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

[Malfatron]

39 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

it is?

yeah because its not in the movie

[diamondbull424]

41 minutes ago, MathMan said:

yeah because its not in the movie

This gave me a good chuckle.?

[fretgod99]

15 hours ago, MathMan said:

well, thats like analyzing Marty mcflys character based on Eric Stoltzs performance.

 

Lulz

I expect no less from someone who’s lawful evil. ?

[Manny/Patrick]

Let’s say Visions stone was destroyed by Wanda in the Avengers compound. Would the time stone have to undo all the time passed since it was destroyed, or just the single act of the stone being destroyed?

[theJ]

18 minutes ago, Manny/Patrick said:

Let’s say Visions stone was destroyed by Wanda in the Avengers compound. Would the time stone have to undo all the time passed since it was destroyed, or just the single act of the stone being destroyed?

In the movies, we've only seen the time stone be able to rewind what has just happened. But I don't know what the comics baseline abilities are. 

I was also thinking yesterday while watching the movie for a second time that Strange's (and Wong's) ability to open portals and close them while someone is midway through them might be the most underrated and underused ability of any of the heroes. 

Want to kill a bad guy? Open a portal below them and close it almost immediately. Give them the darth maul treatment. 

[Manny/Patrick]

15 minutes ago, theJ said:

In the movies, we've only seen the time stone be able to rewind what has just happened. But I don't know what the comics baseline abilities are. 

I was also thinking yesterday while watching the movie for a second time that Strange's (and Wong's) ability to open portals and close them while someone is midway through them might be the most underrated and underused ability of any of the heroes. 

Want to kill a bad guy? Open a portal below them and close it almost immediately. Give them the darth maul treatment. 

Can’t have characters be too OP, but Black Widow can beat Midnight in a fight.

[Calvert28]

18 hours ago, dtait93 said:

So if murder, slavery, and men sleeping with little children eventually become the norm of society again, are those morally good things to do to other people? In fact, everyone who fought against those things would actually have to be the immoral ones by this line of thinking. Martin Luther King would actually have been wrong for fighting for black rights since during that time treating blacks as sub-human was a just and right thing back then. The oppression of blacks as sub-human was the, "just and right way of living in that time," so you would have to also say it was an unjust and wrong way of living to war against that notion. Also, the 9/11 plane hijackers actually did a good thing that day since they were a product of their environment which commanded that they carry out their mission in murdering hundreds of thousands of people in the name of their god.

Everything is in the eye of the beholder. So yes by those perceptions they would be just. Do I think it's right? No of course not. But what makes them evil when they are a product of their time? My statement stands that you would be the one insane had you lived back in that time. H/e had you conformed to that era would that not make you evil since you are knowingly choosing something that is wrong for self preservation? Or would it not?

18 hours ago, dtait93 said:

If that is your standard then there is no right and wrong because wrong becomes right and right becomes wrong and they can continually flip flop. The definition you gave for insanity would then conflict itself. There is no such thing as normalcy because normalcy changes. There is no mental illness because the mentally ill become the mentally well and the mentally well become the mentally ill. Without an absolute standard of morality you are reduced to absurdity.

Exactly. That is exactly right. Being normal changes, has changed and will continue to change. Let me pose a question to you. Lets say 500 years from now we have progressed incredibly far technologically. Society in that time are all vegans, having developed the capability of using vegetation to it's utmost potential and can make any dish far superior and tastier to anything we could possibly do today. One thing though, in this time all the animals of the Earth are basically regarded like Hindu Cows, because all mammal life is considered precious and too precious to waste, every bit as much as human life. All mammal life is sacred and should not be touch. In fact they are so extreme about it they have come to look upon the rest of our history with disgust, especially our time that mass produced the meat industry for easy living and fast food. Does it make you and me evil because we still eat meat as apart of our diet?

I agree with you it is absurd to live without a set of moral standards. I use my faith as the absolute authority on how life should be. (TBH though im not that good at following it) Except people disagree with it, I disagree with them with how their standards are. And if your statement ran true then why have we as a society jumped from one extreme to the other throughout our history and I talk about the human race in general? Because everyone has their idea of what the absolute authority and morality is. Thus normalcy changes.

