***Spoiler Thread*** Avengers: Infinity Wars

[SimsZilla]

Just saw it again with my buddy and my fiance. they both loved it. great movie

[Calvert28]

17 hours ago, fretgod99 said:

That’s an interesting take. I mean, it’s literally the dictionary definition of tyrant. Or, if you’d rather, a ruler or sovereign who weilds power unjustly or oppressively. Or, a person who has complete power and uses it in a cruel and unfair way.

I know what it is. Lincoln for all his greatness, achievements and foresight of how society needed to go was still viewed as a tyrant. In many ways he did use his power unjustly, but it was still necessary. He allowed Grant to wage Total War on the south. He allowed his cabinet to war profit to keep them occupied, happy, and compliant.  Eliminating habeas corpus which was a huge one and actually did it without the approval or even knowledge of the Supreme Court. He wrongfully arrested and imprisoned Confederacy newspapers in the north. In many ways throughout the Civil War he completely ignored the Constitution.

17 hours ago, fretgod99 said:

Literal, textbook definitions of tyrant. If you want to argue Lincoln was a tyrant for fighting a war to free people from literal enslavement I suppose go for it. There are a number of people in the South who buy the Lost Cause BS who might actually agree with you. But the rest of ordered society is probably going to toss that argument aside without giving it much thought for good reason.

Lol yea ok he wasn't fighting the war for the abolishment of slavery. It's a well known fact his first priority was uniting all the states under one rule again. The Emancipation more so then anything was a economic war tool to cripple the south. And again he did many things to eliminate any power the South had to prevent them from every being able to do it again. And people who agree with me? No need, I don't need popular opinion which actually agrees with me BTW. There are many documents proving my claims to be the case.

17 hours ago, fretgod99 said:

I’m honestly not even sure why this is the hill you want to die on. This type of thing is necessarily dependent upon societal viewpoints, that’s how evil is defined. Are you really arguing that someone who is willing to indiscriminately snuff out literally half of existence on his own pet theory that it’s necessary to save life everywhere isn’t going to be roundly viewed as evil?

No my viewpoint is that he is mad. Which I don't believe can be good or evil. A person who has an entire viewpoint of reality that far differs from modern society cannot be judged by our views of how life should be. The only logical way to judge whether or not that person is good or evil is by how their life according to their standards and morals. Thanos does not waver in in his viewpoint and only had one exception to his rule and that was for the dwarves. Someone who is evil has to knowingly break these standards and morals for their selfish purpose and take a delight in it. Thanos doesn't.  How ever it is generally accepted in the Marvel universe that killing or as Cap puts it "trading lives" for the greater good is considered wrong. Thanos's logic goes against most other societies viewpoint on life. In fact it clashes violently with them. Because he has such a unique viewpoint on how life should be, being so radically different then most others. I think it's fair to say he is insane and those are in fact insane suffer from their own madness.

"I'll watch the sunrise on a grateful universe"

He says these words to Tony on Titan. And he kept his word, his view is that everyone will be better off and grateful when he accomplished his quest. I cannot say a person who is that consistent in their beliefs where they even place it over the thing they love the most is actually evil. That just doesn't make sense

 

[fretgod99]

21 hours ago, Calvert28 said:

And Abraham Lincoln clearly tosses that shizz right out the window. Forcing the south back into the union and abolishing slavery at the time was seen as cruel and tyrannical. He literally forced his will onto the entire nation. He did not give them the option to secede when a great many chose to not want to be apart of the union. He is a prime example why that definition is wrong.  

I know what Lincoln did and I know the issues people raised about his expansion of presidential power. But this is what I was responding to. Him emancipating slavery and him fighting to maintain the Union were in no way tyrannical. Beyond that, if it weren’t so ridiculously left field, we could get into the gulf of differences between Lincoln and Thanos. Lincoln at least arguably had legal authority to attempt what he did, there were systems in place to challenge his actions, and everything wasn’t done on his whims alone. This is frankly a preposterous discussion.

Being insane does not absolve one’s actions of their evil nature. I legitimately don’t get why this is a thing. Him being biewed as evil changes not only nothing about his character, it changes nothing about how we as an audience view him and relate to him. Killmonger was clearly evil. He was also very relatable, compelling, and his motivations were clear and understandable as well.

Thanos happily murdered half of life everywhere because he, in his own isolated judgment, outside of any considerations of anyone or anything, decided it needed to be done. Straight up murdered half of life everywhere. Explain to me how murder isn’t generally recognized as evil again? It’s not like Thanos didn’t know right from wrong, so no insanity defense. He knows right from wrong, he doesn’t care; he does it anyway because he thinks it’s best. Dude’s evil. I fail to see why that’s an issue to recognize that.

[fretgod99]

Also, if we’re not allowed to judge Thanos’ propensity for evil based off our own metrics of right and wrong, how are we supposed to judge his sanity? We’d be doing the same thing, just answering a marginally different question. You’re still using our framework to make that determination (which ultimately is what matters because it’s a story told for our culture’s benefit - you necessarily analyze it within our cultural framework), so why is it permissible in one sense but not another?

[Calvert28]

32 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

I know what Lincoln did and I know the issues people raised about his expansion of presidential power. But this is what I was responding to. Him emancipating slavery and him fighting to maintain the Union were in no way tyrannical. Beyond that, if it weren’t so ridiculously left field, we could get into the gulf of differences between Lincoln and Thanos. Lincoln at least arguably had legal authority to attempt what he did, there were systems in place to challenge his actions, and everything wasn’t done on his whims alone. This is frankly a preposterous discussion.

