@ rac7d: Well, let me work through this.1: Are they still considered children? (I thought they were preteens).
What legal parameters are we using to define what a child is? (There is a lot).
Seriously, there is a lot to consider here in terms of definition. The first has to do with what a child is. One source I have defines a child as being between the ages of birth and 18. Another states that a child can be between the ages of 5 and 8. So what about preteen (10-13 or 9-14), and teen (14-18)?
IF the girls are 11, then they are no longer considered children but would be more accurately described to be preteens. We do have evidence as we see breast developement going on with the girls. However, they aren't in the fifth grade, we suppose that they are in the fourth grade, as shown by the page after the title page. Bleedman is using a school-grade filing technique that is common in Asia and Japan. Which is weird because as far as I can tell, they are in the United States. No, it isn't my American pride showing, but the amount of American cartoons in this comic tells me that it is there, and not in Japan or Asia. Anyway, this would put their age at 9-10, potentially 11.
Now the argument against that is the passing of time between the bomb events and the events with Mandark, and when they first transferred to this school.
Which we don't know.
2: Does the sword react to the mistakes of children, the intentions of children?
When do we and in consideration of the sword, find a child responsible for their actions?
So how picky is Jack's sword? Can it respond to "children" or "preteens"? Since I posted the question as children, I will continue to refer to them in such a way, but also consider the idea that the girls are in a preteen stage of development. Also note that I am transitioning from referring to all of the powerpuffs to Bell in particular, unless otherwise indicated.
The difference I wanted to make here is that a "mistake" would be a child doing something without fully knowing what or understanding what they are doing and in a sense being used, but either accept it and don't care (I'll be back to this) or don't realize it. the "intentions" of a child would be that they know full well what they are doing and willingly participate in it.
Now the second part deals with when we find a child responsible for their actions. You said:
Children are usually become responsible for their action when they legally become adults which is 18. But thease children have more responsibilty an power then the average child so what applies to them... I couldn't say.
So a child isn't held responsible for any of their actions until they are 18? What about failure in school, or issues with drugs, or gang activity? According to this statement, none of the "children" technically teens or preteens, wouldn't be responsible for the things that they do and you can't punish them or get them into trouble.
Let me propose a different idea. What is responsibility and what does it mean to be responcile for your actions? Well simply put it means you are dependable, and I can count on you doing something. I would thus propose that being responsible about some kind of action is that you were fully aware of what you were doing, and the credit goes to you. I suppose you must have experience in this, which is another thing, from the point of creation to the bomb situation right now, how old is Bell over the girls? The PpG were roughly five when they were created, and have had at least five years of experience in the world. How much experience has Bell had and would this factor in?
So does experience factor into child responsibility. I would say its a part, with the others being their decision to act (willingness), knowledge, and perhaps age and physical abilities. For me and my Church, we consider a child is responsible for their actions by the age of eight, when they should know the difference between good and wrong. Learning still happens though, which is a life long process.
You did bring up the part about their power. We know the quote "with great power, comes great responsibility". What does this mean? To use the power you are given in the right way, usually in selfless acts in benefiting everyone around. It doesn't quite play into this.
3: Do the "evil" teachings of a parent condemn a child's learned traits from that parent and make them "evil" or misguided?
This brings up the part where I mention children being used and don't know it. Bell has Dr X as a father, he is clearly not the protagonist in this story, but the antagonist. Is Bell responsible for the evil that she does, knowingly or unknowingly, because she learned it from her father. I'm inclined to think that if she knows her actions are evil and continues with them anyway, then she is thus responsible for the evil that she does.
So is Bell evil, or misguided?
4: Can there be a flat distinct line of good and evil here right now?
Is that line permanent so the sword reads the majority moral alignment or does it read each circumstance? (Because Blossom is threatening to injure/kill Gir and Bell is trying to prevent that. Sounds more like Blossom is the villain and Bell is the Hero).
Do good people always do good things, or do they commit evil to prevent a greater evil from manifesting? In this exact situation is Blossom still the hero for targeting Gir and Bell still the villain for trying to protect him? In terms of the bomb, yes, but remove the bomb from the equation and you will find Bell to be the Hero and Blossom to be the villain. I guess another interesting example would be Buttercup, who could be considered more of the anti-hero of the three. Is she good or evil?
Can the sword distinguish this? What causes it to "know" or "detect" evil from good?
I have no idea. There might be an arua about people that progress towards good and evil, with no neutral ground, and everyone having different shades. It might read it like that.
rac7d wrote:Moral alignment... are yu asking if someone belives what they are doing is right makes them a good person. Well in bell case she does what her father tells her to do. Clearly she can see and understand if her actions harm other people, but loves her father and will do anything for him. Its a tough call.
Morals are interesting. Kinda of annoying, but if that is true, then both Bell and Blossom are good and the sword wont affect anyone.
rac7d wrote:Ehh gir's a robot. And robotic life is usualy almost never held with the same regard f a person. Blossom has destroyed robots before. If she did so here bell would kill her and she knows it, but if it was nesscesary I think she would.
So it is not okay to kill a living human, but is okay to kill a robot that can think for itself? The robots that Jack and Blossom fought were not robots with AIs, but were machines of death and destruction geared towards the pain and death of others. What is Gir? He isn't quite a killer bot-slave of the Irkens, more like a retarded astromech-droid. His life is going to be held in the same level as that of a person's. Because he is a person now. He means something to Bell and killing him will break her heart. Its the emotional attachment to Gir that is making him equal value to a living organism.
rac7d wrote:It would be if sam was human. But now she just a robot.
rac7d wrote:Anyone who's ever seen a samurai jack cartoon know the sword can cut through machines of any kind without hesitation or intrepidation. Buttercup can destroy samantha with no remorse if she is full machine, which takes away any suspense for that upcoming fight.
We don't doubt that it can go through Sam. The intention is quite clear of her.
Why wouldn't she feel any remorse?