The Real Heroes Of Macross

[EXO]

What the hell is this thread about again?

[myk]

This thread is about heroicism in the Macross story. We had to include a discussion on the concept of heroism, murder and killing, but only as it pertains to war and the war in the Macross story...

See, it's all good!

Edited February 5, 2006 by myk

[Zentrandude]

ARGH!

It's bad enough that it's impossible to HAVE a Macross 7 thread without you dragging it into other threads. You aren't doing anyone a service with this absurd obsession.

366756[/snapback]

Heh A1 not doing that is like keith not liking m7.

The real hero of macross is the parents of the cannon fodder pilots that constantly breed so we can unlimited footage of them getting blown up at the slightest hits (aka friday the 13th syndrone-stabbed in the hand with a pencil=death).

[Agent ONE]

Yep, just liberal mentality... I have always thought a hero of war would be someone who offed the most people while using the smallest amount of rescources.  Like a kill to doller ratio.

366910[/snapback]

So the murder of 6 million people in an efficient, orderly way probably makes you a big fan of the Nazi party, eh?

366934[/snapback]

At a glance sure, but:

- the Jews were not enemy combatants

- it was actually expensive

so no.

[Hurin]

Kill Unjustly?  Who is to say what is just? . . . It's about relativity my friend

Like I said, it's very fashionable to think this way now. Everything is relative. There are no capital -T- Truths anymore. Everything depends on a point of view. All of which is true, but there is also objective reason, and post-modern moral relativism doesn't totally supplant objective facts despite people behaving as though it does (usually because spouting such things makes them appear to be oh-so-enlightened).

Don't think that killing a soldier on the beaches of Normandy is murder?  Try telling that to the family or the people of the dead soldier, whether Allied or German, and I'm sure they'd disagree with you.

Really, my understanding is that former enemies in war often develop friendships later on. There are even individual stories of people paying respects cordially to family members of those they are believed to have killed (in aerial combat especially) with no rancor taking place. And I would daresay that the vast majority of people who lost friends and family in WWII no longer hold a grudge against their former enemies (though I personally know of a rare exception).

How many people do you know who behave that way when their loved one was murdered on the street?

Again, "murder" and "kill" are two very different words with two very different meanings. The distinction between them is important. To conflate the two is to give up on having any meaningful dialogue about the nature of killing and whether it is ever justified.

The point I am trying to drive home in response to the title of this thread is that no one's hands are clean in war and heroicism is irrelevant...

And again, as is usual with rhetoric like this: That is an overly simplistic way of looking at things masquerading as sophisticated and enlightened fair-mindedness.

Edited February 5, 2006 by Hurin

[EXO]

The REAL HERO of Macross is the guy that decided that they should release more 1/48s. Right now, that's who I'm looking up to. If someone decides to officially release 1/48 2 seaters, then they'll be my hero forever.

[Hurin]

The Zentraedi attacked first and no human had any choice of the SDF Macross crash landing on Earth. Just bad luck and bad circumstance. Sometimes thats all there is, theres no pro war or anti war, sometimes you get caught and the middle and its all about surviving.

Lynn Kaifun would disagree.

But, of course, he was an idiot and possibly the least sympathetic (human) character.

H

[SpacyAce2012]

Kill Unjustly?  Who is to say what is just?  Don't think that killing a soldier on the beaches of Normandy is murder?  Try telling that to the family or the people of the dead soldier, whether Allied or German, and I'm sure they'd disagree with you.  I know of a local kid who served as a Ranger in Iraq but was killed last year.  As far as we're concerned here, he was murdered by insurgents.  From the perspective of the people who ended this boy's life it was a killing in defense of their ideals, flock of camels, whatever.

It's about relativity my friend, and a dictionary isn't necessary for that.  From the human's point of view, they killed justly to defend their planet and the fate of mankind, as the invading forces were unjustly murderous and intended to destroy the human race.  From the alien's point of view, humans were just as dangerous to their existence and the following assault against Earth was to keep mankind from being a mortal threat to them.  Each side could cry self-defense and justful killing on their part, and cry murderous intent on the part of their opponent. 

Which group is merely a group of killers, and which is a group of murderers?  I don't know, it depends on how we want to look at it.  The point I am trying to drive home in response to the title of this thread is that no one's hands are clean in war and heroicism is irrelevant...

366936[/snapback]

I disagree with the "mortal threat" part regarding the fear Bodolzaa had toward Humans. In his case, it was about losing personal control of his fleet. In other words, it was all about POWER.

[JB0]

Lynn Kaifun would disagree.  But, of course, he was an idiot and possibly the least sympathetic (human) character.

