Heroes

I don't think this question is very hard. Let me put it in perspective:


"We need to round up all the black people and contain them! They are stronger than us, have better lung capacity than us, and have better libido than us! QUICKLY, CATCH THEM ALL BEFORE THEY TAKE ALL THE GOOD WOMEN!"


Same thing, except replace libido with a misc super power.

A swarm of angry black people can destroy the world and kill many people in the process. It hasn't happened on global scale, but there have been plenty of slave revolts that ended VERY bloodily for Europeans.

I'm pretty sure that a swarm of angry black people are less of a threat than people with super-human powers, like timetravel, fire/lightning, etc...


It's only the right thing if they're evil. For example, Mr.Petrolli and his goons.


edit: good black person = okay, evil black guy = bad; good white guy = okay, evil white guy = bad.

I think it's Bartimaeus. Just a theory.


But anyway. No matter how you spin it, it's immoral. He has powers to ya know! What I COULD agree on, would be making everyone with powers register. The government should be able to track where they live and what country they are in. It should also recruit a team of the most powerful and trustworthy, like the time stopping one, to combat any that decide to go rogue.

The real question, or the underlying question is, is it right to do small wrongs for a greater good.

Just to clarify, I think Nathan is wrong, however I know exactly where he's coming from.

For one, Nathan wants them to be treated fairly, humanely and with dignity. He wants them rounded up, not to kill them or to torture them or anything of the sort - but so that they can remove their powers. It really doesn't matter if their dangerous or not because you have to then judge them. If you just do it to everyone, then it's fair and just. Everyone with powers is brought down to be equal.

Your black comparison fails. It's more some people in the world randomly get a nuke. Now they can use that nuke for good or for evil, however you don't know that. You then round up everyone who has a nuke and get rid of the nukes. It's just equaling out the playing field. With great power comes great responsibility. Do you think that random arbitrary people will have that responsibility? Fuck no. That shit is dangerous. How else are you going to help contain the problem? Ask them if they want to have their powers removed? O right because the people who are actually dangerous will just comply. Do you think the dangerous people should be free? That they should have the capability and the freedom to do whatever they want? Hell no.

Freedom is a sham. You can't have real freedom as it's a paradox. If you had real freedom, anyone would be allowed to shoot anyone in the face, however then you just took away that guy you shot in the faces freedom to live. You don't get all freedoms, you have to pick and choose. If you want the freedom to be safe, you have to take away the freedoms to possess dangerous weapons. One of those weapons are powers.

Question to you is:
1. What would you do in Nathans position?
2. Do you think it's alright to commit a small wrong to do a bigger right?

Dragonheart91 wrote:

I think it's Bartimaeus. Just a theory.


But anyway. No matter how you spin it, it's immoral. He has powers to ya know! What I COULD agree on, would be making everyone with powers register. The government should be able to track where they live and what country they are in. It should also recruit a team of the most powerful and trustworthy, like the time stopping one, to combat any that decide to go rogue.

That's exactly what the Company did, private enterprise>government control is illustrated quite well in the show recently. Capitalism>Communism.

Jay.J wrote:

Do you think it's alright to commit a small wrong to do a bigger right?

Well is it alright to perform a good deed to stop a bigger wrong?

kuro wrote:

Jay.J wrote:

Do you think it's alright to commit a small wrong to do a bigger right?

Well is it alright to perform a good deed to stop a bigger wrong?

That's...not...the same analogy at all.

Doing a good dead to stop a bigger wrong is a good deed, no matter how you look at it.

Doing a wrong to help do a bigger right CAN be labeled as wrong. I suppose it depends on the type of wrong.

(edit) If you guys want to continue the conversation, go right ahead. But stop spamming.

I'm the only one who's sticking up for Nathan and no one is really trying to argue against me...

It depends who he decides to stick in a cell... Claire, or Mr. Petrolli... etc.

Ughh what?

i say hes doing the right thing. He is in a unique position of being the only politically motivated "hero". He may have set the whole thing in motion yes, but when it became evident that this was going to happen no matter who started it be it Nathan or someone average Joe it is certainly better to have a figurehead in power that has sympathy towards the "heroes" as opposed to simply eradicating them.

I 100% believe Nathan is on a Rail Road pathway that cannot be diverted because of the mistakes he made on his way to getting to where he is today. Every show more and more they try to paint him to be the more of a good guy and I believe in the end he will turn out to be just that.

