WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum


Talk about the Watchmen comic book mini-series and film
It is currently Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:44 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 316 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Adrian Veidt
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:31 pm 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:05 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Sarasota, FL
Mothman wrote:
I think it is very obvious that there is an arrogant quality to him, he cared more about killing bubastis then he did half new york. He only killed half new york to achieve something. I like him, but he still is a large arrogant squidgina. Why, just why did he pitch blake out the window. He could have just shot him. He shot moloch. The gun was in moloch's house but blake was sure to have a gun veit could use. He pitched him out the window because his arrogance got the best of him, he was pissed after getting beat by blake then getting told off by bake, then blake discovered his plan. It is just an insult to injury.

He didn't hesitate any more in killing NYC than he did Bubastis. Pitching Blake out the window did nothing to harm his plan. Yeah, he displays his emotions at some points - but they don't change what he's doing, really, just how he does it.

_________________
.
.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Veidtamins
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:23 pm 
Offline
Intrinsic Field Subtractor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 1023
The Veidt Method wrote:
Except in this situation, the Rubik's Cube won't turn.

Just because Veidt can't figure out how to turn it and so blasts it apart and calls it a "solution" doesn't mean it can't be done.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Regardless, Marooned has little to do with Adrian in the end. Adrian succeeded in preventing an actual threat.

I would suggest giving the book another read or three before making that assertion.

The Veidt Method wrote:
The protagonist in Black Freighter failed to prevent a nonexistent threat.

Not true. He simply misjudged the nature of the threat and eventually became the threat himself. Ask any of Veidt's victims how they feel about it. Put yourself in their place. Imagine for a moment that you and your spouse are out with the kids and they're picking out comic books there at Bernie's stand when Veidt presses his button with nary a tear nor tremble.

It starts being different when it starts being you.

Quote:
Manipulative and Conning
Grandiose Sense of Self
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
Shallow Emotions
Incapacity for Love
Need for Stimulation

The Veidt Method wrote:
I fail to see how these traits are prohibitive to good decision-making. May not make for a great best friend, but as far as I've seen, the people who don't let emotions interfere with their logic make the best decisions.


Well, let's examine the ways that these traits make for absolutely horrendous decision-making, shall we?

Manipulative and conning. Basically, the ability to trick others into doing what you want. Such a pleasant device.
Grandiose sense of self? Sure. Nothing spells great decision making like megalomania.
Lack of remorse. Which means you can commit evil acts again and again with no residual guilt. Great quality to have in a person who is making decisions that effect all mankind........NOT.
Shallow emotions. Obviously, Adrian Veidt was about as fond of his fellow man as most of us are of... say, a random name in the phonebook. Which means, quite obviously, that his desire to save the world has very little to do with the interests of its citizens and a lot to do with Adrian Veidt having a setting for his megalomania.

Incapacity for love. We never encounter a single personal relationship in Veidt's life. Not one. He has no capacity for romantic love or friendship or any other kind of emotional bond with other humans. He readily admitted that the only human he felt something for was long dead... ie. a person he cannot KNOW as a person. Only as a myth.

Need for stimulation. Constant. The TVs. The multi-tasking. The numerous projects... Veidt is into everything from tea kettles to sneakers.

It isn't a matter of emotions not interfering with logic, it's about recognizing the emotional faculty as a legitimate part of decision making. Without it, no decision matters because, logically, in the long run, we're all dead and the Universe will hum along swimmingly no matter the paltry decisions we make in our brief lives.

Don't like that? Well, how much emotion do you want to remove from logical decision-making?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Veidtamins
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:53 pm 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:05 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Sarasota, FL
Vynson wrote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Except in this situation, the Rubik's Cube won't turn.

Just because Veidt can't figure out how to turn it and so blasts it apart and calls it a "solution" doesn't mean it can't be done.

There's superglue wedged into all the turns, and it's on a timer that'll detonate it. Better? :P

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Regardless, Marooned has little to do with Adrian in the end. Adrian succeeded in preventing an actual threat.

I would suggest giving the book another read or three before making that assertion.

The Veidt Method wrote:
The protagonist in Black Freighter failed to prevent a nonexistent threat.

Not true. He simply misjudged the nature of the threat and eventually became the threat himself. Ask any of Veidt's victims how they feel about it. Put yourself in their place. Imagine for a moment that you and your spouse are out with the kids and they're picking out comic books there at Bernie's stand when Veidt presses his button with nary a tear nor tremble.

It starts being different when it starts being you.

The Black Freighter was never threatening Davidstown. Nuclear war was threatening the world. Hence, nonexistent vs. actual threat. Not a basis for comparison on that level.

And, another emotional appeal. "Wouldn't it suck to die?" Really? I hadn't thought about that one, Vynson! Thanks! No, it would not be pleasant to die. However, time and time again, innocent people have been sacrificed for the greater good. Regrettable, but sometimes actually necessary. But put yourself in their place. Imagine for a moment that you and your spouse are out with the kids and they're picking out comic books there at Bernie's stand when the Russian premier presses his button with nary a tear nor tremble. Except, of course, this time it's the east coast, not just half of New York, and you might just die of leukemia.

Quote:
Well, let's examine the ways that these traits make for absolutely horrendous decision-making, shall we?

Manipulative and conning. Basically, the ability to trick others into doing what you want. Such a pleasant device.

How does that affect the quality of his decision-making? Reagan created the illusion of the Strategic Defense Initiative, and the entire government worked to spread misinformation about it in order to force Gorbachev to choose between his new economic policies and the arms race.

Quote:
Grandiose sense of self? Sure. Nothing spells great decision making like megalomania.

... but you don't say why. I'm looking for a good example of how this trait is prohibitive to making good decisions. Hell, you have to be at least a little self-absorbed to have the confidence to make decisions that will affect the world in the first place. Haven't there been great presidents? Great leaders? Great kings? Great emperors? Are you saying that none of them ever had tributes to their greatness, or displays of extravagance?

Quote:
Lack of remorse. Which means you can commit evil acts again and again with no residual guilt. Great quality to have in a person who is making decisions that effect all mankind........NOT.

"You can commit evil acts again and again." That's if you're committing evil acts. What I'm asking is, how are these traits conducive to that in the first place? You're positing an illogical, evil person and then applying these traits.

Quote:
Shallow emotions. Obviously, Adrian Veidt was about as fond of his fellow man as most of us are of... say, a random name in the phonebook. Which means, quite obviously, that his desire to save the world has very little to do with the interests of its citizens and a lot to do with Adrian Veidt having a setting for his megalomania.

"Deny his kind their last black laugh at humanity's expense." I honestly do think Veidt wants to do good. This may be because he thinks that only he has the power to, but he does want to do good. He wants to help.

Quote:
Incapacity for love. We never encounter a single personal relationship in Veidt's life. Not one. He has no capacity for romantic love or friendship or any other kind of emotional bond with other humans. He readily admitted that the only human he felt something for was long dead... ie. a person he cannot KNOW as a person. Only as a myth.

Oh no! How can a person without love ever be a good leader or decision-maker!? It can't be!

Quote:
Need for stimulation. Constant. The TVs. The multi-tasking. The numerous projects... Veidt is into everything from tea kettles to sneakers.

So his ability to handle many tasks and run a successful corporation is prohibitive to being a good decision-maker?

Quote:
It isn't a matter of emotions not interfering with logic, it's about recognizing the emotional faculty as a legitimate part of decision making. Without it, no decision matters because, logically, in the long run, we're all dead and the Universe will hum along swimmingly no matter the paltry decisions we make in our brief lives.

Don't like that? Well, how much emotion do you want to remove from logical decision-making?

Veidt was interested in the sphere of humanity, therefore he is invested in its survival.

