Was he right?

Was he right?

depends on who you ask

if nothing's more important to you than maintaining your own morality then you'd agree, if not then you wouldn't

"Maintaining your own morality" makes it sound selfish, when all he set out to do was punishing the crazy mass murderer of innocent millions for his ghastly deeds.

No. That position is untenable. No one can live with a purely black and white morality, and no one does. Rorschach didn't (he worked with the rapist murdering Comedian while claiming rapists and murderers only deserve death). Dr. Manhattan doesn't, because he's aware of how complex a person's life is, and how single points of choice can effect things that have no initial connections to them. Life is simply to complex to never compromise.

yes
once you compromise once you will compromise again
given enough time humans can be convinced to kill their own mothers with little effort

japan should have listen to him and never surrendered during ww2

Have you ever heard of the slippery slope fallacy? Because you're pretty much describing it perfectly.

i heard its a fallacy by people who once claimed they would never do things they do now
how its a fallacy? its easier to get someone to agree to give you 2 dollars 50 times than to give you 100, its common knowledge

It's a fallacy because you are claiming something will lead to something else without any sort of direct connection. It's like saying that the painting a room's walls grey will mean a child will sleep in the room.

>witohut any sorth of connection
this is exactly where you are wrong

>Was he autistic?

its easier to get someone to agree to a lot of tiny things than a big one, this has always been the case
The slippery slope only works if the person that keeps agreeing to tiny things doesnt realize that its building up to something bigger
If you point out whats happening wich is the truth, truth being the way to fight a lie, you will be acussed of commiting a falacy because there is no connection because as soon as the connection is established then you cant execute a slippery slope anymore so if you are decieving people with tht thactic you cant admit to it ever.
Claiming that the slippery slope is a falacy is a falacy

Direct connection. The direct connection is what's important. Drop egg > Egg falls > Egg hits ground > Egg Breaks > Person slips on egg and gets hurt
That's a proper argument because there's a reasonable causal link from one point to the next. A slippery slope would be like saying Drop egg > World War 3 begins. There's no reasonable link between the two
If you want an extreme example

>claiming a well documented logical fallacy is such is a fallacy
Really? Are you really trying to refute that a specific fallacy is possible because it means that [whatever thing you dislike here] won't be the end of the world?

so you are saying that people dont lie or decieve one another
I will drop an example, politicians dont give a crap about transgender rights and bathrooms, transgenders being less than 0.1% of the population, politicians want in fact to pass laws that give them more control over state goverment and this is the perfect excuse to execute such law now that the gates of hell have been opened and you can get arrested over offending people, and people can get offended over anything.
I know this not because of bias, not because a shitty chart on the internet but because i go the extra mile to learn and listen and it was explained by Jess Herbst wich is the first transgender mayor in texas in an intreview
do you want to fact check it?

Slippery slope arguments are not necessarily fallacious.

So you're just a Sup Forumsposting fearmonger? You're not really helping your case here. So put away the tin-foil hat, and stop pretending that just because stores don't have to be closed on Sundays that the end of worship of the Abrahamic god is right around the corner.

They are by definition fallacious because they are linking two things which have no link.

No that's a fallacy

>So you're just a Sup Forumsposting fearmonger?
no, i dong give a shit about balck people or jews or if a man wants to suck another mans dick or amputate his testicles.
I am a person who knows why he has rights and why he needs rights and when my personal rights are attacked i know the reason behind it.
Like it or not the people who came up with said rights were quite smart, smarter tha you or me and saw most things that could go wrong

In retrospect they should have.
Americans only had 3 bombs. So they nuke three cities and that's it. They blew their whole powder.

Like the British invading? They were a bunch of drunk politicians who didn't give a shit about anyone who wasn't rich, white, or their personal friends. One of them committed genocide, for shit's sake.

Then they get invaded by the Russians and we have to deal with a North Japan/South Japan situation

What's another few hundred thousand innocents dead? And another ten million deaths during the ground invasion? And the effects of radiation on the troops, who's invasion plans had them marching through the various ground zeroes. Why no bump the total deaths WWII caused up to, oh, maybe 100 million lives.

Its a great injustice that kids dont get taught why they have rights
You have rights because we operate under a democracy, democracy isnt just nor fair as you have probably experienced recently. In democracy the majority gets to be represented and the minority doesnt, rights exist to protect the minority because without rights a majority could vote to kill black people or arrest the gays or wathever else you can think of, rights exist for the sole purpose of stopping opression.
When someone tells you he wants to take away your rights because he wants more justice or wants to protect a minority he could aswell be saying he wants to set you on fire to prevent you from being burned

Yes.