Yay . Me & Rhys are the only ones on Nathans side, rebuttals?

Its like this



If he goes after Claire, he's bad.



If he goes after Mr. Petrolli, he's good.



It all depends on who he's going after, like if a cop tries to arrest some innocent rich kid or some juvenile jerkwad.

What are you talking about Kuro >.>.

Do you still watch the show? Mr. Petrelli is....Nathan. Or Peter if you wanted to.

Spoiler:

Sooo....Also even if he wasn't, that point doesn't work. He's not discriminating. He's not saying "You're bad, and you're good so you can keep your powers but you lose them". He's being fair and equal by removing everyones power.

Nathan isn't doing the right thing because the Company's discrimination policy to bag and tag and only contain the dangerous ones, as well as the "one of us, one of them" policy worked better and had less danger of human rights being violated. If the old generation's petty bullshit and trying to kill each other hadn't come into the picture then the Company would still be around.

Nathans way is better as it's more just. It doesn't judge. It's equal and fair. It doesn't say "O sure, you're dangerous - but you're our dangerous ally so it doesn't matter". It says everyone is equally and potentially dangerous.

Nathan is, unlike the USA. Instead of supplying the dictators that are allies with them at the time to get rid of other dictators, he instead says - no fuck you all, you're all being taken care of.

The Company did NOT treat the inmates very well. Nathan would have. He only now has to resort to torture because of the plane fiasco, and even then he's not like that other guy...the bald one who's pretty "Evil" himself.

The company judged people who were not necessarily bad, such as the guy with the Vortex powers as evil and dangerous, while allowing anyone who cooperated for the time being to get off "Scott free" such as Syllar. They used people to their advantage and gain. Nathan does nothing of the sort and puts EVERYONE on equal and fair ground, even people he knows and doesn't think will be dangerous (Such as Mohinder or Peter).

I forgot the name of Nathans Military henchman dude who is "Evil" but in the last show he let out a little spoiler sentence that may lead to something later saying "You Don't know anything About Me" It is likely that he may have powers himself.

That would be pretty hypocritical....I mean Nathan at least wants his powers removed as well. That, and the fact that last episode Peter had a gun to his head and he couldn't do anything about it.

no no he simply didn't do anything about it.

Even if he "couldn't" even Claire is afraid of being shot in the head.

Jay.J wrote:

Nathans way is better as it's more just. It doesn't judge. It's equal and fair. It doesn't say "O sure, you're dangerous - but you're our dangerous ally so it doesn't matter". It says everyone is equally and potentially dangerous.

Nathan is, unlike the USA. Instead of supplying the dictators that are allies with them at the time to get rid of other dictators, he instead says - no fuck you all, you're all being taken care of.

The Company did NOT treat the inmates very well. Nathan would have. He only now has to resort to torture because of the plane fiasco, and even then he's not like that other guy...the bald one who's pretty "Evil" himself.

The company judged people who were not necessarily bad, such as the guy with the Vortex powers as evil and dangerous, while allowing anyone who cooperated for the time being to get off "Scott free" such as Syllar. They used people to their advantage and gain. Nathan does nothing of the sort and puts EVERYONE on equal and fair ground, even people he knows and doesn't think will be dangerous (Such as Mohinder or Peter).

The vortex guy killed someone before they locked him up. The dumb old bitch thought she could use Sylar to kill her husband, which I guess she succeeded at, but I would still describe his activation as petty bullshit. The Company was running a prison, not a concentration camp.

Edit: Name a dictator that the USA is allied with.

Quote :

The vortex guy killed someone before they locked him up. The dumb old bitch thought she could use Sylar to kill her husband, which I guess she succeeded at, but I would still describe his activation as petty bullshit. The Company was running a prison, not a concentration camp.

Regardless - you have an "evil" guy as an ally, and you're imprisoning people who are arguably not evil. You have to judge people with the companies system. There is no judgment here. Everyone is equally dangerous. What's unethical about a concentration camp where you treat the people justly and ethically. You take away their freedoms for the freedoms of everyone else and later give them back their freedom once they lose their powers. Concentration camp just has a negative connotation to it.

Friendly towards, or supplies them with things for their own motives. Here's a short clip. It's mildly entertaining but the point remains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JGZmZEnLiU