Does Anyone Think Sasuke Is Really A Villian?

[Jcub]

Huh? Seeing as how rarely any human right now is awake, I'd say he would have plenty of time to prepare before confrontation.

Edit: You're not getting this. I'm out.

 

[Holy God]

Not exactly, I'm just saying it's a bit Machiavellian of an approach to societal stability and that's why it's difficult to keep from inferring Sasuke's ploy as an act to make everyone obey his ideology. What better way to make a society obey you than rid of all threats to rule and demand a dogmatic decorum (including the kage, edo's, hagoromo, dk kakashi, and now Naruto)? Not to mention having a zero-tolerance policy for alternative opinion, such as that from Naruto or society?

So, I think the case is justified. I'm not saying that Sasuke's ideology is illogical. Rather that his procedure in establishing peace by making a strict hegemony is paradoxical because he is disturbing peace in order to establish it again. It's hypocritical and thus illogical

I understand where you're coming from, but it can be thought up of as logical. For the real world as an example. You can't make everyone become good, unless you restart and reinforce the general public. So many problems can be solved through restarting.

 

[RedShadow]

No he's just extreme when making serious decisions.

That's definitely another way to put it.

Naruto defeats anyone in his way of justice. "How is that not evil?"

Half Correct, Naruto DEFEATS He does not kill, while Sasuke does, Naruto tries to change people, He succeeds 99.5% of the time(Is that correct grammar?) and then there's Sasuke who killed Danzo, but that was good anyway, dammit.

 

[Holy God]

That's definitely another way to put it.



Half Correct, Naruto DEFEATS He does not kill, while Sasuke does, Naruto tries to change people, He succeeds 99.5% of the time(Is that correct grammar?) and then there's Sasuke who killed Danzo, but that was good anyway, dammit.

Both Sasuke and Naruto only kill when needed. Sasuke has injured a thousand ninjas before without killing a single one of them. Can't see where Sasuke has killed that hasn't been helpful.

 

[SRShock10]

I understand where you're coming from, but it can be thought up of as logical. For the real world as an example. You can't make everyone become good, unless you restart and reinforce the general public. So many problems can be solved through restarting.

Somewhat agreed, except for one thing: restarting. Even if we tried to make everyone "good" by restarting society, there's several problems to this. First, unless you established absolute control over each individual, the law would not be able to be enforced ideally, as there would always be a chance that a miscreant be able to exist. Second, imagine a utopian society where everything "bad" was abolished from mankind. However, as time progresses, this would become paradoxical, because then there should be nothing bad going on, but at the same time we would have an inability to describe anything as being "good" unless we make a new classification of what is "bad" and what is "good" (unfortunately, many evils are necessary for classification of good to exist). If you want an example of this development in time, it can even be observed in this world: one example is how genocide back in ancient Greece was viewed as an accepted norm and people looked at such action with indifference (such as chucking a newborn off a cliff because the family cannot afford to raise another child). Conspicuously, today, this would land you with a life-term or a death sentence. Third, fighting, if not war, is unable to be rid of because it would impede the people's ability to have free will. If there is a god (and I believe there is), a common attack on god's existence is begging the question, "why does god allow wars to occur or people to get killed?" This would seem very logical, as it is a horrific and unjust activity of mankind. However, if we were restricted from being able to do this, we would also have no more free-will because our actions would be limited. In Sasuke's ideology, that would occur, but what else would be limited, what would be the cost on free will and humanity/the common mind? To me, this approach that Sasuke presents may be efficacious but unfortunately Pyrrhic by the method his version of an ideal society is made.

