Nickelodeon (ended 2008)
zakabbas wrote: |
Honestly, this thread has the longest posts i have ever seen in my entire life. I really do wanna understand your debate, but, when i see the length of your posts, i just cant be bothered to. |
Will try to be laconic.
MauricXe wrote: |
This is getting old fast. |
Good sign of losing - fake disinterest.
MauricXe wrote: |
Whether killing Jews is right or wrong is not the issue and neither is my personal opinion. |
It is an issue, since you've declared that you consider moral relativism an acceptable viewpoint. I tried to demonstrate how moral relativism is NOT an acceptable viewpoint.
MauricXe wrote: |
Originally, you brought up some issues that according to your moral standard, are amoral for whatever reason. My only intent is to inform you that from another viewpoint, and guess what, not everyone agrees with you, you can validate any action. What is moral for Bob may not be moral for Alice. |
It is blindingly obvious that every man has his own moral viewpoint. No one ever argued with that. If your argument boils down to "bad people sometimes do bad things because they think it's right", then it has absolutely no relevance to our discussion, because I never claimed the Avatars were amoral in their own eyes. What I said was they were amoral from the point of common human values, values that most people share and which are embodied in our laws and ethics (the widespread ethics, not the satanic cult ethics).
MauricXe wrote: |
2. The duty of the Avatar is to restore balance any way he can. LOL. I don't know how you can argue that. If you even read your response: "He was very restrained in ways he would allow himself to use to restore balance." So what you mean to say is, he restored balance any way he could? |
Okay, repeating myself again. Aang COULD kill Ozai and restore balance that way. BUT he WOULD NOT DO IT, even though he COULD. Therefore, Aang does not think that the Avatar should be restoring balance ANY WAY HE CAN. Clear enough for you?
MauricXe wrote: |
3. Ozai vs Aang was not a fight to the death? Really? So Ozai was only trying to tickle Aang with his lightning or maybe he was trying to dry him off or keep him warm with all that fire? |
Ozai was trying to kill Aang. But Aang was not trying to kill Ozai. So it was not a fight to the death (for Ozai maybe, but not for Aang).
MauricXe wrote: |
Ozai was not defenseless. He had a means of attack, his mouth, but cowered in fear. |
He couldn't do anything to the Avatar with his mouth, even if he tried. He knew that perfectly well, so he didn't even try. It was just too weak to harm the Avatar in any way. Besides, all he had to do was get behind Ozai's back. Or gag him.
MauricXe wrote: |
*You can't deny it was a fight* is not the same as *You denied it was a fight* |
Okay, then what were you trying to prove by repeatedly insisting it was a fight? I never said anything to the contrary, but your passionate arguing implied that I did.
MauricXe wrote: |
You don't claim he was a helpless bender? |
Explaining: Helpless bender = so lame at bending that he's helpless. Ozai = very good at bending, =/= "helpless bender". BUT, once restrained, Ozai = helpless (bender, person - everything). Was arguing against wording, not against idea.
4. *snip*
MauricXe wrote: |
5. I agree that we can judge the show with our moral standards. |
GOOD.
MauricXe wrote: |
But I think you place too much emphasis on particular instances and your own belief of right and wrong. |
Not just MY beliefs. Widespread beliefs. Even called upon criminal law, international treaties and Buddhist philosophy to demonstrate.
MauricXe wrote: |
And I don't think the Geneva Convention applies to the situation you used it for because of what we discussed before. |
What, precisely?
6. Earth Kingdom, Earth *snipped* One point to remember: if capitalised, always planet.
8. Insults *snipped*
MauricXe wrote: |
what do you think Aang had in mind for Ozai? If he was not going to kill him, then what? The only other possible solution is to let him live or to let him go. When I say let him go, this is the same as saying to let him go on with his life knowing he can hurt others again ie. not killing him. Letting him go can cover putting him in prison |
So. Letting live OR letting go. But letting live = letting go. Also, letting go= put to prison. MAJOR CONFUSION. Glad that you finally figured out what you wanted to say.
