lol keep trolling anon, i'm sure you'll get good at it someday.
https://i.imgur.com/3CholMe.jpeg
Steve Ditko was too based for this world.
This is right, the tricky part is recognizing that sometimes you are guilty, and when you are, YOU want mercy. So if you've given it out in the past, you might get some more.
linking altruism to selfish desire is the only functional philosophy
I'm not even that big a fan of the IP, but it's honestly hilarious how many people get their butts blasted. Honestly, I think most of the people who hate this just don't like the idea of being held to a higher standard.
I don’t like it because it’s poorly written with all the bad guys basically being chaotic evil and immediately trying to kill people at the drop of a hat. The bad guys just choose to be bad but
In a world this insane, of course basic common sense will look crazy.
[...]
that's not objectivism lol apparently ayn rand was a hypocrite.
I was saying what objectivism actually is. I wasn’t regurgitating the word salad that objectivists spout when trying to explain why they like objectivism. Also ayn rand’s whole philosophy was WHATEVER I like is objectively good and things I don’t like are objectively bad”.
>Also ayn rand’s whole philosophy was WHATEVER I like is objectively good and things I don’t like are objectively bad”.
This is why I couldn't buy into her bullshit. She just felt she could pick or choose whenever her rules applied.
"Taking social security and government handouts is bad! Unless I get cancer and need medical payments then it's good."
"Stealing property by force is bad. Unless it's towards native americans or palestians who I don't like and are fricking savages, then it's reasonable to use violence on them and confiscate their land and livihood."
i dont think the majority of people who shitpost even bothered reading a tiny bit into what ayn actually believed other than what they were spoonfed. she stated that it was okay for people to do charity, like a mother choosing to feed her child, which her self insert character literally states in a speech, as long as they were not coerced into doing so
Did you read what you posted?
A mother feeding her child isn't fricking charity.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
charity doesnt seclude anyone who is your family member. so a mother volunatrily giving help to her child falls under the category is charity, its just that we think of it more of an obligation than that
>"Taking social security and government handouts is bad! Unless I get cancer and need medical payments then it's good."
The most brainlet interpretation of Rand. The government leeched off her her whole life. It's not wrong to let it pay you back. I believe it's wrong for these programs to exist. It's not wrong to use them.
>Taking social security and government handouts is bad! Unless I get cancer and need medical payments then it's good.
Actually she wrote that it is okay to take government handouts while opposing the policies that offer them, and that was long before she took social security.
>Also ayn rand’s whole philosophy was WHATEVER I like is objectively good and things I don’t like are objectively bad”.
This is why I couldn't buy into her bullshit. She just felt she could pick or choose whenever her rules applied.
"Taking social security and government handouts is bad! Unless I get cancer and need medical payments then it's good."
"Stealing property by force is bad. Unless it's towards native americans or palestians who I don't like and are fricking savages, then it's reasonable to use violence on them and confiscate their land and livihood."
She was just a dumb hypocritical b***h.
If Ayn Rand is Objectivism, and Objectivism is BS because she was a hypocrite, then the same must apply to Socialism and Karl Marx. Despite his rantings about "muh working class", he was a NEET who lived off his friends. He wasn't a farmer, factory worker, or laborer. He was poor because he didn't work and demanded the wealthy give him money because WHY SHOULDN'T I BE ABLE TO DO NOTHING ALL DAY EVERY DAY?! RISE UP MUH COMRADES!
I find it hilarious the people arguing against Objectivism always have the most moronic arguments as to why they think it's crap. If a philosophy is crap because it's founder didn't follow their own teachings, then every philosophy in history is crap. The only one that comes close is what Jesus taught, and even he cursed a tree for not providing him with fruit out of season. Ideas and concepts are not the people who came up with them.
If you actually want to attack Objectivism, try attacking something actually wrong with it. Like how it's just some generalized ideas with no real concept or plan on how they will apply to life? Or being vague enough to the point it almost says nothing? Something, anything that's an actual criticism of it. Not just "HUR DUR THE FOUNDER WAS A HYPOCRITE!" I heard enough of that lame shit in college.
Karl Marx's idea isn't a get-quick rich scheme, it's a dialect of history in response to Hegel's transubstantiation of spirit meditated through german idealism which carried the western tradition. The tradition, via people Kant and Descartes that Ayn Rand rejects completely into some GotMine reactionary lecture that ignores a millenia of intellectual development. But you're too stupid to know that.
And Socialism/Marxism doesn't say anything about what people should do with their lives as laborers, judges or morality. It simply denotes just as Feudalism was based on begging premises that were challenged, Capitalism inevitably will find itself confronting its own dialectical contradictions too.
karl marx certainly did surround himself with the rich and wealthy like Engels who were his biggest supporters, while he was expousing the prototypical le west vill fall rhetoric about the le proletariat rising against le bourgioise which he viewed as inevitable because supposedly his ideology would carry on the process of dialetical materialism, subsuming any antithesis despite the great leaps of logic in his reasoning. how its also supposed to be the spiritual successor of kantianism, which serves as the foundation for the idea that we should treat others as ends rather than means because we do not truly know what other people want, ergo we should not see others as socially engineerable resources for a grand materialist revolution ultimately rooted in utilitarianism and hedonism, remains a mystery.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Karl Marx said the west will fall!
Marx was an economist that documented economic changes and mapped them to simultaneous social changes
You've never read Marx
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
he literally instructs people to rise up and carry on his ideology in the communist manifesto
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>remains a mystery
Marx didn't follow Kant at all. He followed up from Hegel, whose work was largely a refutation to Kant's project.
>Capitalism >in its late stage for 150 years
Marx was a dunce.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Marx was wrong in that he was dismissive of social democracy as a concept. He thought that not only would the rich be unwilling to allow such a moderation of capitalism by the introduction of some socialist elements, that even if a few of the rich recognized that it was necessary to save capitalism those few would be unable to implement it. The rich would themselves be prisoners of the incentives and demands of their own system, to the point that they would be unable to save it from its own self-destructive impulses.
In that respect, Marx was wrong for a little while. Capitalism got a massive boost from the social democratic era that followed ww2 (or in the case of the US, starting in the 1930s) up through the 70s. Then in the late 70s and early 80s, social democracy was abandoned in favor of going back to the deregulation, privatization, tax cuts, union busting, etc. of the classical liberal era, only now with added free trade ideology instead of the closed markets of the old colonial empires. Add in a police state far beyond anything classical liberalism could maintain, and you get the current neoliberal system that is now reaching the end of its ability to keep the scam going.
As the neoliberal system's self-destructive impulses catch up to it, people lose faith in the system just as they lost faith in the classical liberal system, only this time there are no left wing political projects that are positioned to take up the torch like the new deal did in the US. This time around the only available alternative to the neoliberal system, that tried so hard to insist that there was no alternative, is a fascist project.
That's another way in which Marx was wrong. He assumed that the failures of capitalism would lead to a communist revolution, when in reality it's much more likely to lead to fascism, another system that Marx didn't seriously consider as a possibility.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>the neoliberal system'
Which is socialist. Governments have their diseased wieners balls deep in the economy all over the "developed world"
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
most people would define neoliberal as pro-market deregulation. What moronic homosexual taught you otherwise?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
He probably thinks that any system where there is government involvement in the market is socialist.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
No, it isn't. Ultimately power within neoliberalism comes from the ownership of private property. Government merely follows the directions of the wealthy, and serves as one more thing for them to squabble over and use as a way to turn their wealth into even more power. The bank bailouts, for example, are how capitalism actually works in practice. The wealthy get their way, even if that means using the government as one more tool to do it.
People like to imagine some idealized "pure" capitalism, but the reality is that it has always been interwoven with state power. The institutions and norms that capitalism relies upon, things like private property, rule of law, contracts, currency, etc. are deeply connected to state power.
What do you say to a communist who insists that real communism hasn't been tried? You're probably dismissive of the idea, and insist that communism be judged by how it has actually played out in history. I am merely applying the same standard to capitalism. Just like communism, capitalism should be judged by how it actually plays out, ranging from slavery and genocide in the regions where it extracts resources, to bailouts and lobbying in its more built up core territories.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Neoliberal is the exact opposite of socialist moron. Do five seconds of research please.
You're half-right. Moral relativism is, ironically, universal. No one has absolute morals, there are always exceptions. This is especially true for anyone who venerates the past.
Though that has nothing to do with OP's image, it's just totalitarian garbage that doesn't value the rights of the accused.
>Try black and white in a world of credit cards, punk rock, mastectomies, Watergate, the rise of homegrown Nazism, Anita Bryant, and the terrifying fact that more than half of all serious crimes in the United States are committed by people between the ages of ten and seventeen—-and that includes rape, murder, robbery, aggravated assault and burglary
>>Try black and white in a world of credit cards, punk rock, mastectomies, Watergate, the rise of homegrown Nazism, Anita Bryant
Those are all pretty neatly sorted into the "evil" category.
I used to think he was a bit too extreme but as time goes on I honestly see his points.
I like the idea of art uplifting and providing idealized forms and ideas over reveling in ugliness. I've always disliked trying to make villains sympathetic. And his way of composing pages to explain ideas through surreal imagery, as crazy as it seems, is legitimately cool to see.
I like morally grey characters every now and again, but I find the people who only watch or read shit like it tiring and unable to genuinely look at the reality of the world. Instead they prefer to to believe that the pre planned greyness of modern fiction enough for whatever puddle deep introspection they’re capable of
Doing what "you" think is right is not the same thing as what is objectively right. Handful of people who were there because they genuinely believed that everyone in congress is actually a shapeshifting reptileman from the Drago constellation would be killed by Mr. A because they are delusional and, therefore, criminals.
>Doing what "you" think is right is not the same thing as what is objectively right
Wellnthats just it, innit? Who decides what's objectively right? When two different trains of logic collide, that's called war.
Also no; there is no way Mr. A disagrees with those January 6 terrorists.
Nothing more than legal positivist bullshit. The existence of natural law proves such ideas incorrect from the start and show that their is such a thing as an objective right.
>Natural Law
There is no such thing you moron.
Nature follows whatever path simply on the basis of existence alone.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You're a sheltered brainlet. Natural law is survival of the fittest and might makes right.
That's how society works. All laws are enforced with duress , and if they weren't then they wouldn't ever be effectively enforced. The smart and strong will always rule over the weak and stupid.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's not really a rule, it's more of a maxim.
It's like saying "The basic rule of the sky is that the sky is blue, that's the nature of the sky."
Not really, the sky is blue because it reflects the oceans and filters certain lightrays.
Calling it a rule or law makes it sound as if something is platonically immutable.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
NTA but >the sky is blue because it reflects the oceans and filters certain lightrays
The sky is not blue because of the oceans. Nothing abundant in the sky is reflective.
Clearwaters, including the sea, are blue because water reflects the sky.
The sky is blue because nitrogen diffuses blue light waves, and nitrogen is the most common element in our atmosphere.
> Who decides what's objectively right?
The thing about objectivism is that morality has already been determined to be objectively right by the observer. For instance, Ayn Rand believed that clicking her husband and smoking cigarettes were both objectively good things to do. She didn’t like it when her lover started having sex with a younger woman on the side and kicked him out of the group.
Mr A has demonstrated that he does not like aggressors and that acting out of hysteria gets no leniency from him. From Mr A’s perspective, the Jan 6 rioters would objectively be in the wrong. For starters, they were violating the non violence principal. For seconds, they were literally being a bunch of fricking morons that got hoodwinked into acting on a logical fallacy because they didn’t get what they wanted.
You mean antifa in disguise making Republicans look bad did that
So if the January 6th mob weren't deranged moronic boomers, what were they? heckin based patriots?
Antifa
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Take your meds.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Cope the real jan 6 tapes prove it was antifa and any conservative in the building was tricked by antifa.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Antifa doesn't have to help boomers look bad. They do that all on their own. See: QAnon schizophrenia. Hundreds of thousands of Republican boomers were convinced by a LARP
>Handful of people who were there because they genuinely believed that everyone in congress is actually a shapeshifting reptileman from the Drago constellation
You're such a fricking child holy shit
Woman moment
Mr. A wouldn't be judging other people based off the hyperbole that mentality ill HRT communists use to describe conservatives
Post hand
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
ok Q boomer
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
"conservatives" are not the same thing as "deranged boomers who get themselves killed just so they can walk aimlessly around the capitol building and take pictures of themselves"
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
They aren't mutually exclusive. Unless you're saying there are no conservative Republicans.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
What I'm saying is that the description of the January 6th morons as deranged moronic boomers is not "hyperbole from mentally ill HRT communists used to describe conservatives." It is in fact not hyperbole at all, and it is not being used to describe conservatives in general.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>It is in fact not hyperbole at all
In that it's totally inaccurate rather than an exaggeration, I suppose.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
So if the January 6th mob weren't deranged moronic boomers, what were they? heckin based patriots?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
NTA but are you some sort of moron?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Lol this is some desperate cope. Everyone knows conservative media has been fomenting anti-American sentiments since Rush Limbaugh. You're just pissed the mask slipped and everyone knows conservatives will gleefully abandon democracy before they abandon their thoughtless memes.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Democracy is not conservative. Real conservatives will not be 'abandoning' a damned thing.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>anti-American
what you call anti american is just anti establishment. Your word games do not change reality, you know that, it's the core reason for your anxiety issues.
Have you ever considered that what he meant was that Mr. A wouldn't fight people with genuine motives (being upset at the direction of the government), but would absolutely fight people who believe in delusional things like Reptilians? Because there was definitely a number of the alien conspiracy nutters mixed in with the rest of the crowd.
What? Yes he would. He’d stand there and watch Ashlee Babbit get shot and then give a speech about how she did it to herself because the Jan 6 filters were objectively and morally wrong.
A court of law would definitely consider the Hydra threads and every thread on /vr/ that provides links for where to illegally download video games and music to be theft.
>Just because you happen to be using the same forum as criminals makes you a criminal as well.
Guilt by association much? Besides, I doubt Mr. A would need to be involved, he only punishes those criminals that have escaped justice by negligence and failure of the system. We're safe here just so long as we haven't ripped off dying grannies or abused children.
>herp derp
What do you need explained, anon?
First, explain what you mean by "punishing others".
I don't know, why are getting angry and using violent and disparaging rhetoric? It would seem not only do you lack faith in the 'argument' you've abandoned, but you clearly never intended to follow it.
All I can say is concession accepted, and kek what a b***h.
>All I can say is concession a...ACK!
shut up troony, nobody here's convinced by your motte and bailey tactics
Moral Objectivist are delusional to a man and believe themselves to be wholly good (as the only alternative in such a system is to be wholly evil and clearly they're not that!)
Moral Objectivism is the view of the privileged and the naive. It is a childish view borne of parental authority and not real life experience.
It also tends to go hand in hand with "just world" thinking - the idea that the world is inherently just and balanced and people get what they deserve.
He would orchestrate events that would lead to our death, like chase us into traffic, but not actually take responsibility in his part in our deaths.
Mr. A is a self rightous hypocrite like the Jigsaw Killer, but Mr. A is sincere he doesn't take ironic joy in what he does like Jigsaw.
Probably a little bit, it’s the only way I can fully understand how he walked away from a hit like spider-man and having the strength to never once look back
He could also just have a Watersonian level of artistic integrity. He probably realized that Peter was never going to get the fully realized arc of maturing into full adulthood by contributing to society in a way that was far more beneficial than wearing webbed pajamas, and left.
One of the stories I remember hearing was he was arguing with stan for more money and support for artists and supposedly Kirby was supposed to have his back but couldn’t stand up to stan in the same way. But that’s only a small rumor I heard once
He could also just have a Watersonian level of artistic integrity. He probably realized that Peter was never going to get the fully realized arc of maturing into full adulthood by contributing to society in a way that was far more beneficial than wearing webbed pajamas, and left.
One thing you have to realize about Kirby and Ditko's contributions is that they were paid by the page and there wasn't anything in their contract to ensure they would receive additional compensation based on how well their work did.
Walking away from a "hit like Spider-Man" is a lot easier when you're not really getting a cut from that hit in the first place. It wasn't a Watterson situation where he walked away from money that didn't fit his artistic vision. He wasn't getting the money he thought he deserved, and he was pretty sore about it.
>Probably a little bit, it’s the only way I can fully understand how he walked away from a hit like spider-man and having the strength to never once look back
He never went back to Spider-Man but he did go back to Marvel
probably, but he was also from the generation where that wasn't an excuse not to work.
His family has done interviews and one thing they talked about was that in family gatherings he'd make an Eastern European rolled dough ball dish, and they found his diary where he kept exact measurements year by year of what he used and how many balls he could make from the amount. Which says alot about his way of thinking.
probably, but he was also from the generation where that wasn't an excuse not to work.
His family has done interviews and one thing they talked about was that in family gatherings he'd make an Eastern European rolled dough ball dish, and they found his diary where he kept exact measurements year by year of what he used and how many balls he could make from the amount. Which says alot about his way of thinking.
What a terribly unnatural globohomosexual life.
The guy just had his head too far up his ass. >Holes away sacrificing his humanity for a time sucking and lonely career in escapism. No kids. Lol no wife. Lmao only a few thousand people will remember him, soon only a few hundred will remember Mr. A unless some YouTube gay needs something to leech off for money.
He was a degenerate and it wasn't worth it.
He could also just have a Watersonian level of artistic integrity. He probably realized that Peter was never going to get the fully realized arc of maturing into full adulthood by contributing to society in a way that was far more beneficial than wearing webbed pajamas, and left.
>He could also just have a Watersonian level of artistic integrity.
They are both autistic. They both love their own craft to a fault and have disdain for the work of others.
>They both love their own craft to a fault and have disdain for the work of others.
Both of them expressed admiration for other artists though? It sounds like you're just butthurt that their tastes don't align with yours.