18 hours ago, dtait93 said:

You run into a problem here though and the rest of your statement collapses when you call Hitler insane. Going by what you said earlier, you can't make the claim that he was insane. His world view actually became the opposite of the insanity definition you gave earlier as his perception, behavior, and social interactions were actually normal given the environment he created. He would have to be sane according to you. You have no basis for claiming what his standards/morals were if you stay consistent because according to you those change. Why couldn't his? How can you say he lost total grip? How do you know for him he wasn't gaining grip? Maybe different things became right/wrong to him? What we know for certain was that he slaughtered millions of innocent people because to him it was right, yet we know it was wrong.

Hitler did not start off insane though. Nor did Thanos. True, in his own little world he was sane in his eyes. H/e that's not the statement I made. His party, his view conflicted with most of the world at the time. He was an opposite extreme to the majority thus fitting him into the insanity term I put out. Thanos was in a sort the same way with how he surrounded himself with likeminded minions. Except with Hitler paranoia set in he then made enemies of all those around him accusing them of being traitors, even referring to his own country that was losing the war of betraying him for the war he started. He gradually lost his grip on his own reality and had another one set in for him. He was insane before and after or probably better said to be delusional or delirious, and for the most part he was evil through his motivations because it involved with promoting his own image and taking the delight in the torturing of his enemies. Thanos h/e whether torturing Thor or Nebula did not do it as way of pleasure. But to prove a point he was willing to do anything to accomplish what he started.

You are right. No one knows for sure what went through the mind of Hitler. H/e based on countless documents, testimonies, evidence in general. He gradually lost his grip on his sanity. And my knowledge off of what I have at my disposal for Hitler, the same everyone else has as way of evidence. Is it fool proof? Of course not, but there is something to a psychological evaluation based on what we know to formulate what we think his personality and mindset was.

18 hours ago, dtait93 said:

I'll use a different example by going back to the 9/11 plane hijackers example I gave earlier and I'll cite what you said about how we know if somebody is evil or not. "The only certain way I believe to see if he or anyone is truely evil is to judge them not by your standards. But how well they stack up with their own." Well if we stack up their standards against themselves, being that they were radical Islamic terrorists, it was a good, moral, and righteous thing of them to kill almost 3,000 Americans that day in the name of their god and religion. Because they lived up to their standards, according to you, they were not evil, but were actually good people for doing what they did. They were just in their actions and you have no basis to complain about anything they did. Rather, you should respect and admire their "just" living for living up to their standard as terrorists, and if they wanted to do it again you have no basis to tell them no.

Lol no I would not. I have already explained my view conflicts with theirs. In their minds they were good people. But their mindset of what was to be done conflicted that the vast majority of society and its views on terrorism that is shared world wide by the majority of people. H/e others like them have believed that dying taking as many enemies as possible is a glorious death and the afterlife would be great. The Vikings believed this way. Soldiers in combat like in Vietnam, to save their comrades, to put a quicker in to this battle or war would believe this also. If we don't have a detailed account of how they live their life by their standards then we cannot give accurate judgements. And I admit there are groups, and individuals who I can very well be wrong about.

But we get a limited supply of the Russo guys gave us with Thanos. We base our ideas of his morality off of what occurred in the movie. Based on what I have seen, he did not deviate from his ethics except in the most extreme cases which would be true for any of us. His ideology is not perfect obviously for the most obvious reasons. But he has been remarkably consistent.

[Calvert28]

On 5/11/2018 at 10:38 PM, diamondbull424 said:

 

All of this is based off Dungeons and Dragons character alignments. Here is the official alignment descriptions. I will quote them and explain why Thanos is lawful evil.

Thank you.

On 5/11/2018 at 10:38 PM, diamondbull424 said:

 

Thanos is obviously not fully lawful because he does not adhere to established traditions and instead is willing to create a new order. But he is close minded. He judges the entirety of the universe as being unfit to solve its own problems. He uses a code of honor when fighting (Hulk equals 1on1 fight, his respect of Stark, and honoring Strange’s request). I don’t believe there seems to be a lot of dispute on this one. I can further elaborate but I don’t believe I need to, clearly Thanos is lawful.