Let me point something out that I brought up in a paper recently. Emotion can be divided into two types. There is derivative emotion: that is emotion that results from emphasis on logic. This is evident in heated formal debates and the like. The second is reactionary emotion, which comes from the initial emotional response to an idea. This covers most emotional reactions, such as feelings of sadness after the death of a friend or family member, or feelings of fear or shock in response to a movie or book which emerge even though the person knows that the subject matter being reacted to is fictional. Veidt has derivative emotion. The rest generally have reactionary emotion, and act on it. This is selfish - as it only takes into account how you feel about an idea - and illogical, as the logical process has not yet been undertaken. I'd like to see all of that reactionary emotion removed from the decision-making process. It's hurt the world in far too many ways to be considered a good thing.

_________________
.
.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Emotional Rescue
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:24 pm 
Offline
Intrinsic Field Subtractor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 1023
The Veidt Method wrote:
There's superglue wedged into all the turns, and it's on a timer that'll detonate it. Better? :P

I don't share your assessment of the situation. Perhaps before one man acting alone slays a few million people, is it too much to expect that he might consult with others who might know some things he does not and determine if the situation is, in fact, hopeless?

Veidt doesn't care. He has hatched a plan and he WANTS to see it through.

The Veidt Method wrote:
The Black Freighter was never threatening Davidstown. Nuclear war was threatening the world. Hence, nonexistent vs. actual threat. Not a basis for comparison on that level.

Your rebuttal is mere misdirection. Try to keep up. The Freighter WAS threatening the mariner, just as the threat of mass death threatened the planet. The mariner embraced his fear and became a crew member on the freighter... as did Veidt when he killed half NYC.

The Veidt Method wrote:
And, another emotional appeal. "Wouldn't it suck to die?" Really? I hadn't thought about that one, Vynson! Thanks! No, it would not be pleasant to die.

No, I don't think you've considered it for a moment. Perhaps you should. Clearly, you aren't a parent. Imagine for a moment that I have determined that there is a danger to a greater good and that if we only kill you and your children... everything will be peachy. This means that you will feel some pain... and then cease to be. Everything you are, were, or ever will be... gone. And your kids. And your little dog, too.

No. I don't think you've thought about this for a single minute.

The Veidt Method wrote:
However, time and time again, innocent people have been sacrificed for the greater good. Regrettable, but sometimes actually necessary.

Please tell me when it was necessary to sacrifice innocent people. I'm at a complete loss to recall a single such incident.

Please impress us all with your acumen. I'm eager to hear of such a thing.

The Veidt Method wrote:
But put yourself in their place. Imagine for a moment that you and your spouse are out with the kids and they're picking out comic books there at Bernie's stand when the Russian premier presses his button with nary a tear nor tremble. Except, of course, this time it's the east coast, not just half of New York, and you might just die of leukemia.

And I'm supposed to accept that the death of my family by squidwert is the only way of saving the eastern seaboard? Based on what? What sort of whacked out fantasy contrives this sort of crap? This is complete schoolboy horseshit. The kind of fantasy where you have a crush on your teacher and you go in early from recess to discover that her boyfriend is being mean to her, slapping her around the class... until she sees you... begs for your help... so you, pubescent and 13... kick his ass, he goes to prison, and the teacher blows you right there in the class for being so heroic.

Again, there's this cozy little place called "reality." And here, if your best hope of avoiding a Russian first strike is to kill me and my family... you're gonna have a problem getting me to agree to the morality of your decision.

The disconnect on your part is that Watchmen is a COMIC BOOK meant by its authors to illustrate that the psychopaths who run the world are not really "heroes" and have no business deciding the fate of the man on the street.

You are reading it as if the author tapped into some other world and missed the point himself... a point you gleaned in your infinite wisdom and kinship with Adrian Veidt, and, no doubt, Rameses II and Alexander himself, that you ubermensches have the right to toss whomever you please into the abyss as long as slaying the monsters, real or contrived, is worth the while in your sole opinion.

It doesn't matter to you that the author had something to say and that what he had to say is in direct opposition to what you have inferred.

So let me clue you in...

Adrian Veidt is the villain of the piece.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
Manipulative and conning. Basically, the ability to trick others into doing what you want. Such a pleasant device.

How does that affect the quality of his decision-making?

I'm more concerned with how it affects the quality of everyone elses decision-making... oh that's right... they don't get to make any in Veidt's world, now do they?

The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
Grandiose sense of self? Sure. Nothing spells great decision making like megalomania.

... but you don't say why. I'm looking for a good example of how this trait is prohibitive to making good decisions.

I think overestimating your own intelligence while discarding the thoughts of others is decidedly detrimental to rational decision-making. If Veidt were a doctor, would you want him doing your brain surgery?

DR. ADRIAN VEIDT
I knew it was a tumor. I don't care that Dr. Dreiberg, Dr. Kovacs, Dr. Juspeczyk, Dr. Mason, and the entire staff of Blake Memorial either disagreed with my diagnosis or recommended other courses of treatment. I don't want to hear their opinions. So, I took out a chainsaw and cut out the tumor.

Yes I know the patient's dead but that isn't the point. My job was to cut out the brain tumor. I did my job. Lateral thinking. Centuries ahead of my time, don't you know?

The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
Lack of remorse. Which means you can commit evil acts again and again with no residual guilt. Great quality to have in a person who is making decisions that effect all mankind........NOT.

"You can commit evil acts again and again." That's if you're committing evil acts. What I'm asking is, how are these traits conducive to that in the first place? You're positing an illogical, evil person and then applying these traits.

We aren't discussing lack of remorse in someone who has never done anything wrong. We are discussing a lack of emotional response in a person who has acted purposefully to harm others. This is not the person that anyone with a logical degree of self-interest wants making decisions that effect them.

Is this really such a difficult concept that I have to illustrate? Fine. Let's say that you are dangling off a mountain. But you have managed to catch the hand of Adrian Veidt. He's tired. No one's around. He's dropped people of mountains before and never felt any guilt about it. He owes you 100 bucks anyway. He won't feel any guilt if he drops you.

OR

You're dangling off a mountain, your life in the hands of Dan Dreiberg who once smashed a dove on the windshield of his OwlShip (accidentally) and still feels bad about it.

Choose.

The Veidt Method wrote:
I honestly do think Veidt wants to do good. This may be because he thinks that only he has the power to, but he does want to do good. He wants to help.

I can understand this as an initial impression in someone who has just read the book for the first time.

Please revisit the book and the character. Moore is subtle in places, but still quite clear. I don't feel like this point is in dispute. Adrian Veidt is a psychopath.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
Incapacity for love. We never encounter a single personal relationship in Veidt's life. Not one. He has no capacity for romantic love or friendship or any other kind of emotional bond with other humans. He readily admitted that the only human he felt something for was long dead... ie. a person he cannot KNOW as a person. Only as a myth.

Oh no! How can a person without love ever be a good leader or decision-maker!? It can't be!

Your sarcasm won't make your opinion valid.

Imagine a man in his 40s who has never had a single intimate relationship. He has no partners, lovers, or friends. Only servants, employees, and acquaintances.

He is less invested than Jon in his fellow humans. Remember that Veidt was able to offer insight into Jon's psyche with his red ants/black ants question. Roth did not fathom what the careful reader does... that Veidt understood this because he shared the view.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Veidt was interested in the sphere of humanity, therefore he is invested in its survival.

His interest in the world is the same as a child's interest in their toy box.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Let me point something out that I brought up in a paper recently. Emotion can be divided into two types. There is derivative emotion: that is emotion that results from emphasis on logic.

Actually, derivative emotion is already well-defined in the field in spite of your attempts to redefine it. It is that emotion which is a logical reaction. Such as guilt over cheating on your spouse or pride in doing a great job.

The Veidt Method wrote:
This is evident in heated formal debates and the like..
No. No, not really.

The Veidt Method wrote:
The second is reactionary emotion, which comes from the initial emotional response to an idea. This covers most emotional reactions, such as feelings of sadness after the death of a friend or family member, or feelings of fear or shock in response to a movie or book which emerge even though the person knows that the subject matter being reacted to is fictional. Veidt has derivative emotion. The rest generally have reactionary emotion, and act on it. This is selfish - as it only takes into account how you feel about an idea - and illogical, as the logical process has not yet been undertaken.

I think your attempts at psych 101 leave a bit to be desired. If you really want to distill emotion into two categories, go all the way.

