Jor-El evil?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



MysteryRidah
Can someone explain the episode crusade to me?

I dont understand it, meaning it seems like smallivlle is making clark's real father evil or something, or am i missing something?

Give me the short version if you dont feel like explaining the long version.

Darth Macabre
Jor-El was preparing Clark for his destiny. He needed Clark to secure all the stones of Kryptonian knowledge to make sure nothing bad happened to the Earth.

MysteryRidah
Oh. I always thought jol-el was evil or they was making it seem like he was evil.

So whats the difference when clark is under his father's control and when he's not? Because when he was under his father's control, well he was acting crazy lol.

Darth Macabre
Originally posted by MysteryRidah
Oh. I always thought jol-el was evil or they was making it seem like he was evil.

So whats the difference when clark is under his father's control and when he's not? Because when he was under his father's control, well he was acting crazy lol.

He was reprogrammed to what he probably would have been if he was to be raised on Krypton. That was "Kal-El".

Ast
Originally posted by MysteryRidah
Oh. I always thought jol-el was evil or they was making it seem like he was evil.

So whats the difference when clark is under his father's control and when he's not? Because when he was under his father's control, well he was acting crazy lol.



He wasn't acting crazy, he was actually pretty dull. stick out tongue





He was just following his destiny, without the things that hold him back as Clark. The Kents think Jor-El is some monster, but he is just trying to prepare Clark for the future, he just doesnt know much about subtlety. stick out tongue

Smallville
Like was stated before, it was a necessity for Clark to secure the three stones to ensure nothing bad happened to earth. The stones were left for him to find.

Whos_Pete
I didn't get that.

The whole thing with reprogramming Clark's mind into Kal-El. Huh? He's already Kal-El - Kal-El is just his Kryptonian name. The whole different persona thing is a load of bollox IMO. To reprogram his mind into Kal-El would mean Clark becomes somebody completely different. Clark/Kal-El become a droid, a drone, a puppet. Whose father would want to destroy their own son's self-awareness? To erase their memory, to replace it with a new memory. What's the point in Clark being sent to Johnathon and Martha (going by Jor-El's reasons -- explained in episodes -- as to why Johnathon was chosen to father Kal-El in the first place) for him to be taught right from wrong etc, if all Jor-El's going to do is destroy all the teachings, all the lesson's learned and replace them with a friggin' liability to the human race?

I really don't know what Jor-El was thinking with that. Now he's got all the viewers confused, because they all think Kal-El and Clark Kent are two completely different people. That just isn't the way it goes, guys. Get with the programme.

Heh.

Smallville
Originally posted by Whos_Pete
I didn't get that.

The whole thing with reprogramming Clark's mind into Kal-El. Huh? He's already Kal-El - Kal-El is just his Kryptonian name. The whole different persona thing is a load of bollox IMO. To reprogram his mind into Kal-El would mean Clark becomes somebody completely different. Clark/Kal-El become a droid, a drone, a puppet. Whose father would want to destroy their own son's self-awareness? To erase their memory, to replace it with a new memory. What's the point in Clark being sent to Johnathon and Martha (going by Jor-El's reasons -- explained in episodes -- as to why Johnathon was chosen to father Kal-El in the first place) for him to be taught right from wrong etc, if all Jor-El's going to do is destroy all the teachings, all the lesson's learned and replace them with a friggin' liability to the human race?

I really don't know what Jor-El was thinking with that. Now he's got all the viewers confused, because they all think Kal-El and Clark Kent are two completely different people. That just isn't the way it goes, guys. Get with the programme.

Heh.

We is Kal-El, and he is Clark. Clark is who Martha and Johnathan raised him to be.

By calling himself KAL-EL, he embrassed his Kryptonian identity, and the mission(s) Jor-El wants him to accomplish

Whos_Pete
Ian, why would Jor-El want to kill off his son's mind and replace it with a drone's? That's what he basically did. If you get shot in the head, say, and you were to survive it, but you acted completely differently afterwards, you'd no longer be Ian, would you? You'd be someone else. Someone who'd have to re-learn the values which you did when you were growing up. Baring this in mind, you can see that it's totally counterproductive for Jor-El to erase Clark of his human ethics.

Jor-El is a retard.

MysteryRidah
I dont get it either sometimes, at the end of crusade, when clark's mother had the black stone, Kal-El told clark he was weak, its like Kal-El is the evil superman or something hahahahaha.

hmmmmm, and right now i am confused. Or maybe Jor-EL wants clark to be something, but clark wants to control his own destiny.