Thanos is not without his flaws. If he were, then he would actually be the good guy. Lawful as far as I know in DnD does not mean he has to pick a older tradition to uphold but only that he has a tradition or a set of strict standards he follows which he does. Whether he made them up himself is not relevant. Because he sticks with them, that's why he's lawful.

On 5/11/2018 at 10:38 PM, diamondbull424 said:

Clearly Thanos does not have respect for life and assisting others so he’s obviously not good. Thanos also cannot be confused with neutral because like I stated earlier he kills Gamora, someone he loves, to achieve his corrupt goal. A neutral character might kill, but only those they have no close ties to. What’s more neutral characters are against taking innocents lives. Thanos is willing to wipe out half the universe in order to achieve his aims, be they innocent (not currently an overpopulated planet) or not. Also again, Gamora is innocent and defenseless when Thanos pushes her to her death. He was willing to disregard his personal relationship AND take an innocent life. This is NOT neutral.

He's doing all of this to save life. He clearly has respect for all of it in a very twisted way. His logic is like that of pruning a garden. By removing weeds, some flowers and or vegitation, the rest of the garden will thrive. Because it allows greater access to the soil for the plants still around. That's where his messed up ideology seems so evil. Because he takes a very mathematical or medical approach to it. What has the greater chance of success to save the rest of them. Thus how he came up with master plan.

His ultimate goal and laws which he lives by are one in the same. No one, not even himself or Gammora is above saving the rest of the universe. That plays exactly into his lawful side with him throwing her off the cliff. Because he was so conflicted about doing it but still did it anyways, it made him lawful first and foremost. As he said before, only has the will and conviction to do what needs to be done. That statement there implies that if there was someone, maybe like Gammora who was willing to carry it out for him. He may be willing to give the entire thing up.

On 5/11/2018 at 10:38 PM, diamondbull424 said:

Thanos’ goal involves killing half the universe, he is willing to oppress others to do this (“Adopts” children from ruined planets and has them battle each other for his praise), and will also harm victims in order to obtain the things he seeks (torturing his own daughter). Thanos DOES show compassion towards Gamora, but shows little compassion for anyone else, including his own daughter, whom he tortures time and again. He also has no qualms killing the one he loves, Gamora, as well as half the universe as it is convient for achieving his overall objective. It’s clear that this all adds up to Thanos being evil.

Change convenient to necessary. It sounds like you are assuming everything Thanos does he does with himself and his wants as the main goal. That is not the case. It seems you are also assuming that he enjoys doing this. I really do encourage you to go back and watch that Throne scene again with him trying to convince Gammora of his quest. To join him to connect with him. Later on in the movie he makes the clear statement that he is a survivor. Him raising his children to battle eachother was not for his amusement or favor. But to give them the tools of what needed to be done. It was made obvious that he was grooming either Gammora or Nebula to one day take over for him. The weak would not be able to handle that which is why he made them train and fight. Gammora winning time and time again obviously made her his favorite because she was the most likely choice to succeed if he is gone.
 

Back in the day. Mongols would actually have a ceremony would they would toss a adolescent out into the wilderness and would not let them return until they came back with game that they have killed. It was ritual to becoming a man for them and while they may seem cruel to you or me it was a rite of passage, and said to be one of the proudest moments of any parents life to see their child return victorious.

 

[Calvert28]

On 5/12/2018 at 8:08 AM, fretgod99 said:

Why does he have to take joy in it? He unnecessarily kills because he thinks it furthers his megalomaniacal purpose. You injected that whole requirement. He’s committing murder, not “killing”. Murder. Call it what it is.

You are projecting your own views of life on his decisions without taking into account his way of thinking. You made the claim he enjoys doing what he does. I have disputing that with you for awhile now.

On 5/12/2018 at 8:08 AM, fretgod99 said:

He would have killed half the Asgardians. What about the dwarves? What about destroying Xandar? What about the long, long history of straight up torturing his daughters for the sole purpose of it being helpful to him in dominating the universe?

