Discussion, generally of an in-universe nature, regarding any aspect of the franchise (including movies, spin-offs, etc.) such as: techniques, character relationships, internal back-history, its universe, and more.
Alex9196 wrote:i guess birth control is better than a guy who destroys a bunch of planets all 40 years or so. also north kai has an awesome telepathic abilitty. he could let vegeta talk to all inhabitents of earth at once. i dont know how many planets there are in the db universe. a thousand? a million?... but with that abillity he should be able to tell everyone of that rule.
and for evil... its hard to define evil or the grade of evilness. also not everyone has the exact same perception on evil. i am not very skilled in wording and expressing in words so i have to tell you honestly i cant define it to you right now. maybe when i thought about it a little while i could express it.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at in the first paragraph.
Evil is in the eyes of the beholder. Some people think it's evil to butcher a cow, some think it's part of the natural order. Some would say that a thief stealing from a store is evil, but the thief who's stealing to support his family would say otherwise. You can't make a concrete definition of a universally accepted "evil," so you can't really use "it's evil" as a defense. The obvious fictional parallel is Galactus, and there's even a storyline dealing with this issue, ending with everyone involved becoming momentarily aware of why he does what he does, and everyone understanding that it is necessary, despite it being morally repugnant to those who suffer. Some things, loathe as we may be to accept it, are necessary, and it seems, given Toriyama's statements on gods of creation and destruction, that Beerus is one of those things.
with the first paragraph i was trying to say that north kai or king kai(whatever you wanna call him) should be able to tell the "birth controll" rule to a hole planet in a matter of seconds. so it may take long till he told it all planets. but considering that most of the time he is driving car or sleeping or whatever he should have time for it. i know this sounds weird, it was just an idea for solving the "need" for a god of destruction.
and i think i came up with a definition of evil. i would say evil is:
if someone is causing another being harm unnecesserely
so the grade of how evil someone is would be how many beings he harms and in which way. (unnecesserely!)
for example the robber who robs for his family wouldnt considered to be evil at all by me. he didnt harm anyone. and he took the food for a good cause while the supermarket has plenty of food. much of it even gets thrown a way. but this example is more a "fault of society" than for an evil action.
Alex9196 wrote:i guess birth control is better than a guy who destroys a bunch of planets all 40 years or so. also north kai has an awesome telepathic abilitty. he could let vegeta talk to all inhabitents of earth at once. i dont know how many planets there are in the db universe. a thousand? a million?... but with that abillity he should be able to tell everyone of that rule.
and for evil... its hard to define evil or the grade of evilness. also not everyone has the exact same perception on evil. i am not very skilled in wording and expressing in words so i have to tell you honestly i cant define it to you right now. maybe when i thought about it a little while i could express it.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at in the first paragraph.
Evil is in the eyes of the beholder. Some people think it's evil to butcher a cow, some think it's part of the natural order. Some would say that a thief stealing from a store is evil, but the thief who's stealing to support his family would say otherwise. You can't make a concrete definition of a universally accepted "evil," so you can't really use "it's evil" as a defense. The obvious fictional parallel is Galactus, and there's even a storyline dealing with this issue, ending with everyone involved becoming momentarily aware of why he does what he does, and everyone understanding that it is necessary, despite it being morally repugnant to those who suffer. Some things, loathe as we may be to accept it, are necessary, and it seems, given Toriyama's statements on gods of creation and destruction, that Beerus is one of those things.
with the first paragraph i was trying to say that north kai or king kai(whatever you wanna call him) should be able to tell the "birth controll" rule to a hole planet in a matter of seconds. so it may take long till he told it all planets. but considering that most of the time he is driving car or sleeping or whatever he should have time for it. i know this sounds weird, it was just an idea for solving the "need" for a god of destruction.
and i think i came up with a definition of evil. i would say evil is:
if someone is causing another being harm unnecesserely
so the grade of how evil someone is would be how many beings he harms and in which way. (unnecesserely!)
for example the robber who robs for his family wouldnt considered to be evil at all by me. he didnt harm anyone. and he took the food for a good cause while the supermarket has plenty of food. much of it even gets thrown a way. but this example is more a "fault of society" than for an evil action.
