>Be me
>Be a Pessimistic Misanthropic Nihilist who hates humanity
>"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! DON'T LIE TO PEOPLERINO!!!!!!!!!! THEY DESERVE TO KNOW THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!! I CAN'T LIE AHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
It's just a small lie you fricking right-wing moron.
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
>sees world in black/white
>Voight murdered millions of people
Simple as you libtard homosexual.
Because deep down he cared a lot
No, he cared about being right, regardless of the lives it would cost
>Biggest atrocity in the history of mankind
>Small Lie
Read the book again, anon
>New York’s population is annihilated
>biggest atrocity of mankind
Read a history book
>Death of millions in an instant
>Not the worst atrocity ever
Yes, unironically. At least they all died instantly and didn’t have to suffer for months on end due to an invading army or an incurable pestilence
>At least they all died instantly
At the very, very, VERY least you piece of shit!
guess what anon? they never lived in the first place
Veidt talks about how the psychic impact of it drives people mad, so that the extraterrestrial story fits better. People nearby who survived the blast will suffer for the rest of their lives from it
15 million people in NYC 1985. Name a bigger unjustified atrocity.
World war 1.
World war 2.
Colonization of America.
British caused famines in India.
The taiping rebbelion.
Great famine of China.
The institution of marriage.
Slavery.
>>New York’s population is annihilated
Wait, this is a bad thing?
Why didn't he just pretend to go along with Veidt so he could stay alive and then later whistle blow the whole thing?
Because he’s actually canonically moronic
He knew Veidt would see right through it.
Did you frickers not read the comic? He did whistleblow the whole thing
>reading comic books
tourist spotted
Sure, ahead of time. Lying wouldn't have saved his life and he knew that too
The real plot-hole is: how did Dr Manhattan not know about Rorschach's diary?
With Manhattan there are two layers of knowing. He knew about the diary but had no incentive to react because he would learn about it in the future. He can see the strings but he's still bound to them.
>He knew about the diary but had no incentive to react
He had incentive to kill Rorschach but no incentive to destroy the journal?
Rorschach was threatening to talk to Manhattan in real time. He knew he would kill Rorschach right then but didn't know about the journal. He can't act on futures he sees. He can mention them casually but that's it. Like when he knew that Silk Spectre was pregnant but was shocked when she told him even though he had told her earlier.
>He can't act on futures he sees. He can mention them casually but that's it
In that case, why didn't he casually mention Rorschach's journal to Veidt or the others, so that someone other than Dr. Manhattan can act regarding the journal?
Manhattan only has limited omniscience at best. He has awareness of his own timeline - that’s it. He leaves for another galaxy before Rorschach’s journal is discovered. This is one among many reasons that the HBO show is deeply, deeply moronic.
Ahh that's right I forgot he fricked off. He would never know about Rorschach's journal.
In the comic he gives Veidt a shit eating little grin before he Poochies off to wherever. He absolutely fricking knew.
>go to Cinemaphile
>cry about people not reading comics when discussing a movie
>go to thread about the movie adaptation of a comic
>without having read the comic
>act like you know shit or your opinion matters
it was in the movie too
>moments women will never understand
Because the blue man group live not in the past but in every single moment of his life at the same time.
because he could not even accept the reality.
he saw his friends, the so called heroes agree on hiding a fricking genocide in front his eyes.
his mind could not calcolate anymore
He understood what Veidt did and that it saved billions at the cost of millions but he could not allow himself to stay silent and could not possibly remain silent about it while he lived. Basically, he wanted to be killed with those people so that he wouldn't make the sacrifice vain.
Why did Manhattan kill him, knowing that the plan was doomed to fail anyway?
Manhattan was a moronic cuck who had no idea what to do and had absolutely zero free will
Manhattan was going to kill him no matter what.
>a man so dedicated to hunting evil that he thinks he's only real when he's wearing the mask
>a man so outspoken and dedicated that he keeps playing superhero even after his very existence is made illegal and the police begin to hunt him
Tell me anon, would a man like that bite his tongue when he watches the closest things he has to friends decide that they're willing to let millions die without justice? Rorschach was a lot of things, but meek wasn't one of them. Motherfricker was self righteous and outspoken to a fault.
Frog anon here. All good replies, thanks.
This one stood out to me
Because that’s how it starts. You become complicit once and your resolve begins to weaken
>why didn't he just lie so that he could prove that lying wasn't the right thing to do
You and everyone agreeing with you share a total of maybe 5 or 6 brain cells
Crazy white man
It wasn't about the lie it was about that other thing. You know the whole killing millions of people thing.
So, we all agree that OP is a israelite, right?
No, but you definitely are.
>>Be me
>>Be a Pessimistic Misanthropic Nihilist who hates humanity
Truthfulness in all things as without truth you are nothing.
He's not a nihilist, far from it actually.
Because Veidt building a new world order based on killing of millions and using it to manipulate and deceive humanity is a slippery slope and a dark foundation to build a utopia on.
It only became a slippery slop because Rorschach is an autist who can’t grasp any nuance in ethics and just had to donate his journal to a news outlet
There is no nuance in ethics. The concept of grey morality is always used as a justification for evil acts and never for good. It is never morally grey to hold the door open for someone else or to help someone carry their groceries to their car. People who want morality to be nuanced want it to be nuanced because they want to do evil things and say they're right because they did them in the name of good.
Life isn’t a cartoon, sorry
It takes less effort to do the right thing than it takes to make up a bunch of excuses and do the wrong thing. The reason you go through the effort to do the wrong thing is because you want to cause harm to others and feel good about it. You will create whatever coping mechanism in your head to justify this.
If it takes less effort to do the right thing, doesn’t that mean you don’t really think about issues and you just default to whatever feels right ?