There's so many words and terms that I wish stupid people didn't know about, and "autism" and "autistic" are two of them. Go smash your head against a rock.
too fricking moronic maybe, this whole argument in that panel only makes sense if you agree with him, otherwise it's complete nonsense that equates all interaction as either helping a victim or helping a guilty person, and it immediately falls apart if you question what happens when the guilty ask for justice or when the victim asks for mercy
Then justice will act on the guilty. There is no middle ground. Whether or not the guilty ask for justice or the victim asks for mercy is irrelevant. What does matter are their actions not their input on the matter.
If you're guilty, you deserve no mercy; you MUST be punished to the fullest extent for your crimes. There are no extenuating circumstances. Evil does not deserve mercy under any circumstances, nor can it ask for justice, as true justice means the extinguishing of evil.
A victim asking for mercy is the SAME THING as asking for justice, as the only way to show them mercy is to bring the guilty to justice.
Did you not notice where you conflated 'guilty' with 'evil'? Not even allowing for mistakes and opportunities for correction is itself evil, anon. have a nice day, evil one.
A is A. If you're ever guilty of something, you've committed evil, no matter how small.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
And we've established your own guilt. Now die, evil doer.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Mr. A doesn't actually advocate death for any crime, just for those who refuse to own up to their crimes and face justice. And it's more a parable thing where refusal to repent is a moral death, which in a story is represented by actual death.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Mr. A also isn't some killing machine. He does refuses to save criminals from death more than once.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah, Mr A just talks both the criminal and the audience to death.
However, anon was suggesting Mr A would be personally visiting 'higher morality' upon every poster itt, and that's what I was responding to. Reading comprehension helps.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Obey the law by turning in a israelitegirl to reich government >Feel Guilty
Is the law evil then?
Or is the person guilty just deficient?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Failure to rebel against an evil law is still evil.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Ah. Alright. Guess the only way you can be a truly good person is to be a sociopath. Someone who never experiences any guilt whatsoever would be by definition eternally good then.
That already happened in the comic, one victim was looking for mercy for the aggressor but this guy didn't give a shit and just let the guilty die lol.
>when the victim asks for mercy
Society as a whole is a victim when someone does a crime. even if the person the crime was perpetuated against wants to forgive the criminal, they must still face justice.
>and it immediately falls apart if you question what happens when the guilty ask for justice or when the victim asks for mercy
I agree with Mr. A and I'd say the former is just someone recognizing the error of their ways and trying to repent properly while the latter doesn't disagree with his point. "Mercy can only be granted to the guilty at the expense of the victim". The mercy is still being granted at the expense of the victim, except now they're the one actively granting it. You could also argue that the victim granting mercy is just passing the buck onto everyone else since they're actively trying to let a guilty person get off with no punishment which will almost inevitably lead to them re offending.
I feel like the Mr. A pic is as polarizing as it is is because of mental semantic differences between people. Are you viewing the statement as if it is only talking about true justice being dealt against genuinely guilty people, or are you placing the statement into the confines of real life and imagining a struggling bloated court system being propped up by a moronic glue drinking jury of your peers? Because your opinion hinges entirely on which assumption you make.
In a world this insane, of course basic common sense will look crazy.
> Who decides what's objectively right?
The thing about objectivism is that morality has already been determined to be objectively right by the observer. For instance, Ayn Rand believed that clicking her husband and smoking cigarettes were both objectively good things to do. She didn’t like it when her lover started having sex with a younger woman on the side and kicked him out of the group.
Mr A has demonstrated that he does not like aggressors and that acting out of hysteria gets no leniency from him. From Mr A’s perspective, the Jan 6 rioters would objectively be in the wrong. For starters, they were violating the non violence principal. For seconds, they were literally being a bunch of fricking morons that got hoodwinked into acting on a logical fallacy because they didn’t get what they wanted.
that's not objectivism lol apparently ayn rand was a hypocrite.
>ayn rand was a hypocrite >get taxed for decades >take a tiny part of it back in gubmint gibs
It was not hypocritical to prefer not to have been taxed in the first place with no gibs.
She cucked her husband and thought that was the greatest thing to do in life. When her lover fricked another younger woman, she kicked that guy out of the group and had him shunned.
>Also ayn rand’s whole philosophy was WHATEVER I like is objectively good and things I don’t like are objectively bad”.
This is why I couldn't buy into her bullshit. She just felt she could pick or choose whenever her rules applied.
"Taking social security and government handouts is bad! Unless I get cancer and need medical payments then it's good."
"Stealing property by force is bad. Unless it's towards native americans or palestians who I don't like and are fricking savages, then it's reasonable to use violence on them and confiscate their land and livihood."
Nah man, it doesn’t make me think and ponder. All of the bad guys in his stories are chaotic evil and do bad things strictly for the sake of being evil and creating the most harm possible.
It’s not about the bad guys. Once you do something bad, there’s no reason to dwell on excuses. The stories are more about how one reacts to one who does evil or bad actions.
Yet he doesn’t mean the people who do bad are irredeemable. He’s shown reformed criminals who did their sentence in a positive view.
> Once you do something bad, there’s no reason to dwell on excuses.
That’s fine as long as the bad guys in the story actually do bad things for believable reasons rather than simply doing bad things because it’s a bad thing to do and the writer isn’t even bothering to write in any actual motivation for his characters actions.
> The stories are more about how one reacts to one who does evil or bad actions.
Then write stories where the peopke doing bad things actually make sense rather than routinely elevating a misdemeanor act that would get them a slap on the wrist, to attempted first degree murder, for no reason.
>ad guys in the story actually do bad things for believable reasons rather than simply doing bad things because it’s a bad thing
It's just an aspect of being an old fashioned superhero story. Ditko embraces that these are idealized interpretations of good and evil. A bad guy once he's chosen the side of bad(it does not matter what reason), is now corrupt. Excuses don't matter. Ditko is more concerned with how people react to those people choosing to avoid culpability.
Might as well ask this here, should I get into Danny O'Neil's run of "the Question"? I know it strays pretty far from Ditko's vision of Objectivism but from what I can tell it's considered to be one of the best runs for the character. Knowing that the Question is the "Intentionally compromised" version of mr. A how much of a departure is the Question?
sure give it a try, just read 2 or 3 issues online and if you're not interested by then, you probably won't like the rest of it. I actually wonder if people are more put off by Denys Cowan's pencils than by Denny's writing, but I always liked them tbh
>no argument
He absolutely is. Very few artists can convey an actual fight happening and moving through space like a dance. Most just draw a panel showing a punch, another showing a kick, with no spatial logic applied that brings the two disparate images together. Cowan has the entire fight and all its motion mapped out over his pages, with his paneling relaying movement rather than static images. Cowan's one of the best.
Comics have been getting wrecked internally by the industry and Western culture and externally by the foreign market. The few comic book readers that remain on Cinemaphile trying to fight both sides are stupidly stubborn, moralistic buttholes.
Killing a life not in genuine self-defense or mistakenly killing someone that has done something wrong but isn’t intrinsically psychopathic (a born psychopath.)
Stealing from someone that isn a psychopath and/or oppressor.
Comics have been getting wrecked internally by the industry and Western culture and externally by the foreign market. The few comic book readers that remain on Cinemaphile trying to fight both sides are stupidly stubborn, moralistic buttholes.
There is such a thing as genuine morality.
I don’t think every single point Ditko makes is sound exactly but that doesn’t mean there is genuine good or bad.
I always hear the immoral, narcissistic, the secret cheat or predator talk about “moral busybodies” and those similar.
Someone that commits steals another’s social security money, is lazy and has a flat affect, is psychopathic and has said immensely hateful things, want time started to yell at me like the narcissistic trash he is; he told me, because I was exposing him and his wife as the frauds they are, that I should “get off my fricking high horse” and that I’m a “hypocrite”— despite the fact that he provided no evidence I am a hypocrite when I provided evidence that he is a fraud, and furthermore, it’s quasi-hypocritical for these so-called people to tell someone that they need to “get off their fricking high horses” when they themselves are implicitly “on” a “high horse”— espousing some standard of what is right and true— by telling the one they’re speaking to to not do something because it goes against the implicit standard they’ve put forward.
People that are conditioned and/or raised in a certain way can do things that aren’t the best, but they are intrinsically good and likely show more love and truthfulness than the narcissist/psychopath— these conditioned individuals should be given compassion and rehabilitation/learning.
The narcissists/psychopaths that are born as such, and thus intrinsically so, are worthless trash that self-expose and self-refute themselves constantly. They are abominations.
Ask yourself what sort of person can repeatedly swallow the logs of rainbow-painted Black person-worshiping shit that is modern Marvel or DC products. Actually you don't even need to ask that, just ask why the Cinemaphile mod would specifically prevent the uploading of this WEBM, and only this.
Mercy, however, is an aspect of justice, not its opposite. Mercy is good for the victim, too. Consider that punishing others is not the normal state of affairs, and it's the aberration from normalcy that has produced a victim. How much does our victim seek to be affected by the affair?
Coletta was infamous for not inking the entire pencils he got. Sometimes outright erasing things.
He also had alleged mob ties. I heard a story once of another artist and him driving somewhere in Vince's neighborhood in Vince's car, and Vince made a point to leave the keys in the ignition. The other guy asked why he'd do that when it was such an easy thing to steal. Vince Coletta just sort of laughs and tells him "In this neighborhood, no one would frickin' dare" or something to that effect.
lmao, what a lazy shitter. But I wonder why he would be a inker for funny books if he really had mob connections. Or maybe he really did, and that's why none of the editors told him he needed to improve. I'd heard of this guy being a poor inker before, but the mob affiliation thing is new to me. It's pretty interesting, if true, and would explain why he was tolerated
NTA but him asking if you've read the comics is an argument because you mischaracterize the character's actions/position.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
See
Yeah, Mr A just talks both the criminal and the audience to death.
However, anon was suggesting Mr A would be personally visiting 'higher morality' upon every poster itt, and that's what I was responding to. Reading comprehension helps.
It’s a fricking work of fiction anon, we know the people he goes after are guilt because it’s what the writer wants. I think it’s why he wrote an issue about an ex con who was almost goaded into committing crimes again being saved by Mr A because he didn’t want to fall back into that life. I don’t know why you can’t see that? Why are you so stringent about fictional violence being committed on fictional criminals?
So his morality only applies in fictional cases. Gotcha.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>this fictional character is in fictional stories
Yes? Why are you such a b***h? I don’t see the objection to the character, violence exists and sometimes you need it to keep the peace, why is that so hard to understand?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I don't know, why are getting angry and using violent and disparaging rhetoric? It would seem not only do you lack faith in the 'argument' you've abandoned, but you clearly never intended to follow it.
All I can say is concession accepted, and kek what a b***h.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The grey morality presented in western thought is killing the civilization, thinking that it’s wrong to believe in something like justice to the point of actually fighting for it is a sea position. You react poorly to the idea of there being an objective good in the world simply because you have nothing to believe in, it’s a problem we all face and why you react so violently towards a fictional character like him. Yes anon the stories of the world are more complicated than they appear, but believing that that complications means that justice itself is meaningless is kinda pathetic really.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The grey morality presented in western thought is killing the civilization, thinking that it’s wrong to believe in something like justice to the point of actually fighting for it is a sea position. You react poorly to the idea of there being an objective good in the world simply because you have nothing to believe in, it’s a problem we all face and why you react so violently towards a fictional character like him. Yes anon the stories of the world are more complicated than they appear, but believing that that complications means that justice itself is meaningless is kinda pathetic really.
You're such a gay.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
And you’re a troony and he’s a cuck and he’s a b***h. Stop believing in nothing, it isn’t helping anyone especially not yourself
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Nobody was talking about nihilism, you tremendously moronic homosexual.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Mr A provides a healthier pov about life than all corporate superhero characters, stop believing in Superman anon and realize that you have to find the collective justice yourself. It’s easy to be a paragon when you’re a fictional god, being a dude who just accepts that you have to change the world is a hell of a lot harder. Especially when you realize that the world doesn’t want to change, it wants to keep its downward trajectory because it’s comfortable for the time being. Simply because you’re comfortable with the state only being allowed to define justice doesn’t make it justice
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Mr. A would murder you simply for browsing a website that regularly features CP and human murder in the form of webms. The idea that you're an innocent little dove simply because you've never stolen bread out of sheer desperation and hunger makes you look like the most immature moron in this whole thread.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Once again you’ve never actually read the stories have you?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Once again you're sidestepping to ignore the fact that you'd be as much of a criminal in Mr. A's eyes, regardless of your own opinion on the matter. Sounds like not even you enjoy how rigid the character is.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I enjoy the thought experiment it is anon, I enjoy it as a prototype for the question and I like some of the art. God damn why is it so hard for you to answer the damn question? It’s not a side step when you openly misinterpret the comics because you’re mad that it’s not your opinion. Frick man the people should be given the right to enforce justice right now because the system as it stands IS EVIL, a comic book doesn’t have the fricking answer to that and when Ditko wrote this we still had a government and people with decent heads on their shoulders. Right now we do not, as annoyed as I can be with the rigidity of the comic, you’re rigid ass is down right annoying
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>misinterpret the comic
Are you seriously claiming Mr. A wouldn't murder someone who willfully and openly browses a site where CP is posted regularly? At best, that's a morally ambiguous person who looks away when a crime is committed. At worse, it's someone else supporting the distribution of CP by giving the website adsense clicks.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I believe that Mr A would, rightfully, kill ANYONE that actively consumes CP in any regard as we ALL should want anon. But I don’t know why he would think of a website considering his last comic released would’ve come out a decade or so before any internet we would recognize. Fricker SAVED AN EXCON, that shows that intent on the actors past is an important part of his view of justice
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I believe that Mr A would, rightfully, kill ANYONE that actively consumes CP in any regard as we ALL should want
What do you think you're doing when you see CP and don't even bother to report it? What do you think you're doing for that distribution when you keep visiting the website, giving it clicks and helping it spread said CP?
You know, I don't think you've actually thought about the ramifications of having such a rigid sense of justice. You were just hoping people would look at your walls of homosexual text and assume you were saying something smart.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why are you defending people who seek out CP? Why are you intent about defending pedophiles? A child is a child and should be protected and predators are out there. This seems like such an odd place to start when discussing objective morality anon.
Childbrides are still legal in most of US. He would remember a time when banging a 14 year old was not a big deal.
Ditko never had kids so who knows, but anyone who does after a child in a sexual manner DESERVES TO DIE. Regardless of if that sexual manner is to physically molest them or confuse them and tell them that the confusion of adolescences means they’re sick and need to take puberty blockers. Those people who do that are legitimate monsters and need to be stopped
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Why are you defending people who seek out CP?
Where could you possibly get that fricking notion? I just told you Mr. A would murder you aiding the distribution of CP lmao
Are you just tired of arguing? Maybe exit the thread next time, it'll be less embarrassing.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You’re bringing up a pointless argument to dismiss the notion of objectivity anon, you’re using and defending the evils of the world to prevent individuals from seeing reality as is
Nearly 300,000 minors — the vast majority of them girls — were legally married in the United States between 2000 and 2018. Some as young as 12. It is still legal in most of states. What is Mr. A's response? Killing the judges? Bombing the capitol?
And many more children have been convinced to transition because trusted adults have convinced them that the confusion they feel about their bodies due to the hormones being released during puberty means they’re sick and should stop an eons old biological process all mammals go through for the profit of major pharmaceutic companies. I do believe Mr A should destroy those companies and people who push that evil yes.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>a pointless argument
There's nothing pointless about the distribution of CP and people who passively help it. It really goes to show how warped your sense of justice is if you can't realize that much.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You’re literally trying to obfuscate a straight forward discussion about objectivity and why it’s wrong by throwing it pointless hypotheticals. I understand you don’t care about anyone and happily use suffering as a weapon to stop the easing of suffering, but I don’t think you understand
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>s-stop making so much sense!!!
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You have no point to make beyond believing that anyone who believes in something being stupid. Why is a neoliberal b***h like you still here?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It is way, waaaay more neoliberal to ignore this place passively supports people who distribute CP.
You're so fricking dumb, man.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>And many more children have been convinced to transition
Trans people make a tiny percentage of the US population. You'd have to be moronic to think otherwise.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes, and how much of our foreign and domestic policy is dedicated to enforcing it ideologically in comparison to its population size? It’s almost as if it’s nothing more than a weapon of oppression wielded against the working class
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Foreign policy focuses on international blockades and destabilization of governments, not trans people. You fricking idiot.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
And the LGBT movement is being used to push for and against aid to certain countries anon
>eons old biological process
Age of consent being anywhere close to 18 is mostly a XX century invention. Will Mr. A travel in time and punish everyone who ever lived?
It’s a fictional character written by a dead guy anon, I don’t know. Why don’t you write that?
Part of the eons old biological process is that not everyone is the same or produces offspring, genius.
No but abusing popscience for the profit of the rich at the cost of the next generations ability to breed is a literal war crime anon and needs to be confront honestly
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You're obsessed with trans people's genitals. I wouldn't go as far as to claim Mr. A would kill you, but he'd definitely think you're a fricking weirdo.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>ditko is dead therefore we can't criticize his shitty character
???
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why don’t you write the character you want to write anon, why don’t you put your ideology on the page in interesting panel layouts with to stilted and drawn out dialogue
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why are you so afraid to confront the fact that your precious moral homosexualry is based on a very basic misunderstanding of morality as a whole? Why do you have to be such a b***h about it?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
And why don’t you just admit that the problems of the world are real and the solution as it stands is violence. Why do you have to assume that EVERYONES understanding of right and wrong is only ever flawed and that we must only ever defer to a system?
The thing I don't understand about objectivism is this: Who decides the objective morality? Each individual? Then doesn't it become subjective because everyone disagrees (also anarchy)? The strongest person who is able to enforce their idea of morality? Then morality is whatever they decide, and if they decide pedophilia and rape are a-ok then they are.