The issue is that you are assuming that everyone is privy to all the information. They guy being stolen from doesn't know about the thieve's situation, so he'll believe that he's "evil." I think it's pretty clear that Beerus's job is "necessary."
What about a deranged serial killer who kills compulsively? He feels it is "necessary" for him to kill.
Hitler thought it was "necessary" to secure more living space for Germans, and wound up dragging Europe into the bloodiest war in history.
Various religions have, at times, engage in mass slaughter due to "necessity."
You do not want to bring necessity into any debate about morality. It's not a pretty place.
well these people had a wrong perspective on necessary and maybe they even knew it wasnt. most people confuse necessery with what they want. now here is the thing, so i would have to define what a nessecesety is and this is even harder but i will think about it. also i think people shouldnt listen to their instincts all the time, like the impulsive mass murderer.
i dont believe in christianity but i like the concept of the seven deadly sins a bid. in my opinion they are the things which bring up all evil actions. i only dont agree with pride being one of them but for the others, if you overcome them i guess it would be pretty peaceful.
Alex9196 wrote:well these people had a wrong perspective on necessary and maybe they even knew it wasnt. most people confuse necessery with what they want. now here is the thing, so i would have to define what a nessecesety is and this is even harder but i will think about it. also i think people shouldnt listen to their instincts all the time, like the impulsive mass murderer.
i dont believe in christianity but i like the concept of the seven deadly sins a bid. in my opinion they are the things which bring up all evil actions. i only dont agree with pride being one of them but for the others, if you overcome them i guess it would be pretty peaceful.
Who determines what the "right" perspective is, though? I mean, Hitler thought he was right. I think it's fair to say that humans are not perfect. Who are we to decide, for everyone, what is absolutely necessary?
Don't try to define what an absolute necessity is. You can't do it. What's necessary for you may or not be a need for others, and you can't hold everyone to the same standards on a moral level, and you have absolutely no frame of reference for what's going on inside other people's' heads.
Alex9196 wrote:well these people had a wrong perspective on necessary and maybe they even knew it wasnt. most people confuse necessery with what they want. now here is the thing, so i would have to define what a nessecesety is and this is even harder but i will think about it. also i think people shouldnt listen to their instincts all the time, like the impulsive mass murderer.
i dont believe in christianity but i like the concept of the seven deadly sins a bid. in my opinion they are the things which bring up all evil actions. i only dont agree with pride being one of them but for the others, if you overcome them i guess it would be pretty peaceful.
Who determines what the "right" perspective is, though? I mean, Hitler thought he was right. I think it's fair to say that humans are not perfect. Who are we to decide, for everyone, what is absolutely necessary?
Don't try to define what an absolute necessity is. You can't do it. What's necessary for you may or not be a need for others, and you can't hold everyone to the same standards on a moral level, and you have absolutely no frame of reference for what's going on inside other people's' heads.
its true i dont know whats going on in other peoples heads but you still have to set an equal standard of morality to everyone or no moralaty at all. so basically anarchy. you cant say the poor massmurder cant resist killing but the other guy is supposed to. also noone can talk me into believing that killing is necessary for someone. he may feel the desire to do it, but desires can be resisted. also tell me one necessety that other people have that for example i dont have. i dont really can think of one that couldnt be resisted.
Alex9196 wrote:
and i think i came up with a definition of evil. i would say evil is:
if someone is causing another being harm unnecesserely
Then Beerus is not evil, since his job is necessary to maintain balance in the Universe.
that depends if you accept the system of the db universe as the ultimate law or if you could change it.
It doesn't matter. The system works. We have no idea how, but it clearly does and Beerus is a big part of that. If our Universe would work like that, even then it wouldn't be evil, since it would be necessary, but we are not arguing the real world, we are arguing Dragon Ball. So, as it stands, if the writer says that is how the Universe works, it's not evil.
just because something works doesnt mean it isnt evil or cant be working even better. for example our real world "works", you could say, but it still can be improved a WHOLE lot and there are tons of evil people on our planet, despite that it is "working".