*expanations of poor word choice snipped*
MauricXe wrote: |
I never said in that particular frame of the argument that you wanted to let him go. |
You consistently argued against letting Ozai go. No one in the show wanted to let him go. I didn't want to let him go. SO WHO WERE YOU ARGUING AGAINST?
I'm prepared to admit that you didn't misinterpret me. You were just totally clueless. And I wrongly proceeded from the assumption that you had a clue about what you were saying.
MauricXe wrote: |
You FAIL. |
Right.
tidbits *snipped*
MauricXe wrote: |
9. My points do not imply that those who have not committed crimes today but will in the future should be punished. |
Here's what you said: "Roku's wisdom comes from experience. If he had killed Sozin, there would not of been a war." So, it's OK to kill to prevent a future crime/disaster.
MauricXe wrote: |
10. Iroh's choice was the correct one... Because Ozai had caused so much trouble and disrupted the balance by leading the war, the fight with Ozai had to be the Avatar's duty. |
Here's what Iroh said: "History would see it as more senseless violence. A brother killing a brother to gain power. The only way for this war to end peacefully is for the Avatar to defeat the Fire Lord". So:
1) See no difference between brother killing brother and brother killing sister to gain power.
2) See no reason why history wouldn't see fight with Iroh helping as Avatar defeating Ozai, if the only observers were Avatar's close friends (and some mooks who don't have any say in what goes down as history).
3). See no reason why #2 wouldn't be enough to end war peacefully.
MauricXe wrote: |
11. I have seen you say that Aang is just a child and that making him kill is wrong. I disagree. Aang has the mind of a child but he is the Avatar. Under normal circumstances, Aang would be an adult that had time to master the elements and mature in a safer world. But that world does not exist. |
Aang IS a child. Just because he's the Avatar, doesn't make forcing killing upon him less wrong WHEN THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES.
MauricXe wrote: |
12. I would agree that the Avatar does share some of the qualities you mentioned. |
GOOD.
MauricXe wrote: |
But not all so I do not consider them complete MNBs. For instance, the Avatar does not condemn existence nor are they pessimistic. |
Pessimism = Schopenhauer, not Nietzsche. Condemning existence = dunno what, Albigensian/Catharic heresy maybe. Again, not Nietzsche, not nihilism. And definitely not Machiavelli (that guy liked existence, and he was not pessimistic).
MauricXe wrote: |
They love and hate just like normal humans. |
Looked like so during their lifetimes. But Guru says Avatar must discard all earthly longings, i.e. love. And the Avatar (manifested in Avatar State) sure doesn't seem like a loving creature. Hating, maybe. Not loving.
MauricXe wrote: |
The Avatar does not commit amoral actions to get what he wants so he does not achieve the goal by all cost. You are probably thinking but MauricXe said "Any way he can." |
Yes, I did think precisely that.
MauricXe wrote: |
That strictly refers to bringing Justice to those that have done wrong and not to the innocent. |
And that is different from "commiting amoral actions to get what he wants" how? Avatar wants to maintain balance. Being "above the law of regular men" he will do it "any way he can", regardless of laws and morals. A good example from ATLA itself might be Jet, who was willing to do anything to bring "justice" upon the Fire Nation. Or even Hama, who might be viewed as "restoring balance" eye-for-an-eye style.
MauricXe wrote: |
The Avatar deals justice that is solely supported on his being the Avatar. |
Again - Nietzschean Ubermensch. No morals and no laws except for your own volition. And utterly ridiculous from the point of view of contemporary society: a judge dealing justice without regards to laws or morals, just because he's a judge? Breeding ground for anything from totalitarianism to terrorism.
Judging the show from our moral standards (to which you agreed), this is wrong.
And it's good the final moral of the show is that Aang admits that he needs to base his judgment on moral values, not on achieving his goal by any means necessary.
matt_k3 wrote: |
Ok maybe im lost (there was alot of stuff to read for only four pages), but it looks like Undead_Prince is angry at the past avatars because they gave advice based on stuff in there own human lives. Right? |
Nihilsm like any other philosophy is contradicted and contains several paradoxes....i dunno if our feeble current human minds can resolve what we seek.
