Why Hope is Bishop's only hope for redemption

[remydat]

He is seeking redemption for his methods he is doing so by changing his methods, his basic goal is the survival of his people against implacable foes. His methods were evil but his goal never has been.

But you just said he was justified so why are his methods evil? Look, I will put this simply. Was Mags ok with sinking the sub? Was Mags like his defense attorney said not accountable for his actions pre-ressurection? If the answer to those questions are yes then that particular story is not evidence of him seeking redemption.

As for him seeking redemption in the broader context for his methods, in XML, was he not prepared to kill Legion on Cyke's orders? In Mags not a hero, did he not drop the building on the mutant hater at the end? I don't see Mags seeking redemption so much as he is not as stupid as he was and so is smarter about when he uses his extreme methods but fundamentally he still does so.

[ZNOP]

ZNOP, if he is not wrong for defending it then how is it an example of him seeking redemption/remorse.

It's not in either case... However, I am trying to point out (in a roundabout way) how redemption/remorse for Bishop through Hope at this point is unattainable... Hope hasn't committed any crimes against Humanity/Mutantkind as of yet and, we only have the rantings of a (now) raving lunatic who says she will.

He killed 9 billion people to try and kill someone who killed a few million.

A good analogy for this would be the movie "Minority Report. Bishop is practicing and enacting "Precrime" as a means to justify the ends... And in his case he trying to prevent a future that may or may not happen.

Again, how is it you guys can't see the simply point here. If you want to believe Mags was justified I don't really care. However, you can't claim Mags was justified and thus should not feel any remorse and yet claim he is seeking redemption.

What?? Ex. If I as a gun licensed gun owner killed an unarmed man claiming self defense, go to trial, plead not guilty, and found not guilty -- why should I feel remorse or seek redemption?

[remydat]

It's not in either case... However, I am trying to point out (in a roundabout way) how redemption/remorse for Bishop through Hope at this point is unattainable... Hope hasn't committed any crimes against Humanity/Mutantkind as of yet and, we only have the rantings of a (now) raving lunatic who says she will.

Yes, and as I have said 1191 Bishop is not redeemable which is why I suggested a Bishop who did not grow up hating Hope because she did not kill millions.

A good analogy for this would be the movie "Minority Report".

Yes but from a morality standpoint, it is still morally dubious as there is no guarantee he would succeed in killing Hope so he has risked 9 billion lives and to date has been completely incompetent in trying to kill her.

What?? Ex. If I as a gun licensed gun owner killed an unarmed man claiming self defense, go to trial, plead not guilty, and found not guilty -- why should I feel remorse or seek redemption?

My original post you responded to ask if there were stories where Mags was seeking redemption/atonement. You then posted the screen shot of Uncanny 200. I responded by noting that in it they largely justify Mags actions or ignore them (pre-ressurection). So now I am confused. If you agree there is nothing for Mags to feel remorse or seek redemption for in Uncanny 200then why link it in response to my post in which I was specifically discussing Mags not seeking redemption or atonement? It seems like we agree on that point.

[ZNOP]

If you agree there is nothing for Mags to feel remorse or seek redemption for in Uncanny 200then why link it in response to my post in which I was specifically discussing Mags not seeking redemption or atonement?

I posted that pic as a way of saying that Pre/Post Magneto was brought to trial for his crimes... The fact that his attorney's got him off doesn't mean that justice wasn't served -- it only means that the defense didn't make their case.

It seems like we agree on that point.

I concur.

[mikekerrIII]

But you just said he was justified so why are his methods evil? Look, I will put this simply. Was Mags ok with sinking the sub? Was Mags like his defense attorney said not accountable for his actions pre-ressurection? If the answer to those questions are yes then that particular story is not evidence of him seeking redemption.

What you do to achieve a goal matters as much as the goal itself, you can do evil in a good cause. And as far as the Sub is concerned why would he need or seek redemption for defending himself?

As for him seeking redemption in the broader context for his methods, in XML, was he not prepared to kill Legion on Cyke's orders? In Mags not a hero, did he not drop the building on the mutant hater at the end? I don't see Mags seeking redemption so much as he is not as stupid as he was and so is smarter about when he uses his extreme methods but fundamentally he still does so.

Was there something wrong about dropping that building? Mags been fighting people like that for 60+ years, he just decided to change his methods to those more appropriate.

[ZNOP]

Was there something wrong about dropping that building? Mags been fighting people like that for 60+ years, he just decided to change his methods to those more appropriate.

Indeed... If an anything remydat you should use your argument against Xorneto -- He wreaked San Francisco and, wanted to put innocent humans in in ovens.

Should the true Magneto be brought up on charges for that crime? Who knew that wasn't him? Especially, after the helmet came off.

[Leirus]

Indeed... If an anything remydat you should use your argument against Xorneto -- He wreaked San Francisco and, wanted to put innocent humans in in ovens.


Should the true Magneto be brought up on charges for that crime? Who knew that wasn't him? Especially, after the helmet came off.

Stop cherrypicking continuity.

[ZNOP]

Stop cherrypicking continuity.

And, pray tell just how am I cherry picking continuities?

[Meehl]

You could get sick if you eat innocent humans without first cooking them thoroughly. What was your point?

[ZNOP]

You could get sick if you eat innocent humans without first cooking them thoroughly. What was your point?

Err?? My point?

[Meehl]

Err?? My point?

You said it was bad that Xorneto wanted to put humans in ovens. I'm saying that you'd have to put them in ovens if you plan to eat them, otherwise you get sick.

[ZNOP]

You said it was bad that Xorneto wanted to put humans in ovens. I'm saying that you'd have to put them in ovens if you plan to eat them, otherwise you get sick.

O'k, I'm subtracting 10 points for that

[Sighphi]

YOU DON'T FUCKING GAMBLE WITH 9 BILLION LIVES. That is what you are missing. As Bishop found out, there was no guarantee he would be able to kill Hope so it is a morally replusive idea that you would kill 9 billion people on the premise that if you succeed in killing Hope they would not really exist. Only a nutcase would take that risk.

So..... he should have been more conservative in his plan to change the timeline?

[mikekerrIII]

So..... he should have been more conservative in his plan to change the timeline?

He should have not murdered 9 billion people at all, especially on a gamble that he would succeed. even with his twisted version of time travel the gamble was a lunatics bet.

If he failed, as he did, those 9 billion died for nothing at all.

[Meehl]

He should have not murdered 9 billion people at all, especially on a gamble that he would succeed. even with his twisted version of time travel the gamble was a lunatics bet.

If he failed, as he did, those 9 billion died for nothing at all.

No, he shouldn't have done it because killing Hope in 616 or the alt timelines they jumped into wouldn't erase her or any timelines. Bishop already knew that 616 was not his timeline, so killing Hope was irrelevant to saving his own.