WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

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.

_________________
.
.

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


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.


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.


... 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?


"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.


"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.


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


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


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.

_________________
.
.

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?


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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?


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.

_________________
.
.

Ah, the sweet smell of opinion in the morning.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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...


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


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


I dispute them. They are in dispute.


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


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


Because he dislikes Rorschach.


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


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.

_________________
.
.

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.


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


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


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.


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.


Then prove the decision wrong. Offer an alternative.


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


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.


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


"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.


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


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


Already pointed one out up above.


"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.


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.

_________________
.
.

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




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.



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

NOT killing 3 million people.


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.


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)?


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


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


Logical fallacy? Hurm. Such as?



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.


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

Answered later on in my post.


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?


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.


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.


You must have misunderstood - I meant an alternative solution.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


Key words: "Someone sensible."

_________________
.
.

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.

As the initial arguments for each, yeah, that's 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

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.

_________________
.
.

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.

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

_________________
.
.

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

_________________


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

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.


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


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.


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.


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.


If it was, what would your choice be?


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


... 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.


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

_________________
.
.