Nihilsm makes more sense, to me at least.
matt_k3 wrote: |
Ok maybe im lost (there was alot of stuff to read for only four pages), but it looks like Undead_Prince is angry at the past avatars because they gave advice based on stuff in there own human lives. Right? |
Not really.
I think their conduct was amoral in that they:
1) Tried to convince Aang that killing Ozai was the right thing to do, WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVES;
2) When the Avatar had Ozai pinned at the end of the fight, Ozai was helpless and couldn't get away. At this point, the Avatar could have Spirit-bended him, or transported him to a prison to be chained up and contained like Azula. Instead the Avatar (that is, the combined consciousness of the past avatars) tried to execute the helpless Ozai. WITH AANG'S HANDS.
The entire moral standpoint of the avatars and the Guru is wrong because they say that to restore balance, Avatar must use any means necessary (i.e. the ends justify the means), and that the Avatar must shed all earthly attachment (i.e. destroy love and friendship within himself). In this the Avatar becomes the embodiment of Machiavellism (do anything it takes to achieve your goal) and Nihilism (there are no laws and morals, only your own wishes count).
In their lives, some of the past avatars did not adhere strictly to these principles (Roku spared Sozin, Kuruk was soft-hearted and loving, etc.). However, when Aang is concerned, the past avatars, both separately and combined in the Avatar State, behave as amoral bastards. Both Aang and Iroh have been shown to reject the Avatars' and the Guru's judgments. And I believe it was the right thing to do.
celestialavatar wrote: |
Nihilsm like any other philosophy is contradicted and contains several paradoxes....Nihilsm makes more sense, to me at least. |
MauricXe wrote: |
You say a "moral" person as if to say only people with your views are moral. What makes you moral and not someone else is what I have been getting at all this time. |
Your point is incredibly weak: were I to argue here against the practices of Death camps, mass executions and genocide, you'd still be asking the question "What makes you moral and Uncle Adolf immoral?" Yes, he might believe himself the pinnacle of morality and the hope of (Aryan) mankind. That doesn't make him any less of an evil bastard who goes against the basic morals of humanity.
Also, I believe I already told you that it's not "my" views I'm comparing the avatars against, it's the morality notions that are predominant in humanity. Regardless of whether it's followed to the letter, it's something embodied in the most basic tenets of our widespread religions, ethics, and laws. Hell, even on these boards there's a poll on "whether Aang should have killed Ozai", and, surprise, the absolute majority believes that he should not have (not that I claim majority makes morality, just to prove my views are widespread).
Finally, a nihilist denies morality altogether, so his viewpoint is that there are no morals to restrain him. In that, the Avatar is fundamentally amoral as long as it denies the laws and morals of humanity.
MauricXe wrote: |
Any way he can to restore balance does not mean he HAS to kill him. He has to restore balance any way possible. |
Once again, it was POSSIBLE for Aang to kill Ozai. If the rule Aang went by was to "do it any way possible", then NOTHING WOULD HAVE PRECLUDED HIM FROM KILLING OZAI: it was POSSIBLE, and also GUARANTEED SUCCESS.
However, because Aang rejected the principle of "doing it any way possible", he decided not to kill Ozai (again, even though it was possible and easiest).
Really, I don't understand how many times this has to be repeated for you to grasp it. It's the simplest logic ever! Let's try this:
Avatars:
POSSIBLE => WILL DO (*should situation call for it).
Aang:
POSSIBLE, BUT INHUMAN => WILL NOT DO.
MauricXe wrote: |
Aang has choices on how to save the world any way he can. |
Yes. But some choices are UNACCEPTABLE to him. He does not accept just ANY way that is open to him. Some ways, though open, are UNACCEPTABLE for moral reasons.