If we believe that it is possible for a journalist to present objective facts to the world on a problem than shouldn’t we also believe in an authority to present an objective solution based on those facts? We believe that the judicial system should be this as a whole and by and large it’s not a terrible system on paper, but it has become corrupt and what do you do when the system that alleges itself on objectivity becomes corrupt? Its all imperfect and I really want someone to come up with a new thought process for all of us
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>And why don’t you just admit that the problems of the world are real and the solution as it stands is violence
You can't even admit Mr. A would have no rational way of fighting child abuse. If child bride are legal, then LOGICALLY Mr. A would support that.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I suppose at that point it would be about asking the child if they’re alright with the situation. It’s fricked in general and the system is in need of coming down yes, hell our government support a hell of a lot of child predators in Afghanistan and they were dealt with. Let’s ask the taliban how it should be done
Do I think objectivism is perfect? No, it’s a thought experiment that I find interesting, but it doesn’t mean that there is real good and real evil in this world and that their aren’t simple solutions to some of these complicated problems even if they seem uncouth
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I suppose at that point it would be about asking the child if they’re alright with the situation
What the frick is this pedo cope? Why in the frick would a child be responsible for Mr. A's moral outlook?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Ah yes. Solutions that will finally unseat everything.
Final Solutions, one might say.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>shouldn’t we also believe in an authority to present an objective solution based on those facts?
We're straying from the subject a bit and yeah, I think that can exist. I don't think it does exist right now, it would have to be an engineered being or machine with higher intelligence than any living human and without the ability to lie or possession of human self-interest. Otherwise no-one would listen to or obey it just like they don't listen to or obey other humans now because they view them as just as fallible as themselves.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Anything created by man has its flaws, but it also has its strengths anon. The problem with systems is that by nature they become corrupt once the evil they were created to protect the people from grow smart enough to circumvent them, and the good they’re designed to protect become complacent by their dependence on them.
>I suppose at that point it would be about asking the child if they’re alright with the situation
What the frick is this pedo cope? Why in the frick would a child be responsible for Mr. A's moral outlook?
I don’t know dude if we live in a world where a three year old boy saying they like pink and think they’re a girl is enough for a doctor to prescribe hormonal treatments then shouldn’t the other side of it be asking a 14 year old if they trust this person they consent to marrying this older person? I don’t agree with either anon but if this is where you want to take to conversation I’m here
Ah yes. Solutions that will finally unseat everything.
Final Solutions, one might say.
Something tells me the Middle East would be a much safer and stable place if that final solution you’re b***hing about came to fruition. Is it irony that in 80 years a people went from being genocided to committing a far more brutal genocide on the people who took them in?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Something tells me
Yeah, your mental moronation. >People who have been killing each other for thousands of years >But they'll just suddenly stop now because 1 desert tribe doesn't exist
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Those were stable modern countries before zionists were given land and allowed to start brutally murdering its inhabitants on the dime of western countries
So you're okay with moral relativism?
My moral relativism is better than yours
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>i concede, gaygily
Works for me.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You're so fricking dumb, man. Not even a single thought running between those neanderthalic ears of yours.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The problem with systems is that by nature they become corrupt
That's the thing, isn't it? Society always has laws and a justice system, but the people who make and enforce those laws are always the ones with the wealth and power to do so, and they make it so they don't apply to them or are skewed in their favor. That's every justice system throughout history. In fact the people who decide the laws are really the Randian heroes, if you think about it. They achieved the power to do so and set the systems up in their own rational self interest.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The problem IRL is, those 'heroes' you spoke of are nor the protletariet collective of Marx nor the genius vangard industrialists of Rand. They're just fatcat ceos and bankers and stock, property owning feudal types.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Modernity does more to harm to peoples prospects of reproducing than advocating trans identity. A lot of people that are trying to not have kids do so out of fear of it ruining their lives.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The funniest shit is this anon is 90% guarenteed to be a male, and is going on about the necessity of reproduction (a societal impetus) as if that has anything to do with 'Objective morality' or Individualism while declaring having babies is the ultimate value of society.
Literally someone speaking for more than half the population.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Trans identity is a modern problem anon, it’s also a modern solution, it just isn’t healthy in any regard
But 'individuals' are no longer an individual. They're multiple people with different ideas what's wrong and right. If everyone in the world feels empowered to stop problems (Is that ENOUGH) than they all find each other to be the problem and no one resolves anything because weighing one person's morality against the others is just a losing game.
Are you autistic, or are just deeply religious/conservative I'm guessing? I'm guessing it's hard for you to understand because your feefees say a certain thing is corrupt and can be changed, but someone else will feel opposite of you and having such an autistic mindset you go "People that think differently than me are LITERALLY EVIL." is the most supervillain-esque way of thinking one can have.
Yes anon, you’ve now discovered the real purpose of the melting pot anon.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That doesn't make any sense.
Do you think perspective and morality are decided by race?
That any collective of white people all agree on the same thing or a nation should be some sort of Hivemind?
If you literally cloned yourself within a few months you'd be arguing over ridiculous shit and killing each other because YOU ARE THE RIGHT ONE, TAKING A STAND AGAINST EVIL.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Morality, as it stands, is a cultural agreement there are PLENTY of things that I find wrong in other cultures and plenty of things those cultures find wrong with ours. Does that invalidate each others collective consciousness? Honestly maybe, but we have to accept that in order to make a better world. Hell one of the largest problems in the world today is the blandening of it mixing all of us together just means that we all end up making less. I don’t think diversity is wrong or bad, it’s simply inevitable and how typically do two major groups who have nothing in common interact in history? Or even in the wild? Not to well, we can make each other better anon, but we can also make each other a hell of a lot worse if we choose to believe that we shouldn’t be allowed to defend our morality and culture.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Morality, as it stands, is a cultural agreement
Moral relativism, you mean?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Just say you're a Nazi and be done with it
So the world can know it'd be objectively improved if we just killed you.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Anon you’re nothing more than a person who believes in whatever is easiest to believe. Don’t confront the world just conform conform conform until you’re not yourself, which in your case is an improvement yes
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Anon you’re nothing more than a person who believes in whatever is easiest to believe.
Every single belief you've espoused in this thread has been a card-carrying hitlerite talking point that is easily repeated, believed by countless idiots and not unique or exceptional in the slightest of sense. But do to Dunning–Kruger effect you think "The world would be better if we just killed israelites" already is a profound and deeply-thought out belief.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Just the Zionists right now anon, but that’s only because I judge their actions and statements
>i concede, gaygily
Works for me.
You’re a pretty sad and boring dude you know that? How’s the graveyard shift treating you?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Based on your earlier comments on trannies, corporations and media, you don't appear like the 'I'm only anti-israel but actually not antisemetic' type.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Anon are you saying I have to support crony capitalism and the genital mutilation of children and if I don’t I’m antisemitic?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
What other cultures? The next city over? Wisconsin vs Michigan? My town has different speeding laws than the one a few miles over, how do we handle those people mixing by coming into my town with their driving-morality and imposing onto mine?
Maybe people should just be locked into padded cells so they don't have to deal with each other's cultures. My neighbor likes sports, I don't like sports, according to you we might kill each other if we interact. What a scary schizophrenic yet very small world you live in anon.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Maybe the idea of borders isn’t a bad idea anon?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
So you're okay with moral relativism?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
A padded cell is a border.
How do you function at night interacting with other people who aren't you and have different thoughts than you? How did you not shriek when you went to school exposed to people with seperate names that weren't clones of you?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
A padded cell is a fricking room, a boarder is an agreed upon are separating cultures anon. Yes they’re man made, but the boarder of a bears territory is bear made, you want to tell him he should be ok with another bear in there? Why are you so afraid of being yourself and dealing with the world as a person in it? Why do you so desperately want to be lost in a cacophony of bland sameness? Do you not like new things and individuals to meet and mingle with? Do you find it frightening that disagreeing with someone could make a new thought process that neither one of you could’ve had?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>eons old biological process
Age of consent being anywhere close to 18 is mostly a XX century invention. Will Mr. A travel in time and punish everyone who ever lived?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It also differs by country. Mr. A will kill people based on their citizenship I suppose.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Mr.A isn’t very proactive. He’s not going to destroy corporations or pedos unless they actually put something into action or are planning to.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That sounds like moral relativism to me!
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The non-aggression principal forbids him to do anything preemptively.
I mean, this thread can't even figure out if Mr. A would even consider pedophilia a crime. What's the right age of consent to him? Is he going by federal or state standards? Would he stop someone from getting a child bride if it was legal?
Pedophilia isnt a crime. Child abuse and rape are crimes. It’s not a crime to be attracted to children. It’s potentially a crime to act on it
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Pedophilia isnt a crime
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It’s not a crime. pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It’s not the act of having sex with prepubescent children. Being attracted to something is not a criminal offense.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Mr. A can't read minds. His interest would not lie in people committing "mind crimes" unless they were dumb enough to put them on paper. Your argument is fricking useless.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Then he has to rely on people’s actions. If someone’s not diddling children then I don’t see why he would care one way or another.
>Your argument is fricking useless.
what’s useless about it? I’m flat-out saying that Mr.A wouldn’t concern himself with punishing people for what’s in their head and only act on what people actually do or plan to do. If a person isn’t doing anything to anyone then there’s no victim to avenge.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>diddling children
What if someone's diddling a 16 year old child in a neighbor state? Would he justify it with moral relativism by claiming "she's old enough"?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
He’s probably consider as to whether or not the 16 year old consented to said diddling, tbh.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>children can consent
Mr. A would be a pedophile then.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
No, that implies that he’s attracted to children. I think that he wouldn’t consider an arbitrary age of consent to be valid concerning whether or not he should do a vigilante.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>that implies that he’s attracted to children
It implies he's okay with other people fricking children as long as they get away with it. That's borderline pedophilic in any context.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Hmmm by that measure anyone that’s ok with someone eating vegetables is a vegetarian.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Being a vegetarian isn't against the law. Not even sure how you'd get that from my post, pedo-kun.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It’s not against the law to be attracted to anything.
> Not even sure how you'd get that from my post
You said that Mr.A would be a pedo if he considers a 16 year old’s ability to consent.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>It’s not against the law to be attracted to anything.
Which is why I specifically said Mr. A would not be interested in mind crimes, as opposed to Mr. A asking an underage girl if she was okay with being raped and letting the pedophile rapist get away with it.
It helps to read the thread before replying, fricking moron.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
If a person consents then it’s not rape, now is it?
Statutory rape is called as such because people in our society believe that a person below a certain age doesn’t possess the ability to consent. However what does an 18 year old have that a 16 year old doesn’t that makes one capable of consenting only after that additional 2 years?
When I was 16, me and a buddy (also 16) ran a train on a 30 year old woman. I assure you that we all consented the hell out of that.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
18 is probably the cut off point of when a person is old enough to be responsible for their actions. By then it is expected for that person know enough to not do certain things.
This means no juvie or counseling if you frick up.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
There’s several points tho. Like you can’t drink at 18. I hear the smoking age has been raised to 21 as well. I think that 18 is around the time where you have completed high school. In my state, you can drive a car at 16. But when I was 16, we all literally knew what was up.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Like you can’t drink at 18
I can outside the US. Does that mean Mr. A gets to kill me if he's operating overseas? That'd be pretty morally relativistic of him.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I don’t think Mr a would care about whether or not you drink alcohol at any age. It’s more like “but I was drunk” wouldn’t be an excuse that would get you a pass if you do something bad.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I don’t think Mr a would care about whether or not you drink alcohol at any age
Then he'd be as much as a moral relativist as anyone else in the 21st century, you fricking moron. Congratulations, you've just shat on Ditko.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
> Then he'd be as much as a moral relativist as anyone else in the 21st century, you fricking moron.
Your point?
> Congratulations, you've just shat on Ditko.
Objectivists kinda shit on themselves. So what’s your point here?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Your point?
Ditko would have an aneurysm.
>Objectivists kinda shit on themselves
Did you come into the thread thinking we're defending Ditko? Man, if I had a dime every time a massive fricking idiot replied from the catalog.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
> Ditko would have an aneurysm.
And?
> Did you come into the thread thinking we're defending Ditko?
No. I was responding to what you were saying.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
What if someone got you drunk? What if you were unaware that you are drinking alcohol? What if you got drunk before a situation forced you to let's say drive a car to escape a mad gunman?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
How would any of that be less wrong if it were done to someone that were, say, 25 years old?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Was asking about in relation to being drunk as an excusse.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
If they were forced to be drunk or drugged against their will and got into an accident then he’d probably blame the person that forced it on them.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
By traditional israeli religious law woman is an adult by the ripe age of 12,5. That's most likely the answer any of the prophets would give you.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>im not a pedophile, religions say so!!!!
lmao
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
If your morals don't come from religion, law or nature... where did you got them from?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Morals come from human nature as social creatures. We instinctively want to protect the community and avoid internal conflict. So, we developed complex moral systems to that end. This is a trait that’s shared by other social animals (like other apes) to differing levels.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
And those morals didn't involve age of consent at 18 until 20th century and still don't in most of the world because..?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
100% agree. Age of consent is largely arbitrary to the sensibilities of the populace making that determination. Like, Betty boop, a very sexual character, was 16 years old.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>If a person consents then it’s not rape, now is it?
What if it's a child, you unironic pedophile?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
What does a 18 year old have, objectively speaking, that makes them able to consent that a 16 year old doesn’t have, you fricking moron? Is there some kind of switch that flips in their brain that makes them able to know what sex is that a 16 year old doesn’t?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>mention a child >IMMEDIATELY mentions 16 years old as good enough to frick
Not beating those pedo allegations, pal.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I was talking about a 16 year old person in the fricking post that
>If a person consents then it’s not rape, now is it?
What if it's a child, you unironic pedophile?
was responding to. That’s literally the subject.
>IMMEDIATELY mentions 16 years old as good enough to frick
I’m asking what an 18 year old has, objectively, that a 16 year old doesn’t when it comes to the ability to consent. That doesn’t mean that I think either is “ok to frick”.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>a 16 year old person
Lmao nice pedo dogwhistle. Might as well call every child you meet a "person" so you can feel better about abusing them.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Virgin Mary was 16. Is God a pedo?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Virgin Mary was 16. Is God a pedo?
You ever hear of priests?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You’re trying real hard to moralize and virtue signal. Last I checked any human being with an identity and personality is a person.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Part of the eons old biological process is that not everyone is the same or produces offspring, genius.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>appealing to biology
That doesn't seem very Mr. A-ish. What if I'm a rapist and I blame my "inner instincts"? Would he forgive me?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I do believe Mr A should destroy those companies and people who push that evil yes.
HMMM. So Mr A would act to destroy the exact people you find to be evil and cannot accept, and would likely kill all the specific people and pet peeves you cannot stand.
Funny how that works.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's fricking hilarious that he thinks he's not part of that equation.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes anon it’s almost as if individuals should feel empowered to stop the problems of the world and not simply defer to corrupt systems when they’re known to be corrupt. It’s almost as if ENOUGH individuals doing that can root out corruption and heal the system. Large systems naturally get corrupt and a solid way of allowing that corruption is to disenfranchise those who can change it by believing that fighting against it is wrong.
It is way, waaaay more neoliberal to ignore this place passively supports people who distribute CP.
You're so fricking dumb, man.
Then let’s push to have the website taken down anon, call hiro and let’s get this done
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>i concede
I figured as much.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
But 'individuals' are no longer an individual. They're multiple people with different ideas what's wrong and right. If everyone in the world feels empowered to stop problems (Is that ENOUGH) than they all find each other to be the problem and no one resolves anything because weighing one person's morality against the others is just a losing game.
Are you autistic, or are just deeply religious/conservative I'm guessing? I'm guessing it's hard for you to understand because your feefees say a certain thing is corrupt and can be changed, but someone else will feel opposite of you and having such an autistic mindset you go "People that think differently than me are LITERALLY EVIL." is the most supervillain-esque way of thinking one can have.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>but anyone who does after a child in a sexual manner DESERVES TO DIE
Could Mr. A even define what a child is? Half of the US thinks it's "legal" to frick a 16 year old. He would most likely reside in one of these states.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>thinks it's "legal"
There's no "thinks" about it nor question of its legality. It is legal. A is A.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah, I suppose given the right circumstances Mr. A would defend pedophiles.
Does Mr A. take into consideration that the punishment should fit the crime?
How could he possibly think aiding the distribution of CP is anything but a death sentence?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Nearly 300,000 minors — the vast majority of them girls — were legally married in the United States between 2000 and 2018. Some as young as 12. It is still legal in most of states. What is Mr. A's response? Killing the judges? Bombing the capitol?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Childbrides are still legal in most of US. He would remember a time when banging a 14 year old was not a big deal.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That would be moral relativism. Mr. A would have to kill himself.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
No, you don't understand. Morals typical of my class and ethno-religious group at this particular point in history just happen to be objective ones. Everyone else who said this is just wrong tho.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
He saved the ex-con because he paid his debt to society and therefore was completely innocent of wrongdoing. That’s literally what he told the man.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
But what if the child consent?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>stolen bread out of sheer desperation and hunger
This literally never happens. In countries where it's even a remotely viable hypothetical, there's no bread to steal, and for countries that aren't in africa, there's safety nets that you have to be really, really stupid to net get "caught" by.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>NO ONE HAS EVER STOLEN FOOD OUT OF HUNGER!!!!!!!!
Like I said, a lot of Mr. A gays seem to be very wealthy, very privileged whitoids whose primary interest is watching COP LEGALLY MURDERS ENTITLED SHOPLIFTER compilations.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Does Mr A. take into consideration that the punishment should fit the crime?
