Why do you think breeding is good? I mean, having sex is pretty nice, but I'm not a fan of the unfortunate consequences.

>People don't need guns.
>We see zero reports about anyone preventing a shooting by shooting the shooter, they're shit for self defence too

Worst bait in an already bad thread

Attached: 1565913440841.jpg (723x890, 172K)

Thank you for your input.

muh generational pyramid scheme tho
we need more kids to pay for the elderly and then even more kids to pay for THOSE elderly

Why?

i lived in the ghetto and we still had philosophy, government and proper history classes. hell we had home ec in a shitty small room but it was there.
only particularly shitty schools don't teach these things

Please god let OPM S3 get a decent studio and 2cour to do this proper

Attached: Garou_Awakened_Webcomic.png (275x275, 70K)

Nice.

>This quote from a time when offensive weaponry was still so shit you still needed to line up hundreds of men and walk at eachother to get any level of meaningful kills is totally valid in the discourse on easy to access, modern weaponry.

Yes.

>Without guns, he'd kill at best 3 people.

China has a problem with lunatics running into dense crowds with a blade and killing +20 people, your logic is flawed.

Fucking chinks, I swear to God, Humans are not a goddamn aphrodisiac. Everything gross and exotic isn't a fucking aphrodisiac.

It's so good being an autist and responding to emtional arguments with demanding facts and then calling them ableist when they call me heartless.

That's just due to the density of the crowds, it'd be worse with guns.

lolis vs hags

>I can't counter his point so I'll accuse him of bad technique.

A+

Stop posting retard

Attached: 1560930585192.png (1280x384, 252K)

>98% Japanese.

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean

Automatic weaponry was available before that quote. I think it's a bit silly to imply the founding fathers did not foresee weapons technology advancing.

when a faggot wrongs you, do you want to help them straighten their life and become law abiding citizens,
or would you rather cave their head in?

Humans are by nature very vengeful and depending on the crime, it's usually to be expected to want an equal punishment.
For example, any intentional murderers should be killed like 80% of the time, the only excuses should be to those who were defending themselves or not "in control" thanks to alcohol or drugs

You don't want facts. If you sat and measured gun violence you would quickly realize what the actual problem is, and it's not the tool used. Now that I've posted this you will have a meltdown over "racism."

Attached: 1561039678504.jpg (881x862, 86K)

>Despite having a remarkably fast fire rate for the time, the Kalthoff could never have become a standard military firearm because of its cost. The mechanism had to be assembled with skill and care, and took far more time to assemble than an ordinary muzzle-loader. Also, all the parts were interdependent; if a gear broke or jammed, the whole gun was unusable and only a specialist gunsmith could repair it. It needed special care; powder fouling, or even powder that was slightly wet, could clog it. Since it was so expensive to buy and maintain, only wealthy individuals and elite soldiers could afford it.

Salient point, very good. Very equivalent.

What's your solution?

He's calling you a 56% mutt.

Castrating blacks like the Ottomans did

Genocide
Same as always, sure people are gonna hate us but hey it works

Abortion.

You think there's a realistic chance of doing that, pragmatically speaking?

No blacks

You reckon the rate of black people killing people would be the exact same number if guns didn't exist?

You fucking retard.

it always comes back to /pol/shit

Nah man. His father was an asshole and he caused the death of Dio's mother (who was the only person Dio cared about other than himself) but he had no reason to hate the Joestar family. If anything they were his saviours, Jojo's father knew everything about Dio's family situation and adopted him precisely because he wanted to give Dio a better chance at life. His initial plan was to murder both Jojo and his father and inherit everything, when he found the mask he realized that money and wealth wasn't enough. Despite all of that neither Jojo nor his father ever hated Dio, if anything they pitied him

>Why are most games like this?
can you even name one?

it sounds like one hell of a weeb ass thing to say, like I'm almost absolutely quite nearly japanese in my heart but those pesky 2% made me be born in atlanta with all the gaijin

Beep.

Boop.

You think there's a realistic chance of banning firearms pragmatically speaking?

see
Duh, but I'm asking how you expect to achieve that.

This is an idea that actually has merit and is working now.

Why do you assume looking at the facts bothers me, no matter what the facts are?

Attached: 1550195210412.png (349x515, 109K)

Your argument was

>This quote from a time when offensive weaponry was still so shit you still needed to line up hundreds of men and walk at eachother to get any level of meaningful kills

Which is proven demonstrably false by the existence of repeaters prior to the Constitution's existence.