Kaifun was always an interesting character. He was an anti war new wave hippy but he probably would have made a good combat pilot. Good reflexes, good coordination, etc.

Its definitely against type. Ever notice how its only the fat old droopy chicks who protest that the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue is degrading to women. Its always humorous that the women protesting the hardest are the ones you'd least likely want to hump while sober.

Kaifun being anti war is like Jessica Alba denouncing the SI Swimsuit issue in public.

One of the nice things about the McKinney books, is Kaifun actually becomes a skilled combat pilot while shadowing Minmei and his view of the war and the military change.

[

Except Sentinels sucked regardless of who was writing it.

And that would have been an interesting subplot for post Reconstruction Blues, the idea of the pacifist turning into a stone cold remorseless killer. It would have been nice to see Kaifuns parents die at the hands of the Zentraedi and then see how he feels about peace then.

I'm not sure about forcing him into it by killing his parents. Pretty out of character, as he'd've more likely blamed the UN forces for antagonizing the Zentradi.

Besides, it didn't work the first time. Remember, the world thought South Ataria Island was destroyed by anti-UN actions, not an assault by alien forces and subsequent space fold accident. He could've joined the UN forces to smack down the anti-UN and avenge his parents.

Interestingly, I think that WAS the backstory for Shin in MacZero, though. AntiUN killed his family, so he signed on for vengeance.

But I thought Kaifun's character really went down the crapper in the post-war arc, so ANYTHING would have been an improvement.

And actually, the fighter pilot wasn't too much of a stretch.

Running through things...

He was an idealist initially. He was sure that there was always a peaceful solution, and the military just made it easier to use force than work things out.

He seemed to have been coming to grips with his excessive idealism towards the end.

He didn't rant about how they shouldn't attack the zentradi fleet when news of the impending doom came through, just expressed his belief that they couldn't win.

Heck, he even took part in the psych warfare aspect of the final battle. Kaifun actively participated in a military offensive.

He seemed to have accepted that sometimes the other side doesn't really want to talk and you just have to shoot back.

From there... as you noted, Kaifun was a skilled martial artist. While he hadn't taken it with the intent of fighting, it indicates he'd probably fit right in with more modern combat training. He might not quite have the military mindset, but the situation aboard the Macross was such that they'd take what they could get.

Hikaru had more or less the same character development, he just never ran around protesting. But he got smacked into it beause he saw the devastation first-hand during the first transformation.

Kaifun didn't really see it until Kamjin invaded the city much later, and that was immediatly before the war ended. Even then, he probably would've blamed the military if it hadn't been for the other things happening around then. There was Max and Millia's wedding with Global's big warm fuzzy speech, the zentradi defectors, Kamjin's attempt to mow down the defectors, and the negotiations with Britai's fleet(and Exedol's lessons on zentradi society and history). I suspect all that had a lot to do with Kaifun's acceptance of the need for at least defensive military actions.

After the war, he was just throwing anti-military rhetoric out there to stir up trouble. And took up drinking. It was probably a response to the raw devastation the war had unleashed(it'd be hard to take that much damage in rationally), but it wasn't handled very well.

[SpacyAce2012]

Well, I never saw Kaifun as an idealist.

I thought he had a firm grasp on the idea that the world is full of whores. Everyone wants something and everyone's soul is for sale at some price. I think he did the things he did because they satisfied some self centered desire he had. The whole Kaifun/Minmei angle was some twisted co dependency where he basically milked her for his career.

Yes, Kaifun was the very first animated Tom Arnold.

He didn't really love Minmei, he loved that he could bang away at his cousin and that the  rest of the horny fanboys wish they could be in his shoes - big movie star banging any hot chick he wants. Even better, he could get the fighter jocks, the ones who should be mowing down all that muff, wishing they were Kaifun.

Post war, everyone just wanted to survive. He was a drunk and bitter because all he 'invested' in Minmei turned into nothing. There was no money, more more real fame, nothing left to build on. And the fighter jocks he disdained were now the new heroes. I think its no big coincidence that as Minmeis career hits the skids that Kaifun flips out more and more. 

Kaifun is the classic sociopath. He doesn't care if the universe falls apart, as long as he gets what he wants. Its interesting because I always found his character as the mirror version of Khyron with the cultural influence. Essentially Kaifun is what Khyron would be if he was raised outside of the war mentality, and Khyron is what Kaifun would be if he was raised as a Zentraedi.

Unfortunately the series uses Kaifun more as a plot device to drive the other characters versus giving him any serious post Rain of Death development.

367082[/snapback]

That was my take on Kaifun, as well. I found myself wanting to see a Zentraedi step on that bastard, especially during his ungrateful rant after they were rescued from Kamjin. I despised the character for all the reasons you pointed out above.