It’s a fricking work of fiction anon, we know the people he goes after are guilt because it’s what the writer wants. I think it’s why he wrote an issue about an ex con who was almost goaded into committing crimes again being saved by Mr A because he didn’t want to fall back into that life. I don’t know why you can’t see that? Why are you so stringent about fictional violence being committed on fictional criminals?
That sounds very logical. No nuance required. The nuance comes from identifying the guilty from the innocent. Does the victim ask for justice because the "guilty" commited a crime... or is it because it'll make the victim feel better to punish the someone?
I'm sick of people defending little teenage shitters saying >Ohh they're just kids
Kids know what's good and what's not. And they should be punished for being shitty.
If you're willing to cross that line, you should be ready to be punished for it. It's your gamble.
>Kids know what's good and what's not.
Yes but their brains are underdeveloped and self-control is not intact. Like on a neurological level. Holding them to the same standard as adults is irrational.
No but teaching a child right and wrong is an adults duty, saying that a teenager that hurts and steals can’t be punished when every other form of punishment has been tried is telling them it’s OK to grow up like that. Some children will listen when you tell them the stove is hot and some will have to learn that by getting burnered. You’re doing no one, not even the offenders themselves, any favors by not enforcing a standard of civilized behavior even if it’s through corporal punishment. Its not great I know but just look at the world as it is today and tell me things are better with cities current “soft on crime” approach? You realize that the problems these people cause are ONLY felt by the working classes, and it seems like a great plan to MAKE things worse for us to keep us in line
Nobodies saying they shouldn't be punished.
But the severity of the punishment should differ obviously, it shouldn't be black or white. Corporal punishment is absurdly black and white. Do you think we should kill children for being dumb enough to steal a candybar? Who does that benefit? What about if they step on grass of a company that says 'Keep off the Grass'?
There was a whole shitty Star Trek episode on this for frick's sake.
The answer to fixing society isn't just being more militant with law enforcement, the same way the answer to a kid not doing well in school or studies isn't beat them up and belt them til they read.
We need to understand that we’re 8 billion hominids on a planet all pretending that we’re more evolved than we are. Yes this shit should be a case by case basis and I’m not talking about KILLING a kid for stealing or some shit but we need to find a balance with any of this. This job of dealing with kids should lie with the parents and if the parents can’t reason with the child through discussions or punishment by taking away things they enjoy, well then THAT’S where the corporal punishment would traditionally come in. Is it perfect? By no means but a real enforcement of family values on the society is where you should actually start, making a strong moral people means having strong families that can teach each other about right and wrong
Also can we no being Star Trek into this, we’re already discussing ONE decades old comic about what entertains in the 20th century thought about morals, let’s not bring another 20th century talking point into this. We’re literally a half century past that and in a much different societal and governmental make up
The thing I don't understand about objectivism is this: Who decides the objective morality? Each individual? Then doesn't it become subjective because everyone disagrees (also anarchy)? The strongest person who is able to enforce their idea of morality? Then morality is whatever they decide, and if they decide pedophilia and rape are a-ok then they are.
Literally yes. But if every single individual is deprived of using force, they have to come to a greater objective consensus and commit to that via a single entity they enable to use violence. It doesn't matter if people disagree if that's what the objective consensus is. That's the idea behind Objectivist morality.
I mean, this thread can't even figure out if Mr. A would even consider pedophilia a crime. What's the right age of consent to him? Is he going by federal or state standards? Would he stop someone from getting a child bride if it was legal?
It has to do with Arestotel and the law of identity. Meaning everything has a definite nature based on it's characteristics. A is A (which is where Mr. A's name comes from) so you can tell if something is good or evil based on it's characteristics, basically the same laws that govern logic can and should be applied to morality or at least that's what Rand and Ditko thought.
It's obvious to us that morality must be subjective by simple fact of moral disagreement, but a moral objectivist actually believes there is a measurable physical property of rightness and wrongness. That something being good or evil is like it being round or weighing ten pounds.
That there's no actual way to measure the property they claim to exist doesn't seem to matter to them, they'll usually just claim an arbitrary standard and assume anyone that disagrees is just lying.
>implying I have claimed that
Nobody's else answer will change whatever you yourself are a hypocrite or not.
I don't fully agree with objectivists for the reasons written here
Guys.
Objectivists you complain about were atheists trying to argue that morality can exist without God.
In case of the OP, the idea that mercy is at expense of the victim is also recognized by Christianity, in which it is compared to a debt forgiveness.
Only Christianity makes a point that you likely owe God a debt as well, so you better be forgiving about those who owe you if you want God to forgive what you owe Him.
Atheism doesn't really have a rationale for mercy. Your debt is unpaid, and there is no all-knowing entity you owe anything. Forgiving debts is straight out letting yourself be ripped off, for no reason nor benefit.
But I agree that somebody's morality can be measured to an objective standard >they have done something they'd fine with it being done to them >they have done something they'd not be fine with it being done to them
In the Bible, the first standard that God will use to judge you will be your own.
>I didn't claim that!
Then why the frick did you quote me? >I disagree with objectivism because (random shit unrelated to whether objectivism is correct)
Ok? >Morality can be measured by an objective standard
Which is inherently arbitrary and also your system is shit on its face. If I'm ok getting punched because I'm a masochist it's ok for me to punch people? Literally no rational person accepts that standard. >MUH GOD
lol
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>masochist
As expected from a likely leftist ranting on objectivists, you attempt hair splitting and mental gymnastics with something very simple. Let me lay it down for you.
So, you yourself are fine with being punched, because you yourself like it due to own masochism.
So, you wouldn't want to be punched if you weren't wired in a way that makes it pleasurable but highly unpleasant.
So, you wouldn't want to be treated in a highly unpleasant way for no good reason
So, you shouldn't treat others in a highly unpleasant way for no good reason.
So, you shouldn't punch others just because you are a masochist, because this action has a different impact on you, and you wouldn't be fine with it if it was otherwise.
It's a straightforward standard that covers everything. Although, not a one that can really be implemented without an all-knowing God. This is why the secular justice system in developed nations operates on the idea of a statistical reasonable citizen who wouldn't want to be murdered, robbed, etc. Which is why they have agreed with other citizens to not do such things to them as well. But said statistical citizen can have different view regarding stuff like "for how many years would be just to put in prison, if I stole such and such amount of money", which can differ due to the culture of a local majority. It's a democratic solution to the problem.
The prevailing morality and justice system as it exists today didn't come up overnight. It is just that some people prefer to feign and spread ignorance about it, for their own rather obvious reasons.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>it's a straightforward standard, I just have to twist it 5 different ways and make massive assumptions about every other human being on the planet!
Doesn't sound like it's straightforward or consistent at all, it just sounds like you're kind of stupid and haven't thought this through or read word one of the hundreds of years of moral philosophy.
>law is morality!
Incorrect.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>no counterargument, just insults
Frustration and anger are responses in face of something causing our desires not to come to fruition. I'd prefer you to grow as a person and be more mature about it, but I will never feel obligated to be sorry for your desires during our conversation being denied.
>law is morality
Never said that, even in the most ideal civilized countries. It's an imperfect solution, but the best one we imperfect people can have.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You sound like someone that desperately wants to be a pastor but lacks the base humanity to do the job, substituting condescension for empathy.
If you don't have any answer to the fact that you had to create a bunch of changes to your "simple and objective" standard or the multiple counterexamples you can just stop posting, no one is going to be surprised that you failed to defend religion-based moral objectivism (because it's literally not possible to do so, it by definition requires faith)
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>that counterexample doesn't work because I made up caveats post-hoc!
lol
lmao
you already lost but how about another counterexample
I would be ok if someone gave me an abortion. Does that mean providing abortions are moral?
Do you understand how trying to ground an objective moral system in arbitrary and differing personal opinions is stupid?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I'd be fine with abortion
God will know if you are lying here or not. Not for me to judge you here because it is beyond my ability.
But in secular laws? US laws? Pro abortionists did not use legislature to impose their morality over the entire country, only their activists among the judges.
Maybe you live in a happy California where you are apparently also fine with being knowingly infected with HIV (wishing on every such person to get what they themselves want, as long they don't demand from feds to cover their treatment costs), but we all know you don't represent the entire country. And currently, States decide for themselves, which is the situation I approve.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>that counterexample doesn't work because I made up caveats post-hoc!
lol
lmao
you already lost but how about another counterexample
I would be ok if someone gave me an abortion. Does that mean providing abortions are moral?
Do you understand how trying to ground an objective moral system in arbitrary and differing personal opinions is stupid?
to add, re morality of abortion when you say you'd be fine
let's not be overlooked it is something you can say only when it is already know that abortion won't happen to you
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>let's not be overlooked it is something you can say only when it is already know that abortion won't happen to you
this is absolute nonsense
you are forcing yourself to believe wild bullshit like "every human being on the planet agrees with me and is just lying about it" and "the only people ok with abortion are people that can't have them" just to hold on to your obviously incorrect beliefs.
You're starting with the answer you want and then working backward to these crazy and obviously incorrect assumptions instead of starting with observations and drawing conclusions.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>my only response to a legitimate question of moral disagreement (whether abortion is moral) is to assume you are lying to me
Then you don't have a single leg to stand on. If your only answer to moral ambiguity is "actually everyone has the same answer they're just all lying because I dunno why" then you need to re-evaluate your belief system.
>in laws?
We've established that morality and law are not the same thing, bringing up the law has no bearing on this conversation. You claimed a form of moral objectivism based on a standard you set was correct - you need to actually defend that belief not appeal to the law or culture war bullshit.
>You must love HIV!
Ahh, there's no hate like Christian "love."
This is not how Jesus would behave.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Jesus
Jesus expects from me to tell wrongdoers why they do wrong, so God wouldn't hold me accountable for their ignorance.
Tell us why anyone would be pro allowing to spread HIV if they themselves wouldn't want to be infected. I love people, and I wish them all they themselves apparently want. I still warn them that this will result in waking up with a headache, not my fault they don't listen.
And see
[...]
to add, re morality of abortion when you say you'd be fine
let's not be overlooked it is something you can say only when it is already know that abortion won't happen to you
You are making a statement in a highly convenient situation. I am not saying you do lie, but I have no reasonable grounds to believe you either. It is like a billionaire with a wealth of Soros telling small shop owners they should allow shoplifting. I'd like them to tell me the percentage of own wealth they'd fine with constantly losing.
But if you want to examine yourself further, imagine a situation where you can press a button that can change the history and cause your abortion. Food for thought.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Jesus expects from me to tell wrongdoers why they do wrong
You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
>Tell us why anyone would be pro allowing to spread HIV
lol what the frick are you even talking about now? Are you lost? Is english not your first language?
>I'm not calling you a liar, just relying on the implication that you are definitely lying to justify my belief system as otherwise it would crumble
Neat.
>imagine a less expensive and physically traumatic form of abortion, not so great now is it?
lmao you're completely divorced from humanity.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
And this is applicable in a situation of me telling people that the given action is wrong and advising against doing it, because...? I don't practice abortion (though I'm simplifying my personal stance here, but you don't want to talk laws), so there is no hypocrisy when I say why others shouldn't either. I merely share my honest advice.
>more inhumane
What, are you suddenly not fine with getting aborted back when you were small enough to get aborted? Some problems with the obviously not realistic idea of being able to put money into your mouth? With your talk not being cheap? Well, if you have objections with my proposed hypothetical situation where there are stakes attached to your declaration, you are free to propose your own.
I have said my piece. I believe it is pretty obvious that you have a problem with the idea of people not doing to others what they wouldn't want to be done to themselves, which is among the oldest known moral standards. A well-known rule. A silver one, even. And yet, you put plenty of energy against it.
I leave your evidently strong motive open to speculations.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>how is a message not to judge because you are also guilty and always will be applicable to me judging people I've never met?
lmao you're a terrible christian
>more inhumane
So now you're just making shit up and pretending I said it?
I literally said your scenario is BETTER, not worse. It would be BETTER if there were just a button to press to perform an abortion instead of the actual surgical procedure.
God damn, son, you need to learn how to read.
>you have a problem with the golden rule!
You set forth that rule as an evident, simple, and objective standard for morality. It meets none of those bars. I'm not saying it's a bad rule to have, I'm saying it clearly is not objective or simple or complete. That you can't seem to tell the difference makes me believe you don't really understand what those words mean and lack a functional understanding of the english language and the basics of moral philosophy.
If I had to guess I'd say you're very young and very homeschooled.
>I'm going to run away now because this conversation is making me uncomfortable
Ok.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>I love people!
I don't think you know what love is
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>You are making a statement in a highly convenient situation.
Ironic, as there is no more convenient a group to advocate for than the unborn.
They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
Very silly metric.
Most people would fail this miserably if the race, religion, or gender of the person having something done to them was different from their own. By the metric of moral objectivism, that would mean that most people are evil.
Um, no?
I want a thicc lady in latex to put me in diapers and a goofy wolfsuit to stroke me and call me her diaperpuppy, that doesn't make it morally right. I don't want to become a lawyer or doctor but having that done to someone doesn't make it morally wrong.
Also what the other person said about different gender/race.
Very silly metric.
Most people would fail this miserably if the race, religion, or gender of the person having something done to them was different from their own. By the metric of moral objectivism, that would mean that most people are evil.
>implying I have claimed that
Nobody's else answer will change whatever you yourself are a hypocrite or not.
I don't fully agree with objectivists for the reasons written here [...]
But I agree that somebody's morality can be measured to an objective standard >they have done something they'd fine with it being done to them >they have done something they'd not be fine with it being done to them
In the Bible, the first standard that God will use to judge you will be your own.
Um, no?
I want a thicc lady in latex to put me in diapers and a goofy wolfsuit to stroke me and call me her diaperpuppy, that doesn't make it morally right. I don't want to become a lawyer or doctor but having that done to someone doesn't make it morally wrong.
Also what the other person said about different gender/race.
I can assure you and most people on this board would come up with dozens of reasons why you should like a woman or black suffer from something they wouldn't want to have happen to themselves personally. If people really believed in "Do Unto Others", we wouldn't have places like Cinemaphile.
To an objectivist this question isn't well formed. It's like asking "who decides what the correct theory of gravity is?" No one decides, it just is what it is.
Not even that. Most of the western world has age of consent below 18. 16 is the more or less the norm in euroland with some dipping into 14. It's more of a "standards americans pretend to have".
Where the frick did these puritanical moralgays who think fricking someone above the aoc in most of the civilised world is "pedo" come from? They make way too much effort to just be trolling.
Drinking alcohol is evil,
you're literally poisoning your body and letting go of decency and control.
Rape is evil,
Having children locked into life-long contracts they can't comprehend is evil.
Throughout history, it seems that by the age of 16 you'd be considered fit enough to fall under adult roles. Men would enlist, women would be married to someone. In the modern (or post modern I'm not sure), the age was raised to 18 (most likely due to the new schooling system). Now we have people advocating for a further raise into the mid 20s.
The brain only completes it's development at 25 years of age, but the reproductive systems are already working at around 14.
We are not animals, so I assume we can agree that a 14~15 year old is not mature enough, and doesn't have enough life experience to be a good parent (although this could still be argued with older subjects). But 25 + years of experimenting hits too close to 30, which isn't good for reproductive reasons.
So what is the answer? When are you an adult?
>We are not animals, so I assume we can agree that a 14~15 year old is not mature enough, and doesn't have enough life experience to be a good parent
That's why traditionaly children were raised by a multigenerational household. Your parents were supported by their parents, siblings, aunts, grandparents cousins and so on. One was bound to know what they were doing.
This still happens in some cultures.
And before that we ("White" Westerners) had that with tribes being fairly united.
Which is something that was completely lost when people abandoned Sunday Church and overall neighborhood activities, which is a shame. I wish we culturally returned to the idea of respecting and loving your neighbors, but I can speak from experience that there are a lot of shitty neighbors out there. And I could also do better, I don't welcome people into the neighborhood myself.
Objectivists you complain about were atheists trying to argue that morality can exist without God.
In case of the OP, the idea that mercy is at expense of the victim is also recognized by Christianity, in which it is compared to a debt forgiveness.
Only Christianity makes a point that you likely owe God a debt as well, so you better be forgiving about those who owe you if you want God to forgive what you owe Him.
Atheism doesn't really have a rationale for mercy. Your debt is unpaid, and there is no all-knowing entity you owe anything. Forgiving debts is straight out letting yourself be ripped off, for no reason nor benefit.
This was the original captain Atom? He looks much better as a silver guy who's naked except for boots and gloves, but it's a shame that DC does nothing good with him anymore.
Did you kmow that Steve Ditko made some Trading Card Comic called Dark Dominion.
>Trading Card Comic
oh brother, that sounds like a terrible idea
You know, just because in the spur of the moment I think a pickpocket should be raped and hanged for taking my wallet it doesnt mean I should be entertained.
Like a big, fully complete collection? I don't think so. There's a variety of selected collections out there though, both old and new. I've seen some good ones with Craig Yoe as the editor. A lot of old Charlton titles are hanging around on places like libgen too, if you're willing to dig.
>Not in the digital comic museum or comic book plus >found it on read comics online
wack
Either way, love the art plus charlton's comics always had such unique lettering.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
DCP and CB+ both deal with public domain comics, most Charlton titles don't qualify.
Alright, I've decided to storytime this motherfricker to settle the matter once and for all. Shall I do it here while the thread still lives or should I make a new one?
moral relativism is right-wing
Mercy grabbing the hand of righteousness is a predominantly white thing
Every dumbass white woman has an "I can fix him" mentality that never works
Britain relocsting the whole native population of the chagos islands to make space for an americna base is being a cuck for non white people?
What
Like arguing western feminism is pointless because women in the middle east have it much worse
lol keep trolling anon, i'm sure you'll get good at it someday.
