Itachi proves Evil rules the world

[Chikombo]

I was thinking I was gonna get back into Itachiism.

And I was thinknig that Itachi did bad things so people don't like him, but he did bad things out of deeper reasons, and really it can be seen as a lesson of how bad things are the ones that actually matter.


I'm gonna explain.

Person A does things that irritates person B.

Person B tells person A to stop, and person A respons with "over my dead body."


Person B reaches critical levels of anger and starts to fight person A.


Person A calls the police on person B because person B fought him, the police takes him to jail.



Now on the surface you think person A was the good person, if you put in context it becomes even more clearer, let's say person B was bothered because person A was trolling on the internet by making everything bold and grammatically incorrect.

It's a silly thing to be upset about, so you don't have sympathy for person B.


However person B attacked person A and person A then plays the victim card, we relate to person A because person A was under actual danger.

And we think putting person B is to jail is justified beause we can no longer trust person B and we also want to see a punishment.



HOWEVER


Person B was not the evil person, in fact the evil person was person A.



The reason is person A was still just a human being no different than person B, that we think he was evil is just an illusion, evil is just an imaginary word with no real meaning, it's highly emotional and not even remotely close to being a fact.
We are discrimiating person B by labelling him evil and even more so by isolating him from the world.

All of these actions are hurtful and we are not even aware over our own evil. The worst part is we convince the person suffering - person B that we are the good guys.


Perons B did bad things but was motivated for good reasons, he couldn't handle the emotions he got from being so frustrated with grammar errors.



It wasn't his fault, if he had been a more stable and calm person he wouldn't have done so, or if person A had listened to him person A would never have been under danger.


Person B is therefor good, but we don't put him in charge we put person A in charge, even though he represents a system of evil.


Itachi was person A because he executed the Uchihas who were rightfully angry, what Itachi did was under lawful protection, they were at war and he had the permission to secure the peace.


So he rules the world.

Even though he is evil.

Just like in real life.


Now if you think I may have twisted some things here and there and I'm offering just some word salad that is really evil and stupid lies that either mean nothing or will delude people into oblivion, then I DONT CARE.

 

[minamoto]

if person A trolls me like that im gonna solo him ...but teh reall problem now is : who is he????..

 

[Chikombo]

if person A trolls me like that im gonna solo him ...but teh reall problem now is : who is he????..

I know you are not trolling.

 

[Infant]

I don't have enough hands to accommodate the amount of closed high-fives I wanna offer your cheeks.

Firstly, you're mixing up your standards. You're talking about judging people using the law, then rating them using emotions/personal standards. Anything always fails when processed in one way then reviewed in another. It's like putting potatoes in Lays factory machine then evaluating them using McDonald's standards for potato chips. Never works out.

Secondly, after sorting out your standard, you need to pick your target. On one hand, you're talking about conclusions, on the other, you're arguing about processes. It's like complaining about models being too thin and focussing on the clothes they model. The clothes and their BMI are two different things. Choose one.

Basically, you mixed everything up and then ended up with chaos. It's only natural.

Looking at your scenario, these are the problems I've found:
- Why is Person B so irritable that he'd hit someone over grammar? He doesn't respect sovereignty, human life and freedom, and maybe even the world itself (some people have medical issues that make it difficut to tpye proeprly)
- Why does the law only judge consequence, and not focus on causes? Purpose of law is to help people, so if there's an underlying cause, the law should address that as well.
- Why did Person A purposefully irritate Person B knowing he has anger issues? That's playing with fire and directly disrespectful (live and let live) to Person B. Maybe her anger is medical problem? Person A should be more considerate.
- And more, honestly

So there's a whole lot . . . Just a whole lot. Otherwise, life is orderly and meaningful. Sometimes the patterns are really complex, but there's still patterns. Needless to say, all the ideas built upon the scenario are inherently flawed because they're built upon a flawed scenario. We'll talk more as needed . . .

 

[minamoto]

I don't have enough hands to accommodate the amount of closed high-fives I wanna offer your cheeks.

Firstly, you're mixing up your standards. You're talking about judging people using the law, then rating them using emotions/personal standards. Anything always fails when processed in one way then reviewed in another. It's like putting potatoes in Lays factory machine then evaluating them using McDonald's standards for potato chips. Never works out.

Secondly, after sorting out your standard, you need to pick your target. On one hand, you're talking about conclusions, on the other, you're arguing about processes. It's like complaining about models being too thin and focussing on the clothes they model. The clothes and their BMI are two different things. Choose one.

Basically, you mixed everything up and then ended up with chaos. It's only natural.

Looking at your scenario, these are the problems I've found:
- Why is Person B so irritable that he'd hit someone over grammar? He doesn't respect sovereignty, human life and freedom, and maybe even the world itself (some people have medical issues that make it difficut to tpye proeprly)
- Why does the law only judge consequence, and not focus on causes? Purpose of law is to help people, so if there's an underlying cause, the law should address that as well.
- Why did Person A purposefully irritate Person B knowing he has anger issues? That's playing with fire and directly disrespectful (live and let live) to Person B. Maybe her anger is medical problem? Person A should be more considerate.
- And more, honestly

So there's a whole lot . . . Just a whole lot. Otherwise, life is orderly and meaningful. Sometimes the patterns are really complex, but there's still patterns. Needless to say, all the ideas built upon the scenario are inherently flawed because they're built upon a flawed scenario. We'll talk more as needed . . .

Nice fanfic..

 

[Kakooli]

I don't have enough hands to accommodate the amount of closed high-fives I wanna offer your cheeks.

Firstly, you're mixing up your standards. You're talking about judging people using the law, then rating them using emotions/personal standards. Anything always fails when processed in one way then reviewed in another. It's like putting potatoes in Lays factory machine then evaluating them using McDonald's standards for potato chips. Never works out.

Secondly, after sorting out your standard, you need to pick your target. On one hand, you're talking about conclusions, on the other, you're arguing about processes. It's like complaining about models being too thin and focussing on the clothes they model. The clothes and their BMI are two different things. Choose one.

Basically, you mixed everything up and then ended up with chaos. It's only natural.

Looking at your scenario, these are the problems I've found:
- Why is Person B so irritable that he'd hit someone over grammar? He doesn't respect sovereignty, human life and freedom, and maybe even the world itself (some people have medical issues that make it difficut to tpye proeprly)
- Why does the law only judge consequence, and not focus on causes? Purpose of law is to help people, so if there's an underlying cause, the law should address that as well.
- Why did Person A purposefully irritate Person B knowing he has anger issues? That's playing with fire and directly disrespectful (live and let live) to Person B. Maybe her anger is medical problem? Person A should be more considerate.
- And more, honestly

So there's a whole lot . . . Just a whole lot. Otherwise, life is orderly and meaningful. Sometimes the patterns are really complex, but there's still patterns. Needless to say, all the ideas built upon the scenario are inherently flawed because they're built upon a flawed scenario. We'll talk more as needed . . .

so u want to spank him like fetish?!?!?? hnnnnn....

 

[Infant]

so u want to spank him like fetish?!?!?? hnnnnn....

combined with your sig, this totally wrecked me