[JB0]

Oooookay then...

Only part of that I even feel safe toching is Kamjin. He didn't really ahve a lot of character to develop. He was a loon, plain and simple. He defolded into aliied fleets and made bets on how many ships he'd hit, he shot his own men just for kicks, and the only redeeming quality he had was that he was good at killing.

[Agent ONE]

Oooookay then...

Only part of that I even feel safe toching is Kamjin. He didn't really ahve a lot of character to develop. He was a loon, plain and simple. He defolded into aliied fleets and made bets on how many ships he'd hit, he shot his own men just for kicks, and the only redeeming quality he had was that he was good at killing.

367086[/snapback]

At times, I read your posts and I feel that you and I could really get along.

[yellowlightman]

Oooookay then...

Only part of that I even feel safe toching is Kamjin. He didn't really ahve a lot of character to develop. He was a loon, plain and simple. He defolded into aliied fleets and made bets on how many ships he'd hit, he shot his own men just for kicks, and the only redeeming quality he had was that he was good at killing.

367086[/snapback]

At times, I read your posts and I feel that you and I could really get along.

367129[/snapback]

Just because he'd touch Kamjin, doesn't mean he'd touch you. Maybe if you ask nicely.

[Agent ONE]

Oooookay then...

Only part of that I even feel safe toching is Kamjin. He didn't really ahve a lot of character to develop. He was a loon, plain and simple. He defolded into aliied fleets and made bets on how many ships he'd hit, he shot his own men just for kicks, and the only redeeming quality he had was that he was good at killing.

367086[/snapback]

At times, I read your posts and I feel that you and I could really get along.

367129[/snapback]

Just because he'd touch Kamjin, doesn't mean he'd touch you. Maybe if you ask nicely.

367155[/snapback]

Anybody would touch me, I am like a statue.

[SpacyAce2012]

Oooookay then...

Only part of that I even feel safe toching is Kamjin. He didn't really ahve a lot of character to develop. He was a loon, plain and simple. He defolded into aliied fleets and made bets on how many ships he'd hit, he shot his own men just for kicks, and the only redeeming quality he had was that he was good at killing.

367086[/snapback]

Don't forget his other redeeming quality. His love for good booze.

[JB0]

Oooookay then...

Only part of that I even feel safe toching is Kamjin. He didn't really ahve a lot of character to develop. He was a loon, plain and simple. He defolded into aliied fleets and made bets on how many ships he'd hit, he shot his own men just for kicks, and the only redeeming quality he had was that he was good at killing.

367086[/snapback]

Don't forget his other redeeming quality. His love for good booze.

367164[/snapback]

Ah, right. How COULD I forget that part?

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I see humans as being 'good' and aliens more 'evil' since we had the disadvantage in the war. The underdog fighting against the bully. the underdog is always the one you want to see win since the bully is the oppressor.

If the fight was more fair split about 50/50 like in gundam it might be a little more grey though.. This is where the peace activist like relena from gundam wing comes in handy: where both sides are pretty strong and the environment they live in might not be able to sustain wars for too much longer. Where the mecha are in danger of being used to oppress the people while they are at thier most weakest (ie marimeia army trying to create a new world order in the Gundam Wing movie using the most elite soldiers and best mecha to create a global dictatorship) after having expended all thier energy fighting against each other and too weak to fight anymore. (which was the master plan all along - control everything both earth and space)

Obviously to me the hero is the guy that fights for the least oppressive ideal. If you think about the zeon in gundam, it wasn't so much the ideal of going to space to migrate that was so bad, (in fact I think the "old types" were just scared of the power they would lose, after having been used to it for so long) it was more the fact that the Zabi family had hijacked control of the zeon to create a dictatorship and purposely tried to make the people angry so that they'd fight unquestionionly due to fear. You can't reason with someone who is brainwashed.

Go against the grain (as an anti zabi group) and I bet you'd be targeted by the people for your different view. Possibly hanged in public as a demonstration of what happens if you try protesting. I see Bodolza as a Zabi for macross. (they are both bald ) Sure he was scared, but the soldiers he was leading were not thinking for themselves. So in my view that is more evil than what the humans have. Zentradi then being more brainwashed, are not evil themselves just thier leader who turned them that way and wishes only to wipe us out. The soldiers expressing thier will to want to join up with humans, would be systematically killed the same as what you would have with a dictator who won't listen to anyone's reason and wants to absorb all power for himself. Assasinating whoever gets in thier way. Once you take away a person's free will to think, that is where you can start to question whether the leader is a good or bad guy. It doesn't matter the reason that led up to thier behaviour, but thier actions that should be judged. It is possible to have a villain you can sympathise with (eg he is just getting revenge for something) but there is no excuse once they go down a path that leads to others suffering. They are still evil in my book.