Now that you realize you made a stupid, incorrect argument you're trying to cite the rifle's expensive construction (at the time). What a weasel you are. I'm thankful that gun rights have only expanded in the passing years, people like you are rightfully laughed at.

Attached: 1542531483065.gif (676x509, 94K)

>"YOU SHOULDN'T PUNISH A MURDERER BECAUSE THEY WERE ABUSED AS A KID!"

Attached: 170px-Oda_Nobunaga-Portrait_by_Giovanni_NIcolao.jpg (170x206, 8K)

Fucking hell, are you talking with yourself, I find it kind of unbelievable you countered their point so perfectly

I think it's a bit silly to imply the founding fathers didn't foresee weapons technology advancing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

>Death toll of 45 with 58 injured on top of that
>0 guns used to directly shoot at people
If someone wants someone or multiple someones dead, they will find a way to do it whether they have access to guns or not.

Non-arguments that this took place a long time ago in 1... 2... 3...

Not when there's so much money to be made and America's political donation laws are about as helpful as trying to stop a river using a sieve.

More so than genocide or castration of blacks yes, at least in the current political climate and in the future if things proceed as they are now.

>You reckon the rate of black people killing people would be the exact same number if guns didn't exist?

Native Americans and Africans still kill the shit out of each other, even if they have nothing available but sharpened sticks or stones.

NAP

Irrelevant
Doesn't happen
Doesn't cause a lot of people to die
Doesn't do anywhere near enough harm to be comparable to guns

Shut the fuck up Trudeau

>How dare you pick apart my point! You weasel!

Cool. Nice job, Tim.

>No, dont address the group responsible for the violence, they all vote for me
>Just strip everyone's rights instead

What a faggot

Attached: 1556991982360.png (1888x1714, 2.12M)

No it means the demographics of your country are 56% white. Jesus, how the fuck have you never seen the mutt meme? Did you just blow in from RetardEra?

Attached: 1545120329663.jpg (904x711, 70K)

I'm sure it'd be nice if all blacks just disappeared tomorrow, but we live in the real world.

I mean, they didn't foresee a shitton of things, and the constitution makes it painfully clear

You have no point. In fact you're one of the worst arguers I've seen on this website by a country mile. Weapons capable of killing large swaths of men in little time existed before the Second Amendment was written. Removing access to guns does nothing, as plenty of nations with a wealth of guns have a very low gun homicide rate. The actual source of all this gun crime is the existence of blacks.

Attached: 1546936769137.png (310x479, 122K)

>it's possible to kill people without guns
>thus we should hand out guns without restrictions
that's the second most retarded argument of gun apologists

>Demons are merciless monsters
>they cry when they're killed feel bad for them and their sad life
The great animation isn't worth the hack writing.

Attached: f1fe5c7a43cb2f38f4152a58f89479821554508873_full.jpg (640x960, 201K)

Got any stats on stick related deaths there, Herr Rassist.

It's almost as of the pro gun Klan-jnrs in this thread are fucking idiots.

You are retarded dog.
He's saying Japan is 98% japanese.
America is 60% white.

>Got any stats on stick related deaths there

Africa

I think whatever you're referring to is a bit harder to foresee than "weapons will be better in the future than they are now"

>plenty of nations with a wealth of guns have a very low gun homicide rate
which ones

You are retarded.
There are no villains only optics. Till you learn to think objectively you will be a manipulated puppet. Good luck killing your country men when your team captain tells you to.

>Doesn't happen

Because guns are easier and available. If you take away the guns, then the lunatics will invariably have to modify their approach if they want to achieve even moderate success. And they will do that, after a few attacks that end in little to no fatalities.

Long story short, if you cut the means with which to commit violence, then those inclined to do so will just get craftier with the means they still have left.

This is not a thing. This is is not a fucking thing. One, two cases at absolute most. Why is the author making fun of a thing that is not common at fucking all

Stop samefagging

Arguing the Japanese are genetically homogeneous might be even dumber than arguing in favor of gun grabbing

This one

Attached: 1559281771711.jpg (750x750, 66K)

Based determinist?

And, back in ye olde days, how many Steve Jones on the street could pop down to the corner store, buy one with a day's pay and then kill so many people on a regular basis that the very act stopped becoming news worthy?