The dwarves were an extreme measure because they were an absolute threat to the grand solution he had planned. I will agree with you if you would like to say that was a necessary evil on his part. He deviated from his laws in one instant because there was no other way around that more then likely. His logic isn't without flaws and im sure he would agree somewhat. As for Xandar, it doesn't give specifics on what "destroyed" exactly meant. It could have been just decimated most everything capable of attacking him on the planet. I mean he destroyed Asgardians in a sense completely destroying their ship but supposedly still spared half of them.

As for his daughters. Yea I agree with you, he wanted to make them stronger and better to help "save" the universe. I don't see where you get "dominating" from considering he simply stoped at eliminating half of all life. Instead of going further and setting himself up as a god like he did in the comics.

On 5/12/2018 at 8:08 AM, fretgod99 said:

Yep. Super neutral. All those things smack of a balanced character who is adhering to a strict moral code and not some megalomaniacal tyrant enforcing his will upon the innocent by subjecting them to a game of cosmic Russian roulette because he thinks he’s the only one who can solve something he hasn’t even actually demonstrated to be a problem yet.

Lmao you know you just described him in a way that one could say he is batsh!t crazy. Meaning he's insane. Which would mean you are actually agreeing with me right now right?

[Calvert28]

On 5/12/2018 at 8:12 AM, fretgod99 said:

Jesus christ. He proved nothing. He “proved” it worked. Did he disprove that a less violent option wouldn’t? Did he actually solve anything or did he just delay the problem? Again, it’s not like these worlds are never going to repopulate. His solution isn’t a solution, not even logically.

Dude wrote the cosmic version of a Modest Proposal, except he’s serious, and you’re lapping it up.

In his opinio rebalancing life gives it a greater chance to survive. So if a population that was starving, and was depleting it's resources just suffered a genocide and things actually got better. One might assume they may implement a population control to prevent it from doing that again. Also if that entire population had depleting it's resources due to infighting, wars and such then this bringer of death comes along and wipes out half the population. One might assume the entire society of that world may band together to protect themselves better thus creating more cooperation and making way of life better on that planet.

Maybe they should have gone into specifics of exactly what he meant by it's a paradise world now. But don't over simplify it just because. It could be an endless amount of things that they do now to make the planet better.

[Calvert28]

On 5/12/2018 at 8:26 AM, fretgod99 said:

So, part of what demonstrates Thanos’ Neutrality, according to you, is the complete randomness of who dies. He’s not deciding anything, just murdering half of existence.

And also, what demonstrates Thanos’ neutrality is the fact that he’s already explores the galaxy enough to know just exactly who deserves to die. So he’s not just murdering half of existence, he’s determined who should be dead.

Seems legit.

So your argument that if he kills half of existence then he is evil because obviously you know so much better then a bad guy. I got a question for you. If this gauntlet is similar to the comics and grants him omniscience and with him still having good intentions as well as all the knowledge there is to ever know he still decides his original plan is the best course of action and best solution for the universe at large. Does it still make him the bad guy? Because his knowledge would be absolute, therefore his line of thinking, his reasoning could be argued to be perfect.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Calvert28

[diamondbull424]

5 hours ago, Calvert28 said:

Thank you.

Thanos is not without his flaws. If he were, then he would actually be the good guy. Lawful as far as I know in DnD does not mean he has to pick a older tradition to uphold but only that he has a tradition or a set of strict standards he follows which he does. Whether he made them up himself is not relevant. Because he sticks with them, that's why he's lawful.

He's doing all of this to save life. He clearly has respect for all of it in a very twisted way. His logic is like that of pruning a garden. By removing weeds, some flowers and or vegitation, the rest of the garden will thrive. Because it allows greater access to the soil for the plants still around. That's where his messed up ideology seems so evil. Because he takes a very mathematical or medical approach to it. What has the greater chance of success to save the rest of them. Thus how he came up with master plan.

His ultimate goal and laws which he lives by are one in the same. No one, not even himself or Gammora is above saving the rest of the universe. That plays exactly into his lawful side with him throwing her off the cliff. Because he was so conflicted about doing it but still did it anyways, it made him lawful first and foremost. As he said before, only has the will and conviction to do what needs to be done. That statement there implies that if there was someone, maybe like Gammora who was willing to carry it out for him. He may be willing to give the entire thing up.