Doing the wrong thing requires you to justify to yourself that it's right, so you have to fabricate excuses for it in your head, and preform your wrongdoings in an obtuse way so that your actions don't cause you guilt down the line.
Sure that’s one way to use your head, but you’re acting as if some ethical problems don’t require any critical thinking to solve properly
There isn't a single good deed you could do that would require you justifying it to yourself beforehand. You're trying to find a gap in this because you don't want to accept that you want to do bad things and call them good.
So you never consider the positive outcomes of your actions? That’s actually moronic
It's been 2 or 3 comments where you're just putting words in my mouth because you're too busy trying to find a way to misconstrue my words to actually read the sentences in my posts.
Explain to me how
> There isn't a single good deed you could do that would require you justifying it to yourself beforehand.
Doesn’t mean “you shouldn’t exercise any forethought when it comes to doing something good”
I'm not going to play into your semantic game of reconstructing sentences. I've stated what I mean in plain English, and I will give you absolutely no room to shift my words around so that you might weasel your way into arguing that I have stated things I haven't. You know and understand that what you are doing is dishonest.
Wow that’s a strong counter, I hope to god that you didn’t carefully consider your choice of words, which would require justifying to yourself that what you’re about to do is good, gotta be vigila-…I mean, gotta be good. Being good is good.
Words are well defined. When you take a sentence and rearrange/reword it so that the only original words that remain are "you", "it", "to", and "good", it loses all meaning. You do this because I'm not saying whatever it is you would like me to say in order for you to feel as if you've won something from this interaction.
Having your own logic used against you tends to happen when you act on impulse or trust your inner soul for all the answers. Like I once said, life isn’t a cartoon, ideas aren’t intrinsically tied to the way they’re expressed, shocking I know. Since this is the level we’re at, I’m not exactly winning anything from this interaction save a good time.
You go out of your way to misunderstand what others tell you because you would rather argue against a strawman than have an actual conversation. You're arguing nothing to no one. When confronted you have nothing to say but pithy remarks and that you're having a good time. Life isn't a cartoon. I don't think there's a single person on the face of the earth living outside a mental institution that believes that life is a cartoon. You're arguing with someone you made up in your head. You might as well go do it in the mirror, it'd be just as productive.
I gave you the opportunity to correct yourself and clarify your statement here:
But you didn’t because that would involve admitting you were wrong. Also don’t worry, your moronation is well beyond the bounds of anybody’s imagination. I couldn’t conceive of you if I tried
>I gave you the opportunity to correct yourself and clarify your statement here
My statement was correct and didn't need clarification.
Then explain how it doesn’t justify no forethought
I never mentioned "forethought".
kek I know you didn’t, just answer the question if your point still stands
It "doesn't justify no forethought" because "forethought" was never mentioned in the comment. You might as well be asking me "explain how it doesn't justify no chinese takeout". I think you misunderstand what justification is and you're mistaking it for thought in general.
Yes, I know you’re stupid and didn’t consider how “forethought” can be a justification for doing good. That’s probably why you didn’t mention it in your original replies, just a guess
Is English your second language?
No, I’m here to help, Don’t worry, abstract thinking is hard but we’ll pull through
You clearly don't understand what the words "justify" and "forethought" mean or how they would relate.
Enlighten me then
fore·thought
noun
careful consideration of what will be necessary or may happen in the future
jus·ti·fy
verb
show or prove to be right or reasonable
be a good reason for
Not that guy, but you are going to make a terrible parent. Please dont have kids. I've followed the entire chain of posts, and you've just been a snarky little nig. Why do you like to do bad things, anon? What good have your bad actions done?
I’ll be a terrible parent for carefully considering their upbringing? Duly noted
I appreciate that you will carefully consider it before beating and yelling at your children before doing it. Then, claiming it is a good thing.
It’s funny how you think careful consideration is inextricably linked with abuse. Oh you’re ensuring your pregnant wife doesn’t drink or consume drugs? That’s abusive sweaty
You're misconstruing words. Other people can as well. He said you dont need to justify good acts and that gray morality is an excuse for bad deeds for a greater good, which is neither good nor great.
Are you saying I don’t need to justify why my pregnant wife drinking is a bad thing? I don’t need to cite any statistics or any research, it’s all just a gut feeling?
>Are you saying the complete opposite of what you said?
no, I don't think he is
> you dont need to justify good acts
>does that mean I shouldn’t justify my good act
Yeah I’m sorry guys, I twisted his words, my bad
your pregnant wife drinking is a bad act
Yeah I agree, but is it bad to justify why it’s bad?
I don't understand why it is you're asking this question. Stopping your wife from drinking while pregnant isn't a good act, it's stopping a bad act. You're stopping your wife from giving your child fetal alcohol syndrome. You don't need to convince yourself that it's bad, you need to convince your wife that it's bad.
>preventing a bad thing isn’t necessarily a good thing(lol)
So much for black and white morality, I guess I should formally inform my partner of something I don’t even need to justify to myself or believe in. The only reason you know what “fecal alcohol syndrome” is because of rigorous research from accredited professionals who didn’t just do the simple good thing that was expected of them
I don't get why you're trying so hard not to understand.
>doing good is good
>doing bad is bad
>preventing bad is preventing bad
You frick shit up in your head because you think everything is more than it really is.
Not that guy, but that really depends on how you define “good deed” and the boundaries you establish for it. Say, for example, some homeless dude asks you for money, claiming it’s for food, and you give it to him. If it really *is* for food, then that’s pretty unambiguously a good deed, but what if it’s really for drugs? What if he scores later and ends up killing himself or someone else? Now your “good deed” has to begin and end with the act of charity, letting the bum shoulder the moral burden for his own deception and subsequent actions. That’s fair, but it still doesn’t change the fact that your actions indirectly lead to someone’s death.
You know - hell, pavement, good intentions and all that.
