Lex Luthor is NOT evil

[wearetheborg]

I'll also add this.

Supppose Clark was just a normal kid.
And also suppose there was a very real threat of alien invasion or terrorists recruiting meteor freaks.

Also suppose you do not know any meteor freaks, and are not one yourself.

Then, would you rather Lex be in jail, or in charge of operarion Protect USA.

[avidreader]

Originally posted by wearetheborg


Regarding "Withholding information that can help save countless lives", Clark is gulty of the same thing. His blood has rejuvenating properties, and he hasnt come forward.

I have O- blood type, making me the universal donor. However, I am not a blood donor. Does this make me a bad person? Its the same analogy that you are using for Clark. I dont consider myself a bad person by the way.

Realistically how much blood can Clark donate? He chooses to use his gifts in other ways to save mankind. Its no comparison to Lex withholding scientific resarch that could cure the world of one of its deadliest diseases.

Originally posted by wearetheborg
I'll also add this.

Supppose Clark was just a normal kid.
And also suppose there was a very real threat of alien invasion or terrorists recruiting meteor freaks.

Also suppose you do not know any meteor freaks, and are not one yourself.

Then, would you rather Lex be in jail, or in charge of operarion Protect USA.

I dont think anyone would question Lex heading up Project Protect U.S.A., its the way he goes about it and the fact that there always seems to be another agenda that he has going on, which ultimately benefits him.

[wearetheborg]

Originally posted by avidreader
I have O- blood type, making me the universal donor. However, I am not a blood donor. Does this make me a bad person? Its the same analogy that you are using for Clark. I dont consider myself a bad person by the way.

What if your blood had freakish properties, and could lead to scientific breakthroughs that would cure AIDS ?
Would you still not donate ?

[SeaNymph]

Clark would most likely turn into a lab rat if he exposed his powers to the world. Unfortunately, the human race is like that. Would you reduce someone to that kind of life?

Clark has put himself in danger countless times to save other people...even in episodes where he didn't have abilities. He really cares about other people.

[Bookwrm17]

Lex is evil. Period.

In Promise, he violently beats a man to death, hides the body, and is then able to go and look a preist in the eyes.

He orchestrated a mass extermination of meteor freaks, including those who had done nothing wrong besides be infected.

He conducted illegal and unethical experiments on said freaks.

He drugged the woman he loves to make her think she was pregnant in order to trick her into marrying him.

No matter how he may justify it to himself, Lex Luthor is one evil SOB.

And I wouldn't want him any other way.

[avidreader]

Originally posted by wearetheborg
What if your blood had freakish properties, and could lead to scientific breakthroughs that would cure AIDS ?
Would you still not donate ?

Well since I'm never going to be put in that position, I cant answer, but I can look at things from Clark's perspective and as I said in my previous post, how realistic and fair is it for Clark to put himself up as a lab rat. And as we've seen through the blood arc in Season 3, if he was to donate his blood, there would always be those in power who would exploit him and his blood.

I think he is able to do more good for the world by doing what we know he is destined to do.

[xrayvision]

I would say Lex is evil (or heading towards it very quickly) with some goals that would be mutual to him and the safety of the country/world. I think Lex is doing it more for Lex than for anyone else (cuz if he's dead, the money & power mean nothing). At this point, he cares about the world but is willing to break eggs to make the omlette (which Clark isn't). I think once Lana leaves him he will have a huge disdain towards people in general and will position himself as a protector only to profit himself because he knows he would be given vast resources to do that. Or maybe his hatred of Superman will motivate him to compete with Supes in who can better save the world.

At this point, I still think Lex cares about people in that he doesn't want his planet devoured by aliens. But his mentality towards his more personal goals (like the family life he wants, etc) causes him to be a bad person and go about things in a very immoral way.

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

Lex evil?

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
e·vil (ē'vəl) Pronunciation Key
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.


n.

1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.


adv. Archaic
In an evil manner.






Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source
evil

adjective
1. morally bad or wrong; "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds" [ant: good]
2. having the nature of vice
3. having or exerting a malignant influence; "malevolent stars"; "a malefic force" [syn: malefic]

noun
1. morally objectionable behavior
2. that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune; "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones"- Shakespeare
3. the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice; "attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world" [ant: good]


Look at what he has done to people infected with meteor rocks by no fault of their own.
Look what he did to Lana to get her to marry him.
Look what he did to his best friend in school.
Look how he investigated Clark even though Clark saved his life numerous times.
The list goes on and on.

Evil?
Yes, the worse kind some will say.
The Evil that believes itself to be "good".

[silverfist]

The US did precisely that when it invaded Iraq, thousands of civilians were killed who arguably would not have been killed under Saddam's rule (perhaps others would have been killed under his rule, but not the same people who died in the Iraq war).
The Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombing is another example.

So just because the US goverment has done that stuff, it justifies Lex actions? :O Where's the logic in that? I disagree with all the political decisions mentioned above, so how would that help me to look at Lex as a good character?

If you're point is "If Lex is evil then so is America...so Lex can't be evil!" well...that argument would work for a person who thinks that whatever the US goverment decides to do is 100% correct. But that would be a pretty ignorant way to look at things if you ask me.

