@dotawolfbrother
First off, let me address your moral beliefs: if morality is relative, then you don't get to decide good or evil, because it doesn't exist. What is good to one person, is evil for another, relative to their morals. For example, if someone's morals dictate that rape is not evil, and another's that rape is evil, and morality is relative, then good or evil is irrelevant. Because moral relativity means that everyone's morals are just as viable as everyone else's. Morals are now
relative to whoever holds them or what culture/upbringing spawned them.
And now you can't punish someone for committing an act that you feel is evil, if they feel the act was not or was good by their moral standards. Because now you're punishing them for being different.
Additionally, because morals are relative, there is no moral progression. Society neither becomes more ethically inclined, nor degenerate, because yesteryear's morals are just as valid as today's. We're not better than the past, and neither is the past better than the present.
To that end, by deciding that you believe morality is relative, then you can't complain about the MC's methods, in fact, you've surrendered your rights to complain. You cannot judge an action with a standard different than the one who's committing it.
Now secondly, re-read chapters, because going through your responses, it sounds like you've read something completely different than I did. Which makes me wonder if you're just a really bored troll. If your next reply doesn't use specific pages to back up your responses, then by my moral standards, you're a troll wasting my time.
No, that statement doesn't. I've been apart of investigations before, and something as nebulous and vague as "abuses of power" would be laughed at by any decent lawyer, who will then get it thrown out of court. You don't submit a vague reason for an investigation, unless you're trying to frame someone. "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." Said by Lavrentiy Beria, head of Stalin's secret police. Fucking vague reasons for investigation are what totalitarians use to ABUSE power. Search warrants are very, highly specific otherwise the one doing the searching can just do whatever they want until they find SOMETHING connected to a crime.
I'm assuming his fleets would still be suspended for the investigation? Which incited his call to his son? I don't understand this paragraph.
If you read the chapter, Commander Zhu called and yelled, "DID YOU HIT THE ADMIRAL ON THE HEAD?!" not "I'M BEING INVESTIGATED FOR SOME NEBULOUS REASON!" Commander Zhu is also a retainer of Kang Jin,
I throw the question right back at you. Why do you think this is him not being a yes-man pasty? If you want to argue about it, I think we would need a formal definition to yes-man and to back it up with evidence. When I saw yes-man pasty as one of the three options, I disagreed that Zhu's choice wasn't a yes-man pasty's behavior because that's how I viewed his behavior. It is my opinion on what happened.
And this, "How do you know it's fear motivating Zhu? It could be a desire to prove himself to Mu Siyun. What proof are YOU presenting to make your case? How do YOU know those other guys are his lackeys and they just want protection from under a "tyrant"?""
I'll say it right now. There's no proof. It's my opinion. From my perspective, Mu Siyun was just broadcast on national television as killing corrupt officials. Zhu is acting like a corrupt official and drew Mu Siyun's ire. Mu Siyun also comes off as intimidating to me in the scene. I would think it is reasonable for Zhu to be shitting his pants and swearing loyalty to be a response to his fear.
The man literally says, "LET ME REPENT." As opposed to running away, attempting to kill Mu, hiding with some other powerful planet lord to take down Mu. Never heard of "FIGHT OR FLIGHT"? When you're in fear of something, you don't go back to it with people asking for a chance to repent, you either run away or fight, that's why DING YUAN SAID "HE BROUGHT PEOPLE TO FIGHT!"
And that's ALSO why he's not a patsy; a patsy doesn't work to forgiveness, a patsy simply gets setup and thrown away, like in a con job.
AND ALSO, IF THERE'S NO EVIDENCE, THEN YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.
YOU CAN'T GIVE EXPLANATIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Because there's no basis for your explanations. But since you think a blanket reasoning is acceptable for an investigation, even though it's a massive abuse of power and great example of corruption, I shouldn't be surprised.
I'm not going to review whatever example I gave you....