Pleasure and Pain. There are no others. Every single human emotion falls into one or the other or both.

And emotions are caused by a wider variety than you care to explore in your post. From logical reaction to chemiical embalance to drugs, to poor nutrition, lack of sleep, etc.

I advocate subordinating one's emotional faculty to one's intellect. However, subordination should not imply disregard. Emotions are vital. After all, why do you care enough about a particular topic to bother applying logic in the first place if not bald emotion? Doing so makes you feel good.

Integration is the key; not dichotomy.

The Veidt Method wrote:
I'd like to see all of that reactionary emotion removed from the decision-making process. It's hurt the world in far too many ways to be considered a good thing.


Utter nonsense. It's also produced every work of art, every symphony, play, movie, game, and baby on Earth.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Emotional Rescue
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:10 pm 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:05 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Sarasota, FL
Vynson wrote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
There's superglue wedged into all the turns, and it's on a timer that'll detonate it. Better? :P

I don't share your assessment of the situation. Perhaps before one man acting alone slays a few million people, is it too much to expect that he might consult with others who might know some things he does not and determine if the situation is, in fact, hopeless?

Consult whom? Who is there that can look at things objectively like Veidt can, who is there that he can trust with the knowledge of what he plans to do, or that will consider possibly gruesome solutions?

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
The Black Freighter was never threatening Davidstown. Nuclear war was threatening the world. Hence, nonexistent vs. actual threat. Not a basis for comparison on that level.

Your rebuttal is mere misdirection. Try to keep up. The Freighter WAS threatening the mariner, just as the threat of mass death threatened the planet. The mariner embraced his fear and became a crew member on the freighter... as did Veidt when he killed half NYC.

Sorry, Vynson, maybe you should go in for a re-read. The idea was that the Black Freighter was waiting for the mariner to forfeit his morality, and was never heading for Davidstown. So, in chasing the solution to a false threat, he gives up his morals, makes a terrible mistake, and becomes part of that which he sought to destroy. This is a great analogy to Veidt, except, there was a threat - and he did prevent it. Now, if something came out along the lines of a treaty that had been signed before Veidt even dropped the squid, that would be interesting.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
And, another emotional appeal. "Wouldn't it suck to die?" Really? I hadn't thought about that one, Vynson! Thanks! No, it would not be pleasant to die.

No, I don't think you've considered it for a moment. Perhaps you should. Clearly, you aren't a parent. Imagine for a moment that I have determined that there is a danger to a greater good and that if we only kill you and your children... everything will be peachy. This means that you will feel some pain... and then cease to be. Everything you are, were, or ever will be... gone. And your kids. And your little dog, too.

No. I don't think you've thought about this for a single minute.

Yes, I have. But see, the more we're threatened, the more our sphere of interest shrinks. When one's life is in danger, one's interest is usually purely selfish, or, perhaps, shrunk only to the level of family (i.e., someone dying for their child). They have the ability to recognize the greater good - but they cannot be expected to consent to their own sacrifice, most of the time. Self-preservation kicks in. It's natural instinct, and there's not much arguing with that, unfortunately.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
However, time and time again, innocent people have been sacrificed for the greater good. Regrettable, but sometimes actually necessary.

Please tell me when it was necessary to sacrifice innocent people. I'm at a complete loss to recall a single such incident.

Please impress us all with your acumen. I'm eager to hear of such a thing.

Approximately 160,000 German civilians killed during the expulsion of the Nazis in WWII. This does not include Soviet brutality/work camps.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
But put yourself in their place. Imagine for a moment that you and your spouse are out with the kids and they're picking out comic books there at Bernie's stand when the Russian premier presses his button with nary a tear nor tremble. Except, of course, this time it's the east coast, not just half of New York, and you might just die of leukemia.

And I'm supposed to accept that the death of my family by squidwert is the only way of saving the eastern seaboard? Based on what? What sort of whacked out fantasy contrives this sort of crap? This is complete schoolboy horseshit. The kind of fantasy where you have a crush on your teacher and you go in early from recess to discover that her boyfriend is being mean to her, slapping her around the class... until she sees you... begs for your help... so you, pubescent and 13... kick his ass, he goes to prison, and the teacher blows you right there in the class for being so heroic.

Again, there's this cozy little place called "reality." And here, if your best hope of avoiding a Russian first strike is to kill me and my family... you're gonna have a problem getting me to agree to the morality of your decision.

And that's why Veidt doesn't ask - because of people like you, who base their decisions on moral rules and reactionary emotion. And it's not just a Russian first strike - I was simply illustrating how the Americas would be affected. Either one could strike first. The result, really, would be much the same.

Quote:
The disconnect on your part is that Watchmen is a COMIC BOOK meant by its authors to illustrate that the psychopaths who run the world are not really "heroes" and have no business deciding the fate of the man on the street.

You are reading it as if the author tapped into some other world and missed the point himself... a point you gleaned in your infinite wisdom and kinship with Adrian Veidt, and, no doubt, Rameses II and Alexander himself, that you ubermensches have the right to toss whomever you please into the abyss as long as slaying the monsters, real or contrived, is worth the while in your sole opinion.

It doesn't matter to you that the author had something to say and that what he had to say is in direct opposition to what you have inferred.

Nope. It doesn't. Here. Let me write something for you: "There's a dictator that kills millions named Ritleh. He's a pretty cool guy, he kills minorities and isn't afraid of anything. He's awesome. Go Ritleh!" Sounds like a pretty bad guy to you, doesn't it? Well, guess what? That doesn't matter, because I wrote it, so my opinion of his morality is correct.

Quote:
So let me clue you in...

Adrian Veidt is the villain of the piece.

Let me clue you in. Perspective. Artistic bias. He created a character that he portrays as the villain. I do not have to agree with him, and neither do you. That's blind following.

But let's consider V for Vendetta. V is the hero of V for Vendetta. V, living in an era where the world is in chaos, the populace is in danger, and the government makes poor decisions, decides to take matters into his own hands, formulating a strategy to bring mankind into a new era of cooperation and peace, erasing the recent mistakes of the world leaders. He does not consult anybody, and his actions result in many deaths and are considered by many to be immoral.

Say, Vynson, didn't you like the message of V for Vendetta?

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
Manipulative and conning. Basically, the ability to trick others into doing what you want. Such a pleasant device.

How does that affect the quality of his decision-making?

I'm more concerned with how it affects the quality of everyone elses decision-making... oh that's right... they don't get to make any in Veidt's world, now do they?

No, they don't. Still doesn't mean that Veidt is wrong.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
Grandiose sense of self? Sure. Nothing spells great decision making like megalomania.

... but you don't say why. I'm looking for a good example of how this trait is prohibitive to making good decisions.

I think overestimating your own intelligence while discarding the thoughts of others is decidedly detrimental to rational decision-making. If Veidt were a doctor, would you want him doing your brain surgery?

DR. ADRIAN VEIDT
I knew it was a tumor. I don't care that Dr. Dreiberg, Dr. Kovacs, Dr. Juspeczyk, Dr. Mason, and the entire staff of Blake Memorial either disagreed with my diagnosis or recommended other courses of treatment. I don't want to hear their opinions. So, I took out a chainsaw and cut out the tumor.

Yes I know the patient's dead but that isn't the point. My job was to cut out the brain tumor. I did my job. Lateral thinking. Centuries ahead of my time, don't you know?

Again, assuming that Veidt is wrong, and then applying negative effects. Veidt has considered other paths and other ideas. He just doesn't accept them.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
Lack of remorse. Which means you can commit evil acts again and again with no residual guilt. Great quality to have in a person who is making decisions that effect all mankind........NOT.

"You can commit evil acts again and again." That's if you're committing evil acts. What I'm asking is, how are these traits conducive to that in the first place? You're positing an illogical, evil person and then applying these traits.

We aren't discussing lack of remorse in someone who has never done anything wrong. We are discussing a lack of emotional response in a person who has acted purposefully to harm others. This is not the person that anyone with a logical degree of self-interest wants making decisions that effect them.

