There is a fundamental difference in our reading of Ruby, but I'll start with the commonalities. I agree that Ruby is simple in her motivations. I agree that she would not decide that the end justifies the means if it meant people would be hurt or killed.
HOWEVER: Ruby's simplicity to me is not about her always following the one rule of being first in the line of fire. Her simplicity is her clear-minded commitment to the Good. Not the greater good, just the good, in the old-fashioned heroic sense. She is also growing as a leader and that necessitates more skills than being willing to put herself in danger to protect people.
It's not about realism, at the end of the day. Sure, it's unrealistic for her to be always in situations that make it easy for her to balance means and ends, but what's more important is that it would make her static. She always gets to be the one on the front line, gets to be the one to take the big risk. Heroes, who believe in the Good, learn by temptations and trials. She should never compromise her values, but if she never has to reckon with them, that's a wasted story to me.
More to the point, I don't believe she did anything that qualifies as putting end before means. Jaune made a plan that exposed Weiss to risk. Weiss consented to this plan. All of the team have been exposed to risk in the past, and it robs Weiss of agency to have Ruby stop her based on the possibility of danger. One aspect of Ruby being a good leader is letting her friends be empowered when they can be useful. Only Weiss could do it, and Ruby has a responsibility right now to carry a demoralised team through a mission.>>105139053
sure? dude there are people in this very general whining about being exposed to my presence and implying or stating that my argument doesn't pass muster in some form. i don't give a shit that they think that because of course in a debate you think your opponent's argument is invalid. your pretense of neutrality is obscene.