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

[Calvert28]

1 minute ago, fretgod99 said:

Vision asked Wanda to do it. That’s a pretty significant difference, don’t you think? I mean, one is an intentional self-sacrifice to save half of the life in the entire universe and the other is literally murdering (not “killing”, “murdering”) precisely half of life everywhere. Even though there is absolutely no proof that it is a necessary step anywhere, let alone everywhere, let alone an imminently necessary one.

No, no no grey areas for you guys. Because the action was done. Don't sugar coat it. The line specifically said intentional. She intentionally did it. Therefore she would fall under that category according to you.

[Calvert28]

1 hour ago, fretgod99 said:

So is he level-headed or insane? And why does him potentially being insane mean he cannot be evil? They are not mutually exclusive.

If they are not then he still would not be. Because nothing he has done in the movie is shown him doing all of this for his self interest. Which would then have him fall into the evil category.

1 hour ago, fretgod99 said:

And again, if we’re leaning on comic influence, there’s no question he’s evil. Don’t think there’s much question about it in the comics.

I'll agree with you. If this is from the comics then yes he is evil. He did it so he could be with death. Except in this he believes he is doing whats best for all of us.

[diamondbull424]

32 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Is that Cherry picking thing you talked about? So he killed Gammora without regard? What was he crying for then? Cause he was so close to getting the soul stone? Why did Redskull make it clear that the tears were for Gammora? You've been cherry picking since the beginning of our debate.

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

Quote

Definition of without regard for

: without care or concern for

 

33 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts.

Nope. Not cherry picking. I didn’t selectively choose from the source material one point but omit another tied directly to it.

What’s more, his tears are an effect for his feelings. Gamora wanted to live and said no to him killing her. He then killed her without concern for her feelings. He wanted the Soul stone and took Gamora’s life without care for her wishes to live.

On the other hand Starlord for instance, attempted to kill Gamora because it was her wish for him to kill her rather than be captured alive.

Starlord acted with regard for her feelings, while Thanos acted without regard for her feelings. So yeah, maybe next time...

[diamondbull424]

1 hour ago, Calvert28 said:

Did you even read that statement? And where does he condemn anyone in the movie? It doesn't matter who dies to him so long as balance is maintained, that to him is the only way to be fair. But he does not judge based on homeland which would be the country or planet they serve which would indicate he judges them based upon what they believe. He would have a preconceived notion on their belief system and therefore would condemn them based on that. Thanos did not once do that in the movie.

 

1 hour ago, Calvert28 said:

He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. Condemns and kills based not on relationships but an overpopulated universe.

 

Homeland is where someone is from or set aside for them to live within. Thanos judges the entirety of the universe (to be devoid of resources). The universe is the homeland for the inhabitants of the universe.

Thus as opposed to using the reality stone to create MORE resources (which he could do) for all its inhabitants, he instead condemns half the universe to die.

Quote

con·demn

kənˈdem/

verb

1. 1. 

   express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure.

   "fair-minded people declined to condemn her on mere suspicion"

    
2. 2. 

   sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially death.

Regardless of him choosing who dies, he still sentences half of everyone to die. Or did you not know that condemn had multiple definitions? If not, I’m glad I could supply you with that knowledge for you to keep with you, hopefully for the rest of your days....

Edited May 15, 2018 by diamondbull424

[diamondbull424]

1 hour ago, Calvert28 said:

 

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). The entire scene on Gamora’s Home planet is described here.

 

I'm sure many children died on the other side where those people were being slaughtered. So lets be real he could have helped it. He chose not to because that contradicts of having random selection determine their fate. Right or left in that scene. He then kills them all. He took a liking to Gammora that does not mean he spared the children.

 ?

Rather what you mean to say is that he has his underlings do the killing while he’s teaching Gamora how to balance a dagger?

[diamondbull424]

1 hour ago, Calvert28 said:

They caused those deaths, that much is a fact. By choosing to act in populated areas because it was the best chance to nab the bad guy. So that would technically make them evil right? At least according to you.

