Blade wrote:...
I read your post in full and I wasn't being condescending (or at least I wasn't trying to sound condescending, it wasn't my intention to sound like that), I just think you don't really understand in full what that term means, its origin and what should be applied to, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing that the terms machiavellian and unscrupulous can be applied to Goku. Hence, why I explained briefly its origin and quite naturally assumed that you are not understanding the term in full. Its not a matter of being condescending at all... If I see someone use a term incorrectly I'm gonna rectify them and explain to them why its not used like that.
Its certainly possible that I might be wrong and the person I'm correcting might be right at the end of the day... But I'm not correcting that person to feel smarter or whatever. Its just a matter of setting things right. When I'm the one being corrected I even usually thank the ones who are correcting me, and even if it turns out I'm the one who's right, I appreciate that they were trying to set thing right.
I do agree that some people do it just to make themselves feel smarter and greater than others, but this is not the case (and I do not thank those). I only mentioned that I studied one of his books to make you realize that I'm actually much more familiar with the origin of the term than the average person, and the origin is very important, its not just about a definition of the term since sometimes the words used to define a term fail to transmit the full idea of the term.
By the way, I never called you names like you just did, so... yeah...
My "
" is simply because of your insistence in using those terms as you see fit, and how you justify their use by adding "somewhat" or something like that behind them, like that somehow transforms an improperly used term in a given context into a correct and properly used term in that same given context.
I just don't agree at all with your use of those words. To me, you are just twisting them.
You know a character in Dragon Ball that fits those terms much better? Namek arc Vegeta. He was cunning, strategic, and unscrupulous since all he thought about was advantages for himself, he didn't care about others and he didn't let any notion of right or honor get in his way. In other words, he can be considered machiavellian during that arc. And I'm sorry but Goku, in every arc, is way different from the traits of personality that Vegeta showed in that arc. He is never "kind of like" those traits and he is never "somewhat" like those traits.
What Goku does in the Buu arc is what Goku always does, being selfish in a innocent kind of way and kind of a jerk without realizing it. He decides by himself that its best for the planet if its the kids that save the planet and not someone who isn't even part of it anymore. This is what he flat out states to Piccolo when Piccolo talks about Goku facing Fat Buu with his SSJ3. And the reason why Goku didn't talk about SSJ3 before or used it isn't solely because of that... SSJ3 drastically cuts away the time that Goku has available in the living world. Goku knows this. And that time can be precious for the planet especially in the situation in which they were... So, its only natural for him not to go from the start agaisnt Vegeta with it. He might have used it later to end the fight, but their fight was very short since Buu awakened shortly after they started fighting. And its also natural for Goku to consider fusion before using SSJ3 and risking using all of his time.
Goku not sharing immediately those thoughts with everyone is just him being selfish in a innocent kind of way and kind of a jerk without realizing it. There's no hidden agenda, no big secret that he is protecting, no big ulterior reason for all this and he is not seeking some advantage for himself while forgetting all notions of right and wrong. Its just Goku being Goku, just him choosing and acting the way he feels/thinks is best.
Being selfish in a way and a little secretive doesn't make someone machiavellian or even somewhat machiavellian. That's just twisting its meaning until it can fit something very different from its meant to be used for. A normal person also has selfish traits and has secrets and tries to be cunning. So, in your view a normal person is somewhat machiavellian? You see, the term is so twisted when we look at it like that, that it can fit practically everybody...
There's a reason why I and many other fans haven't heard anyone ever refer to Goku as machiavellian and unscrupulous or somewhat machiavellian and unscrupulous, you know?
But I'm sorry for offending you by pointing it out that they, rather obviously, given their definitions and origins, don't seem to fit at all with Goku, and that slapping a "somewhat" or a "kind of" behind them to cover up how they don't really fit doesn't work out very well...
.