You're overcomplicating things just like I mention earlier. Muddying the issue (by trying to make it your responsibility what another person does with the money you've given them) is the type of coping method people use every day in order to not feel bad about their actions. It's human nature. You can't think yourself beyond it. Everyone does it even if they know about it. Filling your head with a bunch of "what ifs" instead of understanding the moment you're in. There's a reason it's called playing Devil's advocate.
Not an argument.
Nah, I’m just pointing out there’s a reason we have that saying. What seems good and right in the moment might not be good and right in the long run.
Nah you’re just a criminal justifying his sins. Checkmate
My point flew over your head. "Right in the long run" is always the justification that is used when atrocities are committed. Did you even bother to read the comment?
Yeah, I read it and I get where you’re coming from. I also happen to believe that in virtually every situation, there is an objectively right/good course of action. All I’m saying is that you can’t arrive at all of them without some degree of pondering.
>You’re overcomplicating the issue, I didn’t think this far ahead and neither should you
I’m sorry. Are you quoting yourself from some earlier post or are you actually saying that’s what you derived from mine?
I think he's the other guy.
Pondering isn't the same as justification. That's why I didn't mention the word in any of my post. We might even agree entirely but it's just lost in little misunderstandings.
What about when you genuinely don't know what the right action is?
God will tell you
moron
🙂
🙂
I was asking a general question.
You'll know because you'll know deep inside. You'd have doubts maybe, because all these malicious people might be putting their excuses in your head but at the end of the day if you're trying to justify doing something, odds are it's the wrong thing.
>god will tell you
yeah, HE will, GOD will, what the problem is gay?
The problem is that God has yet to strike me down for my homosexualry
He's giving you a lifetime to turn it around. Don't blame Him if you don't.
I’m sure we’ll have a nice chat when I die of anal cancer
pretty sure orchestrating the death of millions is never the right action anon
Nah. Red terror works.
Then you're moronic. The right decision requires zero thought.
There is no greater justification in the world for commiting evil than a believe in good. All of the worst atrocities in human history were caused by that mentality.
Most reddit opinion going.
If you mean correct, then yes.
Real good is simple. "Complex" good is usually a front.
>be hungry
>ask for food
>person gives you some of their food
>be hungry
>ask for food
>person steals food to give to you
>someone is killed or harmed in the process
>becomes self righteous about harming others for "good"
It's usually not even in question. Do you really think petty criminals justify themselves mentally? When it's mostly a question of survival, not much needs to be said or done.
You need to go up the chain before you actually encounter any serious degree of self justification. When you get to that level, justification is always based on a belief in some kind of universal good. The CIA, autocratitic dictactors, mafia, generals, politicians. All of them hustify themselves through black and white thinking.
>All of them hustify themselves through black and white thinking.
It's the complete opposite. That's not what black and white thinking is. They justify their actions by using morally gray thinking. The line of thought is "we can hurt these people for such and such reason and it's justified because we're good" it isn't "we are morally obligated to drop bombs on civilians, dropping bombs on civilians is the explicit reason we are good". If their morality were black and white it would mean that the unexpected consequences of their actions (like collateral damage) were actually intentional if not required. Morally gray mean that they conflate black and white.
Do you seriously think most people don't understand the consequence of their actions? People that drop bombs on civilians do so with the full acceptance of any death that might ensue. It's justified because they are the good people and the civilians are the bad ones.
You didn't understand my post because you've just reiterated what I said.
That's black and white thinking though, grey thinking woild be actually understanding your actions are bad but still believing they need to be done.
> grey thinking woild be actually understanding your actions are bad but still believing they need to be done
That's exactly what it is. The civilians that are collateral damage in a drone strike are not targets by definition. They believe that killing the target needs to be done, so they do it anyways. If it were black and white they'd be actively conducting a genocide.
? you mean to tell me that dictators operate on a «greater good» mentality? lmao. i don’t think they care that much about anything except themselves
>Do you really think petty criminals justify themselves mentally?
Yes. They do. 96% of petty criminals are not doing it 'to survive', they're doing it to get revenge, usually for something that didn't even happen to them personally in the first place.
The sad part is that you are right but you don’t understand what good and evil even Is in the non modern, and traditional sense from which your moral system came from.
>if you kill your enemies, they win, because all killing as evil
This isn’t the way and never has been, not even according to the Bible. Destroying an evil enemy and slaughtering them to the last, even their women and children if need be, can be a morally righteous act if they are truly a group of evil fiends who are an existential threat to your pious and righteous people and also literally sacrafice kids to moloch.
God who is the arbiter of good and evil for Christina and the foundation for our modern secular morality, literally condoned genocide in some cases.
>in the old testament something happened
In the same Old Testament God commanded you not to kill. In the same Old Testament God tells Job's friends it's not their business to pretend to know why God does what he does. There's also a New Testament. It supersedes the Old Testament.
Not to murder, you’re moronic and I actually hate you for being this ignorant. Why do all atheists cucks come up with some elementary garbage.
because all their arguments came from youtube videos
they are unable to read a book
The commandment is "Thou shalt not kill", it's the 5th commandment. For some it's the 6th. Unless you have some new American translation or something.
Youre moronic, that’s the English translation. Seriously how dumb are you? Even as an atheist you should At least gave the idea that the Bible even if fake, isn’t that moronic that it would say “don’t kill ever for any reason” then have like 15 times where god Is like “KILL THOSE homosexualS AND THEIR ANIMALS!!!”
In old Hebrew the word for kill that was used in the Bible meant murder, they had a different word for kill. Why English people translated it to kill? I don’t know, take it up with those guys 100 years ago I or whenever the current edition came out I guess
You can't write coherent sentences in English. This is an English speaking website. Go to another website.
>gets his moronic point BTFO
>tried to deflect about grammar and spelling and character attacks
Typical leftist, Just do the right thing and Apologize to me and admit I’m right and you’re wrong, and that you have ZERO (0) arguments.