>I still can't refute his points, but hopefully if I tell him he's doing a bad job he'll believe me!

(■-■)

Never have I argued that we should freely give out guns (which isn't even the current state of things), only that banning guns will do nothing to stop people getting killed by deranged individuals.

Without guns, he can still become a serial killer, construct homebrew explosives, hijack a large vehicle capable of mayhem or whatever esle. Removing guns doesn't remove the sickness ingrained in his culture.

>Killing to protect innocents from harm is the same as killing for your own personal gain/gratification
Absolutists are such retards.
I know this is bait and I am choosing to bite

Attached: 1358529605965.png (505x482, 260K)

Games where there's no clear cut villain or hero and both make sense are absolute KINO though

What, and those country don't have black people? Adjusted for the lower population, the blacks in those countries kill less people.

That's a continent, not an empirical stat, but I'll give you a week's extension and hopefully you can finish your homework by then, sweety.

>how many Steve Jones on the street could pop down to the corner store, buy one with a day's pay and then kill so many people on a regular basis that the very act stopped becoming news worthy?

Are you pretending the Wild West in its entirety didn't exist? Or that much earlier highwaymen weren't a plague in Europe, despite firearms at the time largely being limited to flintlock technology?

If you're going to blatantly troll at least try.

Attached: 1549495962921.jpg (800x800, 200K)

>Because guns are easier and available.
Doesn't happen when guns aren't available either.

Beep.

Boop.

I will say 1 in 3 people having a gun is a wealth of guns so: Norway, France, Switzerland and Finland

>KINO

Attached: 1554587214662.png (291x331, 57K)

yes it will
your problem is that "stopping people from getting killed" is an on/off situation in your head
banning guns will drastically reduce people getting killed by deranged retards, it will still happen on occasion because nothing can ever prevent that entirely
but your homicide rate would drastically go down
however as long as it doesn't go down all the way 0 it is treated the same as having no effect at all by guntards

But it makes it much less effective at doings its job.

Without police, a spree killer could still be stopped by a random passerby. Yet we keep police around.

Its very easy to Google "Switzerland gun homicide" and see how low it is, despite so much gun ownership in that country

Attached: 1561435879873.png (745x678, 64K)

>Games with poor writing are ABSOLUTELY KINO

Depends from your quality as a human if it's good or bad. If you're healthy and have kids you're improving human gene pool, it means you contributed something to humanity and made humans slightly better on this earth than they were before you. If you're disabled and unhealthy you shouldn't have kids, because that's good for humanity.

If you're healthy and refuse to have kids in a area that's not overpopulated you can't call yourself a person who believes in goodness. You're just selfish and greedy and avoid responsibilities as a man for the sake of material pleasures. People used massive amounts of resources to raise you and you should want to make kids to continue your successful community that raised you successfully. That would mean you actually believe in goodness.

If you don't support your human community you have no place to complain when other human communities try to invade or destroy your community, because you're part of the problem by not giving your community anything back.

>Switzerland
businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2/

I mean at least the villain also has the power of friendship

Oh shit, we have an interdimensional traveler here. Tell me, in this alternate dimension without guns, is violence completely absent? Are you living in an utopia where each morning begins with "Kumbaya My Lord" blasting from loudspeaker setups all over the country?

>People operating in lawless territories before the establishment of effective police forces is the same as the current context.

Yeah, but nah.

>banning guns will drastically reduce people getting killed by deranged retards

This has never worked. Also good luck telling the police they have to go door to door confiscating all the guns, pic related is their future and they know it.

Attached: 1538854472701.gif (370x281, 1.98M)

3 G A M E S
G
A
M
E
S

Switzerland doesn't have the lowest homicide rates in the world, San Marino and 20 countries including Japan and Indonesia have lower rates.

And Honduras doesn't have the highest homicide rates either, who the fuck made this BS image?

>but it's just a bit weird because they establish a permanent hierarchy where the dunedain are on top and in control, and it makes you wonder if the dunedain will ever let the men of twilight rule themselves or if they're goal is to intermarry so much that the two distinct people becomes the same race.
It's more like the Dunedain showed up and gave those savages peace by killing off the most rabid elements and giving the rest that remained culture and meaning to their lives. They were stronger, fairer, longer lived, of course the humans they civilized would worship the ground they walked on even without being forced to and strive to emulate them. It's not difficult to abandon the idea of "ruling themselves" if all that came of it was murder and deterioration. Mixing of bloodlines is just an eventual byproduct of those they civilized becoming closer to them as people in spirit, followed by becoming closer in body.