This is right, the tricky part is recognizing that sometimes you are guilty, and when you are, YOU want mercy. So if you've given it out in the past, you might get some more.
linking altruism to selfish desire is the only functional philosophy
I'm not even that big a fan of the IP, but it's honestly hilarious how many people get their butts blasted. Honestly, I think most of the people who hate this just don't like the idea of being held to a higher standard.
You wing brains are a riot
I don’t like it because it’s poorly written with all the bad guys basically being chaotic evil and immediately trying to kill people at the drop of a hat. The bad guys just choose to be bad but
I was saying what objectivism actually is. I wasn’t regurgitating the word salad that objectivists spout when trying to explain why they like objectivism. Also ayn rand’s whole philosophy was WHATEVER I like is objectively good and things I don’t like are objectively bad”.
>Also ayn rand’s whole philosophy was WHATEVER I like is objectively good and things I don’t like are objectively bad”.
This is why I couldn't buy into her bullshit. She just felt she could pick or choose whenever her rules applied.
"Taking social security and government handouts is bad! Unless I get cancer and need medical payments then it's good."
"Stealing property by force is bad. Unless it's towards native americans or palestians who I don't like and are fricking savages, then it's reasonable to use violence on them and confiscate their land and livihood."
She was just a dumb hypocritical b***h.
100% agree with you there
i dont think the majority of people who shitpost even bothered reading a tiny bit into what ayn actually believed other than what they were spoonfed. she stated that it was okay for people to do charity, like a mother choosing to feed her child, which her self insert character literally states in a speech, as long as they were not coerced into doing so
Did you read what you posted?
A mother feeding her child isn't fricking charity.
charity doesnt seclude anyone who is your family member. so a mother volunatrily giving help to her child falls under the category is charity, its just that we think of it more of an obligation than that
>"Taking social security and government handouts is bad! Unless I get cancer and need medical payments then it's good."
The most brainlet interpretation of Rand. The government leeched off her her whole life. It's not wrong to let it pay you back. I believe it's wrong for these programs to exist. It's not wrong to use them.
>Taking social security and government handouts is bad! Unless I get cancer and need medical payments then it's good.
Actually she wrote that it is okay to take government handouts while opposing the policies that offer them, and that was long before she took social security.
If Ayn Rand is Objectivism, and Objectivism is BS because she was a hypocrite, then the same must apply to Socialism and Karl Marx. Despite his rantings about "muh working class", he was a NEET who lived off his friends. He wasn't a farmer, factory worker, or laborer. He was poor because he didn't work and demanded the wealthy give him money because WHY SHOULDN'T I BE ABLE TO DO NOTHING ALL DAY EVERY DAY?! RISE UP MUH COMRADES!
I find it hilarious the people arguing against Objectivism always have the most moronic arguments as to why they think it's crap. If a philosophy is crap because it's founder didn't follow their own teachings, then every philosophy in history is crap. The only one that comes close is what Jesus taught, and even he cursed a tree for not providing him with fruit out of season. Ideas and concepts are not the people who came up with them.
If you actually want to attack Objectivism, try attacking something actually wrong with it. Like how it's just some generalized ideas with no real concept or plan on how they will apply to life? Or being vague enough to the point it almost says nothing? Something, anything that's an actual criticism of it. Not just "HUR DUR THE FOUNDER WAS A HYPOCRITE!" I heard enough of that lame shit in college.
>if someone was a hypocrite then everyone else must be
Peak white cope lmao
Karl Marx was making predictions on how civilization will develop. Ayn rand was making statemts of how things should be without any basis.
Karl Marx's idea isn't a get-quick rich scheme, it's a dialect of history in response to Hegel's transubstantiation of spirit meditated through german idealism which carried the western tradition. The tradition, via people Kant and Descartes that Ayn Rand rejects completely into some GotMine reactionary lecture that ignores a millenia of intellectual development. But you're too stupid to know that.
And Socialism/Marxism doesn't say anything about what people should do with their lives as laborers, judges or morality. It simply denotes just as Feudalism was based on begging premises that were challenged, Capitalism inevitably will find itself confronting its own dialectical contradictions too.
karl marx certainly did surround himself with the rich and wealthy like Engels who were his biggest supporters, while he was expousing the prototypical le west vill fall rhetoric about the le proletariat rising against le bourgioise which he viewed as inevitable because supposedly his ideology would carry on the process of dialetical materialism, subsuming any antithesis despite the great leaps of logic in his reasoning. how its also supposed to be the spiritual successor of kantianism, which serves as the foundation for the idea that we should treat others as ends rather than means because we do not truly know what other people want, ergo we should not see others as socially engineerable resources for a grand materialist revolution ultimately rooted in utilitarianism and hedonism, remains a mystery.
>Karl Marx said the west will fall!
Marx was an economist that documented economic changes and mapped them to simultaneous social changes
You've never read Marx
he literally instructs people to rise up and carry on his ideology in the communist manifesto
>remains a mystery
Marx didn't follow Kant at all. He followed up from Hegel, whose work was largely a refutation to Kant's project.
>Capitalism
>in its late stage for 150 years
Marx was a dunce.
Marx was wrong in that he was dismissive of social democracy as a concept. He thought that not only would the rich be unwilling to allow such a moderation of capitalism by the introduction of some socialist elements, that even if a few of the rich recognized that it was necessary to save capitalism those few would be unable to implement it. The rich would themselves be prisoners of the incentives and demands of their own system, to the point that they would be unable to save it from its own self-destructive impulses.
In that respect, Marx was wrong for a little while. Capitalism got a massive boost from the social democratic era that followed ww2 (or in the case of the US, starting in the 1930s) up through the 70s. Then in the late 70s and early 80s, social democracy was abandoned in favor of going back to the deregulation, privatization, tax cuts, union busting, etc. of the classical liberal era, only now with added free trade ideology instead of the closed markets of the old colonial empires. Add in a police state far beyond anything classical liberalism could maintain, and you get the current neoliberal system that is now reaching the end of its ability to keep the scam going.
As the neoliberal system's self-destructive impulses catch up to it, people lose faith in the system just as they lost faith in the classical liberal system, only this time there are no left wing political projects that are positioned to take up the torch like the new deal did in the US. This time around the only available alternative to the neoliberal system, that tried so hard to insist that there was no alternative, is a fascist project.
That's another way in which Marx was wrong. He assumed that the failures of capitalism would lead to a communist revolution, when in reality it's much more likely to lead to fascism, another system that Marx didn't seriously consider as a possibility.
>the neoliberal system'
Which is socialist. Governments have their diseased wieners balls deep in the economy all over the "developed world"
most people would define neoliberal as pro-market deregulation. What moronic homosexual taught you otherwise?
He probably thinks that any system where there is government involvement in the market is socialist.
No, it isn't. Ultimately power within neoliberalism comes from the ownership of private property. Government merely follows the directions of the wealthy, and serves as one more thing for them to squabble over and use as a way to turn their wealth into even more power. The bank bailouts, for example, are how capitalism actually works in practice. The wealthy get their way, even if that means using the government as one more tool to do it.
People like to imagine some idealized "pure" capitalism, but the reality is that it has always been interwoven with state power. The institutions and norms that capitalism relies upon, things like private property, rule of law, contracts, currency, etc. are deeply connected to state power.
What do you say to a communist who insists that real communism hasn't been tried? You're probably dismissive of the idea, and insist that communism be judged by how it has actually played out in history. I am merely applying the same standard to capitalism. Just like communism, capitalism should be judged by how it actually plays out, ranging from slavery and genocide in the regions where it extracts resources, to bailouts and lobbying in its more built up core territories.
Neoliberal is the exact opposite of socialist moron. Do five seconds of research please.
>right
Funny way to spell left.
It is both.
You're half-right. Moral relativism is, ironically, universal. No one has absolute morals, there are always exceptions. This is especially true for anyone who venerates the past.
Though that has nothing to do with OP's image, it's just totalitarian garbage that doesn't value the rights of the accused.
>Try black and white in a world of credit cards, punk rock, mastectomies, Watergate, the rise of homegrown Nazism, Anita Bryant, and the terrifying fact that more than half of all serious crimes in the United States are committed by people between the ages of ten and seventeen—-and that includes rape, murder, robbery, aggravated assault and burglary
>I-is that a credit card? AAAAAHHHHH help me Derrida I'm going all morally gray
>I-is that a credit card? AAAAAHHHHH
t. doug
>A BAAAAT CREDIT CARD!?
>>Try black and white in a world of credit cards, punk rock, mastectomies, Watergate, the rise of homegrown Nazism, Anita Bryant
Those are all pretty neatly sorted into the "evil" category.
A society that encourages people to go into debt is an evil one.
small ass potatoes in 2024
He was cool, and his art was pretty great, but he stunk at writing.
I used to think he was a bit too extreme but as time goes on I honestly see his points.
I like the idea of art uplifting and providing idealized forms and ideas over reveling in ugliness. I've always disliked trying to make villains sympathetic. And his way of composing pages to explain ideas through surreal imagery, as crazy as it seems, is legitimately cool to see.
I like morally grey characters every now and again, but I find the people who only watch or read shit like it tiring and unable to genuinely look at the reality of the world. Instead they prefer to to believe that the pre planned greyness of modern fiction enough for whatever puddle deep introspection they’re capable of
they're trading one fantasy for another
We all understand that Mr. A would lynch every single person on this website, right?
But he sure as shit wouldn't harm anybody who was there on January 6.
Doing what "you" think is right is not the same thing as what is objectively right. Handful of people who were there because they genuinely believed that everyone in congress is actually a shapeshifting reptileman from the Drago constellation would be killed by Mr. A because they are delusional and, therefore, criminals.
>Doing what "you" think is right is not the same thing as what is objectively right
Wellnthats just it, innit? Who decides what's objectively right? When two different trains of logic collide, that's called war.
Also no; there is no way Mr. A disagrees with those January 6 terrorists.
Nothing more than legal positivist bullshit. The existence of natural law proves such ideas incorrect from the start and show that their is such a thing as an objective right.
>Natural Law
There is no such thing you moron.
Nature follows whatever path simply on the basis of existence alone.
You're a sheltered brainlet. Natural law is survival of the fittest and might makes right.
That's how society works. All laws are enforced with duress , and if they weren't then they wouldn't ever be effectively enforced. The smart and strong will always rule over the weak and stupid.
That's not really a rule, it's more of a maxim.
It's like saying "The basic rule of the sky is that the sky is blue, that's the nature of the sky."
Not really, the sky is blue because it reflects the oceans and filters certain lightrays.
Calling it a rule or law makes it sound as if something is platonically immutable.
NTA but
>the sky is blue because it reflects the oceans and filters certain lightrays
The sky is not blue because of the oceans. Nothing abundant in the sky is reflective.
Clearwaters, including the sea, are blue because water reflects the sky.
The sky is blue because nitrogen diffuses blue light waves, and nitrogen is the most common element in our atmosphere.
> Who decides what's objectively right?
The thing about objectivism is that morality has already been determined to be objectively right by the observer. For instance, Ayn Rand believed that clicking her husband and smoking cigarettes were both objectively good things to do. She didn’t like it when her lover started having sex with a younger woman on the side and kicked him out of the group.
Mr A has demonstrated that he does not like aggressors and that acting out of hysteria gets no leniency from him. From Mr A’s perspective, the Jan 6 rioters would objectively be in the wrong. For starters, they were violating the non violence principal. For seconds, they were literally being a bunch of fricking morons that got hoodwinked into acting on a logical fallacy because they didn’t get what they wanted.
You mean antifa in disguise making Republicans look bad did that
Antifa
Take your meds.
Cope the real jan 6 tapes prove it was antifa and any conservative in the building was tricked by antifa.
Antifa doesn't have to help boomers look bad. They do that all on their own. See: QAnon schizophrenia. Hundreds of thousands of Republican boomers were convinced by a LARP
>Handful of people who were there because they genuinely believed that everyone in congress is actually a shapeshifting reptileman from the Drago constellation
You're such a fricking child holy shit
Woman moment
But he's right.
Mr. A wouldn't be judging other people based off the hyperbole that mentality ill HRT communists use to describe conservatives
Post hand
ok Q boomer
"conservatives" are not the same thing as "deranged boomers who get themselves killed just so they can walk aimlessly around the capitol building and take pictures of themselves"
They aren't mutually exclusive. Unless you're saying there are no conservative Republicans.
What I'm saying is that the description of the January 6th morons as deranged moronic boomers is not "hyperbole from mentally ill HRT communists used to describe conservatives." It is in fact not hyperbole at all, and it is not being used to describe conservatives in general.
>It is in fact not hyperbole at all
In that it's totally inaccurate rather than an exaggeration, I suppose.
So if the January 6th mob weren't deranged moronic boomers, what were they? heckin based patriots?
NTA but are you some sort of moron?
Lol this is some desperate cope. Everyone knows conservative media has been fomenting anti-American sentiments since Rush Limbaugh. You're just pissed the mask slipped and everyone knows conservatives will gleefully abandon democracy before they abandon their thoughtless memes.
Democracy is not conservative. Real conservatives will not be 'abandoning' a damned thing.
>anti-American
what you call anti american is just anti establishment. Your word games do not change reality, you know that, it's the core reason for your anxiety issues.
Have you ever considered that what he meant was that Mr. A wouldn't fight people with genuine motives (being upset at the direction of the government), but would absolutely fight people who believe in delusional things like Reptilians? Because there was definitely a number of the alien conspiracy nutters mixed in with the rest of the crowd.
Name them.
you mean fat boomers who did nothing other than get shot and take selfies?
are you downplaying January 6th, chud?
not enough of them got shot
What? Yes he would. He’d stand there and watch Ashlee Babbit get shot and then give a speech about how she did it to herself because the Jan 6 filters were objectively and morally wrong.
>Mike Pence: aren't you going to help them?
>Mr. A:.. no, I won't help anyone who thinks it's okay to hurt you.
Lol, I think you're probably projecting your own guilty conscience onto the rest of us.
You're not alerting the police to all of the theft that goes on on this site, making you an accomplice to crime.
>Theft
Lol, lmao even
A court of law would definitely consider the Hydra threads and every thread on /vr/ that provides links for where to illegally download video games and music to be theft.
>Just because you happen to be using the same forum as criminals makes you a criminal as well.
Guilt by association much? Besides, I doubt Mr. A would need to be involved, he only punishes those criminals that have escaped justice by negligence and failure of the system. We're safe here just so long as we haven't ripped off dying grannies or abused children.
First, explain what you mean by "punishing others".
>All I can say is concession a...ACK!
shut up troony, nobody here's convinced by your motte and bailey tactics
Moral Objectivist are delusional to a man and believe themselves to be wholly good (as the only alternative in such a system is to be wholly evil and clearly they're not that!)
Moral Objectivism is the view of the privileged and the naive. It is a childish view borne of parental authority and not real life experience.
It also tends to go hand in hand with "just world" thinking - the idea that the world is inherently just and balanced and people get what they deserve.
He would orchestrate events that would lead to our death, like chase us into traffic, but not actually take responsibility in his part in our deaths.
Mr. A is a self rightous hypocrite like the Jigsaw Killer, but Mr. A is sincere he doesn't take ironic joy in what he does like Jigsaw.
I'm genuinely asking, was Steve Ditko autistic?
Probably a little bit, it’s the only way I can fully understand how he walked away from a hit like spider-man and having the strength to never once look back
He could also just have a Watersonian level of artistic integrity. He probably realized that Peter was never going to get the fully realized arc of maturing into full adulthood by contributing to society in a way that was far more beneficial than wearing webbed pajamas, and left.
One of the stories I remember hearing was he was arguing with stan for more money and support for artists and supposedly Kirby was supposed to have his back but couldn’t stand up to stan in the same way. But that’s only a small rumor I heard once
One thing you have to realize about Kirby and Ditko's contributions is that they were paid by the page and there wasn't anything in their contract to ensure they would receive additional compensation based on how well their work did.
Walking away from a "hit like Spider-Man" is a lot easier when you're not really getting a cut from that hit in the first place. It wasn't a Watterson situation where he walked away from money that didn't fit his artistic vision. He wasn't getting the money he thought he deserved, and he was pretty sore about it.
>Probably a little bit, it’s the only way I can fully understand how he walked away from a hit like spider-man and having the strength to never once look back
He never went back to Spider-Man but he did go back to Marvel
Ditko created speedball? I always thought he was created by defalco
Possibly it was co-created by DeFalco, but Ditko drew it. Speedball is a artist pun, it's a brand of inking nibs
probably, but he was also from the generation where that wasn't an excuse not to work.
His family has done interviews and one thing they talked about was that in family gatherings he'd make an Eastern European rolled dough ball dish, and they found his diary where he kept exact measurements year by year of what he used and how many balls he could make from the amount. Which says alot about his way of thinking.
How outstandingly autistic.
Sounds more like OCD
What a terribly unnatural globohomosexual life.
The guy just had his head too far up his ass.
>Holes away sacrificing his humanity for a time sucking and lonely career in escapism. No kids. Lol no wife. Lmao only a few thousand people will remember him, soon only a few hundred will remember Mr. A unless some YouTube gay needs something to leech off for money.
He was a degenerate and it wasn't worth it.
He went for family visits and had company. He wasn't just working all the time.
We don’t know anything about him besides he seemed to love his family and his family loved him, which is more than we can say about you
>look at this degenerate monk copying oldass cookbooks and latin dictionaries
>no wife, no children
>no one will remember his name in a decade
>I'm genuinely asking, was Steve Ditko autistic?
>He could also just have a Watersonian level of artistic integrity.
They are both autistic. They both love their own craft to a fault and have disdain for the work of others.
>They both love their own craft to a fault and have disdain for the work of others.
Both of them expressed admiration for other artists though? It sounds like you're just butthurt that their tastes don't align with yours.
He wasn't, but you are.
There's so many words and terms that I wish stupid people didn't know about, and "autism" and "autistic" are two of them. Go smash your head against a rock.
