fair enough, this whole conversation was started by this comment:
Originally posted by Juk3n
So, hell yeah capital punishment is murder (by the person throwing the switch only!!) and hell yeah it should exist. Kill 1 to save many, , its a shame Batman doesn't think like that , how many more lives would he have saved?
which, to me, sounds like this member would rather read comics about Jason Todd wearing batman's skin.
Originally posted by inimalistAnd it's very dear to me.
price of incarceration was your issue, not mine
Originally posted by inimalistTotally dude.
lol, so you would willingly admit that, in the abscense of punishment, you would kill someone?🙄 hard-to-the-core bra!
Originally posted by inimalistI've never ruled it out, but there's that little cost issue. And the state won't fund it if there's no discernible problem. F*ckin' fascists...
all existant literature on human behaviour disagrees with you, and if you REALLY believe what you said, you need psychiatric help.
Originally posted by inimalistYou're confusing my dislike of current costs with a politician's promise to slash the deficit. I'm not interested in "dropping costs", well... not as a primary reason, anyway. I also never made mention of stripping confessors to their right to trial. Just to up the ante should they be convicted. Mental illness would be taken in to the equation of the validity of their surrender.
I can't imagine these cases make up a significant percentage of death row inmates, so there would be almost no drop in costs. Even then, convicted mass murderers deserve the same chance of appeal as anyone else, and confessions are often forced, not to mention many psychological issues that can cause people to confess to crimes they didn't commit.
Originally posted by inimalistYou can't wholly trust the government, that's a fact. But I'd rather put my faith in this flawed democracy with it's fallible justice system than to leave it to anarchism.
yes, you do, it is "who the state says is a murderer".
Originally posted by inimalistThe state "will do it what it wants, when it can". Don't confuse the two phrases. And as I said a page or so ago, "From a certain philosophical standpoint, executing a murderer is not itself murder." That's a personal philosophy, not a school of thought, as Kandy confused it to be. And it's mine. People become murderers by knowingly killing an "innocent" (definition subjective). When they do so, they forsake their own... "moral innocence" (definition subjective). In my mind, ONLY murderers can do this. Possibly rapists, depending on the situation. And to subsequently kill this person, is not itself murder.
though, you really don't have a good argument for why it isn't murder when the state does it, aside from "the state can do what it wants"
Originally posted by inimalistI'll return the favour /sigh I know the stats. of execution-to-prevention ratio are low. I've long conceded that. And I find it unfortunate. /double
well, since all available statistics are against it being useful, I'll do you a solid and argue in terms of just /sigh
Originally posted by inimalistPlease stop confusing terms. "Justice" is not the same as "law". When the state sanctions something, like proscription, it's law. When the victims suffer it, it isn't just. Justice is a highly personal matter. And justice for murderers, to ME, is death in kind.
"when the state does it, it is just" is your argument then? "Watergate does not bother me, does your conscious bother you?"
Originally posted by inimalistNazi aggression. Why? Do you think a strongly written letter or appeasements would work?
what does it solve?
Originally posted by inimalistSame. Their guns won't stand a chance against our iron pacifism.
God, I feel for the morons who ever try to invade Canada
Originally posted by inimalistIt most certainly is. Why? Don't you?
you don't see capital punishment as a form of violence?
Originally posted by inimalist
you aren't too familiar with the character, are you?EDIT: that would be like saying, "gee, I wish Spider-Man used his 'great power' a little more irresponsibly"
lol.
No, it is you that is unfamiliar with something...check it out...
There was a big ass argument, in the comic book section, about the stupidity of Batman NOT killing The Joker and how many thousands of lives Batman could have saved had he killed him from somewhere close to the beginning.
Also, in order to keep the analogy the same, you would have had to say something like:
"That would be like saying, "gee, I wish Spider-Man used his 'great power' to kill carnage the instant they discovered he was a mass-murderer, saving hundreds of lives in the process."