MauricXe wrote: |
If he believed he had to kill Ozai, he would have. |
I do not think so. He chose not to kill Ozai even when he was losing the fight, and had no hope of entering the Avatar State.
MauricXe wrote: |
4.At the end of the fight, I think Ozai was just to afraid at that point. If you watch it again, you will notice he turns away as Aang is about to strike. Regardless of if his attacks would harm Aang is irrelevant. He was not defenseless or helpless. |
You contradict yourself. It is irrelevant whether Ozai was scared or not. His attacks could not harm Aang, and he could not break free. Thus, he was helpless/defenseless.
Now don't try to claim that Ozai was so scared that even though he could hurt the Avatar/break free, he didn't, because he was too scared. That would have been totally ridiculous. Any man would fight for his life like a cornered rat at that point, and particularly a man as strong-willed as Ozai. And we have already seen by this point that whatever Ozai does, it cannot harm the Avatar.
MauricXe wrote: |
By proving it was a fight, I am trying to tell you that there is distinction from being defenseless and beat. The words "helpless Ozai" imply Aang was just walking down the street and decided to knock Ozai was no good reason without ANY provocation. |
It is irrelevant whether he was beat or not. At that point in time, he was helpless. If after beating a man in a fight you tie him up or just knock him unconscious, that man is helpless. He cannot harm you or anyone anymore, and cannot resist if you decide to kill him. You can call the cops and let them take him in. Major religions like Christianity and Buddhism would encourage you not to kill him (in both killing is a great sin). Common human ethics would also be in favor of turning the matter over to the police. Finally, the law says that if at this point you kill him, you probably will be under criminal prosecution, even if he attacked you first. This killing would probably not go down as self-defense, since the victim was no longer any threat. It would not go down as Imperfect Self-Defense (manslaughter charge) since you did not honestly believe that he was a threat - no, you knew he was helpless. It would not be a Heat-of-Passion crime (again, manslaughter) since you would have executed him in cold blood. No, I'd say it was prime cut for a second-degree murder charge. And making a child do it? well, that would definitely add some years to the 80 or so you're looking forward to already.
MauricXe wrote: |
5. I was referring to our differences of how we see Ozai. You see him as a sort of PoW, I don't. |
Why isn't he a POW? He's an enemy combatant, and sure enough he was captured. That's all it takes to become a POW.
MauricXe wrote: |
6. "You consistently argued against letting Ozai go. No one in the show wanted to let him go. I didn't want to let him go. SO WHO WERE YOU ARGUING AGAINST?" I explained what letting go meant. Sparing Ozai's life is the alternative to killing him (let him go). What happens after that, is up for debate. If Ozai had not of attacked Aang, then what would have happened? Will Ozai just walk off and change his ways? I don't think so. |
Incredible. There I was wasting my time showing you that NO ONE WANTED TO LET OZAI GO AS IN WALK AWAY. And here you are, again with your silliness. NO ONE WOULD LET OZAI JUST WALK OFF. It's not "up for debate" or anything - he was put to PRISON, probably FOR LIFE. Also, they took his bending away. No one cares if he changes his ways or not, cause he can't hurt anyone anymore.
Just drop this point. It's lost for you.
MauricXe wrote: |
7. What is different from looking into a crystal ball and killing the next Hitler is putting and end to Hitler in some manner after he crosses into Poland. |
Aang effectively "put an end" to Ozai by taking away his bending, putting him in prison, making Zuko the Fire Lord, and becoming himself the mightiest power in the world. That would amount to dissolving the Wehrmaht, putting Hitler in prison, installing a new democratic government, and stationing an Allied military force in Germany. That would put an end to Nazi aggression, right? Oh wait - it had, in 1945. And whether Hitler lived or died in May 1945 wouldn't make any difference in this respect. Hirohito lived, and even "walked away", so what.
MauricXe wrote: |
The use of Roku's past experience with Sozin shows what happens when he let Sozin live even after Sozin tried killing him and began his conquest of the world. Those as powerful as Sozin must be given swift justice. |
But Ozai in prison and without bending is not as powerful as Sozin. He's not powerful at all. So where was the need in killing him?