Edited February 6, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Ishimaru]

There were alot of good hero's in Macross they all fought for peace.

But theres no good in war but its ending, so I didnt think the hero's in Macross were "heroes" just people trying to gain some freaken peace around thier lives...

Just wanted to the topic a little more.

[myk]

I disagree with the "mortal threat" part regarding the fear Bodolzaa had toward Humans. In his case, it was about losing personal control of his fleet. In other words, it was all about POWER.

367042[/snapback]

Just about any civilization or people has gone to war. What were the reasons? There are countless of them to explain why millions of lives over the course of human and sci-fi history had to be prematurely ended for whatever purpose. For some, it's Iraqi oil and land, others, the fight for survival against an invading alien force, and yet for others, the fear of losing control over a society that had existed a certain way for generations; what difference does it make? Anyone can and probably will go to war if they feel threatened or otherwise challenged for power.

War IS about power, and about who eventually remains IN power. Bodolza needed to eliminate the human race because it's culture was an immediate threat to their way of life and thus his power...

Edited February 6, 2006 by myk

[myk]

wtf?!

Edited February 6, 2006 by myk

[myk]

Kill Unjustly?  Who is to say what is just? . . . It's about relativity my friend

Like I said, it's very fashionable to think this way now. Everything is relative. There are no capital -T- Truths anymore. Everything depends on a point of view. All of which is true, but there is also objective reason, and post-modern moral relativism doesn't totally supplant objective facts despite people behaving as though it does (usually because spouting such things makes them appear to be oh-so-enlightened).

Don't think that killing a soldier on the beaches of Normandy is murder?  Try telling that to the family or the people of the dead soldier, whether Allied or German, and I'm sure they'd disagree with you.

Really, my understanding is that former enemies in war often develop friendships later on. There are even individual stories of people paying respects cordially to family members of those they are believed to have killed (in aerial combat especially) with no rancor taking place. And I would daresay that the vast majority of people who lost friends and family in WWII no longer hold a grudge against their former enemies (though I personally know of a rare exception).

How many people do you know who behave that way when their loved one was murdered on the street?

Again, "murder" and "kill" are two very different words with two very different meanings. The distinction between them is important. To conflate the two is to give up on having any meaningful dialogue about the nature of killing and whether it is ever justified.

The point I am trying to drive home in response to the title of this thread is that no one's hands are clean in war and heroicism is irrelevant...

And again, as is usual with rhetoric like this: That is an overly simplistic way of looking at things masquerading as sophisticated and enlightened fair-mindedness.

367001[/snapback]

H, buddy, the fact that you agreed that relativity is a factor to consider only validates my approach to this topic of ours. By their base definitions the words murder and kill have different meaning but they have the same result: life is prematurely and unnaturally ended. It is the point of view of the people analyzing or processing this premature ending of life that will decide whether it was in fact a murder or a killing. Obviously, various people will decide differently on the situation at hand, and you CANNOT confine the definition of an event such as life being taken by another individual or party to literary definitions...It's all relative!

In regards to the example you cited using war veterans of opposing factions seeking peaceful terms with one another, do your really think this is how conflicts like those resolve themselves? From time to time that happens, of course, but we don't need to be reminded that not all people involved in these circumstances reach those same, peaceful resoloutions; there are countless other war veterans or people familiar to them, that still believe that their losses were the result of brutal murder from the "other side," and not what you would call a justifiable melee on a foreign shore. Once again, I and my neighbors still contend that the young boy performing his duty in Iraq was murdered; I'm sure that the persons who took his life would say it was a justifiable killing.

In summary, my position about war and the taking of life is as follows: killing, murdering, however you choose to label it-the premature ending of ANY life is NEVER justifiable, although usually UNAVOIDABLE, hence the simplistic rhetoric that you won't accept. It really troubles me that some people can actually RATIONALIZE the taking of a life and categorize it-I'm speechless to that point.

My mother is an RN at a local Veteran's Hospital. Talking to the old soldiers there allowed me to learn this: a soldier that has performed lethal duties for God and Country will tell you that they did what they had to do, but their actions have stained them and their people for the rest of their days....Murder, kill, what difference does it REALLY make? Why make the question more complicated than it needs to be? Lives were prematurely lost, and any ideas or discussions of heroism is ridiculous...

Edited February 6, 2006 by myk

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Sometimes there isn't a single smoking gun or critical juncture, no right and wrong about it, maybe it was just Earths time to die when Dolzas fleet hammered her. Bad luck for Mother Earth.