Change convenient to necessary. It sounds like you are assuming everything Thanos does he does with himself and his wants as the main goal. That is not the case. It seems you are also assuming that he enjoys doing this. I really do encourage you to go back and watch that Throne scene again with him trying to convince Gammora of his quest. To join him to connect with him. Later on in the movie he makes the clear statement that he is a survivor. Him raising his children to battle eachother was not for his amusement or favor. But to give them the tools of what needed to be done. It was made obvious that he was grooming either Gammora or Nebula to one day take over for him. The weak would not be able to handle that which is why he made them train and fight. Gammora winning time and time again obviously made her his favorite because she was the most likely choice to succeed if he is gone.
 

Back in the day. Mongols would actually have a ceremony would they would toss a adolescent out into the wilderness and would not let them return until they came back with game that they have killed. It was ritual to becoming a man for them and while they may seem cruel to you or me it was a rite of passage, and said to be one of the proudest moments of any parents life to see their child return victorious.

 

You’re still confusing lawful behavior with evil. Those are two different sides of the grid. It’s like saying left is up and right is down. At least if you confuse Thanos for good, he’s along the same spectrum as evil.

I literally broke down what oppressions have occurred, such as enslaving an entire race of people and killing half of them (Gamora’s planet). Kidnapping children from multiple planets and torturing them by removing bits of their body when they lose.

Your tribal analogy is also using a “cultural” morality to try and prove Thanos as morally correct. You are forgetting that Thanos is an INDIVIDUAL. The Titan civilization didn’t approve of Thanos morality, said again his culture disapproved of his lack of morality. So you cannot bring up cultural morality from tribes to apply to an individual that acts opposite of his tribe. His children also disagree with his morality as well as the vast majority of the universe. This isn’t a situation of group think.

What’s more you logic is once again flawed with regard to Thanos valuing life. You have confused the concept of LIFE with the concept of QUALITY OF LIFE. Life is simply existence. Those who value life, protect existence. Thanos is looking to remove half of existence. That once again goes against the neutral and good alignments. Thanos kills innocent people, regardless of his own lawful beliefs, good alignment characters do not INTENTIONALLY kill innocent people. This cannot be argued. Neutral characters will indeed kill, but only if it’s someone they do not know or love. Thanos Breaks this Neutral alignment rule as well. Leaving only evil.

Just face it, you can try and craft teddy bear arguments for Thanos all you would like, but you are not doing it with logic. You are even ASSUMING that Thanos is torturing his children so that he can pass on the torch to them. He never expressly states these things, you are simply inferring. You logic is thus flawed and has been found wanting.

Edited May 14, 2018 by diamondbull424

[Calvert28]

10 hours ago, diamondbull424 said:

You’re still confusing lawful behavior with evil. Those are two different sides of the grid. It’s like saying left is up and right is down. At least if you confuse Thanos for good, he’s along the same spectrum as evil.

If the decision that is made still falls under his code. He did not sacrifice Gammora because he wanted to. But because there was no other way. Hence it takes him out of the evil category.

10 hours ago, diamondbull424 said:

I literally broke down what oppressions have occurred, such as enslaving an entire race of people and killing half of them (Gamora’s planet). Kidnapping children from multiple planets and torturing them by removing bits of their body when they lose.

Again you are defining actions as being good and evil. How can you say at the end of your post that you made it clear that he's evil? It makes no sense. If one person kills another. To you then it may as well have been murder. Doesn't matter the situation or the frame of mind that person is in. They could be cleaning their gun and it goes off and accidently hits someone in the head. They could shoot someone out of self defense. A child could find one, start playing with it and it goes off by accident and hits someone, each and everytime you would call it murder. How is that logical? Just because you see something as cruel, the other person may see it as mercy or just a lesson of life. Not all of life is judged by just you.

10 hours ago, diamondbull424 said:

Your tribal analogy is also using a “cultural” morality to try and prove Thanos as morally correct. You are forgetting that Thanos is an INDIVIDUAL. The Titan civilization didn’t approve of Thanos morality, said again his culture disapproved of his lack of morality. So you cannot bring up cultural morality from tribes to apply to an individual that acts opposite of his tribe. His children also disagree with his morality as well as the vast majority of the universe. This isn’t a situation of group think.

