blah the Prussian

I have said this before and I will say it again: Might Makes Right does not apply to humans. Animals are fundamentally inferior to humans. So no, it would not be right for an adult to kill a baby, because they are both humans. We as humans have a duty to prevent animals from doing things like this. NR got my point right. The shouting was for emphasis. Might I suggest that we move this to a different thread, considering everything?

The tiger is a predator. It must kill to survive. TO A TIGER, KILLING THE BABY IS NECCESARY SO AS TO NOT STARVE. IT IS JUSTIFIED FOR A TIGER TO KILL AND EAT A BABY. IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED FOR A HUMAN TO KILL A BABY, BECAUSE A HUMAN'S LIFE DOES NOT DEPEND ON IT.

No, it is not. The tiger must eat to survive, but it is our duty as humans to protect our own. If there is anyone present with the power to stop the tiger, they must do it. As. I said before, natural selection does not apply to humans. Say that the baby's mother was there with a gun. That tiger would have to go through her to get to the baby. Good luck with that.

It may be for those reasons, but that does not change the fact that the results are the same. Someone could hunt for fun, but that wouldn't change the fact that they would be controlling the population at the same time. Keep in mind, I think this only applies to animals. Humans have risen above natural selection, but animals have not. I am not a social Darwinist. A social Darwinist thinks that Darwinism should apply to humans. I do not think that. Humans are above animals, and one of the reasons why is that natural selection does not apply to us.

Yes, it does. By hunting, we ensure that only the most fit members of a species survive. Hunting is needed to further natural selection. For example, in many areas humans are the only natural predator of deer. If we suddenly stopped hunting deer, they would become overpopulated, killing all plant life, and eventually destroying the ecosystem. In many cases, human hunters are an essential part of the ecosystem.

It comes from the fact that humans are the dominant species on Earth. In nature, might makes right.

The topic of hunting is irrelevant to this topic. World peace is completely in achievable. Also, what's wrong with caring for your own species. Humans will always be more important than animals. In fact, all animals belong to us. We have a right to do whatever we want with any animal. However, humans are bastards. Just look at human history. We had slaves, we kill, we do all kinds of terrible things. However, I would do almost anything to save a life.

That is a good quote, and I agree with it.

Maybe it is because we have every reason to be. We have seen that people have succumbed to our inner demons, causing wars, violence, and hatred. Hell, World War One happened because the world's superpowers were looking for an excuse. And now, we have the technology to kill life on Earth the next time two superpowers butt heads. And, even without nukes, human nature makes world peace impossible. Even if the world was united under a single superpower, to get the world to that state would lead to massive loss of life, and there would still be rebellion. Humans will always hate each other because humans will always be different. At this point, the only thing that can unseat us from Earth is ourselves. Human extinction is inevitable. In fact, I would be surprised if my grandchildren die of natural causes.

Fair enough. Anything explaining how Priam became a legend with a huge army training with him would be good.

It is going to be the best thing ever when meeting the FE 7 crew. Meeting Merlinus, Lisse's descendent, seeing the descendants of Vyrleena (Heath) Yazan (Either Vaida or Narshen) and Paptimus ( Canas). Meeting the countrymen of Keith and Kelitha, the adoptive daughter of Khyron's descendent, the descendent of the man who caused Tassars start of darkness... and best of all... Hector. Renault's meeting with Hector will be the best thing ever.

How's this: a prequel starring Priam and his quest to get Ragnell, while fighting Chrom's father.

If Marribelle existed, she would totally be my running mate when I run for president. She is less corrupt that all of America's politicians put together. Lon'qu could be the head of my secret service. I would have intense debates about God's existence with Libra. I would talk about military strategy with Walhart.

Let's see. Yarne: If you don't want to risk your life don't join the army. Sully: She assumes that everyone in the army looks down on her for being a woman. Freaking no one does that. Grow up and stop being paranoid. Vaike: Brainless, arrogant meathead. Exactly the kind of person I hate in real life. Validar: You are pretty pathetic when the only reason you didn't fail several times over was because of fate. Panne: Similar to Sully. Donnel: Hi. I am a farm boy. I am also a farm boy. In conclusion, I am a farm boy.

Marribelle's character develops through her supports. She is no longer a snob by the end of the game and she made her resolution after she matured. And she is not anything like a Begnion Senator. There is a difference between snobbery and outright evil. Marribelle is easily one of my favorite characters in the game, because her goals are so similar to my own. There is also the matter of joining the Shepards in the first place to protect the common people.

Someone needs to write a fanfic of this. In all seriousness, I was always disturbed by the tournament thing.

Lonqu x Lissa could have been the best, if Lonqu was cured by saving Lissa. He just did the thing he could never do all those years ago, but it is never touched on. As it stands, Lonqu x Marribelle is the way to go.

Nope. Themis was found not guilty, and kept most of his power.

Yes, it was demoralizing. But depressing stuff kicks ass.

Hector all the way. He is by far the best of the FE 7 lords, and it is beyond me how Narshen Von lamo beat him in FE 6. Macaiah is my least favorite, because of part one, where she thought it would be a good idea to help the Daein army escape justice for their actions.

I have traumatic memories of that site. My cousin took my computer to make an account and wouldn't give it back until she had one.

I am not comparing him with Hussein. I am using an example were there was someone who posed no threat to society, but we punished him for the sake of justice. This kid should go to jail for justice.

Fair enough. I was using that as an example of a time when someone was brought to trial for no reason other than justice. In the example used by Rapier, someone killed a person and are guilty of manslaughter. I believe they should be punished accordingly.

What does society stand to benefit? What did society stand to benefit from executing Saddam Hussein? Nothing. Did it mean we should have let him go? Hell no. Just because a criminal poses a threat to society, doesn't mean we shouldn't lock them up.

Care to elaborate on what you mean by " restorative justice"?