What phrases/opinions/things bring out your irate fanboy?

[jcogginsa]

Even still, there's a mighty big difference between carelessly dropping a knife onto your dad's head, and literally transforming into a gigantic gorilla monster in your sleep and crushing your granddad.

yes. In one you're doing something stupid in the first place. In the other, you have no control of what's happening

[rereboy]

Nope. By legal definition, an Accident is not Murder. Murder requires intent.

If someone gets killed due to the negligence of others, it's still a crime, almost as grave as murder. And that includes Portugal and pretty much all other countries.

Not everyone comes from America, though. My country's definition is simply a person killing another person and Goku did a lot of that. It's still murder even if the ones getting killed were villains.

I'm from Portugal and my source is the Penal Code itself, Article 131. http://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra ... ao=#artigo

It's nowhere that simple. The penal code is not just one article. You can't just read one article and ignore the context, aka the rest of the code and its workings. Basically it's murder if there's intent, and it's negligent murder if there's no intent but there's negligence (articles 13º, 14º, 15º, 131º and 137º of the Portuguese Penal Code). If there's no intent and no negligence, and it's not a case specifically described in the code, it's not a crime.

Also, there's exceptions that exclude certain situations from being a crime. For example, if a person absolutely had to kill another to protect his or her live or the lives of others, there's technically intent in that action, but it's still not a crime (articles 31º to 39º of the Portuguese Penal Code).

In Goku's case, there was simply no way to know that looking at the moon would do what it did, even if his grandfather had told him not to do it, so there's no actual negligence and therefore no crime. Also, Goku, at that time, was much too young to be criminally responsible. Crimes are only applicable to a person of a certain age.

[ABED]

I doubt anyone's standards are so ill defined that just killing someone is murder. There's such a thing as justifiable homicide. Goku had plenty or reason to kill guys like Piccolo and even Black.

Goku was a Great Ape, his mind was completely absent. It would be the same if he was insane. He wasn't in control of his actions. He became a beast. You wouldn't call a shark a murderer if it kills a human being.

[alakazam^]

It's nowhere that simple. The penal code is not just one article. You can't just read one article and ignore the context, aka the rest of the code and its workings. Basically it's murder if there's intent, and it's negligent murder if there's no intent but there's negligence (articles 13º, 14º, 15º, 131º and 137º of the Portuguese Penal Code). If there's no intent and no negligence, and it's not a case specifically described in the code, it's not a crime.

Also, there's exceptions that exclude certain situations from being a crime. For example, if a person absolutely had to kill another to protect his or her live or the lives of others, there's technically intent in that action, but it's still not a crime (articles 31º to 39º of the Portuguese Penal Code).

In Goku's case, there was simply no way to know that looking at the moon would do what it did, even if his grandfather had told him not to do it, so there's no actual negligence and therefore no crime. Also, Goku, at that time, was much too young to be criminally responsible. Crimes are only applicable to a person of a certain age.

I'm aware of that but there's no need to complicate things. That's why my point was using the definition of the word "murder", which is, roughly, "person kills person" and not if a crime was commited. Also, I wasn't referring to Goku killing Gohan, I was considering events that happened since the start of the manga.

The context of this is people saying Vegeta is a worse father than Goku because he is/was a murderer and there's two ways to go with this:

a) If Vegeta is a murderer because he kills people, then so is Goku.
b) If we want to apply Earth's Law (which isn't the same in every country, anyway) to the Dragon World then, unless Vegeta was convicted, he isn't one. Either way, only killings on Earth would count and he only killed that guy in the truck when going against #18 (whom he wasn't even aiming directly at), Pui Pui and the people at the Budoukai (which were revived anyway). By this logic, Goku also isn't a murderer but his body count is bigger.

I doubt anyone's standards are so ill defined that just killing someone is murder. There's such a thing as justifiable homicide. Goku had plenty or reason to kill guys like Piccolo and even Black.

Goku was a Great Ape, his mind was completely absent. It would be the same if he was insane. He wasn't in control of his actions. He became a beast. You wouldn't call a shark a murderer if it kills a human being.

Then again, a shark isn't a human being, is it?

Revenge is hardly a reason to kill someone.

[fadeddreams5]

I like this topic.

We've touched on what makes a good father, adulthood's conflicts with friendships, and now the definition of murder. =)

[rereboy]

I'm aware of that but there's no need to complicate things. That's why my point was using the definition of the word "murder", which is, roughly, "person kills person" and not if a crime was commited. Also, I wasn't referring to Goku killing Gohan, I was considering events that happened since the start of the manga.