You've moved the goalposts so many times and so far away we cant even see them any more, great job. You didn't do well in school and it's obvious.

Attached: 1549384335628.jpg (1029x4528, 1.46M)

>Villain was right all along

Attached: 1565075251073.jpg (732x959, 56K)

>Banning guns will drastically reduce people getting killed by deranged retards
If that is true, why were massacres just as common before the age of the firearm?

>Are you living in an utopia where each morning begins with "Kumbaya My Lord" blasting
No, only the SHUNKS of a thousand very dramatic action movie knives being unsheathed as people leave the safety of their domiciles and prepare to transport themselves to their jobs.

>any other form of pre-meditated carnage is a purpose crafted, highly specific scenario
OK.

Switzerland's murder rate is on par with China's.

You do know that there's presumably nothing after death, right? So, when I'll die I won't get to see the result of my actions, so why should I care for anything that happens after my time? Surely knowing that, it just make more sense to care for oneself above all else, and if "supporting the community" goes against that, why should I do it?

Go on, wigger.

There were 50 murders total in Switzerland last year. Gun ownership went up.

thelocal.ch/20190326/what-a-new-report-tells-us-about-crime-in-switzerland

Similarly China's low crimerate isn't due to low crime, but failure to report by state police.

world.wng.org/2018/10/the_puzzle_of_china_s_low_crime_rates

I insist you don't post anymore, in this thread or any other.

Attached: 1555880308733.gif (516x215, 2.58M)

You can contribute in other ways than having children. Improving humanity is not just a matter of biology, but also cognition. While one follows the other, it's also very much possible to have perfectly capable and healthy human beings that still live practically like animals. See trailer trash.

Supporting your community is an extension of caring for yourself, if you had higher IQ, you'd understand that. Be improving the surroundings you live in, you also improve your own lot in life. If all people thought the way you did, we'd still be living in fucking jungles, squatting in fucking caves because why the fuck would we give a crap about our surroundings when each of us can just find a nice hole in the ground?

Hahahaha, read this air nips
*FARRRTSSSS*
HAHAHHAHABASEDDABSSSHAHAHA

>So, when I'll die I won't get to see the result of my actions, so why should I care for anything that happens after my time?

This is the blackest thing I've ever read

like 90% of the demons were turned in to one outside of their control, and mostly everyone who did lost their memories and morality
It's not the goal to make you feel bad for them, but to symphatize with the human that they once were.

The demon that took their place is not the same person anymore, except until their final moments where they usually redeem some tiny speck of their memories and humanity.

For example, if a man turns in to a zombie do you hate him, or do you hate the zombie?

>so desperate that he has to compare Swiss murder rates v. Chinese crime rates to have Switzerland come out on top

Face it, burgerlard, guns don't magically make your country any safer. The Swiss are proportionally as murderous as the bugmen are.

>He keeps countering my points so I'll keep calling him bad at debating.

It's alright, Stevey, you get a participation award. I've spoken with your mum and she knows you find it hard so she won't tell your dad about the grades.

What's your source for gun ownership going up in Switzerland?

I wasn't the one who decided to compare Switzerland to China, read what I replied to. Also Switzerland's crimerate is very low compared to basically everybody else.

>Africa has stick violence!
'Equivalent to gun violence?'
>...Switzerland has no gun violence!
>Posts image about Australia

I don't know what point you're trying to make here, honey.

Why do you need to see the results of your actions? Why knowing the good results of your actions isn't enough?

>Improving humanity is not just a matter of biology, but also cognition.
You said the answer yourself. Biology is basis of cognition and intelligence. If you're healthy both mentally and physically you create more intelligent people to the world that refuse to live like trailer trash because their mind is superior to that.

>bragging about having a higher homicide rate than Indonesia

Attached: 8b6.jpg (600x901, 65K)

The picture he posted actually sources the claims, unlike your asinine ramblings about how you need to disarm everyone and supposedly that will ensure peace and tranquility and not merely fuck over the law abiding citizens that will be made helpless in face of crime and injustice, when criminals don't give a shit about laws and regulations and will proceed to acquire firearms that are now illegal regardless.