He harmed to help. That's like saying he acted to pull one of those little pull-back cars back, as if it had no effect on the subsequent forward movement of the pull-back car. He acted for the result. He did not act for the means. That is only done by someone logically nearsighted.

Quote:
Is this really such a difficult concept that I have to illustrate? Fine. Let's say that you are dangling off a mountain. But you have managed to catch the hand of Adrian Veidt. He's tired. No one's around. He's dropped people of mountains before and never felt any guilt about it. He owes you 100 bucks anyway. He won't feel any guilt if he drops you.

But Veidt has a sense of morality for innocents. He wants to save them. He would like to. He has money. He has strength. If he has the ability to help and it will not hurt society, he will help. As I said in the other thread, I would trust any character of Watchmen with saving my life.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
I honestly do think Veidt wants to do good. This may be because he thinks that only he has the power to, but he does want to do good. He wants to help.

I can understand this as an initial impression in someone who has just read the book for the first time.

Please revisit the book and the character. Moore is subtle in places, but still quite clear. I don't feel like this point is in dispute. Adrian Veidt is a psychopath.

Moore is subtle. Moore is clear. He's clear with HIS beliefs on Veidt's morals. Mine are different.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
Incapacity for love. We never encounter a single personal relationship in Veidt's life. Not one. He has no capacity for romantic love or friendship or any other kind of emotional bond with other humans. He readily admitted that the only human he felt something for was long dead... ie. a person he cannot KNOW as a person. Only as a myth.

Oh no! How can a person without love ever be a good leader or decision-maker!? It can't be!

Your sarcasm won't make your opinion valid.

Imagine a man in his 40s who has never had a single intimate relationship. He has no partners, lovers, or friends. Only servants, employees, and acquaintances.

He is less invested than Jon in his fellow humans. Remember that Veidt was able to offer insight into Jon's psyche with his red ants/black ants question. Roth did not fathom what the careful reader does... that Veidt understood this because he shared the view.

And yet Jon makes good decisions on a universal sphere of interest. Failing to see the problem here.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Veidt was interested in the sphere of humanity, therefore he is invested in its survival.

His interest in the world is the same as a child's interest in their toy box.

I disagree. Veidt does not consider it a laughing matter - just the opposite, as evidenced by his hatred for the Comedian's ideology.

Re the psychology stuff: all the things you mention just alter which type of emotion you value more. Drugs would make you rely more on reactionary emotion, etc.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
I'd like to see all of that reactionary emotion removed from the decision-making process. It's hurt the world in far too many ways to be considered a good thing.


Utter nonsense. It's also produced every work of art, every symphony, play, movie, game, and baby on Earth.

Art, music, plays, movies, games. Are these decisions, or works of art and creativity?

Oh, and far too many babies have been produced as the result of reactionary emotion. Take a look at the abortion rate. Yeah, that's real great.

_________________
.
.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Headed for Davidstown
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:02 pm 
Offline
Intrinsic Field Subtractor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 1023
The Veidt Method wrote:
Consult whom?

A psychiatrist would be a good start.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Who is there that can look at things objectively like Veidt can, who is there that he can trust with the knowledge of what he plans to do, or that will consider possibly gruesome solutions?

If his actions were sane and necessary, he'd be able to consult with any number of people. But because he's a goddamned pschopath crazier than a shithouse rat, he's unable to find anyone who can relate. Too bad you weren't around for him... what with the story being fiction and all.

The Veidt Method wrote:
The idea was that the Black Freighter was waiting for the mariner to forfeit his morality, and was never heading for Davidstown. So, in chasing the solution to a false threat, he gives up his morals, makes a terrible mistake, and becomes part of that which he sought to destroy. This is a great analogy to Veidt, except, there was a threat - and he did prevent it.

The point is that he took a perceived threat, acted to make it worse, and became the emodiment of the threat itself. If you are trying to prevent mass death, you don't do it by wiping out 3 million in a single evening.

The Veidt Method wrote:
They have the ability to recognize the greater good - but they cannot be expected to consent to their own sacrifice, most of the time.

"They?" We're all just "they" aren't we? Of course we can't be expected to consent to our own deaths. Is that your license to kill us anyway?

The Veidt Method wrote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
However, time and time again, innocent people have been sacrificed for the greater good. Regrettable, but sometimes actually necessary.
Vynson wrote:
Please tell me when it was necessary to sacrifice innocent people. I'm at a complete loss to recall a single such incident.

Please impress us all with your acumen. I'm eager to hear of such a thing.

Approximately 160,000 German civilians killed during the expulsion of the Nazis in WWII. This does not include Soviet brutality/work camps.

I would argue these things were not necessary. Just because Nazi Germany was an attrocity does not mean that every action of the Allies was necessary or right.

One cannot help ask, however, what remaining German civilians were innocent as they gave their power to a madman and stood by and watched as their fellow humans were exterminated.

The Veidt Method wrote:
And that's why Veidt doesn't ask - because of people like you, who base their decisions on moral rules and reactionary emotion.

He doesn't ask if it's ok to slaughter 3 million people because he's a freakin' loon. He's nuttier than squirrel shit. People like me... halfway sane... will not endorse his whackadoo plan.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Let me clue you in. Perspective. Artistic bias. He created a character that he portrays as the villain. I do not have to agree with him, and neither do you. That's blind following.

It's actually called READING.
He made a clear statement. That you disagree with it is not enlightenment about the figment of Moore's imagination called Adrian Veidt. It's a confession.
The Veidt Method wrote:
Say, Vynson, didn't you like the message of V for Vendetta?

Yes. I'm an anarchist. I liked it very much.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Vynson wrote:
I'm more concerned with how it affects the quality of everyone elses decision-making... oh that's right... they don't get to make any in Veidt's world, now do they?

No, they don't. Still doesn't mean that Veidt is wrong.

Yes. That's exactly what it means.

The Veidt Method wrote:
He did not act for the means. That is only done by someone logically nearsighted.

Ignoring the means no matter how heinous does not make Veidt a logic god. It makes him evil.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Moore is clear. He's clear with HIS beliefs on Veidt's morals. Mine are different.

Veidt's morals aren't in dispute. He slaughtered 3 million innocent people.

The Veidt Method wrote:
And yet Jon makes good decisions on a universal sphere of interest. Failing to see the problem here.

Because you aren't a pregnant Vietnamese woman being shot. And you aren't JFK. And you aren't Janey Slater.

The Veidt Method wrote:
I disagree. Veidt does not consider it a laughing matter - just the opposite, as evidenced by his hatred for the Comedian's ideology.

The "toy box" comparison didn't imply it was a laughing matter... just that Veidt sees the world and its inhabitants as his personal colorforms set.

But since you mention humor... re-read Episode XII and you'll find Veidt making many dry jokes fresh on the heels of his mass-slaughter.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Re the psychology stuff: blah blah blah...

??

The Veidt Method wrote:
Art, music, plays, movies, games. Are these decisions, or works of art and creativity?

Every work of art is comprised of uncountable decisions.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Oh, and far too many babies have been produced as the result of reactionary emotion.


A problem you and your pal, Adrian can solve, no doubt.


The Veidt Method wrote:
Take a look at the abortion rate. Yeah, that's real great.
[/quote]
Looking at your position, am I to infer it isn't high enough for your tastes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:24 pm 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:05 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Sarasota, FL
Vynson wrote:
If his actions were sane and necessary, he'd be able to consult with any number of people. But because he's a goddamned pschopath crazier than a shithouse rat, he's unable to find anyone who can relate.

Ah, the sweet smell of opinion in the morning.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
The idea was that the Black Freighter was waiting for the mariner to forfeit his morality, and was never heading for Davidstown. So, in chasing the solution to a false threat, he gives up his morals, makes a terrible mistake, and becomes part of that which he sought to destroy. This is a great analogy to Veidt, except, there was a threat - and he did prevent it.

The point is that he took a perceived threat, acted to make it worse, and became the emodiment of the threat itself. If you are trying to prevent mass death, you don't do it by wiping out 3 million in a single evening.