The particular discussion at hand was if the death of grandpa Gohan at the hands of Goku constituted murder and you used the (portuguese) law to justify that the simple killing of another constitutes murder. That's not just simplification, that's pretty much wrong for the reasons I pointed out. That situation wouldn't constitute a crime according to the (portuguese) law. And morally speaking, there's also nothing to blame on Goku that I can see.

As for all the other people Goku killed, they were actively trying to kill him, so, even in those cases, it wouldn't be murder under the portuguese law (it would fall under those exceptions I pointed out). Probably, at most, it would be excess of self-defense or similar. But since Goku was pretty young then, he would still probably under the required age.

[Avenged]

Saying if you don't like the JP version of the anime (music,voices,etc) then you have a lack of understanding of what Dragon Ball is. This doesn't make any sense since Dragon Ball began as a manga and that's the original, Toei created the anime that it is today.

Also, the term "true fan" always annoyed me.

[Baggie_Saiyan]

This might be a bit of stretch but would anyone else class Gohan's death as suicide? I mean he knew Goku transforms into a giant oozaru monkey ape gorilla, before right? Why didn't he shelter Goku then? unless he intended to die. So I think Goku isn't the murderer in the case, I mean would you call a gun or knife a murderer?

[ABED]

Then again, a shark isn't a human being, is it?

Revenge is hardly a reason to kill someone.

And neither is a giant ape.

Piccolo was a danger to everyone, it wasn't a revenge killing. Piccolo wanted to murder people.

Murder includes the initiation of force. If someone kills someone else out of self defense it's not murder.

By this logic, Goku also isn't a murderer but his body count is bigger.

No it isn't. Vegeta has destroyed entire civilizations.

We can't exactly apply laws like this to DB world where you're dealing with beings of such immense power.

Also, the term "true fan" always annoyed me.

Even as someone who prefers the original, this term annoys me as I see it in places other than DB, such as comic book adaptations like Arrow.

[TheOverlyMadHatter]

This might be a bit of stretch but would anyone else class Gohan's death as suicide? I mean he knew Goku transforms into a giant oozaru monkey ape gorilla, before right? Why didn't he shelter Goku then? unless he intended to die. So I think Goku isn't the murderer in the case, I mean would you call a gun or knife a murderer?

It's fairly difficult to determine how exactly Goku caught sight of the Full Moon a second time. For all we know he'd been out fishing or training for longer than he should have and happened upon the Full Moon when he got home. Maybe he saw it though the window. Maybe he sneaked out seeking to meet/challenge the monster Gohan warned him about. Could be anything, but this one seems the least plausible. Why would Gohan choose to commit suicide? Even if he did, why employ such a destructive method to do so? A giant ape could catch the attention of wandering outsiders, and I doubt he would want to bring harm upon his adoptive grandson.

[Eire]

Not to mention the possibility that Goku will learn that he killed the only human he has ever known as soon as he transformed back. No, I think it was an accident.

[Logan]

What irrates me?

*Any time someone says that something isn't canon, be it GT, movies, etc.
*When people pronounce Saiyan as "sayin'". This one is impossible to avoid.
*People knocking the Ocean dub.
*Never bothering to view DB in Japanese. I have no problem with people preferring the show in their own native language, but Dragon Ball should be experienced in Japanese at least once.
*People who regard pro-subtitle fans with disdain. Not too common, in my experience.

[alakazam^]

The particular discussion at hand was if the death of grandpa Gohan at the hands of Goku constituted murder and you used the (portuguese) law to justify that the simple killing of another constitutes murder. That's not just simplification, that's pretty much wrong for the reasons I pointed out. That situation wouldn't constitute a crime according to the (portuguese) law. And morally speaking, there's also nothing to blame on Goku that I can see.

As for all the other people Goku killed, they were actively trying to kill him, so, even in those cases, it wouldn't be murder under the portuguese law (it would fall under those exceptions I pointed out). Probably, at most, it would be excess of self-defense or similar. But since Goku was pretty young then, he would still probably under the required age.

No, everyone was comparing Goku's parenting skills to Vegeta's and ChiChiFan said that he/she "will never understand how Vegeta, a murderer, is somehow a better parent than Goku", to which I replied he also was one. What I used was the definition of the word "murder" as found in Porto Editora's dictionaries (and the Japanese Wikipedia for "murder" also just says it is the act of killing a person, take that as you will) so it's not wrong. Also, morals have nothing to do with word definitions and the fact is that people/demons/bubblegum monsters got directly killed by Goku.