That being said, he was a literal crazy person who subscribed to libertarian bullshittery, but he's not wrong.

It's fine to compromise of practical or insignigant matters, like what to get on a pizza with friends, or how wide to make a road in a small community, but if you compromise on your ideals, your morals, then they're not really morals, are they?

Which is exactly why Obama failed.

Comedian wasn't a rapist, he just suffered a minor lapse of judgement once.

Unless you constitute part of the minority, that "argument" falls apart. I'd like to know which "rights" are being reduced, and how exactly such a law made it past any mildly competent judge and/or law firm, who would love to make a big payday by means of a class action against a government who defies their countries constitution.

a lot of people suffer lapses in judgement, most of them don't try to rape people

Then committing one murder doesn't make you a murderer? Burning down someone's house doesn't make you an arsonist?

You know, that's a good catch on the Comedian. He does explicitly excuse his attempted rape of Silk Spectre as a moral lapse because the Comedian is a patriot.

The last few times I've read Watchmen I've gotten the impression that Rorschach was really still Kovacks. There's that scene where he gets back to his apartment after breaking out of jail and he confronts his landlord. He just looks so sad. This too is a compromise I guess.

At the very end when he's about to die and he takes off his mask you can see rivers of tears going down his face. He's been crying for a while even though no one could tell through the mask. He was talking tough about never compromising, even in the face of Armageddon, but he couldn't handle what had happened. He thought he was Rorschach but has Kovacks all along.

he's sad confronting the landlady because her son reminds him of himself, and he didn't have the luxury of ignorence

yes, unless you are in danger of being opressed you are not likely to be concerned with opression, havent you heard that poem
first they came for the blacks, then they came for the jews?
>wich rights are being reduced
free speech
fair trial
of the top of my head
>any mildly competent judge and/or law firm
because competent people in posittions of power form pedophile rings and satanistic cults
are you going to pretend for a second that what about obama and the right to privacy, does the nsa mean anything to you?
do you realize under obama laws preventing the media from publishing propaganda were removed? how do you feel about trump having the same power people complained obama had?

Right, and because of that he lets the landlady slide even though she sullied his reputation. It's a real piece of emotion from a character that hadn't had all that much of it up until then.

Oh course. He only put on the mask because he couldn't look at himself in the mirror anymore. He did it to distance Walter the textile worker from Rorschach the Vigilante

>free speech
>fair trial
>of the top of my head
How so? Do you have any evidence?

>because competent people in posittions of power form pedophile rings and satanistic cults

Oh boy. You must live in terror every waking moment, don't you? The idea that people are capable of making various choices that are different from yours, yet still remain moral human beings must astound you, doesn't it?

NEWS FLASH, we don't live in a comic by Jack Chick!

none of them were right. that's the point.

your post is a whole new level of retarded.

Either Ozzy was right or he wasn't.
If he wasn't, then Rorschach was right in trying to expose and punish him.

He got blown apart for no reason. That should show you how right he was.

and you aren't right either.

I can't wait for all these ambiguities that people still talk about decades later to be settled once and for all by Rebirth.

its a mistake to think that someone had to have been right,

if anything the comedian was right.

free speech is constantly under attack, people take the streets claiming that speech is violence, independent journasilsts get slandered to hell and back by people who have to appologize plenty of times every week for reporting fake things, people demand that people who say certain things lose their jobs, the go out of their way to harass them or take justice by thier own hands, im sorry if you are this out of the loop that none of these things ring a bell i cant help you
As for fair trial lots of people demand that to not be a possibility for people acussed of rape, im a man and i could be acussed of rape at any point by anyone and i need my right to have a fair trial if that happens
>Oh boy. You must live in terror every waking moment
i dont trust people who have power over me
>The idea that people are capable of making various choices that are different from yours, yet still remain moral human beings
are you saying sexual abuse of minors of 7 years of age is a moral choice?

>rapist murdering Comedian
He didn't rape or murder anyone that did not deserve it.

I'll never accept this Rebirth con job. Moore or bust.

>He didn't rape or murder anyone that did not deserve it.
I'm curious as to what Silk Specter did to deserve it?

Shooting his vietnamese mistress was unwarranted.

Being a tease, duh.

so are people allowed to murder you if you annoy them?

Yep. George Carlin was pretty right on this issue.

>effect instead of affect

Opinion completely discarded.