Also the New Testament doesnt contradict the morality of the Old Testament.
Jesus says the way to deal with those who harm the innocence of a child is to tie a millstone around their neck and toss them to the sea. And again, the morality is never once contradicted, what is supervised is all the crazy traditions and rituals the Israelites had to do
This, if you steal to feed your family you deserve to die for it.
Simple and black and white pilled
It became a slippery slope when Veidt didn't kill himself or his friends. He killed every possible loose end except three. Oh he "made himself feel it", but told his friends what he did and refused to take his own life in atonement. That's three loose ends, two of whom may have convinced themselves in the moment, but will inevitably feel the guilt over it, and one who feels no actual guilt and absolutely deserves to die over it.
He also didn't merely kill everyone in new york, he traumatized all the survivors around the world with the visions of what supposedly happened. How many are then going to go on and kill themselves or otherwise abandon hope and morality because there's literally nothing you can do to stop these inter-dimensional aliens from coming through and wiping humanity out?
>slippery slop
Noted.
>it’s just a small lie
This is how we ended up here in the first place
What movie is this
GTA V: Avengers + Minecraft Mod, fellow zoomie
Ozymandias only assumed there would be a nuclear war he didn’t know it would happen for sure
>Killing one baby to skullfrick itmust be punished by death
>Melting 100 millions babies for a political stunt is tolerable.
No. You either have a spine or you don't.
>political stunt
it literally brought world peace, numbnuts
I don't understand people who are pessimists about Watchmen when it comes to Rorsharch.
People want to write off what he did as being motivated by selfishness because it conflicts with his earlier behavior throughout the book rather than embrace the true poetic irony that at the end of the day its the guy who spent all his time ranting about how one day the degenerate world of modernity will have a reckoning destroy as karmic retribution for its hubris and yet he's the one who stands up for those same urbanites when the detached and the fence sitters are willing to sacrifice them for a better world.
The contradictions don't prove Rorsharch's final actions hypocrtical, they prove that his earlier bluster was the actual fake shit.
Same thing with the Comedian. The Comedian thought he was a nihilist who could do any horrible act like rape women and shoot pregnant women dead and yet even that horrible piece of shit just couldn't stomach the murder of millions that Veidt was planning to do.
The fact that psychopaths like Rorsharch and the Comedian are against Veidt's actions aren't supposed to be proof that Veidt is right, they're proof that even literal insane murderers are like "dude, even I think that's going too far"
>insane murder
killing pedos is bad?
killing millions of innocent is good?
LOL
you are an actual fricking idiot holy shit.
Rorschach was morally correct about pretty much everything. Can you actually name something he got wrong in terms of his morality?
“The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the prostitutes and politicians will look up and shout 'SAVE US!'...and I'll look down and whisper 'No.”
Except, Rorsharch doesn't whisper no. Instead he screams for Dr Manhattan to kill him already since its the only way to stop him.
so funny cuz u give that quote as if its some kind of gotcha, no. its not, rorschach hates these people, he wants to kill them, however he still knows its wrong to do so. hes right and straight the entire time you heartless libtard
>so funny cuz u give that quote as if its some kind of gotcha
it wasnt intended as a gotcha.
Rorsharch literally opens up the book fantasizing about letting the modern world drown in its own degeneracy and when Veidt gives Rorsharch the perfect opportunity to allow that to happen he balks instead because he cares about people and doesn't see them as pawns to be sacrificed.
>however he still knows its wrong to do so
hes a psycho who kills and beats up petty criminals
the veidt plan is him facing his own flawed view of ethics on larger scale and it short circuits him because he cant "compromise"
he has been doing morally wrong shit the entire comic book and justifies it by considering himself as the "good guy", hero thats solving crimes
the figurative reading of his death is implosion over the paradoxical state of his believes vs his actions, ya know, black and white
the comic book hits you over the head with rorschach being precisely very morally grey character despite the supposed black and white view he has
>cannibal pedo
>petty criminal
you never read the comic
>Oxy
a paranoid schizo who killed millions of people for his own paranoia and Ros was the only 1 who decided to face this madness
>you never read the comic
not the only criminal he kills
also that is actually special case in that he "kills" that specific character in very jigsaw "le you could have escaped ;)" manner, the book, again, makes it very clear (i think some character straight up says it) that he has gone even more off his rocker since
>cannibal
>you never read the comic
lol
lmao
read the comic
he never killed no one before that man.
THE FRICK YOU MEAN homosexual?
YOU POST BULLSHIT AND NOW ESCAPE LIEK THE KEK YOU ARE?
go kys troony
>cannibal
you need iq higher than room temp to reply to me
>he belive he didn't eat her too
KYS Speedreader
>doubling down when confronted with being a moron
the irony of a moron misunderstanding character of rorschach doing this is perfect
you can't even debate with all your moron post.
you call Ros a phycho when he clearly kill people according his own morale and rule set?
did you ever see rosh going into the street and killing small criminals?
frick off moron
>YOU DIDNT READ THE COMIC
>FRICKING SPEEDREAD
>cannibal
see
a fricking bot
surely NOW KYS troony
>KYS
no
>did you ever see rosh going into the street and killing small criminals?
no
however
consider next time read the thing you try to debate about cus you look like a tool making up shit and creating headcanon on the spot
its honestly pretty good comic book there is no reason not to, especially seeing you are such a fan of the character or rorschach and everything
>No argument
so i won
is an advice
kys is way less punishment in hell than being a troony.
>RORSCHACH DIDNT HURT NOBODY
>THE PEDO WAS A CANNIBAL
>RORSCHACH DIDNU NUFFIN
any other hot schizo takes youd like to shar?
