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

[Malfatron]

6 minutes ago, MathMan said:

thanos reminds me of ozymandias from the watchmen.

what do the people of the thread think ozymandias is?  evil?

they both are lawful neutral 

they are both saving the world/universe, whether they want to or not.

neither gains anything by doing it, and thanos is in a much worse position (self sacrifice). ego is completely out of this. 

[fretgod99]

17 minutes ago, MathMan said:

 or does he save half the universe?

In his mind, maybe. But that’s the point. The problem manifests only in his mind. Titan fell. Doesn’t mean the rest of the universe will. And it doesn’t mean there isn’t another way to circumvent that fate. He takes it upon himself to decide for everyone. Because he’s evil.

[Malfatron]

2 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

In his mind, maybe. But that’s the point. The problemmanifests only in his mind. Titan fell. Doesn’t mean the rest of the universe will. And it doesn’t mean there isn’t another way to circumvent that fate. He takes it upon himself to decide for everyone. Because he’s evil.

what if its 100 percent fact that cutting the population by half would save the universe?

and not doing it would 100 percent destroy the universe.

and maybe there was another way that thanos was unaware of

does that change anything? 

thanos went with what he knew would work.

 

[Malfatron]

also, if thanos is evil, does that make Poe from The Last Jedi evil?

he hatched some schemes that resulted in many deaths using his knowledge at the time to try to do what he thought was right.

 

 

[Jakuvious]

3 minutes ago, MathMan said:

what if its 100 percent fact that cutting the population by half would save the universe?

and not doing it would 100 percent destroy the universe.

and maybe there was another way that thanos was unaware of

does that change anything? 

thanos went with what he knew would work.

 

Thought would work, not knew would work. It is literally impossible for him to know that it will succeed. Particularly given that he did it effectively randomly. That's always a key issue with arguing that characters like this are doing something good. Is they're really murdering on a theory. The validity of that theory doesn't change how evil the action is. Because it's still just a theory. If it is 100%, sure, that might change things, but that's not something that it is physically possible to know. The reality is, Thanos killed half the universe, and it still may or may not work. Him not killing half the universe also may or may not have worked. So basically he's wiping out life on an absurd scale on a maybe. That's evil.

[fretgod99]

12 minutes ago, MathMan said:

what if its 100 percent fact that cutting the population by half would save the universe?

and not doing it would 100 percent destroy the universe.

and maybe there was another way that thanos was unaware of

does that change anything? 

thanos went with what he knew would work.

 

What he “knew” would work. He doesn’t know that. Besides, he simply delays the inevitable. It’s not like people will stop procreating. So instead of preventing what he thinks is going to happen he just delays it. Because he’s myopic and megalomaniacal. His whole point is resources are finite but he did nothing to change that. He just randomly lets half of the universe enjoy life for an indefinitely longer period of time but they’ll still suffer the same fate they always would have (assuming he is correct), it’ll just take slightly longer to get there.

[fretgod99]

2 minutes ago, MathMan said:

also, if thanos is evil, does that make Poe from The Last Jedi evil?

he hatched some schemes that resulted in many deaths using his knowledge at the time to try to do what he thought was right.

 

 

Taking actions that result in others deaths is not the same as intentionally setting out to snuff out half of existence to satisfy your own egotistical need to be correct.

[Malfatron]

Just now, fretgod99 said:

satisfy your own egotistical need to be correct.

Thanos doesnt seem to be particularly egotistical to me.

[fretgod99]

1 minute ago, MathMan said:

Thanos doesnt seem to be particularly egotistical to me.

You mean aside from the god complex?

[Calvert28]

4 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

Being insane doesn’t make you not evil. And yeah, he happily murdered half the universe. Costing everything was strictly a reference to Gamora.

Show me where he happily did it. You are seriously grasping at anything to support your claim. Costing everything is the entire reason he isn't evil. That idiotic article you posted from Utopia only described the self entitled, the self absorbed. Show me where Thanos displayed any of that. The fact that he "could" sacrifice slaps down that argument of self entitlement. Because he gave up what he loved the most to complete his mission. Everything you have been arguing has been refuted because of the Soul Stone scene. That's it.

4 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

Being evil doesn’t mean you have no positive emotions or interactions with people. Being evil doesn’t mean you can’t care about anybody else on any level. Thanos can still be evil without being bereft of any positive or relatable qualities. Where is it ever written that evil cannot self-sacrifice?

Because evil as you just laughably pointed out and I have pointed out several times in this thread that you have ignored is self indulgent. It is incapable of having empathy, sympathy, lacking those qualities makes you incapable of self sacrifice, because you are incapable of feeling that kind of loss for another person. And I gave the example of that with the Harry Potter reference which you chose to ignore. And by that rational, people who are capable of evil acts does not mean they themselves are not evil even if they act on them. A person who does something evil not because they want to do it but because they feel they have to do it is not taking delight in it. They are not taking joy. Again Thanos displayed his disdain for what he does but has to justify it somehow because he feels it is the only way to save everyone.

4 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

And no, Lincoln wasn’t a tyrant. Doing things that push the boundaries of your office’s power

Lincoln was a tyrant. He didn't push the boundries, eliminating the right to free speech our most important right is not pushing boundries. That is getting rid of them. I'm not responding to the rest of that post because it made no sense after these two statements here.