Awesome thanks for justifying a necessary evil. Your argument was that a tyrant was someone who is evil. I brought up Lincoln to clearly state that is not the case. Because he was someone who deliberately went outside to boundries of his office to do what needed to be done. Even unjustly. Regardless of the good it did. It was still tyrannical. That is a fact.

Quote

Being insane does not absolve one’s actions of their evil nature. I legitimately don’t get why this is a thing. Him being biewed as evil changes not only nothing about his character, it changes nothing about how we as an audience view him and relate to him. Killmonger was clearly evil. He was also very relatable, compelling, and his motivations were clear and understandable as well.

Actually it does. We do not put the insane to death for this very reason. They are trapped inside their own warped view of reality. Yes you can make a better case Killmonger was evil because he was driven by hate. That is not the case with Thanos. He is driven by a flawed logic of our universe and how best to fix it.

Quote

Thanos happily murdered half of life everywhere because he, in his own isolated judgment, outside of any considerations of anyone or anything, decided it needed to be done. Straight up murdered half of life everywhere. Explain to me how murder isn’t generally recognized as evil again? It’s not like Thanos didn’t know right from wrong, so no insanity defense. He knows right from wrong, he doesn’t care; he does it anyway because he thinks it’s best. Dude’s evil. I fail to see why that’s an issue to recognize that.

Happily? You really need to go rewatch those scenes with Gammora then get back to me.

Gammora- "What did it cost?"

Thanos- "Everything."

I say again evil is incapable of sacrificing what he did because it is too self absorbed. It would simply discard without a second care to achieve a greater goal.

A perfect example of how your statements conflicts with evil. Gonna sound cheesy but bear with me.

Voldemort killing Snape without a second thought to gain what he thought was full control of the Elder Wand. That's evil, that's psychopathic. That is more of what you're looking for when you use the term evil.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Calvert28

[Malfatron]

yeah hes clearly lawful neutral 

[Calvert28]

1 hour ago, MathMan said:

yeah hes clearly lawful neutral 

Thank you.

[Malfatron]

On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 10:23 AM, HorizontoZenith said:

On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 10:21 AM, NcFinest9erFan said:

Just read some new interviews with the Russos. They said the closest guess to the A4 title is: Avengers - Forever

They also said A4 won't be tied to any comic storyline but they did say it would be interesting to go back and look at the past films in a different lens..Sounds like time travel?

That would be pretty epic to see all the major MCU movies get small details changed. 

Yeah, they could retroactively do reshoots, change all the movies slightly, never tell anyone, and replace all copies that haven't went out yet with the new versions.

Also, never show the old versions on TV again.

[diamondbull424]

12 minutes ago, MathMan said:

Yeah, they could retroactively do reshoots, change all the movies slightly, never tell anyone, and replace all copies that haven't went out yet with the new versions.

Also, never show the old versions on TV again.

[ET80]

32 minutes ago, MathMan said:

Yeah, they could retroactively do reshoots, change all the movies slightly, never tell anyone, and replace all copies that haven't went out yet with the new versions.

Also, never show the old versions on TV again.

I ain't giving up my VHS copies. Don't @ me, Disney.

[Malfatron]

1 minute ago, EliteTexan80 said:

I ain't giving up my VHS copies. Don't @ me, Disney.

they will break into your house and switch them out 

[ET80]

Just now, MathMan said:

they will break into your house and switch them out 

If they could drop in an advance copy of Incredibles 2, I'll allow it.

[Malfatron]

Just now, EliteTexan80 said:

If they could drop in an advance copy of Incredibles 2, I'll allow it.

are they part of the mcu?

was not aware 

[diamondbull424]

On a similar note to the Mendala effect... how awesome would it be if in one of these movies if they actually reference the Mandela effect with regard to time.

That might be the only worthwhile way for me to want to see a time travel plot in the next movie.

Quote

Strange: We need to go back in time and change things. Only tell no one or risk causing a time-loop imbalance.

Spider-Man: Yeah, kind of like the Mandela effect?

Starlord: The Mandela who?

Spider-Man: You know the guy who everybody thought died but didn’t actually die until much later?

*confused looks

Life WAS like a box of Chocolates vs Life IS like a box of chocolates?

*confused looks

Luke, I am your father vs No, I am your father?

Groot: I AM GROOT!

Spider-Man: What’s he saying?

Starlord: He’s asking if you hit your head too hard in that last fight.

Strange: Will you kids all cut it out! This is our only shot at saving the world... and for the record... the biggest one to me was always Berenstein Bears vs Berenstain Bears.

* opens up a time portal and walks through it. /scene

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by diamondbull424

[dtait93]

10 hours ago, Calvert28 said:

Actually it does. We do not put the insane to death for this very reason. They are trapped inside their own warped view of reality. Yes you can make a better case Killmonger was evil because he was driven by hate. That is not the case with Thanos. He is driven by a flawed logic of our universe and how best to fix it.

Why is their view of reality warped? What is flawed logic? (For the record, I do agree that their reality is warped, and Thanos' logic is flawed)

This ultimately comes down to two questions: 1) What is the absolute standard of morality? 2) Who decides that standard? In the made up MCU it doesn't matter because it's a fantasy world. In the real world there must be, because without it there are no warped reality's, flawed logic, or good/evil because there's just whatever people think. One could argue that the majority decides what is morally just and unjust and that is how we come up with laws, but are those laws truly the absolute standard of morality? Who actually has the true absolute standard of morality? Us (America) now? Us in the past? Us in the future? China? Laws change, maybe we will put the insane to death in the future. Will that make it right?