He’s a dictator, he has no fellowship, no countrymen or race, and everyone who follows him is scared shitless or worships him as some bringer of… rings I guess.
Dictators have but one fate and that’s uh, a sneaky hobbit throwing your hard work down a fiery toilet.
He routinely tortures his captives, and is a known warmonger. He has tried to enslave the world multiple times, and bend them to his will because of a misguided desire for order.
Oh i guess, genghis khan was evil. alexander the great too, practically every king that ruled outside europe before democracy was evil. This moronic interpretation of how to rule is so juvenile.
Yeah, they were evil. Conquerors are evil little shits who only care about pillaging and subjugating for the sake of their own ego."I do it for the people" is populist bullshit they spout to legitimize themselves.
>Yeah, they were evil. Conquerors are evil little shits who only care about pillaging and subjugating for the sake of their own ego."I do it for the people" is populist bullshit they spout to legitimize themselves.
>genghis khan was evil. alexander the great too, practically every king that ruled outside europe before democracy was evil
YES, & the world was infinitely better, more vital & alive, for it all
>Oh i guess, genghis khan was evil
Oh yes, absolutely. He and his descendants were so fricking evil it boggles the mind. Try reading about history and what they did to captured cities. They would literally torture children to death for fun, those who were not lucky enough to simply have their heads cut off before or after being raped by them. The reverence of Genghis and his sons is absolutely fricking bizarre, but I guess they get a pass because they were not white.
And you think alexander the great didn't diddle boys or was better in his conquests? Evil is a comparison that falls apart when talking about the past because it presupposes absence of suffering with absence of evil. The truth is that the impact of evil is a zero sum game, a little evil here benefits someone else there, so there's really no objective way of talking about its desirability or whether such an idealistic concept exists.
>didn't diddle boys
Nothing like that is recorded. Still, it would be incomparably better than what the Mongols did to conquered cities, and especially the children. Oh, they also tortured toddlers, burning them alive etc. in front of their parents. Because they enjoyed it. >or was better in his conquests
Yes. There are a couple of records of him wrecking cities after conquest, but nothing compared to the bloodlust and tortures of the Mongols. >Evil is a comparison that falls apart when talking about the past because it presupposes absence of suffering with absence of evil. The truth is that the impact of evil is a zero sum game, a little evil here benefits someone else there, so there's really no objective way of talking about its desirability or whether such an idealistic concept exists.
Oh, you're one of those people. Never mind.
what people lmao, if you can't even talk about evil philosophically why are you arguing about it, this is a serious philosophical problem and to reduce it to evil is le bad and you are one of those people is moronic. Alexander the great is evil to some people while genghis khan was heroic to others, its not a universal fact that is written in stone, look at how hitler is worshipped on this very website that you love to frequent?
>And you think alexander the great didn't diddle boys or was better in his conquests?
Yes, the accounts tell that he mostly took a few female Concubines (maybe slept with his own men according to some sources). With his numbers and rate of advance he wouldn't have stuck around in one place long enough to have committed such acts, none of the contemporary spices claim that he did there either. >Evil is a comparison that falls apart when talking about the past because it presupposes absence of suffering with absence of evil.
There has always been suffering and always will be to some extent. The presuppositions are all from psueds like yourself. >The truth is that the impact of evil is a zero sum game, a little evil here benefits someone else there, so there's really no objective way of talking about its desirability
What about a lot of evil? There are lots of acts of evil that benefit no one, and if they do it is from petty short term satisfaction. There are many ways to talk about the desirabily of actions froma religious or utilitarian point of view. >or whether such an idealistic concept exists.
All concepts exist as thougts through human interaction. Does money exist, does a perfect circle exist? Your just a fricking idiot.
You talk about truth but you measure it from a pathetic athiest viewpoint of teenage nihilism.your shit about net sum evil is the equivelent of bike cuck. Your a midwit psued who believes in nothing but yourself. Go dialate on a spike.
You know, I just don't get the same satisfaction out of making Tolkiengays cry as I used to. Am I growing up?
Amazon producing the rings of power produced more seething than you could possibly conjure. After that you can't really top it.
You can't even spell pseud, atheist and your correctly, go hug a transformer you moronic esl christcuck homosexual.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Spelling corrections, the trademark defence of a mental midget. You call me a homosexual, but how is that even an insult, unless you align with a moral framework thatdetermines that as negative or say, evil?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Learn how to spell first then talk about philosophy.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Nah, don't feel like it Satan. Only a mental midget like yourself gets hung up on spelling mistakes.
The ring getting randomly cut off in a stroke of luck is a movie only invention. In the book he gets defeated by chad Elendil and Gil Galad and Isildur cuts it from his defeated body.
>'I have to be a boss' >fails >'WTF? Why did men do this to me??'
Why the absolute frick did men who'd sent their sons to die in the First World War concede the vote to these people?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Pussy makes people do stupid shit.
8 months ago
Anonymous
But these were parliamentarians in their fifties and sixties—what pussy were they getting?