But i guess later on, him and his real father turns out ok, because if you watch the short clip on superman the movie, everything seems ok between him and his father.

Smallville is all about clark growing up, remember that.

Knightfall93
Also, Smallville is continuity BS

Darth Macabre
Originally posted by MysteryRidah
I dont get it either sometimes, at the end of crusade, when clark's mother had the black stone, Kal-El told clark he was weak, its like Kal-El is the evil superman or something hahahahaha.

hmmmmm, and right now i am confused. Or maybe Jor-EL wants clark to be something, but clark wants to control his own destiny.

But i guess later on, him and his real father turns out ok, because if you watch the short clip on superman the movie, everything seems ok between him and his father.

Smallville is all about clark growing up, remember that.

Kal-El's not really evil...He's just harder, less emotional about things. So basically Jor-El wanted him to still have his ethics, but not care as much for the people around him. I mean he didn't kill anyone, all he did was steal the stone, nothing more.

Smallville
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Kal-El's not really evil...He's just harder, less emotional about things. So basically Jor-El wanted him to still have his ethics, but not care as much for the people around him. I mean he didn't kill anyone, all he did was steal the stone, nothing more.

That is what I was trying to get across. It was like there was 2 different "Clarks." Kal-El, the "evil" side, was not as emotionally attached to the human race. The only thing he was interested in was getting the stones.

The Black Kryptonite was supposed to seperate the two aspects of Clarks self.

Whos_Pete
Stupid Browser...

Whos_Pete
How can Clark have ethics that only his upbringing can teach him, if Jor-El erased his sodding memory?

"Basically", Darthy, Kal-El would walk on by a raping, a robbing, a mugging, or whatever, because he wouldn't care about an 'insignifant human individual'; he'd have more important things to take care of. Like, a mission that Jor-El had programmed into him.

I don't see how that's preserving ethics.

Darth Macabre
He's looking at the bigger picture, rather then his personal interests. He's saving the world, at the expense of a few people.

If he didn't have his ethics, then he would have let the world be destroyed no problem. Sure he might not have the exact same morals, but the fiber is still there.

Whos_Pete
When you're there to do something about a situation, and you don't 'act', that's because you're unethical; without any morals.

That's the bigger picture.

Darth Macabre
Originally posted by Whos_Pete
When you're there to do something about a situation, and you don't 'act', that's because you're unethical; without any morals.

That's the bigger picture.

But that's the thing. In this mythos, in this exact instance, he's not here to save the random individual, he's here to save everyone. And by gathering the stones, he is doing what he was meant to.

Whos_Pete
Saving "everyone" includes everybody.

You lose the debate (once again).

Darth Macabre
Originally posted by Whos_Pete
Saving "everyone" includes everybody.

You lose the debate (once again).

No, saving everyone does not mean saving everybody (every single individual)...And that is where you fail to see the difference. And I didn't lose anything. I don't care about your pathetic attempts to make yourself feel better. I, unlike you, don't really care about winning anything.

Whos_Pete

Darth Macabre
So tell me...If a guy is trying to stop a nuclear bomb from destroying the world (for the sense of this example, that is possible) sees a guy being mugged, he's supposed to stop his attempt of saving EVERYONE for one random individual?

Whos_Pete
Why didn't you phrase it as "saving the world" then?

It's highly unlikely he'd spot a guy being mugged at the same time as he'd see a nuclear bomb about to go off. But, this is just you trying to subtly change the direction of the points we're discussing. Saving everyone is impossible to achieve on a literal level, but saving everyone you can, now that's what Clark can do. Kal-El wouldn't do that, would he? Therefore, he has no ethics.

You are wrong, and have been corrected for the amount of times.

smile

Darth Macabre
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
He's looking at the bigger picture, rather then his personal interests. He's saving the world, at the expense of a few people.

If he didn't have his ethics, then he would have let the world be destroyed no problem. Sure he might not have the exact same morals, but the fiber is still there.

You really don't pay attention to my posts do you? I have said "saving the world" you just failed to read what I write properly.

Whos_Pete
In the situation with the bomb, of course, Clark would 'choose' to focus on the thing that's the greatest threat. He could probably do both with his super speed though. Knock out the mugger on the way to stopping the bomb. It doesn't make Clark unethical to choose to save the world over over a single person. But I wasn't talking about Kal-El with that kind of 'scenario' in mind (hence why I say you subtly try to change the direction to fit your points). Lol. I used to change the question to fit my answer in maths class at school. What you're doing here is no different.



lololol, really? You've clearly stated "saving everyone" in the posts I've read. Stop trying to change points to fit your answers. It's silly of you. If you are having a hard time remembering what you put in your posts, I urge you to go and check them out yourself.