4 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

Murder is a universally evil act. Lawful Neutral doesn’t resort to murder. Lawful Neutral definitely doesn’t resort to widespread genocide.

Frankly, looking into it more, he’s probably not even lawful evil. More likely he’d fit under Nuetral Evil.

Thanos to a ‘T’.

 

 

Lmao no it isn't. Thanos to a T? Really? Where did he show that he was Egomaniacal traits? When he talked about his conviction to being the only one who is able to do it. That's not being egomaniacal, that's being narrowminded and trying to justify his crimes because the end purpose serves a greater benefit. Someone that narcissistic wouldn't barely even defend themselves because they don't feel as if they should have too. And reading more of that, it sounds far more like Tony Stark then it does Thanos. Stark who is narcissistic and has for the longest time operated outside the boundries of the law because he alone can right all the wrongs even though multiple people have tried helping or assisting him. He still felt the need to do it all himself.

But continuing with that. Thanos is not oblivious to the self sacrifice of others. In fact throughout the film he constantly throws it in other people's faces with challenges to see if they are willing to throw away everything they are and everything they love for the greater good. Each and every time they all failed except for Starlord who Thanos literally shoved Gammora in his face to see if he was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. Once again your wrong.

It says they treat most everyone with indifference or utter contempt. Except Thanos main goal is to save all of these species and races from themselves, he is actually doing this prevent extinctions like what happened with his homeworld, how is utter contempt or indifference? Thanos also actually acknowledged Tony Stark and went out of his way to tell him he respected him.

That entire article only speaks of self entitlement. And yet Thanos has not once proven that he feels entitled to anything. Lol and he doesn't fit under lawful, lawful takes any action allowed and deemed fit under a strict code of laws, standards, morals, etc, so yea genocide can fit into that if the person is that extreme. I think you are proving you have a very specific view of this entire thing. Only judging based upon your perception of how life is. Not how other cultures might be, or what state of mind a person is in. You are defining Thanos by actions, not by viewpoints. And what I mean by that is that if someone kills someone else. It doesn't matter the state of mind or the reason, it is still murder. So for example the pilots who dropped the first A-Bomb on Japan. It does not matter if they knew it's capabilities or not, they are just as guilty of killing hundreds of thousands of people as Truman is.

 

[Calvert28]

8 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

You mean aside from the god complex?

You are just making stuff up now.

[Malfatron]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulNeutral

i read this and it totally describes thanos

.......

 

Lawful Neutral characters believe in order [...] They will always seek to obey and preserve order, even to the inconvenience of themselves and others, and even if they themselves admit the law in question is an annoying one.

An important thing to note is that Lawful Neutral characters follow their own personal vision of order and law.

 

Equality Under the Law: The Law applies to everybody, friend or foe, superior or subordinate

 

The key here is the desire to preserve or create order, at any personal cost.

[Calvert28]

13 minutes ago, fretgod99 said:

What he “knew” would work. He doesn’t know that.

Doesn't know that? He used Gammora's homeworld as an example his insane method actually works. That's the most unnerving thing about him that you keep ignoring. Is that his way can actually work.

[Calvert28]

17 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Thought would work, not knew would work.

Yeaaaaa ok, go rewatch the Throne scene with him and Gammora. He actually proved his method works. I mean I can't believe you guys are actually arguing that because someone is evil that they can't be right on something.

[diamondbull424]

2 hours ago, Calvert28 said:

Well technically he did not choose a side. Which is where his balance of random selection comes into play. He did not choose the people he liked to live or those he hated to die. It was completely unbiased. Completely "neutral".

TL;WR: Random selection does not make him neutral because his judgment over half the universe has him killing without due process. He has not analyzed which planets have abundant resources to population ratios vs which do not. Thus passing judgment on the latter could be described as neutral while passing judgment on the former is evil. He has not “sacrificed” them for the greater good, but has killed them without reason. This is evil.

=================

What makes it not unbiased is that not all worlds are equally desolate. If his desire is to maintain “balance” his goal would manifest itself in much more of a Galactus like manner. Galactus eats a planet only when he is hungry.

Thanos as neutral law bringer to the universe would specifically analyze the resources of a planet and determine the resources that would establish it as having enough supply for its demand. If it does not have sufficient supply THEN he steps in. THIS is the side he chooses. He chooses to interfere with EVERY population everywhere and passes judgment on them.

It is not “neutral” to act without knowledge. Thanos assumes that by wiping out half the universe that supply will be in balance.

However what if 3/4 of Earth is wiped out, leaving an over-abundance of untapped resources, whereas elsewhere only 1/4 of Planet X’s population is wiped out, leaving them still with a shortage of resources.

Even if he wipes out exactly half of the population of every planet. What about those planets that had a great amount of resources for their population? He has killed them for no reason.

What about a planet that was so overpopulated that even killing half of their population would still not result in an a fair distribution of resources? He would “unjustly” still be allowing too many of their population to survive.

Thus the only way for him to truly remain neutral is to be a harbinger of judgement. He would have to travel from world to world and analyze their specific resources to population to past his neutral judgment over them. Random selection in this case does not accomplish moral neutrality because it proceeds without due process.