- Joined
- May 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,052
- Reaction score
- 1,048
- Age
- 37
- Gender
- Male
- Country
-
Re: Naruto Hangout Thread v.13 <3
Of course, and this is what Invader implied. The nukes/Bijuu as a means of war means only a reduction in damage, but not stopping the doing of the war overall.
The nukes are neutral in your argument as well as I pointed out. The immediate threat is the one who presses the button. If the nukes/Bijuu perish, the one who persists with the war will find another "nuke/Bijuu".
1. This is where I don't agree with him because stopping the seemingly immediate threat just because there's a risk of someone wanting to use it is not logical specially because the matter of fact is a being with conscious. The time period doesn't matter here because if someone wants to wage war, it will happen regardless of weapons available.
The immediate peace is an illusion here if we don't know when someone will want to make a war. The only thing I agree with him is the fact that the Russia/Madara would be dealt much easier if the nukes/Bijuu are not present. That's cool. But the problem lies in the fact that they're conscious and intelligent, beings with the ability to reason who want nothing else but peace. This is why I touched the system of value, morals and empathy/compassion. Logical step would be to destroy the nukes/Bijuu, but at what cost if you don't have any guarantee that no one will try to do the same thing again? In the nukes matter, you risk a potential war with the country just so you could get rid of the nukes, and in the Bijuu matter, you practically execute a being like you'd be executing an innocent human.
The logic applies to the village as well, because if only two people who are in charge of the village want to go to war, immediately every shinobi/military soldier becomes a tool of war, regardless of having Bijuu/nukes at all, so that argument doesn't hold any ground.You seem to be missing M3J's point. Or at least you're purposefully ignoring it. I'm not him, but this is what I glean from his post:
M3J is clearly referencing the war, in and of itself. He's even agreed with what you are saying overall. No one wants to murder beautiful, sentient creatures if they don't have to. In terms of the war, and using your examples, "Russia" already has most of the "nuclear weapons". Because in this case, there is a finite amount. "Russia" in this case is also only two people, who've already expressed a desire to use these nukes for their gain. You can't say everyone in Russia or any village is an immediate threat, because only two people (Tobi and Madara) have the means and power to acquire the nukes and use them as they see fit.
"Russia" (or Tobi and Madara) is also the only country with the immediate means to not only take the other countries nukes (i.e. Naruto and Bee), but have also expressed the desire to use those nukes to wipe out everyone, by merging all of those nukes together into one ultimate mega unstoppable nuke.
Now, let's say the nukes are happy little creatures and everyone loves them. Whatever, fine and dandy. But let's also say that someone can press a button and make all of the nukes disappear without having anyone die in the process, knowing beforehand that the nukes will return eventually.
I think what M3J is getting at is that:
1. It stops the immediate real threat, which is Russia (i.e. Tobi and Madara). If they can't merge the nukes, they can't create the ultra mega nuke.
He's not saying this is the ONLY method towards peace. It's a very real method towards immediate peace, in that it stops Russia from creating a mega nuke, and thus makes the chances of defeating Russia much, much easier. He's saying that it's a very logical step towards defeating Russia. I mean, Tobi and Madara. It just so happens that an added benefit would be peace, because if there are no more nukes, then there are no more wars over control of the nukes. Because who knows how long the nukes will be gone for? But people are fickle and nothing is guaranteed.
You both agree with each other, but it just so happens M3J can objectively look at both sides of the argument.
I think you can, too, but you seem to be arguing just for the sake of it.
Of course, and this is what Invader implied. The nukes/Bijuu as a means of war means only a reduction in damage, but not stopping the doing of the war overall.
The nukes are neutral in your argument as well as I pointed out. The immediate threat is the one who presses the button. If the nukes/Bijuu perish, the one who persists with the war will find another "nuke/Bijuu".
1. This is where I don't agree with him because stopping the seemingly immediate threat just because there's a risk of someone wanting to use it is not logical specially because the matter of fact is a being with conscious. The time period doesn't matter here because if someone wants to wage war, it will happen regardless of weapons available.
The immediate peace is an illusion here if we don't know when someone will want to make a war. The only thing I agree with him is the fact that the Russia/Madara would be dealt much easier if the nukes/Bijuu are not present. That's cool. But the problem lies in the fact that they're conscious and intelligent, beings with the ability to reason who want nothing else but peace. This is why I touched the system of value, morals and empathy/compassion. Logical step would be to destroy the nukes/Bijuu, but at what cost if you don't have any guarantee that no one will try to do the same thing again? In the nukes matter, you risk a potential war with the country just so you could get rid of the nukes, and in the Bijuu matter, you practically execute a being like you'd be executing an innocent human.