But from the point of view of the writers, humans were the ones with the moral high ground. We were weaker than the zentradi in numbers, the commander wanted us dead, and so we fought for our lives to survive. Even if we wanted to make peace, they wouldn't have let us. So once Bodolza had realised how much a threat culture was to the zentradi (it weakens thier ability to fight) I can say that we were right to kill as many of them before they killed us given the circumstances.

So although killing isn't right, (only max and milia have the skills to disable the pods without killing the pilots) it is a necessary evil if you are up against an enemy that can not be reasoned with - if only to deter the enemy from thinking they can just have thier way. Of course there were different factions within the zentradi when britai defected, (the human sympathisers, the neutral guys like kamjin who couldn't care less, and the bodolza loyalist) so I'm reffering mainly to the ones that were loyal to bodal right to end.

If I were one of the cannon fodders and I had to defend my home planet, I wouldn't feel any kind of guilt killing a zentradi as I see it as protecting people I love and thier homes. But I wouldn't call my self defence of my homeland "murder". Once all options for peace talks have failed and the enemy knows it can wipe you out with very little risk (due to having far bigger numbers than you and being able to bully you) there is no luxury to dream about peace. Just blow that phucker away because chances are they will crush you with thier numbers and unfair advantage.

If the zentradi were bred purely for war, and the archivist knows that they were being used like tools I don't see any reason why humans can't be called the good guys/heroes of SW I. There's nothing to be ashamed of: we won. They had the advantage. We had the moral high ground, for bringing culture to thier culture-less existence, and the alien defectors are thankful to us seeing as they were going to be exterminated due to thier commander thinking they had been contaminated. End of story. For those Zentradi that died: they took thier chances thinking they would win and lost the bet. Like gambling you can only blame yourself for taking the risk and not winning. Had thier commander been more reasonable and left the microns alone as the ancient prophecy warned, he would not have been defeated so easily by culture shock.

I often wonder what bodol would have thought if he had lived to see the truth in the ancient ruins seen in macross 7 when exedol had read the mural about the history of the PC. Would bodalza have changed his mind? From my point of view, all the rogue zentradi still clinging to thier old belief that war is the meaning of life are misguided fools that need to be rescued from thier brainwashing. Not the humans. They may not be pure evil, but they are the ones in the wrong for blindly believing a lie. I'm sure if Bodolza had merely been captured and put into a prison as opposed to killed in the tv series he may have wisened up and agreed with the Britai/Exedol defectors that going with humans was the good thing and probably apologised for being such an a-hole before.

Edited February 6, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[SpacyAce2012]

Kill Unjustly?  Who is to say what is just? . . . It's about relativity my friend

Like I said, it's very fashionable to think this way now. Everything is relative. There are no capital -T- Truths anymore. Everything depends on a point of view. All of which is true, but there is also objective reason, and post-modern moral relativism doesn't totally supplant objective facts despite people behaving as though it does (usually because spouting such things makes them appear to be oh-so-enlightened).

Don't think that killing a soldier on the beaches of Normandy is murder?  Try telling that to the family or the people of the dead soldier, whether Allied or German, and I'm sure they'd disagree with you.

Really, my understanding is that former enemies in war often develop friendships later on. There are even individual stories of people paying respects cordially to family members of those they are believed to have killed (in aerial combat especially) with no rancor taking place. And I would daresay that the vast majority of people who lost friends and family in WWII no longer hold a grudge against their former enemies (though I personally know of a rare exception).

How many people do you know who behave that way when their loved one was murdered on the street?

Again, "murder" and "kill" are two very different words with two very different meanings. The distinction between them is important. To conflate the two is to give up on having any meaningful dialogue about the nature of killing and whether it is ever justified.

The point I am trying to drive home in response to the title of this thread is that no one's hands are clean in war and heroicism is irrelevant...

And again, as is usual with rhetoric like this: That is an overly simplistic way of looking at things masquerading as sophisticated and enlightened fair-mindedness.

367001[/snapback]

H, buddy, the fact that you agreed that relativity is a factor to consider only validates my approach to this topic of ours. By their base definitions the words murder and kill have different meaning but they have the same result: life is prematurely and unnaturally ended. It is the point of view of the people analyzing or processing this premature ending of life that will decide whether it was in fact a murder or a killing. Obviously, various people will decide differently on the situation at hand, and you CANNOT confine the definition of an event such as life being taken by another individual or party to literary definitions...It's all relative!