Nope. That’s chaotic good.

Quote

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

Chaotic good can be a dangerous alignment when it disrupts the order of society and punishes those who do well for themselves.

 

1 hour ago, Calvert28 said:

2 hours ago, diamondbull424 said:

This response does not address the quoted points found within my response.

Im adressing all of your posts with that statement.

You didn’t quote all of my posts. You quoted that post, yet did not comment on the points being presented in that post.

As if making a sweeping generalization based on assumptions would be suitable logic to disprove localized elements contained within that post.

[diamondbull424]

1 hour ago, Calvert28 said:

Lawful evil combines honor with self-interest. Where did he show he only served himself in that movie? You guys have yet to put up a legit argument there. Because he wants the stones is not a legit argument BTW.

The moves were being put into place far before that. Lmao and whos assuming now? Where anywhere did it actually say he waited until Odin died?

Wanda definitely decided to murder Vision to prevent Thanos from succeeding. Evil right? Even if it was the last choice, she didn't want to make it. But that doesn't matter because it was "intentional". So she was evil. That kid is evil too according to you because he killed someone based off of the posts you've made.

Lol and I don't even know why you brought up successful. That has nothing to do with being evil and made no sense what so ever. Good guys can be successful. So success=evil?

 

It’s funny how you can decide what a legit argument is and what isn’t. But I’ll play this game. Thanos choosing to adopt Gamora combines honor with self interest. He doesn’t include her in the randomized killing of her planets population. This is selfish. There you go... I win.

It’s a fact that Odin was incredibly powerful and successfully conquered and defended the nine realms from some of the strongest threats. It’s also a fact that Thanos didn’t put his plan in place until after Odin “died.” So whether intentional or not he waited, if unintentional it’s a coincidence, if intentional it’s methodical.

She didn’t decide to murder vision. She decided to destroy the stone. They had no idea what the side effects would be from destroying it, there were actually theories supplied by earths greatest scientists that he might survive. Her actions however resulted in death. What she did was kill him out of negligence, not murder. Same with a kid playing with a gun. The kids intent was to have fun, his action was the bullet fired and killed someone. Negligence is neither good nor bad, it’s chaotic neutral. For all Wanda knows destroying the mindstone could have given Vision immortality and for all the kid knows, him playing with the gun might’ve  resulted in him unknowingly killing an animal that was attacking his younger brother.

Thanos’ intent as opposed to increasing resources for the inhabitants of the universe via the Gauntlet, was to decrease the inhabitants (Murder) of the universe for the resources.

Thanos actions are to kill half the universe and his intent is also to kill half the universe, his action and intent being premeditated is what defines his act as murder. And murder is evil.

[diamondbull424]

But hey, page 69 seems like as good a page as any to stop entertaining you, while you entertain me... and thus leave you to entertain yourself with these delusions of Thanos. Thus I will kindly separate myself from that, I’m sure, most pleasurable experience.

ps: though if you need me, I’ll be the guy on the phone.

[Calvert28]

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

 

Nope. Not cherry picking. I didn’t selectively choose from the source material one point but omit another tied directly to it.

What’s more, his tears are an effect for his feelings. Gamora wanted to live and said no to him killing her. He then killed her without concern for her feelings. He wanted the Soul stone and took Gamora’s life without care for her wishes to live.

On the other hand Starlord for instance, attempted to kill Gamora because it was her wish for him to kill her rather than be captured alive.

Starlord acted with regard for her feelings, while Thanos acted without regard for her feelings. So yeah, maybe next time...

You do realize you made an entire statement that made absolutely no sense right?

Redskull made it clear Thanos was crying because he was about to kill Gammora whom he loved.

You literally just said the movie was wrong.

I take it back. You're not cherry picking. You are saying anything right now to support your argument.

[theJ]

Holy crap guys. No one can care this much. 