It's not just women. The whole Twitter generation are hopelessly ignorant. There was a video clip of a police academy graduation where the graduates were marching single-file and a lot of the comments were wtf-are-they-robots. They don't know what marching is.
>does sauron have a dick?
Sauron could shapeshift into anything before God decided he was being too efficient at the whole dark lord thing by convincing his favourite humans into invading heaven so really it was up to him. Afterwards his body was destroyed and he can't do that anymore >does he frick b***hes?
No he's a high functioning hyper autist >what does he like to do when he's not being evil?
Sit in his tower
I've recently been awoken to the fact that japs are literally just chinks in terms of mentality. It's insane that they've managed to fool the world into thinking they are civilized. They have no empathy, they are notorious liars, they have the same collectivist bugmen mentality, they don't care about morality, just about being found out and shamed.
Ive always wondered whether the bombs would have sparked a Japanese surrender if the were dropped on the IJA in China. But then you get into the question of , is it ethical to nuke an enemy inside occupied friendly territory. Thoughts anon?
>why doesn't villain have some redeeming qualities? >morally gray >he's doing it for his family >sympathetic motivations >"We're not so different you and I" speech
They never mention his tax policy, though we know from the books and movies that his immigration policy was worse than the Biden regime, he had Easterlings come in by the millions.
Idk looks pretty evil to me bro
Getting old Gurm
He’s a dictator, he has no fellowship, no countrymen or race, and everyone who follows him is scared shitless or worships him as some bringer of… rings I guess.
Dictators have but one fate and that’s uh, a sneaky hobbit throwing your hard work down a fiery toilet.
>the author said so
That is how writing works, fricko.
We killed the author a long time ago b***h
He routinely tortures his captives, and is a known warmonger. He has tried to enslave the world multiple times, and bend them to his will because of a misguided desire for order.
Oh i guess, genghis khan was evil. alexander the great too, practically every king that ruled outside europe before democracy was evil. This moronic interpretation of how to rule is so juvenile.
Yeah, they were evil. Conquerors are evil little shits who only care about pillaging and subjugating for the sake of their own ego."I do it for the people" is populist bullshit they spout to legitimize themselves.
>Yeah, they were evil. Conquerors are evil little shits who only care about pillaging and subjugating for the sake of their own ego."I do it for the people" is populist bullshit they spout to legitimize themselves.
The ones in Europe were shit people too
>genghis khan was evil. alexander the great too, practically every king that ruled outside europe before democracy was evil
YES, & the world was infinitely better, more vital & alive, for it all
>Oh i guess, genghis khan was evil
Oh yes, absolutely. He and his descendants were so fricking evil it boggles the mind. Try reading about history and what they did to captured cities. They would literally torture children to death for fun, those who were not lucky enough to simply have their heads cut off before or after being raped by them. The reverence of Genghis and his sons is absolutely fricking bizarre, but I guess they get a pass because they were not white.
And you think alexander the great didn't diddle boys or was better in his conquests? Evil is a comparison that falls apart when talking about the past because it presupposes absence of suffering with absence of evil. The truth is that the impact of evil is a zero sum game, a little evil here benefits someone else there, so there's really no objective way of talking about its desirability or whether such an idealistic concept exists.
Your post is evil
>didn't diddle boys
Nothing like that is recorded. Still, it would be incomparably better than what the Mongols did to conquered cities, and especially the children. Oh, they also tortured toddlers, burning them alive etc. in front of their parents. Because they enjoyed it.
>or was better in his conquests
Yes. There are a couple of records of him wrecking cities after conquest, but nothing compared to the bloodlust and tortures of the Mongols.
>Evil is a comparison that falls apart when talking about the past because it presupposes absence of suffering with absence of evil. The truth is that the impact of evil is a zero sum game, a little evil here benefits someone else there, so there's really no objective way of talking about its desirability or whether such an idealistic concept exists.
Oh, you're one of those people. Never mind.
what people lmao, if you can't even talk about evil philosophically why are you arguing about it, this is a serious philosophical problem and to reduce it to evil is le bad and you are one of those people is moronic. Alexander the great is evil to some people while genghis khan was heroic to others, its not a universal fact that is written in stone, look at how hitler is worshipped on this very website that you love to frequent?
>And you think alexander the great didn't diddle boys or was better in his conquests?
Yes, the accounts tell that he mostly took a few female Concubines (maybe slept with his own men according to some sources). With his numbers and rate of advance he wouldn't have stuck around in one place long enough to have committed such acts, none of the contemporary spices claim that he did there either.
>Evil is a comparison that falls apart when talking about the past because it presupposes absence of suffering with absence of evil.
There has always been suffering and always will be to some extent. The presuppositions are all from psueds like yourself.
>The truth is that the impact of evil is a zero sum game, a little evil here benefits someone else there, so there's really no objective way of talking about its desirability
What about a lot of evil? There are lots of acts of evil that benefit no one, and if they do it is from petty short term satisfaction. There are many ways to talk about the desirabily of actions froma religious or utilitarian point of view.
>or whether such an idealistic concept exists.