 

[Holy God]

Somewhat agreed, except for one thing: restarting. Even if we tried to make everyone "good" by restarting society, there's several problems to this. First, unless you established absolute control over each individual, the law would not be able to be enforced ideally, as there would always be a chance that a miscreant be able to exist. Second, imagine a utopian society where everything "bad" was abolished from mankind. However, as time progresses, this would become paradoxical, because then there should be nothing bad going on, but at the same time we would have an inability to describe anything as being "good" unless we make a new classification of what is "bad" and what is "good" (unfortunately, many evils are necessary for classification of good to exist). If you want an example of this development in time, it can even be observed in this world: one example is how genocide back in ancient Greece was viewed as an accepted norm and people looked at such action with indifference (such as chucking a newborn off a cliff because the family cannot afford to raise another child). Conspicuously, today, this would land you with a life-term or a death sentence. Third, fighting, if not war, is unable to be rid of because it would impede the people's ability to have free will. If there is a god (and I believe there is), a common attack on god's existence is begging the question, "why does god allow wars to occur or people to get killed?" This would seem very logical, as it is a horrific and unjust activity of mankind. However, if we were restricted from being able to do this, we would also have no more free-will because our actions would be limited. In Sasuke's ideology, that would occur, but what else would be limited, what would be the cost on free will and humanity/the common mind? To me, this approach that Sasuke presents may be efficacious but unfortunately Pyrrhic by the method his version of an ideal society is made.

By restarting, mostly everyone would be good, and the children would all be taught to be good, which would make bad behavior abnormal, thus peer-pressured into ascending to a higher level of respect. The starting time, things will need to be controlled, but after a while, it would all ease up and then evil people would exist as Ebola affected humans on the United States exist, quite rare. You cannot get rid of small fights, but war is major conflict, and in one nation, you can't really have a war when nearly everyone can control their sense of anger and think first. I personally believe we should have less people in this world, all the one's that aren't supportive at all, and that carry diseases easily ridden of by killing off those who have it, but that's for another topic. Not every plan is error-proof, but you can get pretty near it.

 

[SRShock10]

By restarting, mostly everyone would be good, and the children would all be taught to be good, which would make bad behavior abnormal, thus peer-pressured into ascending to a higher level of respect. The starting time, things will need to be controlled, but after a while, it would all ease up and then evil people would exist as Ebola affected humans on the United States exist, quite rare. You cannot get rid of small fights, but war is major conflict, and in one nation, you can't really have a war when nearly everyone can control their sense of anger and think first. I personally believe we should have less people in this world, all the one's that aren't supportive at all, and that carry diseases easily ridden of by killing off those who have it, but that's for another topic. Not every plan is error-proof, but you can get pretty near it.

Okay, so you're saying teach what is bad, but not fully abolish it, right? That's what I read in what you're saying which would make more sense because abolishing what is "bad" would mean a new "bad" would have to be classified in society...
On the other hand, you should take philosophy for the latter portion of your discussion, as that is not very ethical. There were a few "experiments" that wanted to rid of people because they weren't meeting society's "health standards" or "economic standards", or "impeding productivity". You know what they were?: The Holocaust (Jews, gays, priests, gypsies, down syndrome, blacks), The Tuskegee Trial/experiment (syphilis experimentation on blacks until they died), Vermont's eugenics programs (sterilized a tribe of "mentally retarded" native americans)... It goes on. Would you say that they all should have died for the sake of "science" and "humanity"?
I suggest you take a different approach and suggest use of encouraging contraception rather than enforcing it or by, as you put it, "killing" them "off", as you aren't then interfering in those individuals' lives and making a compromise, and not doing anything unjust. As much as I do dislike some people today who want taxes to pay for their living, while they do no work, themselves; as well as criminals who murder, rape, or abuse others. But it doesn't give reason to "kill" them, by far.

And disease can be treated if not eradicated with technology, given time, such as with vaccines, gene therapy, and pharmaceuticals. I wouldn't promote eradication based on the idea of disease

 

[Holy God]

Okay, so you're saying teach what is bad, but not fully abolish it, right? That's what I read in what you're saying which would make more sense because abolishing what is "bad" would mean a new "bad" would have to be classified in society...
On the other hand, you should take philosophy for the latter portion of your discussion, as that is not very ethical. There were a few "experiments" that wanted to rid of people because they weren't meeting society's "health standards" or "economic standards", or "impeding productivity". You know what they were?: The Holocaust (Jews, gays, priests, gypsies, down syndrome, blacks), The Tuskegee Trial/experiment (syphilis experimentation on blacks until they died), Vermont's eugenics programs (sterilized a tribe of "mentally retarded" native americans)... It goes on. Would you say that they all should have died for the sake of "science" and "humanity"?
I suggest you take a different approach and suggest use of encouraging contraception rather than enforcing it or by, as you put it, "killing" them "off", as you aren't then interfering in those individuals' lives and making a compromise, and not doing anything unjust. As much as I do dislike some people today who want taxes to pay for their living, while they do no work, themselves; as well as criminals who murder, rape, or abuse others. But it doesn't give reason to "kill" them, by far.