>not understanding that words can have multiple meanings

Affect is the verb and effect is the noun, you neo-marxist post-modernist re-educated fucking retard.

>literally arguing with the dictionary
>getting this defensive

You still weren't using it right. You aren't saying "[S]ingle points of choice can accomplish things that have no initial connections to them." You're saying the verb "affect," which means to make a difference to. "[S]ingle points of choice can make a difference to things that have..."

So actually, when you think about it, your own smug retardation is the punchline here.

Did the doc really zap him to death or to somewhere else so his death can make a point?

>transphobic, right-wing politicians pass a law requiring you to carry your birth certificate with you in order to use a public restroom
>somehow muh lie-brul sjw big gubbmint democrats are the problem here

Fuck off back to Sup Forums.

fuck you're dumb

Let's try simply lifting the wording straight from the definition, shall we?

>...single points of choice can [bring about] things that have no initial connections to them.

>...single points of choice can [cause some things to happen] that have no initial connections to them.

Oh, look, they both still make sense! What's funny is that either "affect" or "effect" work in that statement, but your fixation on the former prevents you from understanding this. So, turning your own words against you:

>your own smug retardation is the punchline here

Well, technically the murder one is correct, but not the arsonist. Arsonists are like serial killers: they have a pattern, they mark multiple targets, they use specific preferred methods, etc. Setting fire to one house doesn't make you an arsonist, you have just committed arson.

Yes. Veidt's plan is retarded.
Sure, in the short term everyone is going to be shitting themselves and suspending hostilities, but how long is that gonna last? What's gonna happen when 10 years go by without so much as a peep from the psychic space octopi? Does he think everyone's just gonna be on good behavior "just in case" for the rest of eternity? No, sooner or later everyone's gonna go back to killing each other and the alien will just be a weird footnote in history. Unless Veidt has made arrangements to do his plan all over again every decade or so it's just delaying the inevitable at the cost of millions upon millions of lives.

I prefer the original, latin version.
Fiat justitia ruat cælum

And while he was right, he didn't live by it (as others have demonstrated through the Comedian, who among other things killed Woodward and Bernstein to conceal Nixon's misdeeds).
And, on the practical front, if Rorschach had killed the Comedian all those years ago, the Comedian would never have seen the island and never been killed by Ozzy, and Rorschach would never have gone investigating the Comedian's murder, and never uncovered Ozzy's plot, and never left his journal behind to be published, revealing Ozzy's deception and ruining world peace.

Of course, Kovacs was probably deliberately blind to the Comedians numerous sins.

It's only funny because "effect" the verb does NOT work in that statement, and the verb "affect" does and would be selected 10 out of 10 times by anyone who actually understands the rules between the two words. Your attempt at vaguely trying to match the effect verb to a common "affect" statement is pitiful and doesn't work under the standard rules.

Why would you try to make those points instead of acknowledging that you genuinely didn't know how to use the right form?

Again, retardation on your part. Humor for everyone else. Get a grammar book next time you want to actually discuss this.

He also supports the nuking of japan saying that it was for the greater good even though innocent people were hurt. Rorschach is intentionally painted as a hypocrite but people don't really care because he's le epic or whatever.

Because delaying the apocalypse is a lot better than just letting it happen.

Also, there's the possibility that the incident permanently repaired US and USSR relationships.

The Comedian acted as a government agent at the time, so it's reasonable to assume that Rorschach viewed him as upholding law and justice with his killings instead of violating them. Only shrugging off the attempted rape is actually in conflict with his usual uncompromising stance.

This is why I disagreed with a lot of people who bitched about the removal of the alien in the movie. Manhattan could return to Earth every few years, blow up a building, and laugh ominously before fucking off back to wherever in the universe he is brooding.
In the comic, Veidt has painted himself into a corner, but that was probably the point. Heroes can't save the world.

Dr. Blue Dick uniting the world doesn't make sense because he's an American weapon.

Can the comedian and dr. Manhattan be right at the same time?

You can hardly jugde Rorschach a hypocrite because he wrote one thing as a child and then acted differently as an adult. Besides, its explicitly stated to be the Blair Roche case of '75 that pushed him over the edge and made him finally adapt his "Punish evil at all costs" philosophy.

But how did he know an apocalypse was going to happen? He assumes that the countries are willing to destroy the world for their pride, but realistically, no one wants the world to end.