MauricXe wrote: |
8. About Iroh: The difference between Ozai and Azula is there role in the war and who is responsible for disrupting the balance of the world. |
Well, both had a great role (for Azula think Ba Sing Se), and both are responsible for the planned devastation of the Earth Kingdom (again, Azula came up with the idea).
MauricXe wrote: |
Why didn't they help Aang besides it being Aang's duty? Because he either has faith in Aang or he has too much honor. Take your pick. |
Or he's stupid. No seriously, for a supposedly great general dividing his forces in the face of an obviously superior enemy is pretty stupid. A similar error caused Custer's humiliating defeat at Little Big Horn. Obviously, it was all done just to give us a picturesque mano-a-mano duel.
MauricXe wrote: |
9. You are correct he is a child..Avatar. He has a duty to the world. He has a different set of expectations than children his age. |
AGAIN I say, that he IS a child, and it IS wrong to force killing upon him, and a hundred times as wrong when there are alternatives to killing.
A normal child could fall into such a situation. For instance, imagine his daddy just beat up and tied down a burglar. Now instead of calling the police, daddy summons his 12-year-old son (or 14, I don't remember), gives him a gun, and says, "Go on, execute this m....f...er for his crimes". I'd say it's a pretty sick thing to do. Especially if the child is a sworn pacifist or Buddhist or a devoted Christian who believes that murder is sin and you should forgive your enemies.
MauricXe wrote: |
10. " But Guru says Avatar must discard all earthly longings" Possibly to reach the Avatar state and then let it go. |
That would be silly. I mean, "loving Katara - Not loving Katara - loving Katara - Not loving..." It would demean both love and the Avatar State, if you could turn them on/off by merely flicking a switch. Also, the Guru would have explained that Aang need not worry since he would get his love for Katara back when the Avatar State ends. So - no go.
MauricXe wrote: |
I wouldn't call the Avatar state hating. I would say void of emotion. |
I'd say there was plenty of hate in the Avatar when it was trying to execute Ozai. Otherwise, void of emotion is what I'm aiming for here. If the Avatar is void of all emotion, he's not human anymore. He has no mercy and compassion. I do not think such an entity should be given the right to judge.
MauricXe wrote: |
11. There is a difference between a judge and The Avatar. The Avatar's role in the world transcends the role of any human official or joe on the street. It is hard if impossible to restrict the Avatar to our own moral restrictions because of it. |
No, in each individual case the Avatar is nothing more than a judge. In sum, his role is nothing more than the role of the human justice system. Making him a God would be playing straight into the Anti-christ concept I voiced in the original post.
MaddoKos wrote: |
The previous Avatars just saw no other way to defeat Ozai without killing him. Fortunately the lion-turtle gave Aang a way out. |
MauricXe wrote: |
1. My moral questioning is weak? Your qualifications of moral ethics is not strong. |
I list moral qualities that are upheld in the main sources of morality: Religion (Christianity, Buddhism); Ethics (such as humanism, or Kant's Categorical Imperative (paraphrased) - "do unto others what you want done unto yourself"); Law (criminal law, international law).
What do you have to challenge the morality of these views?
Nothing, except claiming that any man's viewpoint should be considered "moral". Your argument is completely moot, because it comes to the conclusion that all morals are relative and thus NOTHING can count as "amoral". What you're saying is that Hitler was no less moral than Ghandi, Buddha or Christ. That is Nihilism plain and simple - the very thing I am trying to prove regarding the avatars.
If we are to judge the avatars' behaviour from a moral perspective (purpose of this thread), we need some sort of criteria. I believe the principles I put forward, enshrined in our laws, ethics and religions, are a very valid set of criteria by which to judge the Avatar.
MauricXe wrote: |
But as I and I think you have pointed out that the majority is not always correct. |
I was addressing your question of "what makes you moral" by emphasizing that I'm not just expressing my own views here; my views are shared by a great part of humanity. And I specifically said: "Not that I claim majority makes morality, just to prove my views are widespread". Learn to read.