Wow, I touched a nerve.
Say something worthwhile for once in your life you worthless c**t.
Alright here's something: Get thicker skin.
Try to stop being such a fricking idiot for the rest of your life first.
Probably to a degree but his family said he was very warm and friendly
too fricking moronic maybe, this whole argument in that panel only makes sense if you agree with him, otherwise it's complete nonsense that equates all interaction as either helping a victim or helping a guilty person, and it immediately falls apart if you question what happens when the guilty ask for justice or when the victim asks for mercy
Then justice will act on the guilty. There is no middle ground. Whether or not the guilty ask for justice or the victim asks for mercy is irrelevant. What does matter are their actions not their input on the matter.
What?
If you're guilty, you deserve no mercy; you MUST be punished to the fullest extent for your crimes. There are no extenuating circumstances. Evil does not deserve mercy under any circumstances, nor can it ask for justice, as true justice means the extinguishing of evil.
A victim asking for mercy is the SAME THING as asking for justice, as the only way to show them mercy is to bring the guilty to justice.
Did you not notice where you conflated 'guilty' with 'evil'? Not even allowing for mistakes and opportunities for correction is itself evil, anon. have a nice day, evil one.
A is A. If you're ever guilty of something, you've committed evil, no matter how small.
And we've established your own guilt. Now die, evil doer.
Mr. A doesn't actually advocate death for any crime, just for those who refuse to own up to their crimes and face justice. And it's more a parable thing where refusal to repent is a moral death, which in a story is represented by actual death.
Mr. A also isn't some killing machine. He does refuses to save criminals from death more than once.
Yeah, Mr A just talks both the criminal and the audience to death.
However, anon was suggesting Mr A would be personally visiting 'higher morality' upon every poster itt, and that's what I was responding to. Reading comprehension helps.
>Obey the law by turning in a israelitegirl to reich government
>Feel Guilty
Is the law evil then?
Or is the person guilty just deficient?
Failure to rebel against an evil law is still evil.
Ah. Alright. Guess the only way you can be a truly good person is to be a sociopath. Someone who never experiences any guilt whatsoever would be by definition eternally good then.
Okay, Mikami.
That already happened in the comic, one victim was looking for mercy for the aggressor but this guy didn't give a shit and just let the guilty die lol.
>when the victim asks for mercy
Society as a whole is a victim when someone does a crime. even if the person the crime was perpetuated against wants to forgive the criminal, they must still face justice.
>and it immediately falls apart if you question what happens when the guilty ask for justice or when the victim asks for mercy
I agree with Mr. A and I'd say the former is just someone recognizing the error of their ways and trying to repent properly while the latter doesn't disagree with his point. "Mercy can only be granted to the guilty at the expense of the victim". The mercy is still being granted at the expense of the victim, except now they're the one actively granting it. You could also argue that the victim granting mercy is just passing the buck onto everyone else since they're actively trying to let a guilty person get off with no punishment which will almost inevitably lead to them re offending.
I feel like the Mr. A pic is as polarizing as it is is because of mental semantic differences between people. Are you viewing the statement as if it is only talking about true justice being dealt against genuinely guilty people, or are you placing the statement into the confines of real life and imagining a struggling bloated court system being propped up by a moronic glue drinking jury of your peers? Because your opinion hinges entirely on which assumption you make.
But what about Moral Particularism?
Is it just some kind of curse for Objectivist writers to be batshit insane?
>Ayn Rand
>Steve Ditko
>Terry Goodkind
Objectivism is inherently batshit, so yes.
In a world this insane, of course basic common sense will look crazy.
that's not objectivism lol apparently ayn rand was a hypocrite.
>ayn rand was a hypocrite
>get taxed for decades
>take a tiny part of it back in gubmint gibs
It was not hypocritical to prefer not to have been taxed in the first place with no gibs.
She cucked her husband and thought that was the greatest thing to do in life. When her lover fricked another younger woman, she kicked that guy out of the group and had him shunned.
>israelite being a hypocrite
NO WAY
I like it, the way it is presented makes you think and ponder, that's more than anything you'll read or watch on any media today.
Nah man, it doesn’t make me think and ponder. All of the bad guys in his stories are chaotic evil and do bad things strictly for the sake of being evil and creating the most harm possible.
It’s not about the bad guys. Once you do something bad, there’s no reason to dwell on excuses. The stories are more about how one reacts to one who does evil or bad actions.
Yet he doesn’t mean the people who do bad are irredeemable. He’s shown reformed criminals who did their sentence in a positive view.
> Once you do something bad, there’s no reason to dwell on excuses.
That’s fine as long as the bad guys in the story actually do bad things for believable reasons rather than simply doing bad things because it’s a bad thing to do and the writer isn’t even bothering to write in any actual motivation for his characters actions.
> The stories are more about how one reacts to one who does evil or bad actions.
Then write stories where the peopke doing bad things actually make sense rather than routinely elevating a misdemeanor act that would get them a slap on the wrist, to attempted first degree murder, for no reason.
>ad guys in the story actually do bad things for believable reasons rather than simply doing bad things because it’s a bad thing
It's just an aspect of being an old fashioned superhero story. Ditko embraces that these are idealized interpretations of good and evil. A bad guy once he's chosen the side of bad(it does not matter what reason), is now corrupt. Excuses don't matter. Ditko is more concerned with how people react to those people choosing to avoid culpability.
God I wish there was a Mr. A animated series/cartoon. Both the show and certain *people's* reaction to it would be great.
I’d make a live-action film.
I’ve already thought of some sequences for it
They made a live action pilot. Was some weird POV thing.
Question.
Is he wearing a mask? And what is his mask made of, if he is wearing one?
Also, is cosplaying Mr.A a good idea?
Yes. Its a steel mask
What dumb logic
Might as well ask this here, should I get into Danny O'Neil's run of "the Question"? I know it strays pretty far from Ditko's vision of Objectivism but from what I can tell it's considered to be one of the best runs for the character. Knowing that the Question is the "Intentionally compromised" version of mr. A how much of a departure is the Question?
>O'Neil's run
It's not that good.
It's like shooting philosophy in the head while spouting zen. It's written by a liberal with no beliefs and reflects that.
sure give it a try, just read 2 or 3 issues online and if you're not interested by then, you probably won't like the rest of it. I actually wonder if people are more put off by Denys Cowan's pencils than by Denny's writing, but I always liked them tbh
Cowan is an amazing action coreographer with an intrinsic understanding of space in 2D. Anybody shitting on his Question work is functionally moronic.
No, he's kinda shit at drawing fights and consistent people. Anyone that considers his amazing is blind or blind drunk. Or moronic.
>ESL
No.
>Cowan is an amazing action coreographer with an intrinsic understanding of space in 2D
Don't make me laugh.
>no argument
He absolutely is. Very few artists can convey an actual fight happening and moving through space like a dance. Most just draw a panel showing a punch, another showing a kick, with no spatial logic applied that brings the two disparate images together. Cowan has the entire fight and all its motion mapped out over his pages, with his paneling relaying movement rather than static images. Cowan's one of the best.
The proto Question
OG Question had the best colors IMO, the later one with a darker blue is fine, but I like this one best
Did something happen or has Cinemaphile always been filled with self-important moral busybodies who think they know what's best for everyone else?
Yes.
Comics have been getting wrecked internally by the industry and Western culture and externally by the foreign market. The few comic book readers that remain on Cinemaphile trying to fight both sides are stupidly stubborn, moralistic buttholes.
>killing and stealing is bad
>Erm how do you know?
By what moral standard is killing and stealing always wrong?
Killing a life not in genuine self-defense or mistakenly killing someone that has done something wrong but isn’t intrinsically psychopathic (a born psychopath.)
Stealing from someone that isn a psychopath and/or oppressor.
So you have to judge it in case by case basis based on vague ideas. Nice moral absolutism you got there.
There is such a thing as genuine morality.
I don’t think every single point Ditko makes is sound exactly but that doesn’t mean there is genuine good or bad.
I always hear the immoral, narcissistic, the secret cheat or predator talk about “moral busybodies” and those similar.
Someone that commits steals another’s social security money, is lazy and has a flat affect, is psychopathic and has said immensely hateful things, want time started to yell at me like the narcissistic trash he is; he told me, because I was exposing him and his wife as the frauds they are, that I should “get off my fricking high horse” and that I’m a “hypocrite”— despite the fact that he provided no evidence I am a hypocrite when I provided evidence that he is a fraud, and furthermore, it’s quasi-hypocritical for these so-called people to tell someone that they need to “get off their fricking high horses” when they themselves are implicitly “on” a “high horse”— espousing some standard of what is right and true— by telling the one they’re speaking to to not do something because it goes against the implicit standard they’ve put forward.
People that are conditioned and/or raised in a certain way can do things that aren’t the best, but they are intrinsically good and likely show more love and truthfulness than the narcissist/psychopath— these conditioned individuals should be given compassion and rehabilitation/learning.
The narcissists/psychopaths that are born as such, and thus intrinsically so, are worthless trash that self-expose and self-refute themselves constantly. They are abominations.
(“that doesn’t mean there isn’t genuine good or bad” I meant to type)
Ask yourself what sort of person can repeatedly swallow the logs of rainbow-painted Black person-worshiping shit that is modern Marvel or DC products. Actually you don't even need to ask that, just ask why the Cinemaphile mod would specifically prevent the uploading of this WEBM, and only this.
Anon, this is how the internet has been for at least the past 5 years, if not the last decade. Moral busybodies are fricking everywhere now
Because degenerate busybodies are also everywhere now. Shit like this happens all the time.
>people shouldn't be punched in the head for no reason
>uhhhh why are you such a moral busybody
because youre a fricking moron
Mercy, however, is an aspect of justice, not its opposite. Mercy is good for the victim, too. Consider that punishing others is not the normal state of affairs, and it's the aberration from normalcy that has produced a victim. How much does our victim seek to be affected by the affair?
>Consider that punishing others is not the normal state of affairs, and it's the aberration from normalcy that has produced a victim
Holy shit, WHAT?
>herp derp
What do you need explained, anon?
Damn, was Ditko right?
Wow, what was the deal with the Coletta guy anyway?
Coletta was infamous for not inking the entire pencils he got. Sometimes outright erasing things.
He also had alleged mob ties. I heard a story once of another artist and him driving somewhere in Vince's neighborhood in Vince's car, and Vince made a point to leave the keys in the ignition. The other guy asked why he'd do that when it was such an easy thing to steal. Vince Coletta just sort of laughs and tells him "In this neighborhood, no one would frickin' dare" or something to that effect.
lmao, what a lazy shitter. But I wonder why he would be a inker for funny books if he really had mob connections. Or maybe he really did, and that's why none of the editors told him he needed to improve. I'd heard of this guy being a poor inker before, but the mob affiliation thing is new to me. It's pretty interesting, if true, and would explain why he was tolerated
the actual reason Colletta was tolerated is he worked fast and would always hit deadlines.
I have all the mr. a comics. I'll dump em on here one of these days.
>mercy is the opposite of justice
Spider-Man would've been a fricking disaster without Stan lol
This sort of moral legalism is why my pastor says, “The Law of Moses kills, but cannot make alive.”
Ditto needs Jesus.
Why does every mr.a thread degenerate into some onions screaming "NOOOOOO you can't just kill the heckin criminalrinooos!!1"
Guilty consciences. They realize Mr. A would have his patient leather shoes on their necks if True Objectivism was practiced.
Rather, Mr A would have my foot on his neck. Muh 'punishing the guilty' is no excuse for serial murder. You're done, son.
Impossible; Mr. A is always right because he's on the side of good.
Murdering multiple people while masked in the dark of night is never good, anon.
You have no argument, do you?
NTA but him asking if you've read the comics is an argument because you mischaracterize the character's actions/position.
See
So his morality only applies in fictional cases. Gotcha.
>this fictional character is in fictional stories
Yes? Why are you such a b***h? I don’t see the objection to the character, violence exists and sometimes you need it to keep the peace, why is that so hard to understand?
I don't know, why are getting angry and using violent and disparaging rhetoric? It would seem not only do you lack faith in the 'argument' you've abandoned, but you clearly never intended to follow it.
All I can say is concession accepted, and kek what a b***h.
The grey morality presented in western thought is killing the civilization, thinking that it’s wrong to believe in something like justice to the point of actually fighting for it is a sea position. You react poorly to the idea of there being an objective good in the world simply because you have nothing to believe in, it’s a problem we all face and why you react so violently towards a fictional character like him. Yes anon the stories of the world are more complicated than they appear, but believing that that complications means that justice itself is meaningless is kinda pathetic really.
You're such a gay.
And you’re a troony and he’s a cuck and he’s a b***h. Stop believing in nothing, it isn’t helping anyone especially not yourself
Nobody was talking about nihilism, you tremendously moronic homosexual.
Mr A provides a healthier pov about life than all corporate superhero characters, stop believing in Superman anon and realize that you have to find the collective justice yourself. It’s easy to be a paragon when you’re a fictional god, being a dude who just accepts that you have to change the world is a hell of a lot harder. Especially when you realize that the world doesn’t want to change, it wants to keep its downward trajectory because it’s comfortable for the time being. Simply because you’re comfortable with the state only being allowed to define justice doesn’t make it justice
Mr. A would murder you simply for browsing a website that regularly features CP and human murder in the form of webms. The idea that you're an innocent little dove simply because you've never stolen bread out of sheer desperation and hunger makes you look like the most immature moron in this whole thread.
Once again you’ve never actually read the stories have you?
Once again you're sidestepping to ignore the fact that you'd be as much of a criminal in Mr. A's eyes, regardless of your own opinion on the matter. Sounds like not even you enjoy how rigid the character is.
I enjoy the thought experiment it is anon, I enjoy it as a prototype for the question and I like some of the art. God damn why is it so hard for you to answer the damn question? It’s not a side step when you openly misinterpret the comics because you’re mad that it’s not your opinion. Frick man the people should be given the right to enforce justice right now because the system as it stands IS EVIL, a comic book doesn’t have the fricking answer to that and when Ditko wrote this we still had a government and people with decent heads on their shoulders. Right now we do not, as annoyed as I can be with the rigidity of the comic, you’re rigid ass is down right annoying
>misinterpret the comic
Are you seriously claiming Mr. A wouldn't murder someone who willfully and openly browses a site where CP is posted regularly? At best, that's a morally ambiguous person who looks away when a crime is committed. At worse, it's someone else supporting the distribution of CP by giving the website adsense clicks.
I believe that Mr A would, rightfully, kill ANYONE that actively consumes CP in any regard as we ALL should want anon. But I don’t know why he would think of a website considering his last comic released would’ve come out a decade or so before any internet we would recognize. Fricker SAVED AN EXCON, that shows that intent on the actors past is an important part of his view of justice
>I believe that Mr A would, rightfully, kill ANYONE that actively consumes CP in any regard as we ALL should want
What do you think you're doing when you see CP and don't even bother to report it? What do you think you're doing for that distribution when you keep visiting the website, giving it clicks and helping it spread said CP?
You know, I don't think you've actually thought about the ramifications of having such a rigid sense of justice. You were just hoping people would look at your walls of homosexual text and assume you were saying something smart.
Why are you defending people who seek out CP? Why are you intent about defending pedophiles? A child is a child and should be protected and predators are out there. This seems like such an odd place to start when discussing objective morality anon.
Ditko never had kids so who knows, but anyone who does after a child in a sexual manner DESERVES TO DIE. Regardless of if that sexual manner is to physically molest them or confuse them and tell them that the confusion of adolescences means they’re sick and need to take puberty blockers. Those people who do that are legitimate monsters and need to be stopped
>Why are you defending people who seek out CP?
Where could you possibly get that fricking notion? I just told you Mr. A would murder you aiding the distribution of CP lmao
Are you just tired of arguing? Maybe exit the thread next time, it'll be less embarrassing.
You’re bringing up a pointless argument to dismiss the notion of objectivity anon, you’re using and defending the evils of the world to prevent individuals from seeing reality as is
And many more children have been convinced to transition because trusted adults have convinced them that the confusion they feel about their bodies due to the hormones being released during puberty means they’re sick and should stop an eons old biological process all mammals go through for the profit of major pharmaceutic companies. I do believe Mr A should destroy those companies and people who push that evil yes.
>a pointless argument
There's nothing pointless about the distribution of CP and people who passively help it. It really goes to show how warped your sense of justice is if you can't realize that much.
You’re literally trying to obfuscate a straight forward discussion about objectivity and why it’s wrong by throwing it pointless hypotheticals. I understand you don’t care about anyone and happily use suffering as a weapon to stop the easing of suffering, but I don’t think you understand
>s-stop making so much sense!!!
You have no point to make beyond believing that anyone who believes in something being stupid. Why is a neoliberal b***h like you still here?
It is way, waaaay more neoliberal to ignore this place passively supports people who distribute CP.
You're so fricking dumb, man.
>And many more children have been convinced to transition
Trans people make a tiny percentage of the US population. You'd have to be moronic to think otherwise.
Yes, and how much of our foreign and domestic policy is dedicated to enforcing it ideologically in comparison to its population size? It’s almost as if it’s nothing more than a weapon of oppression wielded against the working class
Foreign policy focuses on international blockades and destabilization of governments, not trans people. You fricking idiot.
And the LGBT movement is being used to push for and against aid to certain countries anon
It’s a fictional character written by a dead guy anon, I don’t know. Why don’t you write that?
No but abusing popscience for the profit of the rich at the cost of the next generations ability to breed is a literal war crime anon and needs to be confront honestly
You're obsessed with trans people's genitals. I wouldn't go as far as to claim Mr. A would kill you, but he'd definitely think you're a fricking weirdo.
>ditko is dead therefore we can't criticize his shitty character
???