In regards to the example you cited using war veterans of opposing factions seeking peaceful terms with one another, do your really think this is how conflicts like those resolve themselves? From time to time that happens, of course, but we don't need to be reminded that not all people involved in these circumstances reach those same, peaceful resoloutions; there are countless other war veterans or people familiar to them, that still believe that their losses were the result of brutal murder from the "other side," and not what you would call a justifiable melee on a foreign shore. Once again, I and my neighbors still contend that the young boy performing his duty in Iraq was murdered; I'm sure that the persons who took his life would say it was a justifiable killing.

In summary, my position about war and the taking of life is as follows: killing, murdering, however you choose to label it-the premature ending of ANY life is NEVER justifiable, although usually UNAVOIDABLE, hence the simplistic rhetoric that you won't accept. It really troubles me that some people can actually RATIONALIZE the taking of a life and categorize it-I'm speechless to that point.

My mother is an RN at a local Veteran's Hospital. Talking to the old soldiers there allowed me to learn this: a soldier that has performed lethal duties for God and Country will tell you that they did what they had to do, but their actions have stained them and their people for the rest of their days....Murder, kill, what difference does it REALLY make? Why make the question more complicated than it needs to be? Lives were prematurely lost, and any ideas or discussions of heroism is ridiculous...

367219[/snapback]

I'm afraid that I am going to have to disagree with you on the part that taking of a life is never justified.

I have been involved in a self-defence shooting. The criminal assailant lived and the DA didn't file charges. He decided that it was justifiable self-defence and it never went to court. But it could have ended in a fatality, though I'm glad it didn't.

Taking the life of someone who is hell-bent on taking mine, or anyone else's, is justifiable in my point of view. It isn't pleasant to be in that situation where you may have to. If I had killed that individual, I would have felt like crap. But I wouldn't act as if I had the Scarlet Letter tatooed on my forehead for the rest of my life. To say that I would have been "stained" if the felonious assailant had died by my hand is to place an unfair, and unwanted, stigma on me for preserving MY LIFE.

There is a difference between murder and killing in self-defence. To say that both are one and the same is equating both as criminal, when in fact, they are not.

And no, it doesn't make me a hero. Just a survivor.

[myk]

Relativity people, relativity. What works for me, may not work for you, or Hurin, or the drunk and sorry guilt-riddled soldiers in the Veteran's hospital and vice versa.

So......you don't think it's criminal to take a life? Wow. Society should really fear people that could be so ready to claim the life of another, for whatever reason.

TAKING LIFE IS TAKING LIFE, NO MATTER WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION OR THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEHIND IT...

This thread in a thread is pointless-I'm done here. If you guys wanna' continue this then PM me, let's not waste any more of MW's time...

[Hurin]

It really troubles me that some people can actually RATIONALIZE the taking of a life and categorize it-I'm speechless to that point.

Honestly, I'm "speechless" that you find this so abhorrent.

To say that a policeman shooting an armed and dangerous criminal is the same as a woman shooting a man attempting to rape her is the same as a soldier shooting an enemy combatant is the same as a man sawing the head off of a bound and screaming captive for rebroadcast. . . it just seems to me that your being wilfully undiscriminating in order to make some larger point: That killing is bad.

Well, I agree with you. Killing is bad. But some things are worse. Such as: Allowing killing to continue instead of killing the bastards who are doing all the killing.

If you're looking at simply the end result: Deaths. . . then yes, someone is dead in all cases. And you are correct. . . there isn't much of a difference to the people who are dead. But, what is the purpose to the death? What were the motivations of the killing? And, what will be the results? Was the killing done in self-defense? Thus, to preserve life? Will this death cause fewer deaths in the future? More? Was there an alternative to the killing? Was such an alternative truly feasible or even reasonable? Might a refusal to kill have led to more killing at a later time?

All of those questions are worth asking. And it troubles me when people simply say: "Killing is killing. There's no point in belaboring it any further." Though you don't seem like a pacifist, that's essentially a pacifist argument. And, let's not forget, pacifism can lead to just as much killing as aggression. Especially when pacifism is the only response to aggression.

So, are there heroes in war? Yes. I believe there are. Especially among those whose acts led to fewer deaths than would otherwise have been the case.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Well, I agree with you. Killing is bad. But some things are worse. Such as: Allowing killing to continue instead of killing the bastards who are doing all the killing.

That pretty much sums up my views. This is why I can safely say that max and milia were heroes for using thier skills to help bring an end to war by protecting the defenceless humans from the far-more-threatening zentradi. If a cat is trying to kill a mouse, doesn't that mouse have a right to defend itself with its speed or small size to escape death? We humans had no choice against the bodolza faction. It was either you fight or go down with a fight, or you hold hands and watch them kill your family down on earth while preaching about how killing is wrong and we should not shoot aliens from the safety of the sdf1 due to how mean that would be.