If you're trying to prevent the death of two billion, you might do it by wiping out 3 million in a single evening. The problem with the analogy is that the mariner's actions didn't make any positive difference. Veidt's did.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
They have the ability to recognize the greater good - but they cannot be expected to consent to their own sacrifice, most of the time.

"They?" We're all just "they" aren't we? Of course we can't be expected to consent to our own deaths. Is that your license to kill us anyway?

And I agree. We can't be expected to consent to our own deaths. That doesn't mean that the act of killing us is wrong, or bad for society, or bad for the world, or bad for the human race. Killers on death row probably don't consent to their own deaths. Rapists who get killed by their victims in the act probably wouldn't consent to their own deaths. Everyone has that instinct.

Quote:
Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
However, time and time again, innocent people have been sacrificed for the greater good. Regrettable, but sometimes actually necessary.

Quote:
Please tell me when it was necessary to sacrifice innocent people. I'm at a complete loss to recall a single such incident.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Please impress us all with your acumen. I'm eager to hear of such a thing.

Approximately 160,000 German civilians killed during the expulsion of the Nazis in WWII. This does not include Soviet brutality/work camps.

I would argue these things were not necessary. Just because Nazi Germany was an attrocity does not mean that every action of the Allies was necessary or right.

Of course not, which is why I discounted as many as I could. But every time we go to war against a threat, even a completely agreed-upon threat, we know we will kill civilians that are completely innocent. It's inevitable. We do it anyway.

Quote:
One cannot help ask, however, what remaining German civilians were innocent as they gave their power to a madman and stood by and watched as their fellow humans were exterminated.

As opposed to the civilians electing Nixon over and over again in Watchmen...? Rorschach considers all of New York City guilty. At least I'm not arguing that innocent civilians DESERVE to die, Vynson.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
And that's why Veidt doesn't ask - because of people like you, who base their decisions on moral rules and reactionary emotion.

He doesn't ask if it's ok to slaughter 3 million people because he's a freakin' loon. He's nuttier than squirrel shit. People like me... halfway sane... will not endorse his whackadoo plan.

I like how you say later on in your post that you're an anarchist. Because anarchy is realistic, guys. Yep. Just like communism. Yeah, those systems of government can really work. Speaking of whackadoo plans...

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Let me clue you in. Perspective. Artistic bias. He created a character that he portrays as the villain. I do not have to agree with him, and neither do you. That's blind following.

It's actually called READING.
He made a clear statement. That you disagree with it is not enlightenment about the figment of Moore's imagination called Adrian Veidt. It's a confession.

It's a personal commentary. I'm not saying it's enlightenment, just opinion.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
He did not act for the means. That is only done by someone logically nearsighted.

Ignoring the means no matter how heinous does not make Veidt a logic god. It makes him evil.

If the ends are more desirable than the negative impact of the least offensive yet still reasonably effective means, then the decision is justified.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Moore is clear. He's clear with HIS beliefs on Veidt's morals. Mine are different.

Veidt's morals aren't in dispute. He slaughtered 3 million innocent people.

I dispute them. They are in dispute.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
And yet Jon makes good decisions on a universal sphere of interest. Failing to see the problem here.

Because you aren't a pregnant Vietnamese woman being shot. And you aren't JFK. And you aren't Janey Slater.

No, I'm not, but I disagree with Jon, as well. I have interest in the sphere of humanity, not the universe.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
I disagree. Veidt does not consider it a laughing matter - just the opposite, as evidenced by his hatred for the Comedian's ideology.

The "toy box" comparison didn't imply it was a laughing matter... just that Veidt sees the world and its inhabitants as his personal colorforms set.

Veidt is not playing around. This is not something done to entertain him. He takes it seriously.

Quote:
But since you mention humor... re-read Episode XII and you'll find Veidt making many dry jokes fresh on the heels of his mass-slaughter.

Because he dislikes Rorschach.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Art, music, plays, movies, games. Are these decisions, or works of art and creativity?

Every work of art is comprised of uncountable decisions.

Artistic decisions, not life-changing decisions. Not world-changing decisions.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Take a look at the abortion rate. Yeah, that's real great.

Looking at your position, am I to infer it isn't high enough for your tastes?

Implying that I like death - these baseless insults - this is extremely offensive. Get it through your head, Vynson, that I despise the taking of human life. It is absolutely abhorrent. The mere idea of it sickens me. I simply realize that sometimes, in the most terrible situations imaginable, it is necessary in a societal sphere of interest. Do not imply that I take some sick pleasure in the idea of death. Stick to the subject. These appeals to emotion, this resorting to insults - stick to the topic, don't circumvent reason with this BS. Ad hominem attacks are sickeningly asinine.

_________________
.
.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:06 pm 
Offline
Intrinsic Field Subtractor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 1023
The Veidt Method wrote:
The problem with the analogy is that the mariner's actions didn't make any positive difference. Veidt's did.

How do we know? We don't. In the long run, the sun will die, flare out, scorch the earth, and all human life will be extinguished. If you really want to look at it from an utterly objective POV, Veidt didn't save humanity; he simply postponed the inevitable by slaughtering 3 million people.

Let's spell this out. Slaughtering 3 million people is bad.

Bad.

You get that, right?

The Veidt Method wrote:
But every time we go to war against a threat, even a completely agreed-upon threat, we know we will kill civilians that are completely innocent. It's inevitable. We do it anyway.

This doesn't make it right. You have yet to provide me a single example of a justifiable and necessary event.

The Veidt Method wrote:
At least I'm not arguing that innocent civilians DESERVE to die, Vynson.

No... "innocent" and "deserve to die" don't really go together. You aren't concerned with what they deserve. You're willing to kill them anyway.

The Veidt Method wrote:
I like how you say later on in your post that you're an anarchist. Because anarchy is realistic, guys. Yep. Just like communism. Yeah, those systems of government can really work. Speaking of whackadoo plans...

Anarchism has never been tried. But after reading your posts, I can understand your hostility toward individual freedoms.

The Veidt Method wrote:
If the ends are more desirable than the negative impact of the least offensive yet still reasonably effective means, then the decision is justified.

Desirable to WHOM, sir? Do you seriously entertain the notion that your powers of logic are up to the task of deciding the fate of another individual? Let alone 3 million people?

The Veidt Method wrote:
Vynson wrote:
Veidt's morals aren't in dispute. He slaughtered 3 million innocent people.

I dispute them. They are in dispute.

This doesn't put Veidt's morals in dispute. It puts yours in dispute.

The Veidt Method wrote:
No, I'm not, but I disagree with Jon, as well. I have interest in the sphere of humanity, not the universe.

You aren't even a logical pragmatist. how will humanity survive if the universe falls by the wayside? You simply must devise an insane scheme to save the entire Universe!!

The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
Every work of art is comprised of uncountable decisions.

Artistic decisions, not life-changing decisions. Not world-changing decisions.

Need I point out that artistic decisions are the most life-changing and the most world-changing?


I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
~~John Adams



The Veidt Method wrote:
Implying that I like death -

Implying nothing.

The Veidt Method wrote:
these baseless insults -

Show me a single baseless insult.

The Veidt Method wrote:
this is extremely offensive.

Why indulge in an emotional response? Are you trying to ruin the world? You and Adrian are above such things.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Get it through your head, Vynson, that I despise the taking of human life. It is absolutely abhorrent. The mere idea of it sickens me.

I think we all hear the resounding "BUT???" Frankly your disclaimer sounds familiar...
Adrian Veidt wrote:
I've made myself feel every death...


Adrian Veidt wrote:
I know I've struggled across the backs of murdered innocents...


Adrian Veidt wrote:
I did the right thing, didn't I?


Adrian Veidt wrote:
I did it!


The Veidt Method wrote:
These appeals to emotion, this resorting to insults - stick to the topic, don't circumvent reason with this BS. Ad hominem attacks are sickeningly asinine.


Then don't make them. I have not bothered with ad hominem attacks. I'm simply pointing out that your argument is immoral. You can take that as an ad hominem all day long, but at the end of the day, killing 3 million people is wrong and endorsing it is wrong. If you find that stand personally insulting... I'm OK with that.