The reasons behind my selecting Carnage have 2 parallels. Carnage was designed after The Joker and Carnage is a mass-murderer. I cannot think of a better choice. lol
Originally posted by inimalist
that might be true, if we make some type of utilitarian moral "cost/benefit" descision, but the point was in terms of the character batman.There are many times that he has had the opportunity to kill Joker... iirc in "Hush" Gordon yells at him for trying to save Joker's life. The point is, to Batman, killing is what makes evil people evil.
My point wasn't that the world wouldn't be a better place without the Joker, but rather, that not killing is so integral to the motivation Batman has for being batman, that if someone thinks he should just go out and kill evil people, they are missing the point entirely.
So, same with Spider-Man, sure, he could decide some night that the burden of keeping people safe isn't his alone, spend it with his wife, etc. But integral to the character's narrative universe is the fact that, it is his duty to help because he is able to. This is why terrible things always happens when he takes a night off.
Here, here's an alternative explanation?
Batman is indirectly responsible for the murder of thousands of people. You're applying the often-times retarded "in-universe" rules to Batman's character/motivations. It's not that people don't understand how integral that is to Batman's character, it's just that his "rule" has lead to some rather retarded outcomes: for example, the thousands Joker has killed.
"Let's save The Joker so that he can kill more people." That is the exact outcome and there is no way around that outcome. This is why it's very very stupid for Batman not to kill. The reason of, "I won't be able to stop once I start" is a pretty good reason...only for one person. But it's not a good enough reason, at all, when Batman knows that some of the characters he stops WILL murder innocents, again. But then there's "vigilante justice" going on. But, wait? Isn't that Batman's whole character? Vigilante-ism? So it's a rather moot point that it would be "Vigilante Justice." Obviously, Batman is already a vigilante. Obviously, Batman has witnessed or been privy to thousands of murders and murder cases. Why does he still refuse to kill when it would obviously save thousands to millions of lives? Simple: we gotta have a story, man! 😆 How are we supposed to sell comics if Batman takes care of everything?
The Punisher is a better version of Batman. 313
Originally posted by 753
this does not matter. if the bomb will go off in an hour or a day, how does killing the joker help diffuse it? in his universe he can either prevent murder through non-lethal ways or there is nothing he can do to prevent it. he's never let people die by not taking an action he could take to eliminate the threat while it existed. you could claim the joker always escapes and kills again another day, but that's different, it's speculation on future events and he does not pose a threat while incarcerated.
Speculation that a character, in a fictional universe, will do everything in his power to kill people in what The Joker considers "entertaining" and "humorous" ways, is somehow speculation? No, the speculation is what the body count will be the next time, not whether or not he will murder again.
Edit - inimalist, I did not see your rants at the bottom of page 4. You can pretty much ignore my entire post. 🙁
Originally posted by dadudemonYes, it is speculation. Batman does not know that the joker will kill again like you claim. You know that because you read comics and know how they work. Once a villain has been contained through non-lethal methods, as it's always possible to do in his universe, executing him serves no life saving purpose and amounts to vengeance. The fact that the joker intends to keep killing means nothing either, wanting isn't doing it. Batman is inside his unvierse and has been acting as a vigilante for a few years, he's not reading a predictable comic book in which events have repeated themselves every month for 60 years and iconic villains remain unstoppable so the comic goes on forever.
Speculation that a character, in a fictional universe, will do everything in his power to kill people in what The Joker considers "entertaining" and "humorous" ways, is somehow speculation? No, the speculation is what the body count will be the next time, not whether or not he will murder again.
Originally posted by Bardock42
In case of the Joker you can blame any police officer or any employee of Arkham just as much as Batman. It's perfectly fine for Batman to choose not to kill. Sure he picks and chooses the laws to follow, but I don't see why that is in itself worse than following no laws or all laws.
No, we can't.
They have a job and that job is specific. Batman is doing it for lulz and he is not paid to do it (I'm sure there are several exceptions, but get the point instead of thinking of exceptions) Batman is vigilante with the skills (superior to the police) and tools (superior to the police) to "fix" the Joker problem.
On top of that, there are probably situations that The Joker really could be shot down by the police, it's just that the story is written in such a way that that doesn't happen very often.
