|
|
Dani (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} hypno_jango) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2005-11-04 11:08:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| Entry tags: | fandom: death note, thoughts on yaoi, what is wrong with you people? |
Death Note is SERIOUS BUSINESS
I posted this to ClairvoyantWank before but now it's gotten bigger.
On the StopTazmo Death Note thread, it starts with:
"Raito should win. He's got the right idea."
"So even Hitler had the "right ideas" Playing god is only fun for those who´re playing god..."
"Hitler was exterminating innocents. Raito is exterminating criminals who need to die, along with the occasional person foolish enough to get in his way. His actions are just."
It goes downhill from there as forum-goers write tl;dr posts about whether certain kind of killings are OK, if Light/Raito is or is not like Hitler, opinions about which people deserve to die, history, and what-if scenarios.
(Bottom of page 35)
l33tlamer: People in modern societies kill people everyday. I am not talking about murders or in accidents, but people are killed when decisions are made about weighing human lives differently.
For example, assume that the director of a hospital has limited staff, and there are more patients requiring immediate surgery than that which can be handled by the staff present. In choosing one person over another, the director is in fact killing an innocent person, to allow another innocent person to live.
Take this to the next level. Assume that the director only has to manage the money spent to buy equipment for the hospital. He decides to invest in a new MRI machine that will allow for better cancer diagnosis while not investing in more hospital beds. This decision will benefit people that are in the early stages of cancer, while probably having a negative impact on those in the later stage of terminal diseases. Again, a decision that sacrifices a group of people for another has been made in this case.
The above examples, are not far from reality. Innocent people are sacrificed to benefit other people, who are also innocent, all the time. Its naive to think that just because a person is innocent, they must be kept alive regardless of what benefits or negative effects they may have on other people. ... Lets look at another case. A cure for cancer has been developed that can essential prevent anyone from ever getting cancer again (yes, this is pretty fake, but bare with me). It still requires a lot of fine tuning to ensure that it works properly. The "fine tuning" requires living human beings as test subjects. The test subjects must be healthy. Not enough people sign up as test subjects, as the experiments carry a high chance of death.
Will using healthy death row immates be ok for this? What about those that have life sentences? Rapists? Considering that these people are convicted of crimes, why shouldn't they be used in a way that will benefit humanity?
Of course, you can argue that they still have human rights. But what about the human rights that were violated by them? Such as, killing another person, removing their right to live? In my opinion, those that don't respect human rights, don't deserve to be treated like humans. Its a pretty simple, and fair IMO, concept. This sort of tie in with why I think Raito would be correct in the Death Note world. (The bold is his.)
Also don't miss out on the mini "OMG! YOU'RE A GIRL SO YOU CAN'T SWEAR!" wank that starts on page 39.