Alex9196 wrote:just because something works doesnt mean it isnt evil or cant be working even better. for example our real world "works", you could say, but it still can be improved a WHOLE lot and there are tons of evil people on our planet, despite that it is "working".
Our real life governments aren't the systems by which the universe operates. You're talking about something more akin to changing the fundamental laws of the universe, like "cold is better than hot, so hot is now cold and there is no hot." It doesn't make sense. You can't rip out a universal necessity on the off chance that "maybe something else that's better will happen."
Alex9196 wrote:just because something works doesnt mean it isnt evil or cant be working even better. for example our real world "works", you could say, but it still can be improved a WHOLE lot and there are tons of evil people on our planet, despite that it is "working".
The people on our planet are not truly evil on the grand scheme of things. Nothing they do affects what happens in another galaxy. The Universe is infinite and nothing "evil" people do will make it to collapse. So, yes, what you may perceive as evil is truly nothing when you look at the big picture. What you are saying is egotistical, since nothing in the Universe rotates around people. They are, at best, a side effect.
Alex9196 wrote:just because something works doesnt mean it isnt evil or cant be working even better. for example our real world "works", you could say, but it still can be improved a WHOLE lot and there are tons of evil people on our planet, despite that it is "working".
The people on our planet are not truly evil on the grand scheme of things. Nothing they do affects what happens in another galaxy. The Universe is infinite and nothing "evil" people do will make it to collapse. So, yes, what you may perceive as evil is truly nothing when you look at the big picture. What you are saying is egotistical, since nothing in the Universe rotates around people. They are, at best, a side effect.
Alex9196 wrote:just because something works doesnt mean it isnt evil or cant be working even better. for example our real world "works", you could say, but it still can be improved a WHOLE lot and there are tons of evil people on our planet, despite that it is "working".
The people on our planet are not truly evil on the grand scheme of things. Nothing they do affects what happens in another galaxy. The Universe is infinite and nothing "evil" people do will make it to collapse. So, yes, what you may perceive as evil is truly nothing when you look at the big picture. What you are saying is egotistical, since nothing in the Universe rotates around people. They are, at best, a side effect.
but just because something does not effect the whole galaxy it can still be evil. and most important if for example a star or something gets destroyed it doesnt care cause it is not a being. if beings get killed they care they live. for example if you would wipe out all living things in the universe, animals and humans on our planet, maybe some creatures on other planet, the galaxy wouldnt collapse but it would be void of life. its like why build a house if nobody lives in it?
Alex9196 wrote:just because something works doesnt mean it isnt evil or cant be working even better. for example our real world "works", you could say, but it still can be improved a WHOLE lot and there are tons of evil people on our planet, despite that it is "working".
The people on our planet are not truly evil on the grand scheme of things. Nothing they do affects what happens in another galaxy. The Universe is infinite and nothing "evil" people do will make it to collapse. So, yes, what you may perceive as evil is truly nothing when you look at the big picture. What you are saying is egotistical, since nothing in the Universe rotates around people. They are, at best, a side effect.
Am I detecting Ian Malcom's law here?
Maybe a little, now that I think about it
Alex9196 wrote:
Draconic wrote:
Alex9196 wrote:just because something works doesnt mean it isnt evil or cant be working even better. for example our real world "works", you could say, but it still can be improved a WHOLE lot and there are tons of evil people on our planet, despite that it is "working".
The people on our planet are not truly evil on the grand scheme of things. Nothing they do affects what happens in another galaxy. The Universe is infinite and nothing "evil" people do will make it to collapse. So, yes, what you may perceive as evil is truly nothing when you look at the big picture. What you are saying is egotistical, since nothing in the Universe rotates around people. They are, at best, a side effect.
but just because something does not effect the whole galaxy it can still be evil. and most important if for example a star or something gets destroyed it doesnt care cause it is not a being. if beings get killed they care they live. for example if you would wipe out all living things in the universe, animals and humans on our planet, maybe some creatures on other planet, the galaxy wouldnt collapse but it would be void of life. its like why build a house if nobody lives in it?