You keep going on about "appeals to emotion." Quote me an appeal to emotion. Your insistence in a dichotomy between the emotional faculty and the intellect is something I... and the psychiatric community at large... take exception with. And, as you've yet to make a logical rebuttal or assertion, I would challenge you to develop a better understanding of reason itself.

And while you're at it... please stop avoiding the key question that dandreiberg and I keep asking and you keep sidestepping...

Who gets to decide? If you think it's cool for one person to assess the world and decide to slaughter three million... who decides?

You?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Adrian Veidt
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:48 pm 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:05 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Sarasota, FL
Vynson wrote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
The problem with the analogy is that the mariner's actions didn't make any positive difference. Veidt's did.

How do we know? We don't. In the long run, the sun will die, flare out, scorch the earth, and all human life will be extinguished. If you really want to look at it from an utterly objective POV, Veidt didn't save humanity; he simply postponed the inevitable by slaughtering 3 million people.

We're talking about short-term, extreme tragedies in both stories. The death of his family vs. nuclear war. Not millions of years. Both of the characters' goals are to eliminate a particular problem.

Quote:
Let's spell this out. Slaughtering 3 million people is bad.

Bad.

You get that, right?

Throw a 'needlessly' in there, and yes. I would agree, unconditionally, that it is horrifying.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
But every time we go to war against a threat, even a completely agreed-upon threat, we know we will kill civilians that are completely innocent. It's inevitable. We do it anyway.

This doesn't make it right. You have yet to provide me a single example of a justifiable and necessary event.

I did, with the death of German civilians in the crossfire during the deposition of the Nazis.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
At least I'm not arguing that innocent civilians DESERVE to die, Vynson.

No... "innocent" and "deserve to die" don't really go together. You aren't concerned with what they deserve. You're willing to kill them anyway.

But you're saying that innocent civilians actually deserved to die. Sounds like Rorschach. Doesn't sound like V or Veidt. Both of them had basic respect for the survival and 'goodness' of humanity.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
I like how you say later on in your post that you're an anarchist. Because anarchy is realistic, guys. Yep. Just like communism. Yeah, those systems of government can really work. Speaking of whackadoo plans...

Anarchism has never been tried. But after reading your posts, I can understand your hostility toward individual freedoms.

Oh, no, I think in a perfect world, anarchism or communism would be wonderful, but humans find motivation in competition, whether financial or power-based, and motivation produces most of the greatest progress in this world. The systems ignore that pressure, and therefore simply do not work. Human greed is far too powerful. Believing that they can operate on anything more than a short-term basis is ridiculous.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
If the ends are more desirable than the negative impact of the least offensive yet still reasonably effective means, then the decision is justified.

Desirable to WHOM, sir? Do you seriously entertain the notion that your powers of logic are up to the task of deciding the fate of another individual? Let alone 3 million people?

Then prove the decision wrong. Offer an alternative.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Vynson wrote:
Veidt's morals aren't in dispute. He slaughtered 3 million innocent people.

I dispute them. They are in dispute.

This doesn't put Veidt's morals in dispute. It puts yours in dispute.

Oh, but Vynson, who are you to decide!? Mmm. Hypocrisy.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
No, I'm not, but I disagree with Jon, as well. I have interest in the sphere of humanity, not the universe.

You aren't even a logical pragmatist. how will humanity survive if the universe falls by the wayside? You simply must devise an insane scheme to save the entire Universe!!

But the universe isn't in imminent danger. I don't view other planets with the same interest that I view our planet. I don't have concern for extraterrestrial life. It's not an issue of saving the universe; it's an issue of not needing or wanting to be interested in it.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
Every work of art is comprised of uncountable decisions.

Artistic decisions, not life-changing decisions. Not world-changing decisions.

Need I point out that artistic decisions are the most life-changing and the most world-changing?

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
~~John Adams

You do realize that he's saying that he has to change the world through politics and war, right?

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Implying that I like death -

Implying nothing.

The Veidt Method wrote:
these baseless insults -

Show me a single baseless insult.

"Looking at your position, am I to infer it isn't high enough for your tastes?"
You know that's not what I'd think, yet you say it anyway. Is there any indication that I am in support of killing people needlessly? Have I said anything about overpopulation? Anything that would indicate that position? In fact, the statement you quoted flat-out referenced my opinion that the rate was too high.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
this is extremely offensive.

Why indulge in an emotional response? Are you trying to ruin the world? You and Adrian are above such things.

Ah, but see, Vynson, it was emotion in reaction to your logical fallacies, not a statement based on my initial emotional response.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Get it through your head, Vynson, that I despise the taking of human life. It is absolutely abhorrent. The mere idea of it sickens me.

I think we all hear the resounding "BUT???" Frankly your disclaimer sounds familiar...

God forbid you compare me to the person I've been agreeing with for the past week.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
These appeals to emotion, this resorting to insults - stick to the topic, don't circumvent reason with this BS. Ad hominem attacks are sickeningly asinine.


Then don't make them. I have not bothered with ad hominem attacks.

Already pointed one out up above.

Quote:
You keep going on about "appeals to emotion." Quote me an appeal to emotion.

"Standing on his mother's grave chewing on a piece of grass... at 17... why is this even in dispute?"
Obviously irrelevant, except in the course of appealing to emotion.

Quote:
And while you're at it... please stop avoiding the key question that dandreiberg and I keep asking and you keep sidestepping...

Who gets to decide? If you think it's cool for one person to assess the world and decide to slaughter three million... who decides?

I don't think that's 'cool.' I think that Veidt made a good decision. Honestly, it's a case-to-case issue. How many times would a decision like this come about? In fact, it wasn't even really a decision - Veidt created a decision. He took action. Nobody handed him the button. Is Veidt taking action worse than Nixon making the decision? Worse than the Russian premier making the decision? Worse than a general making the decision? No. He's objective. He's brilliant. He's resourceful. He's effective. Nobody would consciously hand the power he wielded to anyone. That's not how it works. We don't trust anyone but ourselves enough to make decisions that big, and for good reason. So, all in all, the person decides. Each person decides how they will affect the world - and yes, that may involve affecting others. We can only hope that people use that judgment to do good, rather than bad, for humanity. I'm not advocating these types of decisions, really - I hope that a scenario like the one Veidt faced in Watchmen never arises - but honestly, if the world was at that political point today, I would hope someone sensible would come up with a solution once and for all - and I can't say what particular position or status that person would have to hold, because I wouldn't care, as long as their solution worked.

_________________
.
.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Logic
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 9:57 pm 
Offline
Intrinsic Field Subtractor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 1023
The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
Let's spell this out. Slaughtering 3 million people is bad.

Bad.

You get that, right?

Throw a 'needlessly' in there, and yes. I would agree, unconditionally, that it is horrifying.

Who gets to determine the NEED to slaughter 3 million people?

The Veidt Method wrote:
I did, with the death of German civilians in the crossfire during the deposition of the Nazis.


The Veidt Method wrote:
But you're saying that innocent civilians actually deserved to die.

No. I'm questioning the "innocence" of people who empowered Hitler and then watched as his minions murdered millions and millions. Some people saw a "need" to do it.

And I still question the "need" to kill civilians during military campaigns.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Oh, no, I think in a perfect world, anarchism or communism would be wonderful, but humans find motivation in competition, whether financial or power-based, and motivation produces most of the greatest progress in this world. The systems ignore that pressure, and therefore simply do not work. Human greed is far too powerful. Believing that they can operate on anything more than a short-term basis is ridiculous.


Anarchism means "without a ruler." It does not mean chaos and it does not disclude competition.
The Veidt Method wrote:
Then prove the decision wrong. Offer an alternative.

NOT killing 3 million people.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
This doesn't put Veidt's morals in dispute. It puts yours in dispute.

Oh, but Vynson, who are you to decide!? Mmm. Hypocrisy.

I'm deciding on my opinion of what you are saying. I am not deciding to kill 3 million people. These two things are not remotely the same.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
~~John Adams

You do realize that he's saying that he has to change the world through politics and war, right?