In the meantime, can you calm down? Anger causes irrational thought and can sometimes cause 'memory loss' or selective memory syndrome.

big grin

Darth Macabre
Ok, but that is basically the same scenario you brought up with the mugging, raping, thing. Instead of a bomb, Kal-El has to collect the stones. So essentially, it's the same scenario.

The post's you've read? So that automatically means that I haven't said something? Whatever man, you're a fool, that goes on about how you're right, when in fact I've said the same thing I always have, just with different words. Learn to understand synonyms, then get back to me.

Smallville
Originally posted by Whos_Pete
How can Clark have ethics that only his upbringing can teach him, if Jor-El erased his sodding memory?

Kal-El had mild Amnesia

Originally posted by Whos_Pete
"Basically", Darthy, Kal-El would walk on by a raping, a robbing, a mugging, or whatever, because he wouldn't care about an 'insignifant human individual'; he'd have more important things to take care of. Like, a mission that Jor-El had programmed into him.

I don't see how that's preserving ethics.

Clark doesn't have the Superman Complex going for him right now. And how often do you hear about Superman saving a random person anyways?

Jor-El pushed him towards the greater good. If you watched the rest of Season 4, you would see that Jor-El is pushing him to embrace his destiny to be a Superhero.

Whos_Pete
How can what I have brought up be the same senario as yours? Your scenario forces Clark to pick who to save. Mine doesn't. Kal-El collecting stones isn't as urgent as stopping a bomb that's about to destroy the world in 2 seconds. I'm sure Kal-El, with his great speed, could stop a mugger or two along his way. I didn't even say he had to go out of his way to stop it. I implied 'should he happen to stumble upon a mugging or a raping' along the way.



One word sums up your statements at this stage: Ignorance. Re-read your posts and see you stated "saving everyone". First page, go on, I dare you to turn the page back and see for yourself.

I'm not the one having problems with self-righteousness here, it's you. Hence the reason you feel the need to 'strengthen' your ponts by hurling abuse. Ironic considering you private messaged me a week or so ago with an apology for doing exactly that.



Saving everyone does not equal saving the world, as it means 'everyone'. Saving the "world" doesn't imply that everyone shall be saved. In debates like this, where accuracy is crucial to make a point valid, your own sloppiness tripped you up. You're the one with a lot to learn in this case.

Continue digging your own hole. I'm laughing at you.

Whos_Pete
MY GOD! YOU'RE RIGHT! :O

Superman always saves people who are entitled Mr. President.

Smallville
Originally posted by Whos_Pete
MY GOD! YOU'RE RIGHT! :O

Superman always saves people who are entitled Mr. President.

Seriously... when is the last time you were reading a Superman comic, or watching Smallville and Clark saved a random person?

Back to topic... Jor-El did not CORRUPT Superman, but rather gave him a push in the direction he is destined to travel.

Whos_Pete
MY GOD! embarrasment

You're a genius, Smallville Ian. :O



Wiping someone's memory or tampering with it in some way isn't a just simple *push* in the right direction. To pass it off as that is just 'stupid'. big grin

Darth Macabre
Originally posted by Whos_Pete
saving everyone does not equal saving the world, as it means 'everyone'. Saving the "world" doesn't imply that everyone shall be saved. In debates like this, where accuracy is crucial to make a point valid, your own sloppiness tripped you up. You're the one with a lot to learn in this case.

Continue digging your own hole. I'm laughing at you.

Alas, I give up... You win. But like I said in the PM, I thank you.

Smallville
Originally posted by Whos_Pete
MY GOD! embarrasment

You're a genius, Smallville Ian. :O

If you want to have a discussion about something, then please do conduct yourself in a civilized manner.

Originally posted by Whos_Pete
Wiping someone's memory or tampering with it in some way isn't a just simple *push* in the right direction. To pass it off as that is just 'stupid'.

I did not mean "push" literally.

Whos_Pete
What's uncivilised about my conduct? Explain. Conduct doesn't seem like the right word to choose. Somehow, it puts you across as one of those people I mention earlier. Those who cannot see the difference between reality and the net. That would explain how you get these 'conclusions' about my (cough) behaviour.

*Points at Ian and sniggers*

About the push: My interpretation of it is wrong (probably because you aren't that good at wording yourself, and therefore don't get things across in the way you intend). Similarly, your interpretation of my "conduct" (cough) is wrong for similar reasons.

