|
Karloff posted:This is, and always will be, a terrible argument. Different characters in different stories with different contexts are different. If the upcoming Justice League featured a Batman who didn't dress up like a bat, but instead wore a fedora and used a whip would you go "Yeah, well, you didn't have a problem with Raiders of the Lost Ark so it's weird for you to find that odd"? It seems like you (or at least others) have been saying there's more to this, that the issue involves the ethics of killing and the nature of heroism, etc. All of that is relevant in the same ways in other movies and other stories. EDIT: I guess you seem to be arguing in a different direction, but I think the question is relevant to many people's arguments about Batman killing. Martman fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Aug 23, 2016 |
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
Karloff posted:This is, and always will be, a terrible argument. Different characters in different stories with different contexts are different. If the upcoming Justice League featured a Batman who didn't dress up like a bat, but instead wore a fedora and used a whip would you go "Yeah, well, you didn't have a problem with Raiders of the Lost Ark so it's weird for you to find that odd"? Does the fedora have a Batman logo on it? This is important.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Does the fedora have a Batman logo on it? This is important. These actually exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:So there are two reasons I asked that: 1) because SnakeBananas seems to think not having an issue with this is akin to condoning murder irl, and 2) he's bringing in stuff like comics and Batman Beyond so I figured other media was fair game. I never said anything about condoning anything IRL, it was all in context of the fictional world of Batman. It has also been established that there is a difference between murder and killing. My argument is, and always has been, that it doesn't make sense for anyone to be OK with a masked stranger with absolutely no legal accountability killing anybody for any reason. A rational world would not realistically tolerate a murderous vigilante. I understand that this is a fictional world, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore any time it doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
So a masked stranger is walking down the street, and someone pulls a knife on him and attempts to stab him. It's not ok for the stranger to kill him in self defense? Like you just acknowledged that there is a difference between murder and killing, but then applied the blanket statement to the wrong one. Does wearing a mask mean he's sacrificed all his rights?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Martman posted:So a masked stranger is walking down the street, and someone pulls a knife on him and attempts to stab him. It's not ok for the stranger to kill him in self defense? If this scenario were to occur, the person who did the killing would ideally be arrested and tried in court. The court will determine whether or not it was OK. If the person who did the killing just ran off into the night, he has committed a grievous crime
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:If this scenario were to occur, the person who did the killing would ideally be arrested and tried in court. The court will determine whether or not it was OK. The fact that Batman won't let himself be subject to the power of the justice system doesn't change the ethics of killing in self-defense. You're saying a "rational world wouldn't tolerate it" but all you're really showing is that the justice system doesn't allow vigilantism to any extent, regardless of killing. Replace "killing" in your example with "seriously wounding by beating and lacerating." How does this change what you're talking about? EDIT: If when you said "And let's be clear, if you are OK with Batman killing people, you are condoning the act of killing." you were referring only to the fictional world of Batman, what exactly was your point? You're actually claiming now that all you were trying to say is "If you condone Batman killing people, then you condone Batman killing people." Martman fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Martman posted:If that happened, a properly held trial would find that it was a justified killing. So we should just bypass our entire justice system because we already know what the outcome of the trial will be? A regular citizen doesn't get to decide whether or not a killing is justified. In this scenario, the killing was justified, but what if an investigation revealed something new? Martman posted:The fact that Batman won't let himself be subject to the power of the justice system doesn't change the ethics of killing in self-defense. You're saying a "rational world wouldn't tolerate it" but all you're really showing is that the justice system doesn't allow vigilantism to any extent, regardless of killing. It shouldn't tolerate vigilantism! Vigilantism is and always has been against the law. The Avengers for instance, are a government backed agency and their checks and balances are often discussed. SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:It shouldn't tolerate vigilantism! Vigilantism is and always has been against the law. The Avengers for instance, are a government backed agency and their checks and balances are often discussed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:"I'm not gonna kill you...but I don't have to save you either!" is such a lame slam dunk in a series full of them. Not the line I'm referring to. Much earlier, when Ra's asks him to execute the murderer. "I will go back to Gotham and I will fight men like this, but I will not become an executioner."