>muh points when you dont post citations of any kind

Attached: 1541088884646.jpg (700x525, 23K)

DRV3

Your cognition is not just a product of your genetics, but also of your environment. If your parents don't teach you how to speak during your formative years, you will never learn how to speak properly. See beast children.

>very low compared to basically anybody else
Except Japan, China, Indonesia, and a shitload of countries with high firearm regulations.

>Now he can't possibly point out how bullshit all my other carefully constructed, highly unlikely scenarios are!

Here's a challenge, go do some research and bring me back an equivalent mass killing that didn't involve guns for every day there was a mass shooting in the US of A.

Africa didnt record crime rates (it didnt record anything because they didnt invent written language in 99% of the continent), and current crime rates even in areas too impoverished to own guns are very high.

You'll know the leftist by his awkwardly overly-aggressive tone, as if he studied being confident from an instruction manual but never practiced in front of a mirror

>France
>Norway
>Switzerland
>Finland
all of them have stricter gun laws than the US and require regulation
US's gun problem is not because of the ownership of guns per se, but the horribly lax gun rights law compared to these countries

>comparing Switzerland to China again

see

I was just answering the question.

>Demands the person making rhetorical points to counter the people constructing fake scenarios make citations.

Stevey, we can't let you back in the debate club next semester, but we have found you a lovely room and we'll give you a box of blunt crayons and all the round paper you could ask for.

Hello.

Attached: 1544378922234.png (512x512, 102K)

Then maybe you should've asked for countries with laxer laws, instead of more guns, if that's what you wanted, Einstein.

Post any sources whatsoever supporting gun grabbing.

Attached: 1561895731243.png (725x694, 606K)

>have power
>try to reign in it because you know they'll be consequences
>the party bullies you for it

Attached: Isekai is Over.png (1700x886, 768K)

Greetings, young man

Attached: Adachi.png (554x838, 209K)

>Norway, Switzerland or Finland
>stricter gun laws than the US

Attached: 1560474480892.jpg (300x300, 15K)

>D-d-don't you bring my dad into this! Y-y-y-ou're the one who lacks confidence!

My sweet child.

Hi!

nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people
According to this Honduras IS the highest murder rate per capita and the European countries mentioned have lower crime rates than every Asian country except China. Not sure where you guys are getting your information from.

Japs can create good villains too

Attached: Steven_Armstrong.jpg (865x760, 48K)

If the mods were any good at their job this guy would receive a range ban. You read this shit and tell me in earnest he'll ever say anything of value ever.

Attached: 1555146545897.png (512x512, 214K)

See?

yes

Why are so many of those feral kids russian

*Oops I meant Japan and Singapore not China.

>but also of your environment
Yes, which means your community. You want to preserve that good environment by continuing it with a next generation as you know it had the resources to make you cognitive and intelligent.

>'We defend ourselves with a societal cohesion that focuses on respect for the sanctity of life and by encouraging people to hand disputes and ire within the law. When this fails we have specially trained law enforcement that are strictly monitored and held accountable' was too difficult a concept so we just went for 'muh guns'.

You've yet to post a source that proves that keeping guns is any safer.

Two words - civil war. Or maybe the third - communism

don't say I never did nothing for you
#reddit spacing filters
/(\n){3}/
/(\n\n(.{0,250})\n\n)/
/>.*\n.{1,200}\n\n>.*\n.{1,200}\n\n/
/^(>>\d{5,10}\n)?>.*\n\n.{1,200}$/

Attached: 1561815554660.png (677x208, 58K)

Except most people don't think that way, so that's a moot point, and surely you don't believe that everything I do and want to do lines up with the need of the community right? Sure I want to improve my surrounding, but only in a way that'll benefit myself, and if it'll make things better for people around me, that's all fine, but it's basically never the case.

I'm considering P5R a different story. Even then to get me to like him they'd either need to retcon the parent murder, which is a bit of a cop out, or include a very serious scene with Futaba and Haru forgiving him which would be very difficult to execute but it could be an insanely good impactful scene if executed properly. The whole reason Futaba joined the Phantom Thieves was to get vengeance/justice on Akechi.

>Maybe the mods fellate guns as much as I do and they'll ban him for hurting my feelings!

>He keeps doing it!
XD

>not just giving her a "There's much more at stake here than you know."

Attached: Kain.png (1280x1408, 2.41M)

Oh he posted one up here
You must have missed it during your tantrum.