There was a scene where bodolza actually shows off to misa how superior thier forces are and shows her a dying planet (just like the way darth vader showed princess leia the power of the deathstar to kill planets) and then mocks how weak others are compared to them as thier millions of ships blast the defenceless planet with thier guns, almost like saying, "you are a defencless little runt, give up or else you are next. We zentradis' sole purpose is to go to planets and wipe out all the inferior races to us." Once they get to a point where reasoning with them is over (we are a threat to thier forces due to culture which can contaminate thier army with thoughts of love - yeah we are reeeaaalll evil!) I don't see why human can't be painted in an purely objective view as heroes who rescued not only the earth and the human race's right to exist as well as the future generations that would follow, but also the zentradi who hated thier former life as a dog of the warrior religion and a cog in a machine with no individual ability to think for themself. It was really a rescue mission more than anything. The enemy just didn't know it yet.

I think it is safe to say that what war really does is take away a person's innocence because it forces them to kill whether they want to or not. That doesn't mean it is ok to kill, just that when all options have been exhausted, you're right to life and your families right is the first thing you would think about. The ending to gundam wing movie summed it up really well, the characters all fought bravely against the odds even though they looked like they were going to lose. The people they were fighting for didn't even acknowledge these brave pilots' existance until they could see the fight on the monitor outside. What were they fighting for? The ability for people to speak. By fighting for them, the people can then hope for a TRUE peace that allows the people to at least communicate and work out thier differences in a civil manner so that they no longer have to fight in senseless wars again. The main villain is really that old guy trying to take that ability away from the people with his plan to control the whole world and space with an iron fist by secretly manipulating people so that they would be too tired and weak to be able to fight against him. (from all the previous war - the idea is that they would be so sick of war they would give in to a dictatorship to avoid any future death. Prisons are safe.)

All the previous wars were his way of slowly but surely generating enough power through the industry of war, (which refines the war machines to higher level of killing efficiency) so he could use that advanced technology while the rest of the world thought it was at peace, to create the most powerful of all mecha and use those refined models to dominate the world with it against a weakened and unsuspecting public. But people were too busy fighting each other to even realise they were being manipulated from the beginning, so he was allowed to control them through fear. The villains are always the ones who try to rationalise thier need to control others with force by getting the people into a state of weakness and tiredness so that they eventually except the conditions given to them due to manipulating the events that lead to war from the first place. When people give into thier fears they cocoon themselves and don't think logically. That is what the old guy was hoping for with the marimeia army. Show them your strength by flexing your muscles and people will give into the stronger guy at the expense of thier own freedom, too horrified by the thought of war to fight for themselves.

Of course the heroes hated killing and were constantly asking "what are we fighting for?" and they get thier answer at the end of the movie when people started protesting against the marimeia army to show thier disagreement with it. People wouldn't even have that right under a dictatorship. But when they protested on the streeets to show thier message of disagreement it meant they got back to thier true peace where they had freedom again. That is something worth fighting for. And you'll note because the heroes had the skills, they tried to avoid killing the pilots (even though the odds were against them) and only disabling the machines they used to kill people with. (kinda like when arnie shoots people in the legs in terminator 2) ...Unfortunately that is where real life differs from sci fi. Not all people are that good that they can just be given the choice to avoid killing people when defending themselves. Sometimes it is unavoidable.

I think max pretty much ackowledges the hyposcrisy of kaifun in macross when he sees how lethal kaifun is in self defence and wonders how he can be a pacifist. Without those martial arts skills to defend himself and protect the innocent, he wouldn't even be alive to continue to have a voice and spread his message. It's hard to see how this differs with the soldiers fighitng to protect sdf1.

Edited February 6, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Hurin]

I don't think we need to mention Milia, Hikaru, or valkyries in each post in order to demonstrate "Macross relevance." We're clearly still discussing the topic of the thread even if we're not using Macross buzzwords. I think the nature of warfare, killing, and "murder" is fully within the scope of this thread. And I think our mods and mini-mods are fully capable of grasping the relevance.

[ComicKaze]

If Agent One really hates Macross 7 so much, we should put him up against Keith.

I wouldn't place bets on any winners coming out of that one.

[Zentrandude]

Lies A1 would win, [emote] Shifty eyes [/emote](wished) somed say A1 has keith tied up to use as a rest for his weights and sweaty towels after workout.

[Final Vegeta]

Was the killing done in self-defense?  Thus, to preserve life?

