Amuro Ray

It's not a bad idea since it makes it possible to hide just the part that actually spoil like on tvtropes.org without breaking the text, thus making it more clean. You will then be able to understand the writer's point without actually being spoil in some case.

The thing is that it's not really needed here since batoto is not really the type of web site where it is really useful (more for wiki like type of page in my opinion).

This about a person doing the deed, not if the   deed is good or bad. This way perspective is eliminated and you can actually think about the question and not philosophise about it to no end.

I get a feeling more than one person missed this point, so I'll add it to the first post.

Yup, I totally missed it.

You want to know if we think that being good comes from actually choosing of doing good over evil (which makes define good or bad unimportant and beside the point) or if a person is good by just doing good things because he only knows how to do that? In other word, if the intention and consciousness of the act is important or not?

Then, I think it is. A good person needs to have the conscious intention to do good. The hypothetical individual you talk about doesn't know what he's doing. He just do it. By just doing it, he might do good, but I don't think it says a lot about him as a person. Actually choosing of doing good over evil is for me the most important part. I won't write more though...  in case I'm still beside the subject...

Back in the days, homosexuality was considered absolutely bad and evil by pretty much everybody on the planet. It was bad the be one, to do things one does and the spectator were "victims of the sight and in need for reparation". Hence, it was consider good to denounce the "vile deviant", torture him until he admits his affections and burn him at the stakes. It took century before people realized that they were wrong (well, not everyone believes it, but you get me).

Socrate once said that one must know that he doesn't know. They didn't, but thought they knew at 100% that it was bad. They though they knew at 100% that there was actually reasons to burn some one alive. They had arguments and also had other arguments that they considered not valid.

300 hundreds years from now, people will probably talk about us like I talk about our ancestor.

Do we really know? Or is it possible that we burned some Galileo before a Rene Descartes could appear to make us realize that our logic had flaws that we didn't know yet, making it possible for a Copernicus to enter the scene? Or is it possibly that we didn't do anything at someone that was deserving a sentence because we didn't have a Martin Luther King to point it out yet like he did with segregation?

Though, this borders an appeal to tradition, isn't it? Rhetorical question calls rhetoric I presume. There is no proof that past is reproducing itself. Also no proof of the opposite before it is part of the past, though. Yep, it is definitely fun to let one mind go loose. Sorry for that.

Not very sure what you mean with "awesome Demon King" because your example are pretty different (Maoyuu Maou Yuusha & Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou have pretty different kind of Maou), but...

Lasboss x Hero

There is a Demon King in it. Though, I don't know if you'll find him awesome.

It's actually the story of an author who creates a story pretty unpopular where there is a demon lord. During a nap, he wakes up in his story and tries to make it better from the inside while following his heroes. I personally really like that one, but maybe it's just because I write myself and empathize with the author. I personally think the demon king is awesome in a way, but you might not think alike. He doesn't have super destructive power.

Well, you can try it if you want.

DAT MC... xD

I'm read the first chapter and this is reminding me of Sense with a female lead and less fantasizing of sex. As a though, this manga is just as funny.

So I'm here to say thanks for the find ^^.