Ros hurted people according with his own morale.
you belive a pedo cannibal is the same of a normal criminal
you can say we need to rehabilitate a pedo cannibal so he can renter society and be an assets for us?
if you can't make different between good evil and EVIL you are mental ill
there are entire planes of hells where people are suffering in any moment and also no one go directly to heaven without suffering to the purgatory before.
>there are entire planes of hells where people are suffering in any moment and also no one go directly to heaven without suffering to the purgatory before
and it's not for you to say. I'm sorry but if you're serious and not baiting you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that telling people to kill themselves, refusing to ask for forgiveness, and pretending to know God's will, those things they don't align with Christianity. If it's not bait I'm genuinely surprised you can hold these beliefs simultaneously in your head.
Christianity make suffer forever sinner and if you repent you will suffer for a finite numbers of years in the purgatory.
both cases you suffer moron
forgivness is not gift but is owned with hardwork.
if you look to a society were forgiveness is mandatory enjoy california shithole
>purgatory
>he fell for the catholic psyop
catholic is the only 1 true religion
sure and forgivness imply MOVE YOUR ASS
if you go to a priest to confess for a sin and the day later you return for the same sin the priest is authorize to kick the shit out of his chrch since you put 0 effort in it
>if you go to a priest to confess for a sin and the day later you return for the same sin the priest is authorize to kick the shit out of his chrch since you put 0 effort in it
You forgive them literally every time. Even if it's multiple times a day. That's what he told Peter. I'm not gonna bother with you any further because at this point there's no way you're not baiting.
nope you gave them a change to repent
the forginess came with the penitence
The anon you're responding to is moronic by virtue of being a Catholic, but he's not incorrect. The priest does withhold the Eucharist and other sacraments from you if he feels it's necessary to help you.
>deny religion validity for his personal opinion
Protestang gays are terminall ill
He's incorrect. The priest withholding the Eucharist because you didn't go to confession doesn't mean you're kicked out of the Church and has nothing to do with Christ commanding his followers to forgive all who ask for forgiveness.
I just interpreted him saying the same thing as me but in an ESL way. I agree.
>pay for this slip to forgive your sins
>oh wait nevermind that was evil
>let's start raping little kids now
Truly God's church
a billioner donate 1 billion to cure cancer
holy hero
a billioner is forced to pay 100k to the church
church bad
fricking lol
>a poor person can't afford their slip
>hellfire forever
fricking lol (also reddit spacing homosexual, go back)
>a poor person
he can go to die in a crusade and pradise for free moron.
>go kill people in the desert and you get to go to heaven for free
you are moronic
Jesus Christ literally commands all Christians to forgive anyone who asks for your forgiveness. Come on man. You're fricking with me.
>kys is way less punishment in hell than being a troony
it's not for you to say what God's punishments will be but nevertheless I'm a man and was born a man
When you meet St Peter you're going to have to explain your behavior man. If you're going to pretend to be Christian you have to understand that you're a sinner that will be judged. I forgive you for calling me a homosexual and telling me to kill myself and whatever else you're gonna say but the way it works is you have to be sorry about it sometime. 70 times 7.
>behavior
God will forgive me
NOW KYS troony
God will forgive those who ask for forgiveness and forgive others their trespasses. He's not required to forgive you just because you say so. He owes you nothing.
if one of the people he killed was a neo-Nazi you'd hate him
But he didn’t which proves he’s the good guy
I'm saying you have no actual moral compass and are completely full of shit
Not a cucked universalist slave morality like yours.
Ironically the only reason leftists hate Rorschach is he said mean things about homosexuals in a single panel. Oh, and he also beat a pedophile to death, I'm sure lefties hated that too
not a single person on this planet "hates" Rorschach
they simply don't identify with/idolize him like you losers do lol
sure buddy
>not a single person on this planet "hates" Rorschach
except the raging leftoids in this thread lol
I am a raging leftoid and I don't hate him. He's a dumbass, mostly. Literally just a immature manchild pretending to be a hero.
>Literally just a immature manchild pretending to be a hero.
So Che Guevara then
Somewhat? Main difference is Che was actually good at what he did. He did let the hype get to his head though. Which is why he died.
indeed
Every person who calls him a fascist hates him.
No? I don't even hate plenty of actual facists. Most of them are just low inteligent and ignorant.
>actual fascists
>low IQ and ignorant
There are no actual fascists, just people you labeled fascist. What does that make you?
>There are no actual facists
Sure. It's not a real ideology. But much like there is no allah, yhvh, shiva, or zeus. That doesn't stop stupid people.
Fascism IS a real Ideology, but nobody in America or England actually practices or follows it, it's literally just a strawman name from the most propagandized war in human history to make you feel like you're definitely still good for having murdered tens of millions of enemy civilians.
I won't sit here and say Hitler did nothing wrong, but you will absolutely stand there and tell me he and his people were not actually human beings, but rather the cartoonish caricature of absolute evil.
>why does the INTOLERANT LEFT keep calling me a nazi??
>btw Hitler was right about everything and something has to be done about ~~*them*~~ ifyouknowwhatimean heheh....
>literally fighting against strawmen inside his own head
>nooo stop noticing patterns noooo!!
lol shaddap baby dick
ewww pedo
are you moronic
i'm glad we can agree that noticing patterns is a good thing
>doesn't want anyone to talk about fascism
>is obsessed with israelites
pottery
can't even refute it
lol
deboonking /misc/ jpgs is pointless, they just move the goalposts or call you a troony and then run away kek
>I-I could refute it anytime! I just don't wanna!
so this is the power of the intellectual left...
debunking commie trannies is pointless
they literally cut their dicks and call it science
LOL
>noa argument
>muh english
shit behavior = shit person
and a do the needful sir bastard b***h to you too, Patel!
mindbroke
>Anybody who points out israelites is a fascist Nazi.