This might be a bit of stretch but would anyone else class Gohan's death as suicide? I mean he knew Goku transforms into a giant oozaru monkey ape gorilla, before right? Why didn't he shelter Goku then? unless he intended to die. So I think Goku isn't the murderer in the case, I mean would you call a gun or knife a murderer?

Probably not, he most likely died fighting.

And neither is a giant ape.

Piccolo was a danger to everyone, it wasn't a revenge killing. Piccolo wanted to murder people.

Murder includes the initiation of force. If someone kills someone else out of self defense it's not murder.

By this logic, Goku also isn't a murderer but his body count is bigger.

No it isn't. Vegeta has destroyed entire civilizations.

We can't exactly apply laws like this to DB world where you're dealing with beings of such immense power.

Sure, never said it was.

I'm not sure if Goku even knew what Piccolo was up to but, nonetheless, Tambourine was a revenge killing.

That was my point, there's no need to complicate things by using the penal system because then some people's assumptions just wouldn't measure up, like Vegeta being labeled a murderer, for example.

[rereboy]

No, everyone was comparing Goku's parenting skills to Vegeta's and ChiChiFan said that he/she "will never understand how Vegeta, a murderer, is somehow a better parent than Goku", to which I replied he also was one. What I used was the definition of the word "murder" as found in Porto Editora's dictionaries (and the Japanese Wikipedia for "murder" also just says it is the act of killing a person, take that as you will) so it's not wrong. Also, morals have nothing to do with word definitions and the fact is that people/demons/bubblegum monsters got directly killed by Goku.

Er... To this:

"Nope. By legal definition, an Accident is not Murder. Murder requires intent."

You responded this:

"Not everyone comes from America, though. My country's definition is simply a person killing another person and Goku did a lot of that. It's still murder even if the ones getting killed were villains."

Like I said, you were talking about how it works legally without really knowing what you were talking about and what you were saying was very wrong as I demonstrated to you. You basically read one article in the law and immediately thought you knew how it works. Your insistence in referring to a dictionary as a argument for your point, just further demonstrates this.

And the post saying "Nope. By legal definition, an Accident is not Murder. Murder requires intent." was in response to Goku killing his grandpa, so, that's exactly what the conversation was.

[ABED]

^ That's a complete reach. If you can't figure out the differing factor between killing something like Tambourine and murdering entire civilizations then this conversation is fruitless. You can't equate the two, even in our world. In that world, where no law enforcement could do anything to Tambourine, Goku killing him was completely justified. Vegeta butchering people to sell a planet to others for profit as well as his own amusement.

There's a huge difference between murder and justifiable homicide. That definition you gave is so wrong. It lumps in people like John Wayne Gacy with someone who kills an armed robber.

[alakazam^]

Er... To this:

"Nope. By legal definition, an Accident is not Murder. Murder requires intent."

You responded this:

"Not everyone comes from America, though. My country's definition is simply a person killing another person and Goku did a lot of that. It's still murder even if the ones getting killed were villains."

Like I said, you were talking about how it works legally without really knowing what you were talking about and what you were saying was very wrong as I demonstrated to you. You basically read one article in the law and immediately thought you knew how it works. Your insistence in referring to a dictionary as a argument for your point, just further demonstrates this.

And the post saying "Nope. By legal definition, an Accident is not Murder. Murder requires intent." was in response to Goku killing his grandpa, so, that's exactly what the conversation was.

Did you seriously ignore that no one was talking about Gohan senior when I stated Goku was a murderer? People only started talking about him after I said that and they were mostly guessing that was what I meant, which it was not. Besides, when I responded to that post, wether it was referring to Gohan or not, neither was I thinking about him nor was it relevant.

Like stated, "murder" equals "person killing person" in some Penal Codes. What you added was that, in a Court of Law, that isn't enough, thus having several variations of the crime. The thing is, no one here, me included, was interested in discussing with what crime would Goku be convicted, if at all. If you kill someone, until you're convicted, you're not a murderer but everyone around you will still call you that. That's how it works and that's how I used the word. If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, please choose someone else to entertain you because you won't get that from me.

^ That's a complete reach. If you can't figure out the differing factor between killing something like Tambourine and murdering entire civilizations then this conversation is fruitless. You can't equate the two, even in our world. In that world, where no law enforcement could do anything to Tambourine, Goku killing him was completely justified. Vegeta butchering people to sell a planet to others for profit as well as his own amusement.