Come to think of it...I do remember a couple of time that The Joker was shot at by the police...lemme see what I can find.
And, no, it's not perfectly fine for Batman not to kill. It's pretty wrong of him not to. His self-righteous pretentiousness does not bring the thousands back that he could have saved had he checked his ego at the door when he decided to....ahem...
1. Assault.
2. Assault with a deadly weapon.
3. Kidnapping.
4. Impersonating the Law.
5. Trespassing.
6. Torture.
7. Extortion.
8. Burglary.
9. Vandalism.
10. Aggravated Battery.
11. Battery.
12. Illegal Arms possession.
13. Breaking almost every traffic law ever.
14. Breaking almost every air traffic law, ever. lol!
15. Espionage of all kinds (corporate, internal, foreign, etc.)
16. Racketeering.
17. Blackmail.
18. Larceny.
19. Obstruction.
20. The biggest one, Negligent Homicide.
And that's just from the top of my head and I wanted to stop at 20.
I'm sure we could lay on Batman many more crimes and Batman has committed lots more than that. It would seem that he cares more about one particular law than he does any others. Doesn't that really seem...kind of...stupid? By breaking one law, he could save a whole lot of lives, at times.
THE PUNISHER, man. I like that guy.
Originally posted by inimalist
done
I know you read it anyway, though. 313
Originally posted by 753
He doesn't care about the law at all, he cares about his own sese of justice and according to it, killing is unnacceptable.
I can just picture him now, screaming "JUSTICE" when The Joker is busted out of prison, for the twelve millionth time. Then he screams "SWWWWEEEET VICTORY OF JUSTICE! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!" when he stumbles upon the mutilated bodies of Joker's the obvious "Justice Served" at the hands of Batman.
That, or Batman whispers into the victim's ear (which is no longer attached to the head of the body), "eat my justice, bitches. Tastes good, doesn't it?"
Originally posted by dadudemonBatman doing it without being paid for it by the government or a private institution somehow means he should be the one to kill Joker to save more people.
No, we can't.They have a job and that job is specific. Batman is doing it for lulz and he is not paid to do it (I'm sure there are several exceptions, but get the point instead of thinking of exceptions) Batman is vigilante with the skills (superior to the police) and tools (superior to the police) to "fix" the Joker problem.
On top of that, there are probably situations that The Joker really could be shot down by the police, it's just that the story is written in such a way that that doesn't happen very often.
Come to think of it...I do remember a couple of time that The Joker was shot at by the police...lemme see what I can find.
And, no, it's not perfectly fine for Batman not to kill. It's pretty wrong of him not to. His self-righteous pretentiousness does not bring the thousands back that he could have saved had he checked his ego at the door when he decided to....ahem...
1. Assault.
2. Assault with a deadly weapon.
3. Kidnapping.
4. Impersonating the Law.
5. Trespassing.
6. Torture.
7. Extortion.
8. Burglary.
9. Vandalism.
10. Aggravated Battery.
11. Battery.
12. Illegal Arms possession.
13. Breaking almost every traffic law ever.
14. Breaking almost every air traffic law, ever. lol!
15. Espionage of all kinds (corporate, internal, foreign, etc.)
16. Racketeering.
17. Blackmail.
18. Larceny.
19. Obstruction.
20. The biggest one, Negligent Homicide.And that's just from the top of my head and I wanted to stop at 20.
I'm sure we could lay on Batman many more crimes and Batman has committed lots more than that. It would seem that he cares more about one particular law than he does any others. Doesn't that really seem...kind of...stupid? By breaking one law, he could save a whole lot of lives, at times.
THE PUNISHER, man. I like that guy.
I know you read it anyway, though. 313
....what?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Batman doing it without being paid for it by the government or a private institution somehow means he should be the one to kill Joker to save more people.....what?
Of all the things you could have possibly taken from my post, you decide to miss all the points and make some weird shit up?