I admire your persistance. 

[Calvert28]

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

 

Homeland is where someone is from or set aside for them to live within. Thanos judges the entirety of the universe (to be devoid of resources). The universe is the homeland for the inhabitants of the universe.

Wow glad we cleared that up.

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

Thus as opposed to using the reality stone to create MORE resources (which he could do) for all its inhabitants, he instead condemns half the universe to die.

Except he doesn't condemn anyone. To condemn is to punish. As, Ebony Maw made it clear at the beginning of the movie, the Asgardians He does not kill people because he thinks they need to be punished. He kills them to rebalance the universe. Meaning he is trying to stay completely indifferent  to the death's themselves.

 

[Calvert28]

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

Nope. That’s chaotic good.

So being negligent and getting people killed is chaotic good.........yea ok

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

 

You didn’t quote all of my posts. You quoted that post, yet did not comment on the points being presented in that post.

As if making a sweeping generalization based on assumptions would be suitable logic to disprove localized elements contained within that post.

You're right I didn't quote all of your posts. I used the word "addressed". I didn't address those points because it's more of the same nonsense. The post was directed at you personally not your argument.

[D82]

Take it to PM or something....

 

[Calvert28]

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

It’s funny how you can decide what a legit argument is and what isn’t. But I’ll play this game. Thanos choosing to adopt Gamora combines honor with self interest. He doesn’t include her in the randomized killing of her planets population. This is selfish. There you go... I win.

Well what can I say. When you make it easy. Yea he showed compassion to a single child and decided to adopt her. How is that selfish?

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

It’s a fact that Odin was incredibly powerful and successfully conquered and defended the nine realms from some of the strongest threats. It’s also a fact that Thanos didn’t put his plan in place until after Odin “died.” So whether intentional or not he waited, if unintentional it’s a coincidence, if intentional it’s methodical.

Except your still assuming. He specifically said in the end credits when putting the gauntlet on. "I suppose i'll have to do this myself." That would imply that something is not going the way he wanted and decided the only way to get it done is to do it himself.  Not "Gee golly wiz Odin is finally gone. I can now go out into the universe and fullfill my ultimate desires!"

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

She didn’t decide to murder vision. She decided to destroy the stone. They had no idea what the side effects would be from destroying it,

Only need to respond to this bit. The part in bold is one in the same. The assumption is if they surgically remove it then he could survive. H/e it was well assumed and theoried that removing the stone by force would kill him. Why do you think the hesitation on her part for the entire movie? She knew and he knew that's what would happen. So her deciding to destroy it is in effect making the killing intentional thus making it evil.

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

Thanos’ intent as opposed to increasing resources for the inhabitants of the universe via the Gauntlet, was to decrease the inhabitants (Murder) of the universe for the resources.

Thanos actions are to kill half the universe and his intent is also to kill half the universe, his action and intent being premeditated is what defines his act as murder. And murder is evil.

Wanda is evil then.

[fretgod99]

13 hours ago, Calvert28 said:

No, no no grey areas for you guys. Because the action was done. Don't sugar coat it. The line specifically said intentional. She intentionally did it. Therefore she would fall under that category according to you.

Ah, so you’re just assuming then. Cool. When did I say there’s no grey area again? And how is what Wanda did a grey area? Intentionally committed the act that resulted in Vision’s death that Vision was 100% in favor of and asked her to do. But you’re right that’s exactly the same as unilaterally determining that half the universe doesn’t deserve to live very mich against their wills and without consulting with any of them.

And it’s not like Thanos has a history of sadistic choices or anything that would color one’s perceptions of his actions. Nope. He is exactly the same as Wanda.

This is beyond ridiculous. I legitimately don’t understand your obsession with needing Thanos to not be evil. Murdering (which is not the same as killing) half of all life in the universe because you alone determine it to be necessary is pretty much the epitome of evil. That doesn’t seem like something one would need to debate much. But cool. You do you, I guess.