He was blamed for blowing up an American city, tho. That was an idea in both the comic and movie, that Manhattan's existence is an existential threat to the entire human race. Sure, he was of the Burger once, and for the Burger at the moment, but he could flip the fuck out (or just get bored) at any moment.
And the story Viedt sells in the movie is that said flip out has come.

No, he talks positively about Truman as an adult too.

It was the cold war but with tensions getting even worse because of Dr. Manhattan.

Oh dangit.
Now I'm vaguely remembering a comic where Doc didn't kill Rorschach at all, but zapped him somewhere else that was funny.

wew lad

...

>In the comic, Veidt has painted himself into a corner, but that was probably the point. Heroes can't save the world.
Exactly. Now, try to explain that to Snyder, please. And while you're there, put a bullet in his face so he stops making movies.

Still not comparable. Truman was president, vested with the proper authority to make the decision he did. The US and Japan were officially at war, so he didn't just nuke them completely out of the blue either. Veidt on the other hand was just some rich faggot without any legal authority who conspired to murder millions of innocents so he could mold his new world order. That's why Veidt is a villain and Truman is not.

Strawman me harder senpai

it also meshes quite well with Adrien's plan to fuck with Manhattan in the first place. pretty easy to swallow a story that manhattan went mad with grief upon finding out his bizarre dong gave the woman he'd loved cancer and immediately being swarmed by paparazzi before he had a chance to process that. the tabloids in the following weeks would have been savage

It's not world peace if it's based on a lie

Rorschach also probably doesn't care about human life as he kills and tortures plenty of people without any real proof of guilt. He cares more about honesty and chivalry in his twisted version of morality. Truman warned Japan and told them to surrender before the nuke. The playing field for the Japanese was clear, whereas Viedt is doing things clandestinely and nobody knows why and are therefore being tricked into action.

Yeah, well Rorshach was always sucking Truman's dick for doing the EXACT SAME THING Veidt did.

Moore used Rorschach as an example of how Objectivism at its core is stupid. No one can exist in a morally black and white world without ever having compromise. This is why Ayn Rand is shit.

We were gearing to start pumping them out as fast as possible. Operation Downfall, the plan for a ground invasion of the home island, called for upwards of sixty atomic attacks aimed at softening up resistance and destroying emplacements.

>It's like saying that the painting a room's walls grey will mean a child will sleep in the room.

You CAN paint a room grey for that very reason you know.

It's not the same thing, see Veidt wasn't president, nor openly at war with New York. Truman didn't kill millions on his own dime or deceived the world about the reasons.

Maybe not but not being moral makes you weak and there are people out there who will prey on this weakness and use it to destroy you
There is a difference between seeing objectivism as a goal than an ideal, I used to love rand but now I'm older and I don't believe in a perfect world.
The only perfect world is a world were only I exist as society is the only thing that stops us from achieving utopia

This is the cape version of "dude, Tyler Durden really makes you think!"

No he's not fucking right you dummy.

No Adrian was

>strawman

That isn't what that word means.
And you are retarded. That's not ad hominem, btw, because you being retarded is my conclusion.

That's not even true.
It is world peace if there is no war. Truth has nothing to do with it.

This. Come on guys, it's really not that complicated

Lies tend to come to the surface, when people realize it was all a lie then there will be twice as much conflict
How is that wolrd peace?

>The only perfect world is a world were only I exist
what anime are you quoting?

And as often happened, showed why Ayn Rand isn't shit. In Rand's case because all a whole lot of her critics were doing was gaslighting one of the very, very few eastern European college-age intellectuals to survive some time with the surreal horror of Bolsheviks getting started up. In Moore's case because he then put his objectivist murder-hobo in the same comic as Veidt and then made him the only nominal "superhero" willing to stand up to the guy over killing citizens by right of ubermench.

Basically, what the criticism ends up doing is illustrating that what the thing being criticized is trying to do is codify why something evil and unacceptable *is* evil and unacceptable, and in lieu of anything else making a half-assed attempt it ends up getting credit for trying.

>It's a real piece of emotion from a character that hadn't had all that much of it up until then
his character is almost all emotion

We want two things, we want the benefits of living in society and the freedom of being an individual
There is the conflict society and freedom are two opposing concepts and you can't have both
A perfect society should allow you to live in a society while also being completely alone and free hence you can only live in an utopia if you are the only living person
Adam lived in paradise until Eve came along, it's not a complicated concept

I thought the movie was fine

>Was he right?


Yes, absolutely.

What Ozymandius did was monstrous, and Dr. Manhattan should have expunged him for it and revealed the entire thing without hesitation.

Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.