There's a huge difference between murder and justifiable homicide. That definition you gave is so wrong. It lumps in people like John Wayne Gacy with someone who kills an armed robber.

It's only a reach if you let your bias take over. This is as simples as:

Person A gets killed by another person. Person B gets killed by another person. One of them was a criminal while the other was a random guy/girl. The common factor is that they were both killed by another person, that's why you don't get to know which is which because that's not relevant. I'm not discussing morals.

By the way, Vegeta killing people to sell their planet is also justified because that's the whole purpose they were killed to begin with. I won't argue he probably enjoyed it a lot, though.

The definition is what it is. You might not agree with it but it still counts.

Goku didn't kill Tambourine for the sake of the Earth, he killed him to avenge Kuririn. As far as Goku knew, Tambourine was just a monster that killed his friend, he wasn't thinking about preventing a global threat. It could be argued, though, if Tambourine, Piccolo Daimaou, Freeza, Yakon and Boo count as "people" (or if he really killed the Red Ribbon soldiers instead of just knocking them out with one punch/kick/Nyoibou).

[rereboy]

Besides, when I responded to that post, wether it was referring to Gohan or not, neither was I thinking about him nor was it relevant.

Er... Yes, it is relevant. There's no real point to your post if you don't want to talk about what was being talked about in the post you responded to.

Like stated, "murder" equals "person killing person" in some Penal Codes. What you added was that, in a Court of Law, that isn't enough, thus having several variations of the crime.

What? I never talked about court at all. I ONLY talked about the law, in this case, the penal code. I showed you the exact articles in the penal code that provide the context for the article you were talking about and that demonstrate that it doesn't work like you were saying it works. You just read one single article from the code and ignored the others, assumed you knew how the code works from just that single article, and now you are still insisting that the way it works is limited to that single article, while claiming that I was talking about how things work in court when I never even mentioned court, just the law...

The definition is what it is.

If you really want to discuss dictionary definitions, the full definition of murder is:

"Full Definition of MURDER
1
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought."

in http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

You are just quoting basic and/or incomplete definitions of it.

And if you want the portuguese definition of it, since you were talking about that earlier:

"ho·mi·cí·di·o
(latim homicidium, -ii)
substantivo masculino
Crime de quem mata outrem."

http://www.priberam.pt/dlpo/homic%C3%ADdio

Notice how even its dictionary definition states it's a crime (in english and in portuguese)? This is an essential condition of the term. If it's not a crime, then it's not murder. A person might kill another without it being a crime, thus not fitting the term.

[ABED]

Person A gets killed by another person. Person B gets killed by another person. One of them was a criminal while the other was a random guy/girl. The common factor is that they were both killed by another person, that's why you don't get to know which is which because that's not relevant. I'm not discussing morals.

What? I have no idea what you're referring to. Your definition is too broad. A definition can't lump in two fundamentally unlike things. There's a big distinction between murder and killing.

By the way, Vegeta killing people to sell their planet is also justified because that's the whole purpose they were killed to begin with. I won't argue he probably enjoyed it a lot, though.

No, killing billions of innocent people is not justified.

[alakazam^]

Er... Yes, it is relevant. There's no real point to your post if you don't want to talk about what was being talked about in the post you responded to.

But that post wasn't talking about Gohan specifically, it was adressing examples of what was considered murder or not and my response was saying that different countries had different definitions, thus, no need to talk about Gohan since I wasn't even using him when I started the "Goku is a murderer" topic.

What? I never talked about court at all. I ONLY talked about the law, in this case, the penal code. I showed you the exact articles in the penal code that provide the context for the article you were talking about and that demonstrate that it doesn't work like you were saying it works. You just read one single article from the code and ignored the others, assumed you knew how the code works from just that single article, and now you are still insisting that the way it works is limited to that single article, while claiming that I was talking about how things work in court when I never even mentioned court, just the law...

Yeah well, that article doesn't stop existing just because there are others expanding its context, does it?

As for the rest of your post, go check Porto Editora's dictionaries on the definitions of "murder" and "murderer".

No, killing billions of innocent people is not justified.

Both Freeza and the Saiyans saw it justified in order to sell their planets. You can disagree with it but different people have different ways of thinking.

I'm gonna stop responding because this became way off-topic than it already was. Sorry, everyone.

[ABED]

But it's not all equally valid. Freeza and Vegeta might have rationalizations but that doesn't make them right.