All concepts exist as thougts through human interaction. Does money exist, does a perfect circle exist? Your just a fricking idiot.
You talk about truth but you measure it from a pathetic athiest viewpoint of teenage nihilism.your shit about net sum evil is the equivelent of bike cuck. Your a midwit psued who believes in nothing but yourself. Go dialate on a spike.
Amazon producing the rings of power produced more seething than you could possibly conjure. After that you can't really top it.
You can't even spell pseud, atheist and your correctly, go hug a transformer you moronic esl christcuck homosexual.
Spelling corrections, the trademark defence of a mental midget. You call me a homosexual, but how is that even an insult, unless you align with a moral framework thatdetermines that as negative or say, evil?
Learn how to spell first then talk about philosophy.
Nah, don't feel like it Satan. Only a mental midget like yourself gets hung up on spelling mistakes.
>genghis khan was evil. alexander the great too, practically every king that ruled
>before democracy was evil
NOW you understand
>>Oh i guess, genghis khan was evil
Pretty much every single one of his contemporaries said so...
>Oh i guess, genghis khan was evil. alexander the great too
Now you're getting it.
okay but were not talking about the USA here
All the elf rape?
why not put the ring under the gauntlet
Because he's black*
i wish they gave more screen time to the insanely cute shota hot boys in the tv series
Finish the book fatty
>metaphor this metaphor that
pretentious virgin social outcast yammering his mind-canon
Melkor did nothing wrong. Just because he was sigma doesn't mean he's evil. Eru and the other valar made him evil.
The orcs just needed opportunity zones and everything would've turned out fine.
You know, I just don't get the same satisfaction out of making Tolkiengays cry as I used to. Am I growing up?
We never cried, delusional homosexual.
Sure you didn't. That's my big boy.
>that grammar
The fricking irony.
umad?
He definitely had a hand in numenor being obliterated tho.
he's got allllllll that armor on but the one that makes him godlike is a stupid unprotected ring that can get cut off
bravo Tolkien
The ring getting randomly cut off in a stroke of luck is a movie only invention. In the book he gets defeated by chad Elendil and Gil Galad and Isildur cuts it from his defeated body.
He's charged with using Palantir without a permit
This thread has made me quit Cinemaphile
But you're still there
/LOTR/cels... it's over dudes...
Women-aren't-moronic-children bros, our response??
REEEEE
>You have to be a boss
>You have to lead
>You have to be a career woman
Who's telling them this? No man I know wants a 'boss b***h' for a wife.
Other women or maybe themselves
>'I have to be a boss'
>fails
>'WTF? Why did men do this to me??'
Why the absolute frick did men who'd sent their sons to die in the First World War concede the vote to these people?
Pussy makes people do stupid shit.
But these were parliamentarians in their fifties and sixties—what pussy were they getting?
She literallt described how it feels to be a man in modern society.
The moronic childish parts are from a man. The grey highlighted parts are the woman.
stupid prostitute
It's not just women. The whole Twitter generation are hopelessly ignorant. There was a video clip of a police academy graduation where the graduates were marching single-file and a lot of the comments were wtf-are-they-robots. They don't know what marching is.
All those that use steel and bread to conquer do not make the world a more vital and alive place.
based
the gay writing to her sounds like the most moronic nerdy subhuman dumbass
who the frick asks if someone's name is taken from some random book
charge your phone
does sauron have a dick? does he frick b***hes? what does he like to do when he's not being evil?
He's always being evil. Satanity is a full-time job.
>does sauron have a dick?
Sauron could shapeshift into anything before God decided he was being too efficient at the whole dark lord thing by convincing his favourite humans into invading heaven so really it was up to him. Afterwards his body was destroyed and he can't do that anymore
>does he frick b***hes?
No he's a high functioning hyper autist
>what does he like to do when he's not being evil?
Sit in his tower
You will never be a woman.
Are you going to tell us his tax policy yet?
that is how fiction works, yes
Death of the author
japs deserved it though
shouldn't have been an imperialist shithole murdering millions across asia
>keeping chinks in line
>bad
I've recently been awoken to the fact that japs are literally just chinks in terms of mentality. It's insane that they've managed to fool the world into thinking they are civilized. They have no empathy, they are notorious liars, they have the same collectivist bugmen mentality, they don't care about morality, just about being found out and shamed.
The bombs were dropped on civilians.
*on japs
Ive always wondered whether the bombs would have sparked a Japanese surrender if the were dropped on the IJA in China. But then you get into the question of , is it ethical to nuke an enemy inside occupied friendly territory. Thoughts anon?
Middle Earth would have thrived under Sauron's leadership
>book is mostly told from the point of view of those who oppose him
>he's described as evil
Wow mindboggling
never forget they made Sauron's key motivation incel rage after being turned down by Galadriel
Villain is evil for simple reasons because the story is not about him.
>why doesn't villain have some redeeming qualities?
>morally gray
>he's doing it for his family
>sympathetic motivations
>"We're not so different you and I" speech
They never mention his tax policy, though we know from the books and movies that his immigration policy was worse than the Biden regime, he had Easterlings come in by the millions.