Hooo Boy are you in for some trouble.
you're the one who's so keen to notice patterns lol
>those darn fascist chuds of the soviet union obsessed with israelites!
>Neo nazis are a strawman.
Okay. Then I'm sure you won't mind if I arrest anybody that defends Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc.
All Cops Are Bastards, so if you try arresting anyone you're automatically a pig
I'm not a cop. But fair enough.
Correct. If you are obsessed with israelites you should be killed.
Then we should kill all of them.
least bloodthirsty leftist
>If you are obsessed with israelites you should be killed
stalin is already dead dumbass
>If you notice israelites you are obsessed with them
Neonazis ARE strawmen. They're little israeli groups that sprung up to stir shit up starting in the 1970s, coinciding with the television movies where most of the holocaust atrocity propaganda like the deaths showers myth came from, and they popped up explicitly to remind people why you can't criticize Israel because muh holocaust.
Why would I hate a fictional character?
The problem is that Veidt was right.
> yet he's the one who stands up for those same urbanites when the detached and the fence sitters are willing to sacrifice them for a better world.
ppl who do something about a situation are fence sitters? your train of thought is all over the place. take your adderall
No.
>killing millions of people is ok
>lies and unover the truth is ok
COMMIES ARE MENTAL ILL
thanks for the input Chang
mad troony
I stand corrected
thanks for the input mad troony
same
you troony
>Why can't he lie
Dr Manhattan would've been able to tell. Trying to get around it would've been cowardly and Rorschach wasn't a pussy.
>right wing morons
>Rorschach
>Right Wing
Ok mental midget, a literal commie made this
Absolute moronation. Moore literally made Rorschach as a satire. Are you mentally challenged and a troony?
That's what makes him such a great character. It's the same phenomenon as Starship Troopers - the aesthetics are so powerful the satire doesn't matter
>satire
>still 100% absolutely fricking correct about everything
I will never not be funny
>a man is willing to die for his beliefs
>deranged leftists: LOOKS LIKE WE GOT ANOTHER EXTREMIST IN OUR HANDS
>personally identifies with a smelly manlet son of a prostitute
couldn't be me
why are you so misogynist
>be moore
>write character with traumatic backstory and strong sense of right and wrong
>wtf why are men identifying with him? they should loathe him!
>>wtf why are men identifying with him?
yeah he really underestimated the percentage of comic book fans who are total freaks lol
>NOOOOO LET ME EDUCATE YOU WHY YOU SHOULDN'T LIKE THIS CHARACTER
>that pic
so...you agree with me? what are you even trying to argue lol
Travis isn't a bad guy - he's racist in 1970s America that's the worst you fan say. He's still willing to fight and die trying to do the right thing which 99% of people woild never do.
Real life "self-righteous" morons are insufferable. They always complain and cry about EVERY little thing but in reality they don't do shit. There is always some kind or justification going on within their mind.
Rorschach is an "ideal" for these homosexuals because he is right in a grand sense and he is one of the main characters. He is not any different than " I WILL CHANGE THE WORLD BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND IT PERFECTLY" trope that you commonly see in anime as well.
Rorschach is not a character like
>They always complain and cry about EVERY little thing but in reality they don't do shit
Which is why Rorschach is respectable. He actually went out and started killing pedos instead of just b***hing about it.
imagine interact to you IRL
>why people are disguting by my behavior
LOL
>imagine interact to you IRL
poo in loo
why are you so racist? are you a right wing extremist?
why are you so lazy and pridefull?
why manual job for you is for inferior beings?
why reading a book make you superior to me?
DO NOT COMMIT MURDER
murder mean kill without a good reason moron
self defense and eat are good reason too
ALSO IN THE BIBLE THERE IS WRITTEN
KILL ALL MOLOCH FOLLOWERS AND DO NOT LET EVIL TAKE ROOTS
you never read a bible in your life
>DO NOT COMMIT MURDER
Thou shalt not kill.
>ALSO IN THE BIBLE THERE IS WRITTEN
Do you not understand that there is an Old Testament and a New Testament?
>ENGLISH TRANSLATION
learn latin tard
>old new testament
ARE YOU A moron homosexual?
I forgive you for when you come to regret saying that.
He accurately captured your mindset, that’s a point in favour of his writing. He isn’t surprised you liked him, just slightly annoyed when try to interact with him on the street
>cuckold who worships a snake is annoyed with my existence
awesome
>ha he’s annoyed with my existence
that quality is universal, remember how Rorschach is a loner?
Good. Society is HIV positive anyway
I’m sure that’s working out great for you
It is, thanks for asking
beause he was abused by his mother
you have fun about child molest?
What was Moore getting at? That moralgays, social justice warriors, and puritans are annoying?
believe it or not there was a point in time where moralgays/sjws were viewed as the good guys and moore was the first of the reactionaries against that.
unfortunately he didn't have enough IQ to realize that pointing it out in a comic book makes him a target for morons.
>ITT People BEGGING you to mindlessly follow whatever the government mandates
>NOOOOO YOU CANNOT KILL PEDOPHILES AND RAPISTS, ONLY BIG DADDY GOVERNMENT CAD DO THAT YOU EXTREMIST
why is the idea of a man with a moral compass (who doesn't need to rely on a social media hivemind for forming opinions) so alien to leftist that they lash out to such a character?
Because leftists can only exist in groups, they cannot tolerate the idea of dissent against big daddy government
>leftists think they are intellectual giants because of the gender studies course they took in college
lol
I legit can't believe people dislike rorschach and Moore thought you were not supposed to identify with him
Identifying with fictional characters (especially superheroes) is for autistic manchildren.
>muh leftists
>muh libtards
>muh right-wing
>muh nazis
you are all unhinged.
My mom is gonna freak
leftist post because it ignores the rampant aggressive poz that's destroying all media and society
give up the falseflag, leftypol
>there's Black folkS in my capeshit! why aren't you mad??