And disease can be treated if not eradicated with technology such as vaccines, gene therapy, and pharmaceuticals. I wouldn't promote eradication based on the idea of disease

Yes, the current "bad" would be explained to avoid it. As for the rest of your post, I will go ahead and justify the reason for my ideal is my lack of morals or emotions. As my username describes, a schizoid is someone who lacks strong emotional attachment. My family could all die in a second, and unlike most people, I wouldn't be emotionally impacted all. While restarting is very unethical in this world, I believe it would solve unintelligence, violence, hunger, and large resource consumption. Soon enough we'll have to have some sort of purge anyways. Earth is only so large. The acts you referred to, are based on hateful terms and racism for the most part. While stereotypes have some truth, not subjective to it should be accounted with it. Restarting here is all based on constructive thinking and intelligence, though some group of average Joes are needed.

 

[Xāvî1]

I do think f him as a clown really. Cos all those lectures from hashi yet he learned nothing!

 

[SRShock10]

Yes, the current "bad" would be explained to avoid it. As for the rest of your post, I will go ahead and justify the reason for my ideal is my lack of morals or emotions. As my username describes, a schizoid is someone who lacks strong emotional attachment. My family could all die in a second, and unlike most people, I wouldn't be emotionally impacted all. While restarting is very unethical in this world, I believe it would solve unintelligence, violence, hunger, and large resource consumption. Soon enough we'll have to have some sort of purge anyways. Earth is only so large. The acts you referred to, are based on hateful terms and racism for the most part. While stereotypes have some truth, not subjective to it should be accounted with it. Restarting here is all based on constructive thinking and intelligence, though some group of average Joes are needed.

I would not say "restarting" is unethical, rather the term "killing off" is. I'm trying to say that there are other ways of restarting than doing that. It would be no different to "kill off" those you deem as unproductive or non-supportive as it was to Hitler who believed that only Aryans should exist because they were the most productive and superior people, or the mentality of eugenics that native americans provided no productivity, so "kill" them.

Just consider other alternatives. The approach to "kill" other people to restart society is not a good approach. If a form of government did do that, the people surviving, if moral, would feel completely disaffected towards it. Especially family members who witnessed their members die for a "restart"/"purge". You would be breeding hate no different than what you see in the Middle East, now from killings in the crossfire and because of the fact a foreign nation is occupying your home. And FYI: since introducing contraception more in the US, its population has remained around 300 million and has maintained a nice plateau, whereas the biggest problem-areas now are India and Africa, though, like China, India is starting to begin a plateau, it would seem. We don't need to have a "kill off"/"purge" to stave off growth rate and restart. In fact, that is "unintelligent" to do when there are other ways to go about it- which is my point. There are multiple ways to go about this, not just only one way. Whatever the form of society, you will still have a dissenter to government, and hate, and it will be just as the world is today with people killing each other for the sake of their ruler or their own, perhaps fallacious, beliefs. Every time the US has tried to restart a society, guess what happens? Those who dissent become a "new threat" because they oppose democracy, and odds are that another war is started. Some conflicts just cannot be ended by government, such as the conflict between sunni and shiite which has been going on for thousands of years, and would possibly be settled through segragation of states and then diplomacy.
Killing causes hate in the first place though. A "kill off" or "purge" would do no good and refute the creation of society as it would breed more hate and disaffection that is comparable to the coup in Iran, the Iraq war/ISIS, Vietnam, and even the USSR occupied countries (look at what happened after the wall came down, the countries split from a "restarted" society because they didn't agree to the USSR's policies and felt disaffected towards it).