MauricXe wrote: |
Of course that leads to the question: was Hitler right? Obviously his forces were in the minority and the majority was against him. But each issue needs to be considered individually or someone like Hitler could make a run in Britannica under the label as "Hero to the people." |
Hitler and the Nazi Party were in great majority in Germany; as you might remember, they came to power by democratic elections.
But following your world view, Hitler cannot be considered "amoral", he was a moral person doing what he believed was right. This is the sort of silliness I'm challenging.
MauricXe wrote: |
2. "However, because Aang rejected the principle of "doing it any way possible", he decided not to kill Ozai (again, even though it was possible and easiest)." But he did restore balance any way possible. He eliminated Ozai. He didn't have to kill him, could have but didn't, as I said above. You are associating the extreme wording with the most extreme action. |
How long will it take... For Aang, "any way possible" was NOT A PRINCIPLE TO FOLLOW. He followed something like "any way possible AND HUMANE". Some actions, though POSSIBLE, were NOT AN OPTION for him due to MORAL CONSIDERATIONS.
Seriously, this is the main moral of the show! I can't believe you're missing it! Aang refusing to kill Ozai clearly shows that NOT EVERY WAY THAT IS POSSIBLE IS ALSO RIGHT.
MauricXe wrote: |
3. Lol, I don't think you can argue Ozai was scared. |
Learn to read, honestly! I am NOT arguing that he was not scared. Read again: "It is irrelevant whether Ozai was scared or not".
What I said was that Ozai was not too scared not to try escaping or stopping the Avatar from killing him. The show clearly demonstrates that Ozai was not cowering in fear, he had to be restrained for the Avatar to deliver the killing blow. If Ozai thought he had a chance of evading death, he would have done all in his power to do it. However, he had no such chance. He was captured and helpless.
In fact, upon watching the sequence again, I think Ozai does try to blow some fire on Aang when the latter was approaching him with Spirit-bending. At that point Aang was not even in Avatar State, and yet he dissipated Ozai's flame with ease using Airbending. So Ozai was helpless even against Aang, not to mention the Avatar. Again, think Azula in chains. They took her off to Bedlam without even taking her bending away (I guess).
MauricXe wrote: |
Let me ask you this: would you have been happier if Aang had directed Ozai's lightning back? Or what if Aang used his own lightning or delivered a finishing blow before our conflicted scene? |
If Aang did this, he would have taken the standpoint of the avatars - win by any means necessary.
In the particular case of Ozai, I personally would not have objected against killing the man IF there were no alternatives. However, there were plently of alternatives in the form of Spirit-bending and gathering all forces against Ozai to take him down without killing. What I would definitely consider wrong is making Aang do the murder. If there had been no alternative to killing, someone else should have done it (methinks Iroh).
MauricXe wrote: |
He isn't a PoW because he was not "captured." The fight wasn't over. |
No, the fight was effectively over and Ozai was captured because 1) he was immobilized, 2) he couldn't get away; 3) he couldn't harm Aang whether in Avatar State or not; 4) he could be stripped of his bending on the spot, or taken to a prison and chained up like Azula. So by all means he was a POW. Equivalent of disarming and tying up an enemy soldier.
MauricXe wrote: |
If I had just watched that clip, starting with Aang earth bending and when he almost delivered the final blow, I would agree with you on all of your Ozai arguments. |
O_O
Does this really mean what it means in English? Are you actually saying you agree with me, or by saying that you mean something else entirely?
MauricXe wrote: |
4. Actually, I was asking your opinion on what you think would have happened if Ozai had not attacked Aang. |
Well, Ozai didn't initially attack Aang. He was burning the Earth Kingdom, and Aang attacked him.
If after Aang burned his airship Ozai would have surrendered, Aang would obviously not let him go. Remember, they had had a talk with Zuko, and Aang was probably prepared not to believe any lies about contrition Ozai might have told him. No, Aang was pretty set up for ending the threat of the Fire Lord.