I would never ask "why arent you mad" because I already know the answer: you dont care about movies.
You're too low IQ to care about anything but whatever bullshit trend your normie acquaintances peer-pressured you into following to attract females
>stop trying to frick feeemales! be a mentally ill chronically angry shut-in like me REEEEE!!!!
lol what a fricking homosexual
just stop watching "poz", you cuck.
just stop infect our public places parasite
Lying does not have to do with people but with himself. You wouldn't understand.
So Rorschach and Nite Owl are both supposed to be Batman, right? They're a composite of the DC character.
Because lying keeps you away from God.
This movie was pretty bad, honestly. I don't give a frick about capeshitters larping and their stupid romance sub-plot. Or some big blue Black person exploding asiatics with his mind and being worshipped a god because they're moronic heathens. He then reaches a state of apathy and doesn't care about the human race, but then agrees to keeping the
>he killed millions to save billions
idea. Which makes the whole plan worthless since he could have just done it without the smart homie spending all that time and money building bombs to kill millions of people.
Then there's the whole quandary of "yeah well, it's le morally ambigious, fellow redditors". Is it really? I have absolutely no qualms with the deaths of godless modernist humanists and their moronic ideologues who willingly live like bugs in overpopulated population centres and would eventually end up chopping their dicks and breasts off then off themselves anyway. If anything, they were killed for the wrong reasons.
Pessimistic misanthropes are not Nihilists.
How’s your summer going?
He believed in goodness to an incorruptable level. If you have to defeat evil by using more evil, then evil still wins. If you choose to lie to solve your problems, you're basically admitting that goodness isn't good enough, and only evil can ever truly hold power. Ironically, he was the only truly good guy in that situation, despite all the other "heroes" disagreeing with him. They crucified him because he told them the truth, so to speak.
He doesn't even have a basis of good or bad in the first place. That's what's moronic in all of this. The big reveal is he's indignant about the deaths of millions but he has no justification as to why it's bad. On the other hand everyone else is in the same position, just making up their own morality. This movie or comic is really shallow once you look at it for a minute and realise the writers are hacks for trying to bring in morality without comprehending basic philosophy.
where Ros's mask came from?
Betty Genovese
Ros is the physical rapresentation of justice, of who never lower is sight for a short profit.
>kill moloch slaves
>go to heaven
written in the bible
>comparing muslims to pedophiles and child sacrifice
Bit of a stretch and you have nothing in the bible backing killing muslims
Moloch semitic God of the Moon
Arabs are semits and their simble is the half moon aka Bull's horns
Crescent moon is pagan, you can find numerous muslims attesting to this. Bullhorns are a stretch and you are esl
crescent moon is not ust pagan but a specify semit paganism of moloch.
Phoenixians,arabs and even israelites workshipped moloch.
before mohamedd arabs workshipped him.
make 2+2
THE GOLDEN BULL
>make 2+2
>THE GOLDEN BULL
This isn't enough to connect to the crescent moon for me
The crescent moon Muslims use come from the city of Constantinople’s symbol. But I do agree Muslims are moloch worshippers, but where does the Bible say killing them gets you into heaven?
>The crescent moon Muslims use come from the city of Constantinople’s symbol
Honestly seems kind of young for it to be from Constantinople
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_and_crescent
Apparently a frick load of people used it long before the Muslims and the Byzantines, but it’s definitely not a coincidence the two biggest contenders to the Muslims (the sassanians and byzantines) were using it and minting it all over coins and shit.
It’s probably more so that the sassanians inspired them now that I look at it, because it says the caliph, after conquering iran, for whatever reason, continued to mint the moon and star on the back of his coins, as the sassanians did.
the crescent moon rapresent the bull horse
simble used in CARTHAGE and PHOENIXIA
semitic simble
I’m open to your idea, I just haven’t seen proof of it yet. The only proof you have presented is that it looks like a bulls horns, which is sketchy to say the least, and that it’s origins are Semitic, which does seem to be true, as it originated with sumer, who’s gods were Semitic Babylonian gods, and I will say it’s odd that the specific star in the moon and star is Ishtar’s star, which is Venus, which is associated with Lucifer, so you could stretch it to say it’s the star of satan/moloch
simble of carthage
This is definitely interesting and a good lead but is there anywhere I can read about it or any video about it?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-moon-takes-the-bull-by-the-horns/
found this link for the israeli case
It's honestly a better explanation than "we just don't know where it originated from".
you can see this better
Moloch is rapresented as a golden bull
>Bit of a stretch
Lol, come on now.
>you have nothing in the bible backing killing muslims
That's not necessary to kill them even if there isn't, but there probably is. Why are you so anally retented about a religion you know nothing about?
>Lol, come on now.
That's not an argument
>That's not necessary to kill them even if there isn't, but there probably is.
That's also not an argument
>Why are you so anally retented about a religion you know nothing about?
Retented? Because Catholics give Christianity a bad face
>That's not an argument
Doesn't need to be. Their own prophet was a paedophile who slaughtered entire villages and took children and women as sex slaves.
>That's also not an argument.
Yes it is, Christianity isn't a book-based religion. But again, you could find justification to righteously kill degenerates somewhere in there.
>Because Catholics give Christianity a bad face
And so do Protestants.
>Doesn't need to be. Their own prophet was a paedophile who slaughtered entire villages and took children and women as sex slaves.
There are Old Testament verses with similar commands to Christians. The pedophilia angle maybe, but there were a lot of young brides before ~100 years ago.
>Yes it is, Christianity isn't a book-based religion. But again, you could find justification to righteously kill degenerates somewhere in there.
How is it not book based? Even if you think someone's words are God-inspired you still have to compare them with the God-inspired text we already have. Specifically if some guy tells you that murdering people in the middle east will get you into heaven.