The point of the analogy is to show you that just because something is done one way does not mean the person who did it is evil. You claim that Thanos is doing this because he is evil. Would that also not make that entire culture evil because the child will obviously be scared, in the Steppes they will be freezing, hungry and without support. To you that would be cruel. I brought it up that the act is not meant to be cruel but as a rite of passage. Thanos's twisted logic had him pairing his own adopted children against eachother was not because of pleasure but as a way of helping them improve.

10 hours ago, diamondbull424 said:

What’s more you logic is once again flawed with regard to Thanos valuing life. You have confused the concept of LIFE with the concept of QUALITY OF LIFE. Life is simply existence. Those who value life, protect existence. Thanos is looking to remove half of existence. That once again goes against the neutral and good alignments. Thanos kills innocent people, regardless of his own lawful beliefs, good alignment characters do not INTENTIONALLY kill innocent people. This cannot be argued. Neutral characters will indeed kill, but only if it’s someone they do not know or love. Thanos Breaks this Neutral alignment rule as well. Leaving only evil.

Wow you are projecting your own view of life onto those DnD alignments. That bad people kill, good people. And there is always a happily ever after. Neutral will not kill someone they do not know or love. Where does it say that in the alignments?  What sort of sense does that make? So someone kills someone else out of self defense, if it's someone they dont know whos just trying to mug them. That makes the one who killed evil?

Lawful neutral can be a dangerous alignment when it seeks to eliminate all freedom, choice, and diversity in society.

Quote

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Notice it says compunctions. Meaning they do infact have qualms about it, but they will do it if necessary. Thanos if you ever see him at one of these things such as Gammora's home planet or on the Asgardian ship you will notice he is always looking away from the carnage. With Gammora he forces her to play with his knife and he himself ignores the entire slaughter. One can assume he doesn't want to face whats about to be done.

Quote

A lawful neutral character typically believes strongly in lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules, and tradition, and often follows a personal code.^[9] Examples of lawful neutral characters include a soldier who always follows orders, a judge or enforcer that adheres mercilessly to the word of the law, and a disciplined monk.

Someone who follows their own personal code who can act without mercy to carry out the deed still falls under Lawful Neutral.

 

10 hours ago, diamondbull424 said:

Just face it, you can try and craft teddy bear arguments for Thanos all you would like, but you are not doing it with logic. You are even ASSUMING that Thanos is torturing his children so that he can pass on the torch to them. He never expressly states these things, you are simply inferring. You logic is thus flawed and has been found wanting.

I can infer anything based on what is said and done in the movie. You unfortunately have been projecting your own views on what right and wrong in our society as the basis on how Thanos should be judged. As if other cultures or individuals do not have their own set of laws or morals, or standards or personal codes. Which is pompous to say the least.

[fretgod99]

13 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

I can infer anything based on what is said and done in the movie. You unfortunately have been projecting your own views on what right and wrong in our society as the basis on how Thanos should be judged. As if other cultures or individuals do not have their own set of laws or morals, or standards or personal codes. Which is pompous to say the least.

You realize Thanos’ culture is entirely made, right? It doesn’t actually exist. This story is being told over our cultural framework. So of course we analyze it with our culture’s standards and mores in mind. That’s the entire point.

[fretgod99]

14 hours ago, Calvert28 said:

In his opinio rebalancing life gives it a greater chance to survive. So if a population that was starving, and was depleting it's resources just suffered a genocide and things actually got better. One might assume they may implement a population control to prevent it from doing that again. Also if that entire population had depleting it's resources due to infighting, wars and such then this bringer of death comes along and wipes out half the population. One might assume the entire society of that world may band together to protect themselves better thus creating more cooperation and making way of life better on that planet.

Maybe they should have gone into specifics of exactly what he meant by it's a paradise world now. But don't over simplify it just because. It could be an endless amount of things that they do now to make the planet better.

Except his argument is that resources are finite and that’s why the number of people is a problem. He does nothing to change the resources. And he does nothing to change the inevitable number of people. Not every civilization was on the brink of collapse. Why not use his ultimate solution on the ones that were and then work with the other ones to prevent the problem from ever coming to fruition? Probably because he doesn’t care that much about anything except for being right. He’s an evil, megalomaniacal dictator.