Try to see things from the point of view of a criminal. If you don't want to go to jail, to self-defend yourself from society you can kill. The culture of killing for self-protection is appaling at first, but it can irk if there is someone with the same idea but different position. This ultimately demonstrate if something is truly a good universal principle.

And it troubles me when people simply say:  "Killing is killing.  There's no point in belaboring it any further."

You would be mad if you hadn't a reason for what you do. It doesn't matter if it's a sophism as long is a reason. Societies instill a fear of being mad, so you have to find a reason for actions you (or others) have already done and choices you (or others) have already made.

There is a propaganda tecnique where you hide the real reasons of your enemy; then, this group of people becomes mad. The movies already linked madness to evil.

As an hystorical example, luddites comes to my mind.

And, let's not forget, pacifism can lead to just as much killing as aggression.  Especially when pacifism is the only response to aggression.

That was not the way Gandhi's pacifism was. According to Gandhi, pacifists should be ready to be killed for their cause. His idea was that when in Great Britain British saw Indians were only victims, the same British would have started opposing India's occupations. Besides, the fact that there weren't British casualities would have allowed India and GB to remain friends.

Ultimately, the boycott worked. Money is more important than talks.

So, are there heroes in war?  Yes.  I believe there are.  Especially among those whose acts led to fewer deaths than would otherwise have been the case.

I find this treating peoples like puppies. There is difference between national heroes and heroes of humanity.

In an episode of Aquarion there was an interesting psychologic concept. If there is something you wanted to do but you repress your inner will, you will hate people that do it. Or something like that. According to Buddhism, if you fix your mind on a thought, you will become that thought. Once upon a time I already thought that when you hate someone you will become like him. Concentrating intensely your thoughts on someone (actually, your mental image of him) you will end up filling his silhouette.

At least, it tends to happen in most peoples. Rationale thought shows that when a problem is not easily solvable within the same level, it's better to go up one level and see the same problem from its causes.

In the end of Macross the humans were facing the risk of another war with a Zentradi army. If they had placed more attention in fighting the enemy they will have ended up like the Zentradi or the Protoculture.

FV

[Hurin]

Try to see things from the point of view of a criminal. If you don't want to go to jail, to self-defend yourself from society you can kill. The culture of killing for self-protection is appaling at first, but it can irk if there is someone with the same idea but different position. This ultimately demonstrate if something is truly a good universal principle.

Well, no. This only demonstrates if the principle is good for criminals. Again, if you withhold all judgement, then what you say makes sense. But only in a "there is no right or wrong" post-modern, "everything can be justified or rationalized" way. A society can't arrive at its legal and moral principles by asking itself whether its most abhorrent members would approve of them!

Appplying that mental "tool" for demonstrating if something is "truly a good universal principle" sure makes one feel enlightened and sounds good if you're trying to prove that you're a "deep-thinker", but it's ultimately just an excercise in mental masturbation.

That was not the way Gandhi's pacifism was. According to Gandhi, pacifists should be ready to be killed for their cause. His idea was that when in Great Britain British saw Indians were only victims, the same British would have started opposing India's occupations. Besides, the fact that there weren't British casualities would have allowed India and GB to remain friends.

What the far Left always leaves out of this narrative is that Ghandi's techniques only worked because the British Commonwealth was a fundamentally decent society and system of government. Such appeals to conscience only work on nations that possess a collective conscience. Had Ghandi attemped such a thing against a less democratic and conscientious regime (Stalin's Soviet Union for example), all that would have resulted was a lot of dead Indians.

Final Vegata, I normally don't bother to respond to your posts. But, in this case, you managed to not actually mention Hitler or Mein Kampf. . . so I thought I'd make an exception.

Best,

H

Edited February 6, 2006 by Hurin

[pfunk]

I thought he said grand canyon,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[kanata67]

I read an alternate history book... or 12. In one of them ghandi went up against the nazi's. Lets just say it ddn't work out anywhere near as well

[JsARCLIGHT]

Ooooooooooooh kaaaaaaaaaaay...

Let's see if we can move this back to the whole "heroes of the macross" thing and less about the socio-philosophical rights and wrongs of war and killing. It's ok when it's directly relevant but it's off on quite a tangent now... and as we all know the second the word "nazi" enters a thread it has nowhere to go but downhill.

So back to the Heroes of the Macross!

[pfunk]

Ooooooooooooh kaaaaaaaaaaay...

Let's see if we can move this back to the whole "heroes of the macross" thing and less about the socio-philosophical rights and wrongs of war and killing. It's ok when it's directly relevant but it's off on quite a tangent now... and as we all know the second the word "nazi" enters a thread it has nowhere to go but downhill.

So back to the Heroes of the Macross!

367352[/snapback]

the people, the machinary, and the mistakes