You do realize that he's saying that the POINT of politics and war is to provide out children with a setting in which they may study finer subjects like math, philosophy, painting, and poetry (as he goes on to say)?

The Veidt Method wrote:
You know that's not what I'd think, yet you say it anyway. Is there any indication that I am in support of killing people needlessly?

Your posts cause me to question your idea of what constitutes needful killing.

The Veidt Method wrote:
In fact, the statement you quoted flat-out referenced my opinion that the rate was too high.

Right. I see now. Save the unborn. Kill the living. Check contrived sense of "need." Got it.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Ah, but see, Vynson, it was emotion in reaction to your logical fallacies, not a statement based on my initial emotional response.

Logical fallacy? Hurm. Such as?


The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
You keep going on about "appeals to emotion." Quote me an appeal to emotion.

"Standing on his mother's grave chewing on a piece of grass... at 17... why is this even in dispute?"
Obviously irrelevant, except in the course of appealing to emotion.

Moore and Gibbons were illustrating Veidt's psychpathy by showing a lack of emotion as he stands on his mother's fresh grave. It's called storytelling. Most of us picked up on it.

The Veidt Method wrote:
I don't think that's 'cool.' I think that Veidt made a good decision. I would hope someone sensible would come up with a solution once and for all - and I can't say what particular position or status that person would have to hold, because I wouldn't care, as long as their solution worked.

What if the person who NEEDS to save the world is a Scientologist?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Adrian Veidt
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:15 pm 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:05 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Sarasota, FL
Quote:
Who gets to determine the NEED to slaughter 3 million people?

Answered later on in my post.

Quote:
No. I'm questioning the "innocence" of people who empowered Hitler and then watched as his minions murdered millions and millions.

Out of fear? Out of inability? What about those who rebelled against him, but were nevertheless killed in the crossfire? Were they 'guilty' as well?

Quote:
And I still question the "need" to kill civilians during military campaigns.

Oh, it's not a necessity - most of the time it's purely accidental, or unknowing. But it happens, and it will continue to happen, even in the most black-and-white of conflicts.

Quote:
Anarchism means "without a ruler." It does not mean chaos and it does not disclude competition.

Rulers will emerge through competition. It is inevitable. Human greed does not permit anarchy. Conquest and collaboration will bring a new order to any anarchist society.

Quote:
NOT killing 3 million people.

You must have misunderstood - I meant an alternative solution.

Quote:
I'm deciding on my opinion of what you are saying. I am not deciding to kill 3 million people. These two things are not remotely the same.

I'm asking who you are to decide whose morals are in dispute or are not in dispute on a broad basis.

Quote:
You do realize that he's saying that the POINT of politics and war is to provide out children with a setting in which they may study finer subjects like math, philosophy, painting, and poetry (as he goes on to say)?

Exactly. But in order to enact those changes to the world, he must invoke politics and war, not art and poetry.

Quote:
Your posts cause me to question your idea of what constitutes needful killing.

Put yourself in Veidt's shoes. From what I see in Watchmen - which is admittedly not the entire picture of politics at the time, and the provided evidence must therefore be considered enough to establish the certainty of the nuclear conflict - nuclear war was certain. Maybe not until a few years after Watchmen, but it was certain. Just accept this for a moment. Then ask yourself: in plain terms, given the tradeoff between three million lives and billions of lives, would you make the decision? That, in my view, is needful killing. The lesser of two evils should always be chosen.

Quote:
Right. I see now. Save the unborn. Kill the living. Check contrived sense of "need." Got it.

Doesn't change your ad hominem attack into a rational point, though, eh? I'm not talking about 'save the unborn,' though, I'm pro-choice, but still - it's not a good thing that there are so many abortions. It's not great for women or their relationships, and it's sure as hell preventable.

Quote:
Logical fallacy? Hurm. Such as?

Such as the contradictory ad hominem attack I was responding to.

Quote:
Moore and Gibbons were illustrating Veidt's psychpathy by showing a lack of emotion as he stands on his mother's fresh grave. It's called storytelling. Most of us picked up on it.

So did I. Hey, guess what Moore and Gibbons were doing? Utilizing emotional appeal. Most of us picked up on it.

Quote:
What if the person who NEEDS to save the world is a Scientologist?

Key words: "Someone sensible."

_________________
.
.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Adrian Veidt
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:04 pm 
Offline
Tired of Earth.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:01 am
Posts: 8041
Location: Clackamas, OR
Okay, let me see if I can break this down.

On the one hand, we have the belief that the end justifies the means, that someone had to take charge of an extremely volatile situation and the 3 million deaths -- while regrettable -- were necessary.

On the other hand, there's the belief that no individual has the right to mass murder or the right to decide the course of humanity, the Cold War (in the Watchmen world) should've ended in a way that didn't involve violence and Veidt was a psychopath who took matters into his own hands for the sake of his own ego.

Does that sound about right?

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Adrian Veidt
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:05 pm 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:05 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Sarasota, FL
Curiosity Inc. wrote:
Okay, let me see if I can break this down.

On the one hand, we have the belief that the end justifies the means, that someone had to take charge of an extremely volatile situation and the 3 million deaths -- while regrettable -- were necessary.

On the other hand, there's the belief that no individual has the right to mass murder or the right to decide the course of humanity, the Cold War (in the Watchmen world) should've ended in a way that didn't involve violence and Veidt was a psychopath who took matters into his own hands for the sake of his own ego.

Does that sound about right?

As the initial arguments for each, yeah, that's about right.

_________________
.
.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Adrian Veidt
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:11 pm 
Offline
The Watcher
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:58 am
Posts: 3650
Location: New York
Curiosity Inc. wrote:
Okay, let me see if I can break this down.

On the one hand, we have the belief that the end justifies the means, that someone had to take charge of an extremely volatile situation and the 3 million deaths -- while regrettable -- were necessary.

On the other hand, there's the belief that no individual has the right to mass murder or the right to decide the course of humanity, the Cold War (in the Watchmen world) should've ended in a way that didn't involve violence and Veidt was a psychopath who took matters into his own hands for the sake of his own ego.

Does that sound about right?

Yes. I have to side more with Vynson here. When one man, no matter how smart he is, decides to kill 3 million people it's wrong. Great. Maybe Veidt stopped WWIII and maybe that saved billions. But whose to say humanity didn't need a good pounding to finally understand a lasting peace was necessary to save humanity. Veidt's actions could have stopped WWIII from happening in 1985 only to set the stage for a bigger and far more deadly WWIII in 2085.

"Nothing ever ends."

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Adrian Veidt
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:16 pm 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:05 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Sarasota, FL
DoomsdayClock wrote:
Curiosity Inc. wrote:
Okay, let me see if I can break this down.

On the one hand, we have the belief that the end justifies the means, that someone had to take charge of an extremely volatile situation and the 3 million deaths -- while regrettable -- were necessary.

On the other hand, there's the belief that no individual has the right to mass murder or the right to decide the course of humanity, the Cold War (in the Watchmen world) should've ended in a way that didn't involve violence and Veidt was a psychopath who took matters into his own hands for the sake of his own ego.

Does that sound about right?

Yes. I have to side more with Vynson here. When one man, no matter how smart he is, decides to kill 3 million people it's wrong. Great. Maybe Veidt stopped WWIII and maybe that saved billions. But whose to say humanity didn't need a good pounding to finally understand a lasting peace was necessary to save humanity. Veidt's actions could have stopped WWIII from happening in 1985 only to set the stage for a bigger and far more deadly WWIII in 2085.

"Nothing ever ends."

I was under the impression that Veidt DID give humanity a 'good pounding.' But still, keep in mind, the nukes they had at that point, in their full quantities, would have caused enormous damage to the entire world, not just the eastern seaboard. Entire environments would have been lost. Not just human lives.

_________________
.
.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Adrian Veidt
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:19 pm 
Offline
Tired of Earth.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:01 am
Posts: 8041
Location: Clackamas, OR
Yeah, I'm siding with Vynson, too. Nobody has the right to play God. Nobody.