It's simple. The Universe is not really a house. It is not designed to house creatures. Depending of your beliefs, it may not be designed at all. The Universe, until we get a little more knowledge about it and the human race evolves enough to grasp what might be beyond our boundaries, just IS.
I am not trying to say that I hold the ultimate truth about how the Universe work, but, when you think about it, the fact is "evil" is just something made up by humans. Natural disasters kill people every day/week/month, but they are not evil. Animals kill humans, but are not considered evil. Humans created the word "evil" just so they wouldn't go around killing each other.
the world "evil" was created by mankind, but so where all other words. but still that doesnt mean it holds no meaning to it.
but there is no meaning in a universe without life in it. thats why i used the house analogy.
just beings can use the concept of evil or any emotion at all. a rock, or a planet cant feel something or consider something evil.
Alex9196 wrote:the world "evil" was created by mankind, but so where all other words. but still that doesnt mean it holds no meaning to it.
but there is no meaning in a universe without life in it. thats why i used the house analogy.
just beings can use the concept of evil or any emotion at all. a rock, or a planet cant feel something or consider something evil.
But how do you know that emotions are good? Or important? Try to be objective.
its hard to be objective in that case cause as dumb as it sounds i cant put myself in a rocks shoes, lying on the ground doing and feeling nothing all day. i am aware of the fact the the universe is huge and that the earth is fairly small. however you can always just accept what is "proofen" and not more. but even than you cant be sure it really is proofen sometimes. because many things for example have been proofen wrong which were believed for centuries.
Alex9196 wrote:its hard to be objective in that case cause as dumb as it sounds i cant put myself in a rocks shoes, lying on the ground doing and feeling nothing all day. i am aware of the fact the the universe is huge and that the earth is fairly small. however you can always just accept what is "proofen" and not more. but even than you cant be sure it really is proofen sometimes. because many things for example have been proofen wrong which were believed for centuries.
I am not saying just to accept what is proven, or not. That's not really a good way to live. But, since we are DEBATING, we should use only what we know. Proven facts and when new facts come along, we use those.
Anyway, I think this conversation derailed a little bit Beerus?...
What I meant was, for example, how Chichi is always telling him he needs to make money, he never once considers just robbing a bank or something, even though he easily could.
I'm confused as to why the Kaioshin are making a big deal out of Beerus. If his job is really necessary, than they should understand he does what needs to be done. I could understand they fear Goku would get himself and his world killed, but outside that it's still apparently necessary. So they should probably highlight that more instead of "Oh shit Beerus is back, how many worlds will be destoryed." I'd think they'd say. "Beerus has awoken, tis a shame some worlds will have to go."
Why Dragon Ball Consistency in something such as power levels matter!
Spoiler:
Doctor. wrote:I've explained before, I'll just paraphrase myself.
Power levels establish tension and drama. People who care about them (well, people who care about them in a narrative) don't care about the big numbers or the fancy explosions. If you have character A who's so much above character B, who's the main character, you're gonna be left wondering how in the hell character B, the character we're supposed to care and root for, is going to escape the situation or overcome the odds. It makes us emotionally invested.
If character B doesn't escape the situation in a believable way that's consistent with previous events, then that emotional investment is gone. It was pointless tension, pointless drama made just to suck in the viewer. It has no critical value whatsoever. The audience is left believing that the author can just create whatever scenarios he wants and what happens to the characters is decided by whatever the author wants to happen, regardless of the events that happened in the story. Which, in fairness, is what happens, but the audience wants to be fooled. The audience wants to know that the world they're following has rules. That the world they're invested in isn't going to bend to external factors that are irrelevant to them.
An author can do whatever he wants with the characters, that's not false. But the author should also have the responsibility to make sure it fits in cohesively with the other events in the narrative he has created.