MauricXe wrote: |
5. Why not put an end to Nazi aggression when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 and committed a crime then? |
Because the Allies were too weak/disjointed. It took them 6 years to defeat the Axis, and it took the Avatar 3 seasons to defeat Ozai.
MauricXe wrote: |
Why not end Sozin's aggression when Roku first confronted him for his crimes and the subsequent attack on Roku? |
I haven't watched that episode in a while, but I guess it would be OK for Roku to immobilize Sozin and put him to prison for his crimes.
If you remember, the original point was that if Roku really followed the inhuman logic of "the ends justify the means", he would have killed Sozin and also destroyed the entire Fire Nation ruling family to make sure none of Sozin's descendants wreak any more havoc. By this logic, the Avatar would have killed Ozai, and then gone to the Fire Nation Bedlam and also killed Azula, "just in case". Had he such a chance, he would have killed her even when she was a small child (remember, she was a "bad seed" even back then). In fact, once again, he would have just killed off the entire royal family back in Sozin's days.
MauricXe wrote: |
6. I don't think the past Avatars knew about spirit bending at all even after Aang learned it. We already know Roku isn't omniscient after he fails to identify Aang's location on the Lion Turtle. I believe the Avatar state does not grant knowledge to the past Avatars, I think their knowledge becomes Aang's and not reciprocated. Heck they might not even be aware of each other jumbled in Aang's head. |
That's way too much of a copout. Even if it was true, Aang could have specifically "told" the Avatar about Spirit-bending - unless you also think that they cannot communicate at all, and the Avatar is completely separated from Aang, which would go against the definition of united spirits. No, by all practical means, there should have been some way of communication between Aang and the Avatar, and the Avatar must have known about spirit bending at point of execution.
MauricXe wrote: |
7. But Ozai is in charge. If you are a software developer for Google and you create the newest fastest algorithm for computing pagerank, it becomes Google's invention and not yours. Everything Azula did was in the name of her father and the glory of the Fire Nation. Also, he ordered her to not only pursue Aang but to conquer Ba Sing Se. |
To continue with our WWII parallels, Hirohito was in charge of Japan, but his generals did all the actual fighting (and war-criming). Hitler Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt - sure, they were strategists, but without their Chiefs of Staff and their generals none of them would have ever achieved anything. Hitler escaped justice through suicide, but dozens of his subordinates were tried and executed at Nuremberg. They were just as guilty of the war as he was.
Now as to Azula's role. Without her, the Fire Nation would not have taken Ba Sing Se by the time the Comet arrived. Without her, Ozai would not have had the idea to burn Earth Kingdom to the ground. Without her, Aang's chakra would not have been blocked, and he would have achieved Avatar State much sooner. Without her, the Fire Nation would not have learned about the Eclipse attack plan. So I think it's safe to say if Azula wasn't around, the combined forces of the Avatar, the gAang, the Old Masters, the Earth Kingdom armies, and the Water Tribe would have defeated the Fire Nation during the Eclipse. And the scorching of the Earth Kingdom wouldn't even have had a chance to happen.
So yeah, Azula was critical to the whole sequence of events, and she did it all with malicious aforethought. Thus, in the Avatar's eyes she'd be deserving death just like Ozai.
Not to mention, that Zuko's guilty as well... if for him, Azula would probably have lost at Ba Sing Se, and the Eclipse attack would've been a success... so off with head, right? To punish him for the crime and prevent any possible future crimes...
MauricXe wrote: |
8."No seriously, for a supposedly great general dividing his forces in the face of an obviously superior enemy is pretty stupid" I wouldn't call Aang, the Avatar, inferior to Ozai. Katara and Zuko vs Azula is 2v1 (the original intent). And the White Lotus handled their job easily. |
Aang was obviously inferior to Ozai because: 1) he did not have access to the Avatar State (that was his main problem during Season 3, remember?), 2) he did not want to use the possibility of killing Ozai. Sure enough, Aang was defeated by Ozai in battle (the only chance he had was redirecting lightning, and that would have killed the Fire Lord). If not for the accidental unlocking of the Chakra, Aang was doomed. So yeah, that was a pretty stupid strategy.