>And so do Protestants.
Some Protestants sure, but it's the Catholic Papacy that I'm referring to which is the only Catholic governing body and it's morally corrupt.
>There are Old Testament verses with similar commands to Christians.
You mean israelites. And the only instance of this is where they were commanded by God to kill the Canaanites who deserved it anyway.
>The pedophilia angle maybe, but there were a lot of young brides before ~100 years ago.
They weren't married at 6 and fricked at 9. That would severely damage their undeveloped bodies and is why Aisha never could have children.
>How is it not book based?
It isn't. The Bible is a liturgical tool, not a book designed for personal devotion. It's a good tool to use as an argument alongside other evidence provided for some theological idea.
>Some Protestants sure, but it's the Catholic Papacy that I'm referring to which is the only Catholic governing body and it's morally corrupt.
They're both atheist making machines with their own set of moronic doctrines and problems.
>You mean israelites. And the only instance of this is where they were commanded by God to kill the Canaanites who deserved it anyway.
Semantics, and I'm not debating that they didn't deserve it, I'm debating that there isn't an example like that for muslims
>They weren't married at 6 and fricked at 9. That would severely damage their undeveloped bodies and is why Aisha never could have children.
Yeah idk how to play Devil's advocate here, I'd just say I don't think there's anything pedophilic in the commands of the Quran
>It isn't. The Bible is a liturgical tool, not a book designed for personal devotion. It's a good tool to use as an argument alongside other evidence provided for some theological idea.
This doesn't answer my question of which takes precedent, the Bible or some guy claiming he his speaking for God.
>They're both atheist making machines with their own set of moronic doctrines and problems.
Wat
You obviously don't understand either religion you're talking about. Islam is full of allah-inspired massacres and abuse. It's a cult around a man named mohammad who just says Allah permits this or that when it suits him. If you're slain fighting for your god then it's implied you'll get an easier trip in the afterlife, but I don't agree with catholic doctrines either.
>he has no justification as to why it's bad
It's murder, you need to justify why it's good and you can't without being utilitarian.
That's my point, the society they're living in is secular/utilitarian. He shouldn't have a problem with it and if he does he has no reason to even if he's right.
>murder is le bad because... IT JUST HECKIN IS OKAY?
Is unironically the basis of our laws. And people wonder why the West has fallen.
>the society they're living in is secular/utilitarian
That doesn't dictate what is moral and what isn't
I know this, but that's how people in these societies operate even without realising it.
I agree, but he doesn't know what evil and goodness are in the first place and it's never expounded upon.
>I know this, but that's how people in these societies operate even without realising it.
But Rorschach doesn't, that's the whole point of the character...
>But Rorschach doesn't, that's the whole point of the character...
He's not utilitarian but doesn't explain where his morality comes from? Even if he could, it would be some sort of subjective drivel about past trauma. It's just lazy writing.
>He's not utilitarian but doesn't explain where his morality comes from?
I just figured it was implied to be Christian (where utilitarianism isn't allowed)
>I just figured it was implied to be Christian
Is it ever implied he's a Christian?
For the wrong reasons (or lack-thereof).
>For the wrong reasons (or lack-thereof).
Says who? To me it seems very obvious why he believes that. He sees the world in black and white. He literally wears black and white as his mask.
>He sees the world in black and white
You keep confirming to me he's moronic. Even if you see the world in black or white, you should have some level of justification to believe what those black or white standards are.
>he doesn't know what evil and goodness are in the first place and it's never expounded upon
He clearly believes that he does, so much so that he was willing to die for those beliefs.
>He clearly believes that he does, so much so that he was willing to die for those beliefs.
That just makes him a moronic character.
How? He was right.
If you genuinely believe in goodness, then jyst because everyone else is evil doesn't give you the excuse to be evil. Otherwise you're just admitting you don't really believe in goodness.
But killing isn’t evil. Killing is a neutral act, killing is only then turned good or evil based on who you kill. If it’s an evil person it’s good, if it’s a good person it’s evil, according to every tradition everywhere ever.
On what basis do you spout your modernist pacifist drivel? You’re arguing as if you are arguing from some old objective morale code, but you aren’t, this is just modernist slop. Read the Bible or any religious book, if you want to know more. Buddhism might be the only one who agrees with you, since Buddhism is just “le give up and meditate and don’t care about anything or cope and you to go to heavenl
Killing millions of innocent people is pretty evil anon, its going to be hard for you to find people who agree with you that it isnt. BUT, even if you believe that killing those people was OK, why lie about it? Is it because you know that it was wrong? If you weren't a brainlet you'd focus on the the actual point being made, which was that Rorschach was right for trying to expose the lie. If you are willing to make the decision to kill millions of people and believe you've done the right thing, you should be able to proclaim it to the world with zero guilt. The fact that they had to cover it up was proof in and of itself that what they did was wrong. THAT'S the point. That's why Rorschach refused to lie. Being an edglord who pretends he wouldn't shit his pants if someone was trying to kill him doesn't make you some moral supremacist.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
He’s not a nihilist, he’s a zealot in the religious vein. Fat frick Alan Moore was trying to write him to be unlikeable but because he’s a leftist moron accidentally wrote a modern crusader that had the only consistent morality in the story
>lie to the man who can see his own future
Manhattan would know you moron
In the Valley of Ben-hinnom they have built the high place of Topheth to immolate in fire their sons and their daughters, such a thing as I never commanded or had in mind.
32
Therefore, beware! days will come, says the LORD, when Topheth and the Valley of Ben-hinnom will no longer be called such, but rather the Valley of Slaughter. For lack of space, Topheth will be a burial place.
33
The corpses of this people will be food for the birds of the sky and for the beasts of the field, which no one will drive away.
34
In the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem I will silence the cry of joy, the cry of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride; for the land will be turned to rubble.