User blog comment:IamJakuhoRaikoben/Chapter 324: The One Who Closes The Door, Review./@comment-4047931-20130324131002/@comment-4047931-20130324185430

Well my when I opened the page only showed the first of your comments so I only had it to reply to but still I feel here you being a bit closed minded and condescending. First of all Rogue isn't that much of a villain here but instead a man doing what's necessary to save the future. If he has to kill Lucy so be it and maybe he knows he will have to burden Natsu’s hate by doing so. It would add tragedy to the story and just because they do these acts doesn't mean it makes him entirely evil. He can be seen as the necessary evil here. The utilitarianism theory best suits his motives as he is doing this to benefit the majority. If you think it is insane to kill someone’s friend with the reason of saving the future and millions of others while trying to keep any unnecessary casualties to a minimum seems insane on its own as you appear to be unable to grasp this idea of fighting for the greater good and the butterfly effect. As I mentioned before we don't know the implications of Natsu's death on the future Rogue came from. For all we know killing Natsu will lead to that 10% to being 5%. Also you can take Gaara from Naruto for an example during the Kage Summit arc as he was willing to kill Sasuke to protect those present and any Sasuke would harm in the future even though he knew Naruto would be angry knowing his friend was killed without having the chance to save him. You seem to be failing in getting the big picture as if somebody had to reach his objectives with cost of lives, only if they are a true monster would try spare as much of their own men, troops, supplies, etc, etc too reach them.

As for survival, those tools would be meaningless without the strength to use them. Give a Stone Age hunter an axe and put against and wolf, it still would incorporate strength. Also what I was saying is that both strength and wits come into play when surviving. The cave idea is just a situation to show what would happen to those with just strength and the other with just wits and they both died. Also you kind of contradicted yourself with the story of Eli Weisel as his ability to survive his time in the camps can be seen as a feat of strength. Also another example would be the prisoners in the concentration camps and the black slaves forced to work in plantations in America as those able to survive before being freed could also be considered to have the strength to make it through those harsh times. Also the idea of survive of the fittest is actually present today as black people are proven to have better athletic capabilities, and that's got proof in the Olympics alone. Those who survived slavery in America had among them the strongest of the slaves taken over to work. Anyway you missed my initial point of that both are needed to survive on your own. Survive without food or water is basically and sign of strength itself.

Now about the assumptions of Rogue being stronger then Natsu. Saying we can't assume is that hypocritical as you are assuming Natsu will win and also you assume that Natsu would be able to beat him. We can assume all we like as there is nothing wrong with speculations and we are allowed to think what we think. There should be no problem in assuming things with you know it may not be true but I'm just speculating because I believe it would make the story more enjoyable then what we have now.

Also there's that last point about Rogue being at the GMG for seven years. Wasn't it states that Zeref created the magic for the Eclipse?