Why don’t you write the character you want to write anon, why don’t you put your ideology on the page in interesting panel layouts with to stilted and drawn out dialogue
Why are you so afraid to confront the fact that your precious moral homosexualry is based on a very basic misunderstanding of morality as a whole? Why do you have to be such a b***h about it?
And why don’t you just admit that the problems of the world are real and the solution as it stands is violence. Why do you have to assume that EVERYONES understanding of right and wrong is only ever flawed and that we must only ever defer to a system?
If we believe that it is possible for a journalist to present objective facts to the world on a problem than shouldn’t we also believe in an authority to present an objective solution based on those facts? We believe that the judicial system should be this as a whole and by and large it’s not a terrible system on paper, but it has become corrupt and what do you do when the system that alleges itself on objectivity becomes corrupt? Its all imperfect and I really want someone to come up with a new thought process for all of us
>And why don’t you just admit that the problems of the world are real and the solution as it stands is violence
You can't even admit Mr. A would have no rational way of fighting child abuse. If child bride are legal, then LOGICALLY Mr. A would support that.
I suppose at that point it would be about asking the child if they’re alright with the situation. It’s fricked in general and the system is in need of coming down yes, hell our government support a hell of a lot of child predators in Afghanistan and they were dealt with. Let’s ask the taliban how it should be done
Do I think objectivism is perfect? No, it’s a thought experiment that I find interesting, but it doesn’t mean that there is real good and real evil in this world and that their aren’t simple solutions to some of these complicated problems even if they seem uncouth
>I suppose at that point it would be about asking the child if they’re alright with the situation
What the frick is this pedo cope? Why in the frick would a child be responsible for Mr. A's moral outlook?
Ah yes. Solutions that will finally unseat everything.
Final Solutions, one might say.
>shouldn’t we also believe in an authority to present an objective solution based on those facts?
We're straying from the subject a bit and yeah, I think that can exist. I don't think it does exist right now, it would have to be an engineered being or machine with higher intelligence than any living human and without the ability to lie or possession of human self-interest. Otherwise no-one would listen to or obey it just like they don't listen to or obey other humans now because they view them as just as fallible as themselves.
Anything created by man has its flaws, but it also has its strengths anon. The problem with systems is that by nature they become corrupt once the evil they were created to protect the people from grow smart enough to circumvent them, and the good they’re designed to protect become complacent by their dependence on them.
I don’t know dude if we live in a world where a three year old boy saying they like pink and think they’re a girl is enough for a doctor to prescribe hormonal treatments then shouldn’t the other side of it be asking a 14 year old if they trust this person they consent to marrying this older person? I don’t agree with either anon but if this is where you want to take to conversation I’m here
Something tells me the Middle East would be a much safer and stable place if that final solution you’re b***hing about came to fruition. Is it irony that in 80 years a people went from being genocided to committing a far more brutal genocide on the people who took them in?
>Something tells me
Yeah, your mental moronation.
>People who have been killing each other for thousands of years
>But they'll just suddenly stop now because 1 desert tribe doesn't exist
Those were stable modern countries before zionists were given land and allowed to start brutally murdering its inhabitants on the dime of western countries
My moral relativism is better than yours
>i concede, gaygily
Works for me.
You're so fricking dumb, man. Not even a single thought running between those neanderthalic ears of yours.
>The problem with systems is that by nature they become corrupt
That's the thing, isn't it? Society always has laws and a justice system, but the people who make and enforce those laws are always the ones with the wealth and power to do so, and they make it so they don't apply to them or are skewed in their favor. That's every justice system throughout history. In fact the people who decide the laws are really the Randian heroes, if you think about it. They achieved the power to do so and set the systems up in their own rational self interest.
The problem IRL is, those 'heroes' you spoke of are nor the protletariet collective of Marx nor the genius vangard industrialists of Rand. They're just fatcat ceos and bankers and stock, property owning feudal types.
Modernity does more to harm to peoples prospects of reproducing than advocating trans identity. A lot of people that are trying to not have kids do so out of fear of it ruining their lives.
The funniest shit is this anon is 90% guarenteed to be a male, and is going on about the necessity of reproduction (a societal impetus) as if that has anything to do with 'Objective morality' or Individualism while declaring having babies is the ultimate value of society.
Literally someone speaking for more than half the population.
Trans identity is a modern problem anon, it’s also a modern solution, it just isn’t healthy in any regard
Yes anon, you’ve now discovered the real purpose of the melting pot anon.
That doesn't make any sense.
Do you think perspective and morality are decided by race?
That any collective of white people all agree on the same thing or a nation should be some sort of Hivemind?
If you literally cloned yourself within a few months you'd be arguing over ridiculous shit and killing each other because YOU ARE THE RIGHT ONE, TAKING A STAND AGAINST EVIL.
Morality, as it stands, is a cultural agreement there are PLENTY of things that I find wrong in other cultures and plenty of things those cultures find wrong with ours. Does that invalidate each others collective consciousness? Honestly maybe, but we have to accept that in order to make a better world. Hell one of the largest problems in the world today is the blandening of it mixing all of us together just means that we all end up making less. I don’t think diversity is wrong or bad, it’s simply inevitable and how typically do two major groups who have nothing in common interact in history? Or even in the wild? Not to well, we can make each other better anon, but we can also make each other a hell of a lot worse if we choose to believe that we shouldn’t be allowed to defend our morality and culture.
>Morality, as it stands, is a cultural agreement
Moral relativism, you mean?
Just say you're a Nazi and be done with it
So the world can know it'd be objectively improved if we just killed you.
Anon you’re nothing more than a person who believes in whatever is easiest to believe. Don’t confront the world just conform conform conform until you’re not yourself, which in your case is an improvement yes
>Anon you’re nothing more than a person who believes in whatever is easiest to believe.
Every single belief you've espoused in this thread has been a card-carrying hitlerite talking point that is easily repeated, believed by countless idiots and not unique or exceptional in the slightest of sense. But do to Dunning–Kruger effect you think "The world would be better if we just killed israelites" already is a profound and deeply-thought out belief.
Just the Zionists right now anon, but that’s only because I judge their actions and statements
You’re a pretty sad and boring dude you know that? How’s the graveyard shift treating you?
Based on your earlier comments on trannies, corporations and media, you don't appear like the 'I'm only anti-israel but actually not antisemetic' type.
Anon are you saying I have to support crony capitalism and the genital mutilation of children and if I don’t I’m antisemitic?
What other cultures? The next city over? Wisconsin vs Michigan? My town has different speeding laws than the one a few miles over, how do we handle those people mixing by coming into my town with their driving-morality and imposing onto mine?
Maybe people should just be locked into padded cells so they don't have to deal with each other's cultures. My neighbor likes sports, I don't like sports, according to you we might kill each other if we interact. What a scary schizophrenic yet very small world you live in anon.
Maybe the idea of borders isn’t a bad idea anon?
So you're okay with moral relativism?
A padded cell is a border.
How do you function at night interacting with other people who aren't you and have different thoughts than you? How did you not shriek when you went to school exposed to people with seperate names that weren't clones of you?
A padded cell is a fricking room, a boarder is an agreed upon are separating cultures anon. Yes they’re man made, but the boarder of a bears territory is bear made, you want to tell him he should be ok with another bear in there? Why are you so afraid of being yourself and dealing with the world as a person in it? Why do you so desperately want to be lost in a cacophony of bland sameness? Do you not like new things and individuals to meet and mingle with? Do you find it frightening that disagreeing with someone could make a new thought process that neither one of you could’ve had?
>eons old biological process
Age of consent being anywhere close to 18 is mostly a XX century invention. Will Mr. A travel in time and punish everyone who ever lived?
It also differs by country. Mr. A will kill people based on their citizenship I suppose.
Mr.A isn’t very proactive. He’s not going to destroy corporations or pedos unless they actually put something into action or are planning to.
That sounds like moral relativism to me!
The non-aggression principal forbids him to do anything preemptively.
Pedophilia isnt a crime. Child abuse and rape are crimes. It’s not a crime to be attracted to children. It’s potentially a crime to act on it
>Pedophilia isnt a crime
It’s not a crime. pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It’s not the act of having sex with prepubescent children. Being attracted to something is not a criminal offense.
Mr. A can't read minds. His interest would not lie in people committing "mind crimes" unless they were dumb enough to put them on paper. Your argument is fricking useless.
Then he has to rely on people’s actions. If someone’s not diddling children then I don’t see why he would care one way or another.
>Your argument is fricking useless.
what’s useless about it? I’m flat-out saying that Mr.A wouldn’t concern himself with punishing people for what’s in their head and only act on what people actually do or plan to do. If a person isn’t doing anything to anyone then there’s no victim to avenge.
>diddling children
What if someone's diddling a 16 year old child in a neighbor state? Would he justify it with moral relativism by claiming "she's old enough"?
He’s probably consider as to whether or not the 16 year old consented to said diddling, tbh.
>children can consent
Mr. A would be a pedophile then.
No, that implies that he’s attracted to children. I think that he wouldn’t consider an arbitrary age of consent to be valid concerning whether or not he should do a vigilante.
>that implies that he’s attracted to children
It implies he's okay with other people fricking children as long as they get away with it. That's borderline pedophilic in any context.
Hmmm by that measure anyone that’s ok with someone eating vegetables is a vegetarian.
Being a vegetarian isn't against the law. Not even sure how you'd get that from my post, pedo-kun.
It’s not against the law to be attracted to anything.
> Not even sure how you'd get that from my post
You said that Mr.A would be a pedo if he considers a 16 year old’s ability to consent.
>It’s not against the law to be attracted to anything.
Which is why I specifically said Mr. A would not be interested in mind crimes, as opposed to Mr. A asking an underage girl if she was okay with being raped and letting the pedophile rapist get away with it.
It helps to read the thread before replying, fricking moron.
If a person consents then it’s not rape, now is it?
Statutory rape is called as such because people in our society believe that a person below a certain age doesn’t possess the ability to consent. However what does an 18 year old have that a 16 year old doesn’t that makes one capable of consenting only after that additional 2 years?
When I was 16, me and a buddy (also 16) ran a train on a 30 year old woman. I assure you that we all consented the hell out of that.
18 is probably the cut off point of when a person is old enough to be responsible for their actions. By then it is expected for that person know enough to not do certain things.
This means no juvie or counseling if you frick up.
There’s several points tho. Like you can’t drink at 18. I hear the smoking age has been raised to 21 as well. I think that 18 is around the time where you have completed high school. In my state, you can drive a car at 16. But when I was 16, we all literally knew what was up.
>Like you can’t drink at 18
I can outside the US. Does that mean Mr. A gets to kill me if he's operating overseas? That'd be pretty morally relativistic of him.
I don’t think Mr a would care about whether or not you drink alcohol at any age. It’s more like “but I was drunk” wouldn’t be an excuse that would get you a pass if you do something bad.
>I don’t think Mr a would care about whether or not you drink alcohol at any age
Then he'd be as much as a moral relativist as anyone else in the 21st century, you fricking moron. Congratulations, you've just shat on Ditko.
> Then he'd be as much as a moral relativist as anyone else in the 21st century, you fricking moron.
Your point?
> Congratulations, you've just shat on Ditko.
Objectivists kinda shit on themselves. So what’s your point here?
>Your point?
Ditko would have an aneurysm.
>Objectivists kinda shit on themselves
Did you come into the thread thinking we're defending Ditko? Man, if I had a dime every time a massive fricking idiot replied from the catalog.
> Ditko would have an aneurysm.
And?
> Did you come into the thread thinking we're defending Ditko?
No. I was responding to what you were saying.
What if someone got you drunk? What if you were unaware that you are drinking alcohol? What if you got drunk before a situation forced you to let's say drive a car to escape a mad gunman?
How would any of that be less wrong if it were done to someone that were, say, 25 years old?
Was asking about in relation to being drunk as an excusse.
If they were forced to be drunk or drugged against their will and got into an accident then he’d probably blame the person that forced it on them.
By traditional israeli religious law woman is an adult by the ripe age of 12,5. That's most likely the answer any of the prophets would give you.
>im not a pedophile, religions say so!!!!
lmao
If your morals don't come from religion, law or nature... where did you got them from?
Morals come from human nature as social creatures. We instinctively want to protect the community and avoid internal conflict. So, we developed complex moral systems to that end. This is a trait that’s shared by other social animals (like other apes) to differing levels.
And those morals didn't involve age of consent at 18 until 20th century and still don't in most of the world because..?
100% agree. Age of consent is largely arbitrary to the sensibilities of the populace making that determination. Like, Betty boop, a very sexual character, was 16 years old.
>If a person consents then it’s not rape, now is it?
What if it's a child, you unironic pedophile?
What does a 18 year old have, objectively speaking, that makes them able to consent that a 16 year old doesn’t have, you fricking moron? Is there some kind of switch that flips in their brain that makes them able to know what sex is that a 16 year old doesn’t?
>mention a child
>IMMEDIATELY mentions 16 years old as good enough to frick
Not beating those pedo allegations, pal.
I was talking about a 16 year old person in the fricking post that
was responding to. That’s literally the subject.
>IMMEDIATELY mentions 16 years old as good enough to frick
I’m asking what an 18 year old has, objectively, that a 16 year old doesn’t when it comes to the ability to consent. That doesn’t mean that I think either is “ok to frick”.
>a 16 year old person
Lmao nice pedo dogwhistle. Might as well call every child you meet a "person" so you can feel better about abusing them.
Virgin Mary was 16. Is God a pedo?
>Virgin Mary was 16. Is God a pedo?
You ever hear of priests?
You’re trying real hard to moralize and virtue signal. Last I checked any human being with an identity and personality is a person.
Part of the eons old biological process is that not everyone is the same or produces offspring, genius.
>appealing to biology
That doesn't seem very Mr. A-ish. What if I'm a rapist and I blame my "inner instincts"? Would he forgive me?
>I do believe Mr A should destroy those companies and people who push that evil yes.
HMMM. So Mr A would act to destroy the exact people you find to be evil and cannot accept, and would likely kill all the specific people and pet peeves you cannot stand.
Funny how that works.
It's fricking hilarious that he thinks he's not part of that equation.
Yes anon it’s almost as if individuals should feel empowered to stop the problems of the world and not simply defer to corrupt systems when they’re known to be corrupt. It’s almost as if ENOUGH individuals doing that can root out corruption and heal the system. Large systems naturally get corrupt and a solid way of allowing that corruption is to disenfranchise those who can change it by believing that fighting against it is wrong.
Then let’s push to have the website taken down anon, call hiro and let’s get this done
>i concede
I figured as much.
But 'individuals' are no longer an individual. They're multiple people with different ideas what's wrong and right. If everyone in the world feels empowered to stop problems (Is that ENOUGH) than they all find each other to be the problem and no one resolves anything because weighing one person's morality against the others is just a losing game.
Are you autistic, or are just deeply religious/conservative I'm guessing? I'm guessing it's hard for you to understand because your feefees say a certain thing is corrupt and can be changed, but someone else will feel opposite of you and having such an autistic mindset you go "People that think differently than me are LITERALLY EVIL." is the most supervillain-esque way of thinking one can have.
>but anyone who does after a child in a sexual manner DESERVES TO DIE
Could Mr. A even define what a child is? Half of the US thinks it's "legal" to frick a 16 year old. He would most likely reside in one of these states.
>thinks it's "legal"
There's no "thinks" about it nor question of its legality. It is legal. A is A.
Yeah, I suppose given the right circumstances Mr. A would defend pedophiles.
How could he possibly think aiding the distribution of CP is anything but a death sentence?
Nearly 300,000 minors — the vast majority of them girls — were legally married in the United States between 2000 and 2018. Some as young as 12. It is still legal in most of states. What is Mr. A's response? Killing the judges? Bombing the capitol?
Childbrides are still legal in most of US. He would remember a time when banging a 14 year old was not a big deal.
That would be moral relativism. Mr. A would have to kill himself.
No, you don't understand. Morals typical of my class and ethno-religious group at this particular point in history just happen to be objective ones. Everyone else who said this is just wrong tho.
He saved the ex-con because he paid his debt to society and therefore was completely innocent of wrongdoing. That’s literally what he told the man.
But what if the child consent?
>stolen bread out of sheer desperation and hunger
This literally never happens. In countries where it's even a remotely viable hypothetical, there's no bread to steal, and for countries that aren't in africa, there's safety nets that you have to be really, really stupid to net get "caught" by.
>NO ONE HAS EVER STOLEN FOOD OUT OF HUNGER!!!!!!!!
Like I said, a lot of Mr. A gays seem to be very wealthy, very privileged whitoids whose primary interest is watching COP LEGALLY MURDERS ENTITLED SHOPLIFTER compilations.
Does Mr A. take into consideration that the punishment should fit the crime?
It’s a fricking work of fiction anon, we know the people he goes after are guilt because it’s what the writer wants. I think it’s why he wrote an issue about an ex con who was almost goaded into committing crimes again being saved by Mr A because he didn’t want to fall back into that life. I don’t know why you can’t see that? Why are you so stringent about fictional violence being committed on fictional criminals?
You’ve never actually read it have you?
That sounds very logical. No nuance required. The nuance comes from identifying the guilty from the innocent. Does the victim ask for justice because the "guilty" commited a crime... or is it because it'll make the victim feel better to punish the someone?
-t. pedophile.
>Steve Ditko was too based for this world.
>Picrel
Ayn Rand shill
Stan Lee did a good job of keeping Rand out of Spider-Man, which was best for Lee, Ditko and ole’ Peter Parker.
I'm sick of people defending little teenage shitters saying
>Ohh they're just kids
Kids know what's good and what's not. And they should be punished for being shitty.
If you're willing to cross that line, you should be ready to be punished for it. It's your gamble.
>Kids know what's good and what's not.
Yes but their brains are underdeveloped and self-control is not intact. Like on a neurological level. Holding them to the same standard as adults is irrational.