Actually, you're reminding me of Darth's nasty habit of changing things you've said, or altering them, along the way in an effort to seem correct with what you're saying. Well, no, I spot your tampering. You should just point out that you made a mistake and actually state you should've worded it in a different way. Even make the effort to reword it. But no, your 'ego' is too big to do such a thing, isn't it, Ian?

However, I'm not going to bother trying to emphasise my correct points with an ongoing debate, as it'd take me a dozen posts, because you come from the same soup bowl as Darthy with never wanting to be wrong - even when clearly, you are. I will settle for one reply, this reply, to your silly remark about "conduct".

smile

Whos_Pete
It took a dozen replies, but I, the best man, won in the end. That's the thing with egotistical self-righteous people. You just hammer them with corrections until eventually their doubt overcomes their arrogant confidence and they buckle underneath the weight of your words, and in result, they confess they're wrong, and when really broken down, the confusion sets in and they thank you.

Heh.

Smallville
Originally posted by Whos_Pete
What's uncivilised about my conduct? Explain. Conduct doesn't seem like the right word to choose. Somehow, it puts you across as one of those people I mention earlier. Those who cannot see the difference between reality and the net. That would explain how you get these 'conclusions' about my (cough) behaviour.

There is a difference between reality and the net? Since when? roll eyes (sarcastic)

When I said conduct yourself in a civilized manner, I meant just that. You are being, for lack of a better phrase, an arrogant prick.

Originally posted by Whos_Pete
About the push: My interpretation of it is wrong (probably because you aren't that good at wording yourself, and therefore don't get things across in the way you intend). Similarly, your interpretation of my "conduct" (cough) is wrong for similar reasons.

I used push on purpose... however, I should have specified that I was underexaggerating. Sometimes, there are people like you that will purposefully twist peoples words in order to mock them, trying to put them down in order to feel better about themselves. Such a small personality trait.

Originally posted by Whos_Pete
Actually, you're reminding me of Darth's nasty habit of changing things you've said, or altering them, along the way in an effort to seem correct with what you're saying. Well, no, I spot your tampering. You should just point out that you made a mistake and actually state you should've worded it in a different way. Even make the effort to reword it. But no, your 'ego' is too big to do such a thing, isn't it, Ian

No, what I post, I mean. I wouldn't post it otherwise. And I have admitted to being wrong more times that I care to count. But, if you need this in order to feel better about yourself... then far be it from me to take your victory away from you.

Whos_Pete
Amazing.

And you say I'm the one who's not conducting himself in a civilised manner. Roll your eyeballs into the back of your head and have them scan for a tiny brain somewhere in the middle of that black hole inbetween your ears.

Phrases that make you look like a hypocrite are (from top to bottom):



Now, now, that's just UNCIVILISED.



There's no one like me, but what an UNCIVILISED thing to suggest. To say I'm a part of the interchangeables that you are in cahoots with. What an insult!

Well done, Ian, you've successfully made your point lessor than it could've been, had you not done as you tried to tell me not to do.



What's all this about 'victories', hah? You've a lot to learn, mah boy. All this make-believe stuff you and Darthy-boy have going, it's very cute, but it's hardly the stuff adults would use, is it? It's the sort of unproven stuff that gets tossed around in infant schools e.g. "yo' mamma's so fat". How the hell do they know? How the hell do *you* know?

It's time you admit you're wrong again.

smile

Smallville
Originally posted by Whos_Pete
Amazing.

And you say I'm the one who's not conducting himself in a civilised manner. Roll your eyeballs into the back of your head and have them scan for a tiny brain somewhere in the middle of that black hole inbetween your ears.

Phrases that make you look like a hypocrite are (from top to bottom):



Now, now, that's just UNCIVILISED.



There's no one like me, but what an UNCIVILISED thing to suggest. To say I'm a part of the interchangeables that you are in cahoots with. What an insult!

Well done, Ian, you've successfully made your point lessor than it could've been, had you not done as you tried to tell me not to do.



What's all this about 'victories', hah? You've a lot to learn, mah boy. All this make-believe stuff you and Darthy-boy have going, it's very cute, but it's hardly the stuff adults would use, is it? It's the sort of unproven stuff that gets tossed around in infant schools e.g. "yo' mamma's so fat". How the hell do they know? How the hell do *you* know?

It's time you admit you're wrong again.

smile

If it will quit your self-deluted rants, then I will.

For now, back on topic, please.

Whos_Pete
Self-deluted?

Never mind.

Don't start what you can't finish. smile

Smallville
So, back to topic?

Whos_Pete
Topic ended 20 posts ago when Darth couldn't accept being in the wrong.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.