Are you omniscient or something? How would I know anything about the things that'll happen after my death, how can I possibly infer that the consequences of the things I do will be necessarily positive?

Yeah, that always works out so well, don't it?

I'mThanks for continuing to prove my point for me.

And now that I think about it taking Akechi's heart would be another option for redemption. I'd love an Akechi palace.

It does if you have the strength of will to see it through.

>If I just block it out they can't hurt my feelings and I'll never have to re-examine my worldview!
>My core beliefs are built on such shaky foundations I must avoid conflict at all costs!

You aren't legally allowed to carry a firearm in Finland unless you are expressly going to or from a gun-related activity, and even then the gun must be carried unloaded in a case or pouch. That is already a huge difference to 'murica where you can get a concealed carry permit and walk around with a loaded gun.

Well, it is an undeniable fact that it's harder to acquire weapons if they are banned.

Are you okay?

Meant for
for avoiding

All these countries require a permit for the guns in federal states and don't allow open carry.
All of them require you to undergo training with the gun under the watchful eyes of the police.

dataunodc.un.org/crime/intentional-homicide-victims

Hong Kong, Macau, and Indonesia all have lower murder rates than Switzerland, as do a great deal of island nations.

No. No it didn't. You're an idiot, not a fucking stoic.

>No U!
ಠωಠ

So does the US

That won't lower the crime rates though. Weapons are tools. Criminals will remain. A criminal doesn't need an AR-15 to kill you, he can use a boot knife for that.

Thanks man

I'm not the one who asked the question about which countries have more guns

nobody cares

The samefag gun-grabbing Redditor will continue to ignore everything in this image
He will not post any citations of his own either

Attached: 1550264250235.jpg (377x567, 15K)

Read actual quality literature. Or at least a good Isekai.

...

Then maybe you should've read the question being answered before you decided to butt in and flaunt your lack of reading comprehension.

Nobody cares about your little spat. If you niggers are so desperate for the last word, wait the five fucking minutes until we're on page 10 with your spam.

Because you're adult, educated and know history you can safely assume some actions are always positive to humanity.

Only some states require a permit to purchase guns, not the entire US

As much as we all know this trope is stupid and merely an excuse to keep reoccurring villains, consider the following:
When a protester assaults somebody who disagrees with them, they are denying that mindset. They are arrogant and believe its okay for them to do bad things to other people because they are righteous in their own mind.
>Its okay to punch somebody if they are my self defined view of a nazi
is the same as
>its okay to kill the bad guys if they are the bad guys

Concession accepted. Hope your bubble is comfortable

Switzerland has higher murder rates than Qatar, Oman, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Macao, China, Japan, Singapore, and is about equal with Vietnam when it comes to violent crimes bro.

Don't insult me. I don't read isekai.

You could legally own cannons when that quote was made.

Then how about you answer the question on how many countries have more guns owned per capita than the US

This is (You)

Attached: 1552686821296.gif (480x360, 3.86M)

Yeah it does have a serious immigration problem doesn't it? I agree.

retard

Attached: 1559441193165.png (646x230, 18K)

>armstrong
>good villain
Not really
He's entertaining and hilarious, but not a good villain,
his aspirations are retarded and so is his face

while a good bit of truth, it does sound like you have a bias against blamming others, or having more interest in finding the cause of problems within others.

Other peoples influences (Nurture) along side "Nature", are both outside of their initial influence. Putting the blame solely one on doesnt help. Also, many attempts to "fix problems" that plague a minority of people, has shown to hinder the "majority" with new/similar problems. There is no singular fix all, but there is a method to try and fix "the majority" while abandoning the minority. (The right leaning view of, this is what we know we can do, even if it would be nice to have a better alternative)

On a side note, this "issue" isnt just in japan, unless you mean games being made about it.
Because its the japanese way of thinking, that causes them to assume this is what causes bad behaviors. (Which can be an influence, and more so in japan.)

This issue comes up in America, but stories just arent usually told about it, mostly due to cultural differences.

Why? Will that suddenly make your irrelevant aside any less so?

Aww did the big baby filter it? Did it facts hurt your little feelings?

>Guns are the great equalisers
>Ban guns.

Why do you want old people and pregnant women to be unable to defend themselves?

Right, but a knife is overall a much less effective tool for murdering people, it's pretty much countered by running away.
Also "criminals" aren't a special breed of people they make in laboratories, most school shooting are done by teenagers going to said school, if you take away the convenient access to a gun, you also take away the sheer ease to commit such a crime.