[wearetheborg]

Originally posted by silverfist
So just because the US goverment has done that stuff, it justifies Lex actions? :O Where's the logic in that? I disagree with all the political decisions mentioned above, so how would that help me to look at Lex as a good character?

If you're point is "If Lex is evil then so is America...so Lex can't be evil!" well...that argument would work for a person who thinks that whatever the US goverment decides to do is 100% correct. But that would be a pretty ignorant way to look at things if you ask me.

Well at least 50% of americans support the actions of the US govt.
Since Lex's philosophy is like that of the govt, at least 50% would support him, and want him on their side, as their leader.

Your correct, most people dont agree 100% with the actions of the govt, but the support of the people in genral implies they think the good outweighs the bad.

Similarly with Lex - experimentiing on innocent people = bad (but they were freaks, ie "different")
Deceiving close friends = bad (but close friends were being deceiving too)
(Note both of the above apply to Mr Bush).
Develping applications to protect humanity = good.
(aka protecting US from perceived WMDs).

Someone mentioned how Lex tortured Aquaman.
Aquaman was destroying the leviathons because he was certain the military would adopt them.
And if the military adopted them, and someone came around destroying these machines.....well...

[xrayvision]

Guys, leave real world politics out of the threads and instead discuss the topics in the context of the show.

[Jaded Wolf]

Originally posted by wearetheborg
The US did precisely that when it invaded Iraq, thousands of civilians were killed who arguably would not have been killed under Saddam's rule (perhaps others would have been killed under his rule, but not the same people who died in the Iraq war).
The Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombing is another example.

I was laughing at all this stuff until this quote. As a soldier who fought in Iraq we went in there because a bunch of civilians were killed in 9/11 when Al-Queda killed thousands in the act of ji'had. Iraq was known to have Al-Queda ties. Pres. Bush said our mission would be to pursue any nations harboring and assisting terrorists. Same thing with Hiroshima/Nagasaki. War is hell as General Sherman said it.

Okay, now that I said my political rant let me say that what Lex Luthor is misguided. His intentions are good but the way he tries to carry them out is his undoing. Lex has a prejudicial view of "meteor freaks". His thinking is because the majority he has encountered are evil then they must all be. This would be like me saying because the majority of criminals on television are black then all black people must be criminals. See how stereotypical and misguided that thought process is?

Would I say Lex is completely evil? Not yet. Nothing like his comic book counterpart. He's getting there but there is still some humanity left in him with Lana. I hope that gets shattered and then we will see the familiar Lex emerge.

[wearetheborg]

Originally posted by Jaded Wolf
Iraq was known to have Al-Queda ties. Pres. Bush said our mission would be to pursue any nations harboring and assisting terrorists. Same thing with Hiroshima/Nagasaki. War is hell as General Sherman said it.

I fully respect the soldiers and what they are trying to do.
But not the administration:
-Saddam was not harboriing Al-Qaida - in fact he had turned them away.
-Pakistan harbors and assists terrorists in Kashmir, yet US does nothing, choosing instead to become an ally.
-Iran harbors and funds terrorists.

Moreover, going to war on an entire nation, over the acts of a chosen retarded few, IS pretty much unfair.

Lex thinks a war is brewing, and is trying to accumulate facts/weapons fast.

[Bookwrm17]

Please don't make this into a political debate. The war in Iraq has no bearing on the character of Lex Luthor and whether or not he can be considered evil, which is what this thread is about.

[xrayvision]

I wasn't going to say anything, but since this stuff is still going back & forth, I'll have to.

Originally posted by wearetheborg
-Saddam was not harboriing Al-Qaida - in fact he had turned them away.

Neither of us knows whether he turned them back or not. But whether they were Al-Qaeda or some other group, there were and still are terrorists in there:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...salman_pak.htm

-Pakistan harbors and assists terrorists in Kashmir, yet US does nothing, choosing instead to become an ally.

Because we need their help in getting bin Laden. Plus they have nukes, so it's doubtful a military strike can be done against them without counter strike--something anyone who is against doing something against Iran now should think about before it's too late. Plus, before that route is taken, we should first try settling the problem without force if that will work.

-Iran harbors and funds terrorists.

See my comment above.

Moreover, going to war on an entire nation, over the acts of a chosen retarded few, IS pretty much unfair.

Well, what else is there to do if their govt is either incapable of dealing with the threat or unwilling? Life's unfair. The nearly 3000 people that perished that morning were only going to work or fly on a plane. It wasn't fair what happened to them either. If Saddam didn't wanna go to war, he had all the opportunity. He had so many chances to let the UN inspectors in to do their job. Why didn't he? Why did he have biological scientists part of that "Deck of 52" that we were after in the military? The ones I feel bad for besides our troops are the average non-terrorist Iraqis who just want to live normally without any of this crap going on now. That country is an unfortunate case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. The majority of Congress thought war was justified when they voted in favor of it. But now everyone blames the president who went through with his plan and did not have the luxury of hindsight, as all the irresponsible politicians now are complaining. The president didn't make up the intelligence he was given. It was the same intelligence that existed during the prior 2 presidents and to the UN, which thought it was important enough to send inspectors on an ongoing basis since the end of the Gulf war.