This is your original quote:
I don't like his choice of words at the moment because if you take out the fact that we know he is defending someone(a civilian), the MC swings to the 'power is abused' side
And then you fucking contradict yourself by saying:
...I think I have started to really dislike it and might use something like Good, Grey, Evil, and even then, only in the context of actions.
Maybe you should go review your own examples.
To me, this feels like gross hyperbole of what I was trying to say. I also stated that I am focusing on how this one scene felt. I do not think the MC is evil. I meant I thought the scene could be interpreted as the MC being evil. Something seeming evil =/= is evil.
This is what you said:
My assessment of Lawful Evil actually makes more sense to me after writing this. I think I meant the reasoning "his son hit my head -- I will ruin his family" came off as something a Lawful Evil character might say. Take out the context behind why the MC did it and the MC actually fits your description of Vader.
So no, not hyperbole, I'm was paraphrasing what you wrote, and you have said multiple times you think the MC is evil.
And again, taking out context. You realize that a man was sentenced to jail in the UK because the court ruled out the context of what he said? He made a joke, the court ruled out the context, and it became a verbal threat because of that.
1. Mu took attention and eyes off the kid who got knee'd, and changed topics, that's literally the basic step of deescalating a situation.
My God are you insane? You're implying that Zhu has a right to throw shit at someone else's head, that apologizing is not the right thing to do? Oh that's right, you believe morality is relative. Apparently asking an apology is too offensive and can escalate a situation!
2. Again, Mu did attempt to defuse the situation; changed topic and subject from the one being attacked, to him. That's literally out of a crisis handbook.
The point would be that he tried to address is privately first.
No, the point is that even if Zhu was calm, there was no reason for him to follow Mu, heck I wouldn't be surprised if he got more agitated being asked to go somewhere private with some strange dude he's never met.
3.
Again, the break-up was merely a possible reason in an attempt to express the empathy part of this step. The point would be you talk to the person and try to figure it out. I don't think the details of why matter much. To reiterate, the point is just to try and hear them out. You don't really need to know what the issue is.
And you missed my fucking point! Where's the fucking evidence that the breakup is why Zhu's being an asshole?! Why would Mu even bring that up? What evidence is there other than the kid stepped on Zhu's shoes?! Mu even says the kid should apologize to Zhu, and Zhu to him!
4.
I don't think focusing on what should have been done to teach Zhu is impactful on the present situation...
You also said:
Let him know what he did was wrong: taking it out on civilians and abusing power is a no-no
Which is why I wrote my response the way I did; a grown man should not have to be taught that hitting someone is wrong, he already knows it's wrong, and I GAVE YOU THE PAGE THAT HE SAID SO, WHICH DRIVES YOUR ENTIRE ORIGINAL POINT MOOT. But you don't fucking review your own shit so fuck me right?
5.
I mean, if you got this far...MC's original plan.
And you again miss my point; Zhu's already shown he's not afraid of the Fleet Admiral's reputation, the fuck is revealing himself without having enacted consequences going to do?
So, I'm going to quote myself,
"In my arguments, I mentioned how it's not what I feel an ideal leader would do without saying what I might expect, . Here's what I think my ideal leader might do."
So yes, I was not arguing...
So you say in your "arguments" but you're "not arguing". Derp.
I was describing what my ideal leader might do in attempt to explain why my issues with the scene.
Then why make even a list in the first place, the whole point is whether or not Mu's actions are appropriate to Zhu, not how YOU wanted Mu to act to you. WHICH IS THE POINT OF MY STATEMENT.
ALSO, IT'S UNFORTUNATE BUT HAVING OPINIONS IS A REACTION TO SOMETHING SOMEONE, FICTIONAL OR IMAGINARY HAS DONE. You can't simply give your opinion and that being enough, there's something that caused you to have that opinion, and YOU'RE NOT EXPLAINING IT.
Also, in defending your opinion, you are in fact in an argument.