I believe that even with his massive ego, Veidt had good intentions. But we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Adrian Veidt
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:22 pm 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:05 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Sarasota, FL
Curiosity Inc. wrote:
Yeah, I'm siding with Vynson, too. Nobody has the right to play God. Nobody.

I believe that even with his massive ego, Veidt had good intentions. But we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

Didn't Veidt simply stop two other people from playing God in a much more dangerous way?

_________________
.
.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Veidtal Statistics
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:36 pm 
Offline
Intrinsic Field Subtractor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 1023
The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
Who gets to determine the NEED to slaughter 3 million people?

Answered later on in my post.

?

The Veidt Method wrote:
Out of fear? Out of inability? What about those who rebelled against him, but were nevertheless killed in the crossfire? Were they 'guilty' as well?

Let me be clear. I'm not for killing any civilians in a war. I simply questioned the innocense of people who put a monster in office.

I also have concerns about those who put George W. Bush in office.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
And I still question the "need" to kill civilians during military campaigns.

Oh, it's not a necessity - most of the time it's purely accidental, or unknowing. But it happens, and it will continue to happen, even in the most black-and-white of conflicts.


The Allies didn't have a problem killing civillians. The firebombing of Tokyo illustrated that quite graphically even prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Conquest and collaboration will bring a new order to any anarchist society.

How would we know? Anarchism has never been tried.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
NOT killing 3 million people.

You must have misunderstood - I meant an alternative solution.

OK... he could have arranged the assassinations of the key political figures who so screwed up the political climate, especially "the night creature," while simultaneously positioning himself for a run at the presidency.

He could then institute sane policies that reversed the foreign relations nightmare that brewed before.

Y'know? Sane stuff.

The Veidt Method wrote:
I'm asking who you are to decide whose morals are in dispute or are not in dispute on a broad basis.

Odd question. Obviously we all have to make such judgements so that we can decide where we stand. If the citizens of Germany had done that, Hitler would not have risen to power.

As for Veidt, his character was thoroughly defined by the author. your character has to be defined by you. But your support of Veidt's position reveals it.

The Veidt Method wrote:
But in order to enact those changes to the world, he must invoke politics and war, not art and poetry.

No argument. But... There is a difference between invoking politics and war and endorsing the slaughter of millions.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Just accept this for a moment. Then ask yourself: in plain terms, given the tradeoff between three million lives and billions of lives, would you make the decision? That, in my view, is needful killing.

No. I don't accept the flawed premise that such a slaughter is the best plan. It's just freakin' insane.

The Veidt Method wrote:
The lesser of two evils should always be chosen.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is, of course, to choose evil.

I believe in rejecting evil and choosing a right course. Anyone who believes that choosing the lesser of two evils is the only choice is in denial.

The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
Logical fallacy? Hurm. Such as?

Such as the contradictory ad hominem attack I was responding to.

?

The Veidt Method wrote:
So did I. Hey, guess what Moore and Gibbons were doing? Utilizing emotional appeal. Most of us picked up on it.

No. Most of us did not. You inferred it. The rest of us noted that a 17 year old Adrian Veidt was lounging against his mother's fresh gravestone, chewing on a blade of grass, demonstrating not one iota of grief or mourning.

I would suggest that, were autopsies performed on the bodies of Adrian's parents, evidence of foul play pointing to young Adrian might be at hand. Yes. I think he killed his parents.

I don't believe that he donated his entire inheritance. He seemed to have plenty of globe-hopping cash. You can't get to Turkey for free.

At any rate, that panel was Alan Moore screaming at us: Look! This guy's a pschopath!

The Veidt Method wrote:
Key words: "Someone sensible."

Someone sensible isn't going to slaughter 3 million people.

But I think we can agree on who might be sensible here in the real world.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Adrian Veidt
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:50 pm 
Offline
Dog Carcass in Alley
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:55 am
Posts: 6493
Location: Toronto, Ont, Canada
Vynson wrote:
OK... he could have arranged the assassinations of the key political figures who so screwed up the political climate, especially "the night creature," while simultaneously positioning himself for a run at the presidency.


It seems there is no way around the killing people part.

_________________
Image

"Heard them Walthers like to jump some" "As will you, with one in your elbow."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Veidtal Statistics
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 11:52 pm 
Offline
A brother to dragons.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:05 pm
Posts: 1434
Location: Sarasota, FL
Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
And I still question the "need" to kill civilians during military campaigns.

Oh, it's not a necessity - most of the time it's purely accidental, or unknowing. But it happens, and it will continue to happen, even in the most black-and-white of conflicts.


The Allies didn't have a problem killing civillians. The firebombing of Tokyo illustrated that quite graphically even prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Not arguing that at all - hence why I said 'conflicts,' not 'wars.' Terrible things are done by both sides in every war, but civilians will always be caught even in purely military crossfire. It's a cost of conflict.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Conquest and collaboration will bring a new order to any anarchist society.

How would we know? Anarchism has never been tried.

Communism has been. It didn't work (modern incarnations are more socialist). They operate on the same discounting of mankind's avarice.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Quote:
NOT killing 3 million people.

You must have misunderstood - I meant an alternative solution.

OK... he could have arranged the assassinations of the key political figures who so screwed up the political climate, especially "the night creature," while simultaneously positioning himself for a run at the presidency.

He could then institute sane policies that reversed the foreign relations nightmare that brewed before.

Better, but I'd still disagree. We don't know who was leading in Russia - that plays a big part, and it's probably something we'll never know, unfortunately. Still, the biggest problem with that is unpredictability. Manhattan really could have left earth any day. Something like that news conference could have actually happened on its own - one event that made him leave. Just look at Laurie putting him down and confusing him all the time, her obvious initial feelings for Dan - she could have left him. It could have happened on its own, and if it did, Veidt would not have had time to act. Hrm. Actually, thinking about it, I'd have to say that if I were Veidt, I would have waited for Manhattan to leave while setting myself up for political office with the squid as a backup. Nevertheless, that's still extremely, extremely risky. Also, keep in mind that Veidt created cooperation between the entire world - it wasn't just the elimination of one threat. It was the dawn of a new age. So, maybe the benefits of that could be weighed against the risks and detriments. Man, this is when I really do wish Moore had given a bit more exposition about the world after Watchmen.

Quote:
As for Veidt, his character was thoroughly defined by the author. your character has to be defined by you. But your support of Veidt's position reveals it.

I still think that Moore is almost playing us as readers. V and Veidt share some extremely startling similarities, yet are portrayed as the hero and the villain, respectively.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
But in order to enact those changes to the world, he must invoke politics and war, not art and poetry.

No argument. But... There is a difference between invoking politics and war and endorsing the slaughter of millions.

Is there? I'm pretty sure it falls under both. In fact, I think Adrian heartily studied politics and war in order to ensure that the future generations would be at ease.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Just accept this for a moment. Then ask yourself: in plain terms, given the tradeoff between three million lives and billions of lives, would you make the decision? That, in my view, is needful killing.

No. I don't accept the flawed premise that such a slaughter is the best plan. It's just freakin' insane.

If it was, what would your choice be?

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
The lesser of two evils should always be chosen.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is, of course, to choose evil.

To choose neither is to let others choose evil in your stead. Whose judgment do you trust more?

Vynson wrote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
So did I. Hey, guess what Moore and Gibbons were doing? Utilizing emotional appeal. Most of us picked up on it.

No. Most of us did not. You inferred it. The rest of us noted that a 17 year old Adrian Veidt was lounging against his mother's fresh gravestone, chewing on a blade of grass, demonstrating not one iota of grief or mourning.

... which makes us think, "Man! That's coldhearted, because I'm attached to my parents and I would feel sad!" We have no idea what's running through Veidt's mind. Maybe he's contemplative. Maybe he's sad. He's not much of one for showing emotion anyway.

Quote:
The Veidt Method wrote:
Key words: "Someone sensible."

Someone sensible isn't going to slaughter 3 million people.

But I think we can agree on who might be sensible here in the real world.

I think that anyone sensible wouldn't completely rule it out.

_________________
.
.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 316 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.145s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]