>what are some countries that own plenty of guns that don't have high gun murder rates
>lists some countries as if that debunks the theory that US doesn't need stricter gun laws
>those countries have stricter guns laws
>shut up asshole
good argument, nice of you to expose yourself as the NRA apologist you are

>a knife is overall a much less effective tool for murdering people

No it's not.

nbcnews.com/news/world/33-dead-130-injured-china-knife-wielding-spree-n41966

Attached: 1558015950368.png (546x566, 14K)

Attached: _108201305_countries-nc.png (2666x1958, 80K)

What action would you consider "always positive for humanity"? And why should I care, I won't personally experience the consequences of any of my actions if said consequences happen after my death.

>Group of knife wielding men
Of course you can add to the lethality of any situation by adding more perpetrators.

Stop giving fucking charity to blacks for being black and let their numbers dwindle naturally.

This is what I mean by projecting confidence. So much trash talk but the moment a counterargument is posted
he runs away and shrivels up in the corner with only the most pitiable "n-nobody cares" in response.

>china
>the country where you can't even go a day without something seriously wrong fucking up

you dont flash the weapon around, if ur intent is to hurt multiple people.
you can get away with letting ppl know u have a gun, because ist ranged.

plus you can just go to a new location, and keep repeating the problem, like some of the mass stabbings in the uk.

This alternate dimension is on the other side of the ocean, it's called "Europe".
There is 10x less homicide per capita.

And Iceland has less. What's your point?

I'm not part of your spat, that's what's in the picture, so you can stop pretending now. Nobody cares. You're spamming smug fucking babyspeak at each other, like you're some sort of fucking american, "debating" gun control on a fucking video game board. Nobody cares. It's a two-man show and the only audience can only be called collateral.

Earlier in the thread some retard was citing China as a low crimerate nation

You seem to care a lot you angry little crybaby you. Please continue to shriek at me, I'll just keep winning over and over and over again.

You don't have freedom of speech in the European Caliphate

Why make "having plenty of guns" out to be the problem in the first place, then, if you're just going to do a 180 and pretend you were talking about something else?

he is retarded because he believes official government statistics

Switzerland's gun paradise is not all that fantastic if it has violent crimerates similar to freaking Vietnam.

You don't have freedom of speech in the Ameristan Christian Republic

Attached: 1545214442297.png (405x532, 208K)

Well China says they are so it must be true.

Attached: file.png (1566x881, 1.95M)

Wait, are you actually arguing that knifes are just as effective as guns when it comes to killing people?
I... Huh? Well.
Why doesn't the army just use knifes then, they're less costly to manufacture than guns.

Yet there are european countries that have a comparable gun-ownership rate to the US.

So if guns cause violence, should these countries not be murder-filled hellholes too? Or maybe, just maybe, the issue lies in the people using the guns, not the guns themselves?

You you have a minority demographic that is incredibly tiny its not representative of an entire demographic. If you have a black man working an office job where there is few black men of course he's going to be an outlier, much like a black man that moved using their own wealth (was not imported) to a country like Switzerland.
Idiot.

They do use knives and bayonets.

>comparable gun-ownership rate to the US
comparably low you mean

I'm sure you will, Alonso.

Well Iceland has a bunch of guns and less crime than all of those countries you listed. Unlike Switzerland it also doesn't have a stream of third worlders coming in.

Thought you said you didn't care but you sure care about getting the last word in.

Wait, you didn't answer, do you actually consider that knifes are just as effective of a murdering tool as guns?

>Still no response

No, I mean comparable. As in ownership rate that is similar to the US when adjusted to population.

Actions that support education, health and science. You care because other people cared about future before you and gave you tools they didn't have. In many cases you see the good consequences during your life.

>thousands of years using blades in war
>a hundred using guns

So your point is; black men are bad only when they're surrounded by other black men?

>You care because other people cared about future before you and gave you tools they didn't have.

This argument does not work because life is not a choice. It is thrust upon you and you are supposed to deal with that. You cannot impose obligations on someone who did not willingly sign up for something.

>similar
You're literally fucking lying. US ownership rate is literally the highest in the world. Most countries in Europe don't even come close.
worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-rate-of-gun-ownership.html

so when will you commit suicide

The United States is much bigger than Europe you fucking idiot of course there will be more things there.

>adjusted per capita
retard