Bardock, that IS you! 😄
Edit - What flies directly into the face of your trying (but failing miserably) to discount any point I made is the references to police actually shooting at Joker. There's also the fact that a police officer has to follow a set of laws, even more so than a regular citizen and Batman, whlie not having to follow an even higher standard of moral conduct (because he is not sworn into to protect and serve Gotham City and isn't on the people's dime to do so), Batman pretty much takes a piss on any sort of laws that are around if it servees his purposes.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Of all the things you could have possibly taken from my post, you decide to miss all the points and make some weird shit up?Bardock, that IS you! 😄
Edit - What flies directly into the face of your trying (but failing miserably) to discount any point I made is the references to police actually shooting at Joker. There's also the fact that a police officer has to follow a set of laws, even more so than a regular citizen and Batman, whlie not having to follow an even higher standard of moral conduct (because he is not sworn into to protect and serve Gotham City and isn't on the people's dime to do so), Batman pretty much takes a piss on any sort of laws that are around if it servees his purposes.
No, that's actually what you said. Batman goes much further than most any other person to protect and help people, blaming him more than anyone else to not kill certain people is insane. He has at most as much blame as anyone else that has the chance to kill Joker, which is almost anyone in the GCPD, Arkham Asylum and, I'm sure, a couple of other people, too.
I agree with the Punisher being awesome though.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I know you read it anyway, though. 313
my answer was going to be a quote of the post you eventually saw
Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - What flies directly into the face of your trying (but failing miserably) to discount any point I made is the references to police actually shooting at Joker. There's also the fact that a police officer has to follow a set of laws, even more so than a regular citizen and Batman, whlie not having to follow an even higher standard of moral conduct (because he is not sworn into to protect and serve Gotham City and isn't on the people's dime to do so), Batman pretty much takes a piss on any sort of laws that are around if it servees his purposes.
in one of the Hush issues, Joker lies dying from a bullet, and Batman essentially has to kidnap him from Gordan and the GCPD to get him medical attention.
That being said, have you read Batman: Secrets? make whatever points about costs and benefits, but you could never get that type of writing if Batman didn't have his codes.
essentially, batman doesn't kill joker to prove a point to joker himself. The joker knows he has won if he corrupts batman to the point of rejecting his own moral code. Say what you want, that is a powerful message when written correctly.
Writers go out of their way to paint Joker and Batman as two sides of the same coin, differentiated only by their morality. It is stated very plainly at times that were Batman to kill, there would be no way to draw a line between himself and the Joker.
Originally posted by dadudemon
THE PUNISHER, man. I like that guy.
he has his moments. I'd say well more than half the stuff I've read has been by terrible writers... Frankencastle?
The mythos is interesting, but it tends to be somewhat two dimensional compared to stuff like "arkham asylum" or other weird psychological stuff that comes out of Batman (though, I'm not trying to choose "sides" here, both great characters when handled correctly, I've just had a much more selective reading of Batman, ie, not a lot of the crap)
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not up to date on The Punisher's coming and goings, but hasn't he had a few innocent deaths at his hands due to his uber-violence against criminals?Not sure that's better for the populace than Batman's strict no-killing code.
he has a very low threshold for what makes someone no longer innocent.
Originally posted by King KandyIn the US anyone can get a gun. How many other countries do the citizens get to go buy these at the store?
That's really not true at all. Very few 1st world countries will hand out the death penalty as much as the US, if at all... and it hasn't don a thing because the US has a higher crime rate as well. I really see zip to suggest we have any kind of edge in our justice system over say, Norway.
Originally posted by The MISTER
In the US anyone can get a gun. How many other countries do the citizens get to go buy these at the store?
lots. shotguns and rifles are common for hunting around the world
most nations don't allow you buy military grade assault rifles, but then again, neither do all the States
Originally posted by inimalistSo are crossbows but what superpowers have carrying guns as part of their culture? Americans have stiffer penalties for killing people because killing is quite a large part of our culture and we have been so desensitized.
lots. shotguns and rifles are common for hunting around the worldmost nations don't allow you buy military grade assault rifles, but then again, neither do all the States