Praetoria is NOT "goatee" Paragon

There are a couple problems with that from the get go the way I see it. First of all, I'm having difficulty thinking of a scenario where killing "for fun" can be, or ever has been considered moral. Perhaps this is merely a mistake in the wording of the question, but I would think the basic premise of that can only be considered immoral by most people's standards.
Secondly, who decides if the person "really deserves it," and what gives them the right to make that judgment as to whether a person should die?

I find that to be true for myself too. Any time I want to discuss these subjects with people I know, I either get tuned out, ignored, or am met with outright anger.


I think that's their appeal, having that moral and philosophical simplicity that our real lives just don't. A friend of mine once told me that there are no "gray areas", that everything is black and white, but as I grow older I realize that just isn't true, no matter how strongly you want to believe it. You can choose to view the world in that simplistic sense, but in the end you're always closing your mind to something in order to make it fit that way.

Well, the example I had in my head (that I should probably have mentioned, but oh well) was an executioner (for those countries that still have capital punishment) that reeeeaaally enjoyed his job.

I could use this as an example for my Critical Thinking class.

Goatees indicate evilness. Morgan Freeman has a goatee, so Morgan Freeman must be evil.

Perfectly valid logic
(Not necessarily sound, but..)

I think that's why WWII is such a popular setting for games and stories - fighting Nazis is about as close to comic book good vs evil as you can get in RL.

Yes, it does, according to my logic.

Except it really isn't. Also, dangerously close (again) to Godwin here.

And that's why utopias fail. As long as people derive pleasure from causing pain to others, there can never be universal contentment, because for some people to be content, other people HAVE to suffer. A true utopia would assume true equality, such that no-one is discriminated against, but for certain people, discrimination is what brings them joy. They need to feel that they are better than others, superior to them in some way. You're never going to "fix" people to stop feeling that way, which is why it's unrealistic to try to build a utopia on personal enlightenment.

And that's not even getting into the matter of opportunists who would use this utopia to garner benefits but not contribute to society. A utopia built on personal enlightenment assumes everyone would be responsible, work together and contribute to society so that all may reap the benefits. Parasitic individuals that feed on society would simply avoid responsibility and only reap rewards. Without a system for enforcing this responsibility, it's unrealistic to expect people to mind themselves. But if you need law enforcement, or indeed laws to begin with, you're not in a utopia built on personal enlightenment. You're in a totalitarian state.

*edit*
As far as crime and justification in Tyrant's state. Regardless of their reasons for existing, Rebels exist, and their actions are criminal to Tyrant's state, ergo crime exists. Therefore, to claim he has eradicated crime is false on its face. Questions of justification, relativism and ethics may muddy the water, but the fact is that crime exists in his state that has supposedly eliminated crime, which points to a deeper problem than just rebels.

And, on the other hand, "just revolution" is only justified when it has actual, reasonable justification. The mere presence of revolution is not, in and of itself, justification for said revolution. We already have a perfect example of this - the Freakshow. Their revolution is based on nothing more than anarchistic destruction of the society which supports them with no actual overriding goal. Hm... Come to think of it, it DOES make sense that the Rebels could be the Praetorian Freakshow. Less crazy, more organised, smarter Freakshow would be an awe-inspiring sight indeed.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

It's certainly impossible to have a definition of utopia that encompasses everyone. People being varied and all. Of course, you can just kick out anyone who disagrees with it, but then they have to have somewhere to go (or you're just liquidating dissenters, which isn't generally very utopian).

The statement about "fixing" people is also one of the big problems with most utopian theories, in that most utopian theories tend to assume that people won't act like people. There are all kinds of neat political and social ideas that would work if we could just get rid of this whole being human thing.

I think that depends on how he classifies the Resistance - if they're not seen as citizens of Praetoria, then they could be classed as an outside force, so fighting them is more like fighting a war than fighting crime.
If only the obedient people are allowed to be called citizens of Praetoria, then the resistance wouldn't be a criminal product of that society in Tyrant's eyes.

That's... actually brilliant. I love it.

Loyalists, we're reclassifying Resistance members as "not citizens" of Praetoia, thus keeping our crime rate at 0%!

Also, if the Syndicate are classed in the same way, as "enemy outsiders", then it would help give the Resistance a negative image to the citizens of Praetoria - if news reports and so on just refer to everything done against the citizens of Praetoria as activity by enemies of Tyrant's utopia, then the actions of the genuine criminals would come to be seen as linked to the actions of the genuine freedom fighters.
Some propaganda posters with slogans like "the enemies of Praetoria have many faces - be vigliant!" would help with the brainwashing

In fact, Tyrant might even secretly allow a certian level of activity by the Syndicate as an example of what life would be like if the Resistance overthrew him.
He could even have spies in the Syndicate, helping to direct their operations.

Orion! We need to photoshop that propaganda! Holy awesome! Lumping the Syndicate and Resistance together as "Non-Praetorians" would be a great way to quell curiosity about dangerous freedoms...

Typically, any illegal operative operating within a nation's borders and committing illegal acts is a criminal against this nation, regardless of whether he is a citizen or not, and whether he is operating for his own devices, for a private organisation or for another nation. That's why enemy spies, downed enemy pilots and even occasionally enemy soldiers are convicted as criminals, as happened to the pilot who was shot down over Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I'm not sure where the boundary between a war on crime and a genuine war lies, but I'd say that unless you have an actual, defined nation or state that you are actively at war with, it's still considered a fight against crime. That's why terrorists are considered criminals, rather than prisoners of war. I don't think rebels really count as that.

*edit*
Remember - foreign criminals are still criminals all the same.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Not necessarily. You can kill everybody on Earth and then proclaim you are the best hero: there's no more crime, nor illness, nor hunger... Well, nor life. But hey! you can't be on every detail.

When you don't like the solution, re-define the problem. Typical tactic of marketing scum and unscrupulous researchers: manipulate the data/definition to fit the desired outcome/message.

--NT

Villains can "find the third option" too, after all.

Well, he has played the evil man several times.

And Tim Curry usually is the evil guy as well.