No but teaching a child right and wrong is an adults duty, saying that a teenager that hurts and steals can’t be punished when every other form of punishment has been tried is telling them it’s OK to grow up like that. Some children will listen when you tell them the stove is hot and some will have to learn that by getting burnered. You’re doing no one, not even the offenders themselves, any favors by not enforcing a standard of civilized behavior even if it’s through corporal punishment. Its not great I know but just look at the world as it is today and tell me things are better with cities current “soft on crime” approach? You realize that the problems these people cause are ONLY felt by the working classes, and it seems like a great plan to MAKE things worse for us to keep us in line
Nobodies saying they shouldn't be punished.
But the severity of the punishment should differ obviously, it shouldn't be black or white. Corporal punishment is absurdly black and white. Do you think we should kill children for being dumb enough to steal a candybar? Who does that benefit? What about if they step on grass of a company that says 'Keep off the Grass'?
There was a whole shitty Star Trek episode on this for frick's sake.
The answer to fixing society isn't just being more militant with law enforcement, the same way the answer to a kid not doing well in school or studies isn't beat them up and belt them til they read.
We need to understand that we’re 8 billion hominids on a planet all pretending that we’re more evolved than we are. Yes this shit should be a case by case basis and I’m not talking about KILLING a kid for stealing or some shit but we need to find a balance with any of this. This job of dealing with kids should lie with the parents and if the parents can’t reason with the child through discussions or punishment by taking away things they enjoy, well then THAT’S where the corporal punishment would traditionally come in. Is it perfect? By no means but a real enforcement of family values on the society is where you should actually start, making a strong moral people means having strong families that can teach each other about right and wrong
Also can we no being Star Trek into this, we’re already discussing ONE decades old comic about what entertains in the 20th century thought about morals, let’s not bring another 20th century talking point into this. We’re literally a half century past that and in a much different societal and governmental make up
>mr A would kill you for being on a website that has bad stuff posted by anonymous 3rd parties
???
The thing I don't understand about objectivism is this: Who decides the objective morality? Each individual? Then doesn't it become subjective because everyone disagrees (also anarchy)? The strongest person who is able to enforce their idea of morality? Then morality is whatever they decide, and if they decide pedophilia and rape are a-ok then they are.
Literally yes. But if every single individual is deprived of using force, they have to come to a greater objective consensus and commit to that via a single entity they enable to use violence. It doesn't matter if people disagree if that's what the objective consensus is. That's the idea behind Objectivist morality.
Wait a second.. Sounds pretty collectivist to me!
I mean, this thread can't even figure out if Mr. A would even consider pedophilia a crime. What's the right age of consent to him? Is he going by federal or state standards? Would he stop someone from getting a child bride if it was legal?
Objectivism is israelite cultural poison designed to atomize the white race and make us easier to conquer.
Murray had a massive hate boner for Ayn Rand and was definitely never an Objectivist. Nice try tho you let everyone know how dumb nazis are.
Also Rand never identified as a libertarian. And she definitely wasn't an ancap like Rothbard.
Rothbard was not an ancap, he was a paleolibertarian
It has to do with Arestotel and the law of identity. Meaning everything has a definite nature based on it's characteristics. A is A (which is where Mr. A's name comes from) so you can tell if something is good or evil based on it's characteristics, basically the same laws that govern logic can and should be applied to morality or at least that's what Rand and Ditko thought.
It's obvious to us that morality must be subjective by simple fact of moral disagreement, but a moral objectivist actually believes there is a measurable physical property of rightness and wrongness. That something being good or evil is like it being round or weighing ten pounds.
That there's no actual way to measure the property they claim to exist doesn't seem to matter to them, they'll usually just claim an arbitrary standard and assume anyone that disagrees is just lying.
The standard is actually simple and straightforward, if you want to measure if your given action is wrong or not.
You only need to ask yourself one question.
Would you be fine if it was done to you?
Anon if you genuinely think the answer to that question is identical from person to person there's no helping you
>implying I have claimed that
Nobody's else answer will change whatever you yourself are a hypocrite or not.
I don't fully agree with objectivists for the reasons written here
But I agree that somebody's morality can be measured to an objective standard
>they have done something they'd fine with it being done to them
>they have done something they'd not be fine with it being done to them
In the Bible, the first standard that God will use to judge you will be your own.
>I didn't claim that!
Then why the frick did you quote me?
>I disagree with objectivism because (random shit unrelated to whether objectivism is correct)
Ok?
>Morality can be measured by an objective standard
Which is inherently arbitrary and also your system is shit on its face. If I'm ok getting punched because I'm a masochist it's ok for me to punch people? Literally no rational person accepts that standard.
>MUH GOD
lol
>masochist
As expected from a likely leftist ranting on objectivists, you attempt hair splitting and mental gymnastics with something very simple. Let me lay it down for you.
So, you yourself are fine with being punched, because you yourself like it due to own masochism.
So, you wouldn't want to be punched if you weren't wired in a way that makes it pleasurable but highly unpleasant.
So, you wouldn't want to be treated in a highly unpleasant way for no good reason
So, you shouldn't treat others in a highly unpleasant way for no good reason.
So, you shouldn't punch others just because you are a masochist, because this action has a different impact on you, and you wouldn't be fine with it if it was otherwise.
It's a straightforward standard that covers everything. Although, not a one that can really be implemented without an all-knowing God. This is why the secular justice system in developed nations operates on the idea of a statistical reasonable citizen who wouldn't want to be murdered, robbed, etc. Which is why they have agreed with other citizens to not do such things to them as well. But said statistical citizen can have different view regarding stuff like "for how many years would be just to put in prison, if I stole such and such amount of money", which can differ due to the culture of a local majority. It's a democratic solution to the problem.
The prevailing morality and justice system as it exists today didn't come up overnight. It is just that some people prefer to feign and spread ignorance about it, for their own rather obvious reasons.
>it's a straightforward standard, I just have to twist it 5 different ways and make massive assumptions about every other human being on the planet!
Doesn't sound like it's straightforward or consistent at all, it just sounds like you're kind of stupid and haven't thought this through or read word one of the hundreds of years of moral philosophy.
>law is morality!
Incorrect.
>no counterargument, just insults
Frustration and anger are responses in face of something causing our desires not to come to fruition. I'd prefer you to grow as a person and be more mature about it, but I will never feel obligated to be sorry for your desires during our conversation being denied.
>law is morality
Never said that, even in the most ideal civilized countries. It's an imperfect solution, but the best one we imperfect people can have.
You sound like someone that desperately wants to be a pastor but lacks the base humanity to do the job, substituting condescension for empathy.
If you don't have any answer to the fact that you had to create a bunch of changes to your "simple and objective" standard or the multiple counterexamples you can just stop posting, no one is going to be surprised that you failed to defend religion-based moral objectivism (because it's literally not possible to do so, it by definition requires faith)
>that counterexample doesn't work because I made up caveats post-hoc!
lol
lmao
you already lost but how about another counterexample
I would be ok if someone gave me an abortion. Does that mean providing abortions are moral?
Do you understand how trying to ground an objective moral system in arbitrary and differing personal opinions is stupid?
>I'd be fine with abortion
God will know if you are lying here or not. Not for me to judge you here because it is beyond my ability.
But in secular laws? US laws? Pro abortionists did not use legislature to impose their morality over the entire country, only their activists among the judges.
Maybe you live in a happy California where you are apparently also fine with being knowingly infected with HIV (wishing on every such person to get what they themselves want, as long they don't demand from feds to cover their treatment costs), but we all know you don't represent the entire country. And currently, States decide for themselves, which is the situation I approve.
to add, re morality of abortion when you say you'd be fine
let's not be overlooked it is something you can say only when it is already know that abortion won't happen to you
>let's not be overlooked it is something you can say only when it is already know that abortion won't happen to you
this is absolute nonsense
you are forcing yourself to believe wild bullshit like "every human being on the planet agrees with me and is just lying about it" and "the only people ok with abortion are people that can't have them" just to hold on to your obviously incorrect beliefs.
You're starting with the answer you want and then working backward to these crazy and obviously incorrect assumptions instead of starting with observations and drawing conclusions.
>my only response to a legitimate question of moral disagreement (whether abortion is moral) is to assume you are lying to me
Then you don't have a single leg to stand on. If your only answer to moral ambiguity is "actually everyone has the same answer they're just all lying because I dunno why" then you need to re-evaluate your belief system.
>in laws?
We've established that morality and law are not the same thing, bringing up the law has no bearing on this conversation. You claimed a form of moral objectivism based on a standard you set was correct - you need to actually defend that belief not appeal to the law or culture war bullshit.
>You must love HIV!
Ahh, there's no hate like Christian "love."
This is not how Jesus would behave.
>Jesus
Jesus expects from me to tell wrongdoers why they do wrong, so God wouldn't hold me accountable for their ignorance.
Tell us why anyone would be pro allowing to spread HIV if they themselves wouldn't want to be infected. I love people, and I wish them all they themselves apparently want. I still warn them that this will result in waking up with a headache, not my fault they don't listen.
And see
You are making a statement in a highly convenient situation. I am not saying you do lie, but I have no reasonable grounds to believe you either. It is like a billionaire with a wealth of Soros telling small shop owners they should allow shoplifting. I'd like them to tell me the percentage of own wealth they'd fine with constantly losing.
But if you want to examine yourself further, imagine a situation where you can press a button that can change the history and cause your abortion. Food for thought.
>Jesus expects from me to tell wrongdoers why they do wrong
You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
>Tell us why anyone would be pro allowing to spread HIV
lol what the frick are you even talking about now? Are you lost? Is english not your first language?
>I'm not calling you a liar, just relying on the implication that you are definitely lying to justify my belief system as otherwise it would crumble
Neat.
>imagine a less expensive and physically traumatic form of abortion, not so great now is it?
lmao you're completely divorced from humanity.
>You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
And this is applicable in a situation of me telling people that the given action is wrong and advising against doing it, because...? I don't practice abortion (though I'm simplifying my personal stance here, but you don't want to talk laws), so there is no hypocrisy when I say why others shouldn't either. I merely share my honest advice.
>more inhumane
What, are you suddenly not fine with getting aborted back when you were small enough to get aborted? Some problems with the obviously not realistic idea of being able to put money into your mouth? With your talk not being cheap? Well, if you have objections with my proposed hypothetical situation where there are stakes attached to your declaration, you are free to propose your own.
I have said my piece. I believe it is pretty obvious that you have a problem with the idea of people not doing to others what they wouldn't want to be done to themselves, which is among the oldest known moral standards. A well-known rule. A silver one, even. And yet, you put plenty of energy against it.
I leave your evidently strong motive open to speculations.
>how is a message not to judge because you are also guilty and always will be applicable to me judging people I've never met?
lmao you're a terrible christian
>more inhumane
So now you're just making shit up and pretending I said it?
I literally said your scenario is BETTER, not worse. It would be BETTER if there were just a button to press to perform an abortion instead of the actual surgical procedure.
God damn, son, you need to learn how to read.
>you have a problem with the golden rule!
You set forth that rule as an evident, simple, and objective standard for morality. It meets none of those bars. I'm not saying it's a bad rule to have, I'm saying it clearly is not objective or simple or complete. That you can't seem to tell the difference makes me believe you don't really understand what those words mean and lack a functional understanding of the english language and the basics of moral philosophy.
If I had to guess I'd say you're very young and very homeschooled.
>I'm going to run away now because this conversation is making me uncomfortable
Ok.
>I love people!
I don't think you know what love is
>You are making a statement in a highly convenient situation.
Ironic, as there is no more convenient a group to advocate for than the unborn.
They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
Very silly metric.
Most people would fail this miserably if the race, religion, or gender of the person having something done to them was different from their own. By the metric of moral objectivism, that would mean that most people are evil.
Um, no?
I want a thicc lady in latex to put me in diapers and a goofy wolfsuit to stroke me and call me her diaperpuppy, that doesn't make it morally right. I don't want to become a lawyer or doctor but having that done to someone doesn't make it morally wrong.
Also what the other person said about different gender/race.
Univeralism was already disproven long long ago.
that anon got BTFO and ran away hours ago
I can assure you and most people on this board would come up with dozens of reasons why you should like a woman or black suffer from something they wouldn't want to have happen to themselves personally. If people really believed in "Do Unto Others", we wouldn't have places like Cinemaphile.
Stop projecting chud.
To an objectivist this question isn't well formed. It's like asking "who decides what the correct theory of gravity is?" No one decides, it just is what it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges
Did Mr A feature a hefty amount of pedophilia and I missed it? Who's projection got us here?
We're discussing how Mr. A would fight pedophilia. So far the consensus is "he'd probably be okay with it", which is not good.
Why are you homosexuals holding the standards to these conversations to current, contemporary Western, beliefs?
Not even that. Most of the western world has age of consent below 18. 16 is the more or less the norm in euroland with some dipping into 14. It's more of a "standards americans pretend to have".
>18 isnt even the right age of consent
>16 is more "rational"
>but 14 is good too
Moral relativism in a nutshell lmao
Glad we all agree that age championed by 20th century feminists is the right one and everyone who lived before that was a chud shitlord.
>w-we can't frick children now because of WOKE
Why are pedophiles like this?
It's funny because greeks fricked boys!
Who gives a shit? Are you that jealous of a bunch of moronic savages fricked children?
Where the frick did these puritanical moralgays who think fricking someone above the aoc in most of the civilised world is "pedo" come from? They make way too much effort to just be trolling.
Zoomers who don't wish to grow up not experience any accountability.
Drinking alcohol is evil,
you're literally poisoning your body and letting go of decency and control.
Rape is evil,
Having children locked into life-long contracts they can't comprehend is evil.
Throughout history, it seems that by the age of 16 you'd be considered fit enough to fall under adult roles. Men would enlist, women would be married to someone. In the modern (or post modern I'm not sure), the age was raised to 18 (most likely due to the new schooling system). Now we have people advocating for a further raise into the mid 20s.
The brain only completes it's development at 25 years of age, but the reproductive systems are already working at around 14.
We are not animals, so I assume we can agree that a 14~15 year old is not mature enough, and doesn't have enough life experience to be a good parent (although this could still be argued with older subjects). But 25 + years of experimenting hits too close to 30, which isn't good for reproductive reasons.
So what is the answer? When are you an adult?
>We are not animals, so I assume we can agree that a 14~15 year old is not mature enough, and doesn't have enough life experience to be a good parent
That's why traditionaly children were raised by a multigenerational household. Your parents were supported by their parents, siblings, aunts, grandparents cousins and so on. One was bound to know what they were doing.
This still happens in some cultures.
And before that we ("White" Westerners) had that with tribes being fairly united.
Which is something that was completely lost when people abandoned Sunday Church and overall neighborhood activities, which is a shame. I wish we culturally returned to the idea of respecting and loving your neighbors, but I can speak from experience that there are a lot of shitty neighbors out there. And I could also do better, I don't welcome people into the neighborhood myself.
Guys.
Objectivists you complain about were atheists trying to argue that morality can exist without God.
In case of the OP, the idea that mercy is at expense of the victim is also recognized by Christianity, in which it is compared to a debt forgiveness.
Only Christianity makes a point that you likely owe God a debt as well, so you better be forgiving about those who owe you if you want God to forgive what you owe Him.
Atheism doesn't really have a rationale for mercy. Your debt is unpaid, and there is no all-knowing entity you owe anything. Forgiving debts is straight out letting yourself be ripped off, for no reason nor benefit.
>Objectivists you complain about were atheists trying to argue that morality can exist without God.
Kant already tried that. And Ayn Rand hates Kant.
Never got the hype.
Indeed!
This was the original captain Atom? He looks much better as a silver guy who's naked except for boots and gloves, but it's a shame that DC does nothing good with him anymore.
>Trading Card Comic
oh brother, that sounds like a terrible idea
It kinda is today. But back than with trading card collicting a good business model.
>This was the original captain Atom?
The original was red and yellow.
It's also the best.
Yes, Captain Atom chamged the costume over time.
Did you kmow that Steve Ditko made some Trading Card Comic called Dark Dominion.
You know, just because in the spur of the moment I think a pickpocket should be raped and hanged for taking my wallet it doesnt mean I should be entertained.
Did you know Ditko drew for Atlas Comics?
And Archie Comics!
And Tower Comics.
And Dell comics.
Did you know that Steve Ditko made S/M porn comics under the name of Eric Stanton?
Who is Brett Stanton then?
A Baseball coach? Honestly could be another pseudonym. Does that person exist?
You forgot Shade.
I have a few of these. They're fricking WILD.
Looks wild.
Ditko was wild.
But he isolated himself. Maybe he had to fo that because of
He's right.
This is the most boring comic I've ever forced myself to read.
I really love Ditkos horror stories have they ever been collected?
Like a big, fully complete collection? I don't think so. There's a variety of selected collections out there though, both old and new. I've seen some good ones with Craig Yoe as the editor. A lot of old Charlton titles are hanging around on places like libgen too, if you're willing to dig.
What's the source of this specific page? I want to read the full story
Charlton Premiere #4
>Not in the digital comic museum or comic book plus
>found it on read comics online
wack
Either way, love the art plus charlton's comics always had such unique lettering.
DCP and CB+ both deal with public domain comics, most Charlton titles don't qualify.
Alright, I've decided to storytime this motherfricker to settle the matter once and for all. Shall I do it here while the thread still lives or should I make a new one?
Make a new one.
I will.
What if the victim is the one granting mercy though? Forgiving someone who wronged you when you have the option to destroy them is a power move.
We are all guilty. We all need mercy.
>make a hero who is supposed to be an ideal hero who rejects moral grey areas
>end up with an incredibly morally ambiguous hero
its like pottery
Mr. A would make a fantastic villain.
These threads are just an excuse for Cinemaphile political trolls to pretend they believe in moral absolutism.
Still better than any cartoon and live action thread.