Katara and Zuko vs. Azula? Don't make me laugh. The only reason they won was that Azula had a mental breakdown and disbanded all her forces. If she still had her units of Dai Li & Imperial Firebenders (same guys as those who were scorching earth from the airships), as well as her wits, Zuko and Katara wouldn't stand a chance.
Yeah, the Old masters had an easy time retaking Ba Sing Se. Only thing is, what did they achieve by doing it? Nothing whatsoever. Ba Sing Se was not a threat, it could have easily been retaken later. In fact, after the defeats of Ozai and Azula it would probably have surrendered. Or just hailed the new Fire Lord Zuko.
So the Grand plan was one huge strategic mistake. The good guys won thanks to two "miracles": unlocking Aang's Chakra and Azula losing her mind.
MauricXe wrote: |
9. The kid isn't the Avatar and/or has no special duty to the world. |
The kid has duties in terms of morals and justice like any member of our society. It is a viable example of doing something to uphold justice and morality.
MauricXe wrote: |
Also, I doubt the burglar is a mass murderer who plans on dominating the world with an iron fist. |
He probably would have beaten up or even killed them if they offered forceful resistance. Remember, Ozai decided to scorch the Earth Kingdom not for the purpose of mass murder, but because he was bothered by the resistance and wanted to scare them into submission. In terms of the example, it would amount to the burglar threatening to beat someone up badly or even kill them if they didn't comply with his demands.
Another, more vicious example would be of a terrorist who holds a number of people hostage and threatens to start killing them one by one if his demands aren't met. Talking movies, you might remember the first Die Hard film which had a similar situation.
Or, an even more horrible example. The movie Seven (if you haven't seen it, skip to the next para and then go see it!) had the protagonist kill the villain when the latter was handcuffed and helpless. The hero's deed was understandable, but still it was considered wrong from the movie's standpoint. In fact, it was exactly what the villain wanted all along.
MauricXe wrote: |
And, the fight between the burglar and the child's dad is over. |
Same as between Aang and Ozai.
MauricXe wrote: |
In our country, it is his responsibility to call the police not to restore peace to the cosmos lol. |
Same thing again. Remember, the show uses a fantasy world and fantastic metaphors to tell us things relevant to the real world.
MauricXe wrote: |
10. The Guru can't possibly mean to let love go forever. |
The Guru was straightforward and explicit. If Aang would get his love for Katara back after exiting the Avatar state, the Guru would have definitely told him that, and there would have been no problem whatsoever.
MauricXe wrote: |
Obviously Roku opened his chakras at some point in time while being married. |
Havent seen that episode in a while. But I'd say Roku himself was not following the Avatars' and the Guru's teachings very well - as you noticed, he spared Sozin, which the Avatar wouldn't do. He had something of "Aang" in him back then.
MauricXe wrote: |
11. There is no way you can equate the Avatar to the anti-christ. The anti-christ seeks power over the world and seeks to destroy good. The Avatar does neither. |
The Avatar definitely seeks power over the world - without power, it wouldn't be able to restore balance. As for destroying good - it's been said numerous times in this thread that "balance" does not automatically mean "goodness". It is something other than "good" and "evil". My point was that bringing "balance" might under certain circumstances be an act of evil. The simplest example would be "balance" between good and evil themselves - if good is prevailing, should Avatar start destroying it to return "balance"?
MauricXe wrote: |
Also, the anti-christ is someone that will masquerade as the Christ, or more generally, the ultimate force of good, whomever that may be. The Avatar is not a substitute because the Avatar IS the ultimate force of good. |
No, it's not; it's not even a substitute, because all it cares for is "balance", not goodness. But it does claim to be a savior of the world and all its people. So yeah, the anti-christ parallel pretty strong here.