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Martman posted:My point is, what you've brought up this page has nothing to do with killing. There is no line there where the nature of vigilantism changes. So I don't see why you've brought it up in relation to the Batman killing argument? I've always felt that in the context of these fictional worlds, they tolerate vigilantism because in this particular fictional world the vigilantes are wildly effective, and somehow more useful than actual police. The Justice League was only recognized as a good thing when they stopped an extra-terrestrial threat that would have wiped out humanity. What happened when Superman decided to just execute Lex Luthor? They took over the world and became the Justice Lords. The authorities tolerate the vigilantes because nobody is dying. It's a lot like the plot of Civil War. Tony Stark thinks people should be held accountable for their actions through legal scrutiny, which is a fine and noble goal. Captain America thinks that good guys should be left alone and we should just assume they plan on doing good things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:If this scenario were to occur, the person who did the killing would ideally be arrested and tried in court. The court will determine whether or not it was OK. If the person who did the killing just ran off into the night, he has committed a grievous crime This isn't how the law works at all. You don't have to stick around after killing someone. You can kill in self defense then run off into the night. Many legal experts would argue you should given how precarious a self-defense defense is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:This isn't how the law works at all. You don't have to stick around after killing someone. You can kill in self defense then run off into the night. Many legal experts would argue you should given how precarious a self-defense defense is. Is this really true? How would the authorities be able to determine that it was actually in self defense? Maybe you provoked the attack for instance. Maybe you planned for it to look like a self defense killing. If I were to kill someone and then not immediately call the authorities, I believe my motives would be brought into question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Is this really true? How would the authorities be able to determine that it was actually in self defense? Maybe you provoked the attack for instance. Maybe you planned for it to look like a self defense killing. If I were to kill someone and then not immediately call the authorities, I believe my motives would be brought into question. I'm guessing you're not American.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm guessing you're not American. I am... I'm pretty sure if I were to flee the scene of a homicide and they caught me, I would be really really hosed. But I honestly don't know for sure, having never been involved in a homicide.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Is this really true? How would the authorities be able to determine that it was actually in self defense? Maybe you provoked the attack for instance. Maybe you planned for it to look like a self defense killing. If I were to kill someone and then not immediately call the authorities, I believe my motives would be brought into question. Your motives will be brought into question anyways. Yes, calling the police yourself is evidence various people might consider. But the problem with calling the police yourself and immediately claiming self defense is that you are admitting murder rather than making them prove it, then forcing yourself to justify it. That's a massive risk to take. There may be circumstances in which you'd want to turn yourself in. But it is very clearly the case that, contrary to what you said, running away does not change whether a lawful killing is lawful. It's not like a hit and run type deal. For reference, this isn't legal advice, but it's based on what I learned in law school and from talking to actual criminal defense attorneys (which I am not).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:having never been involved in a homicide. That's a fail
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I am... I'm pretty sure if I were to flee the scene of a homicide and they caught me, I would be really really hosed. But I honestly don't know for sure, having never been involved in a homicide. What a suspicious response.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I am... I'm pretty sure if I were to flee the scene of a homicide and they caught me, I would be really really hosed. But I honestly don't know for sure, having never been involved in a homicide. Most of the stuff that you should do in a serious crime, even if you're innocent, is counter-intuitive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Your motives will be brought into question anyways. Yes, calling the police yourself is evidence various people might consider. But the problem with calling the police yourself and immediately claiming self defense is that you are admitting murder rather than making them prove it, then forcing yourself to justify it. That's a massive risk to take. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Most of the stuff that you should do in a serious crime, even if you're innocent, is counter-intuitive. This is... actually super interesting. So what's the idea here? That it's the laws job to prove you did it and bring you to justice, and not necessarily your responsibility to report it? If hypothetically asked why you didn't report it to the police, what would be the legally appropriate response? SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Demand an attorney.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:If hypothetically asked why you didn't report it to the police, what would be the legally appropriate response? Nothing. The jury cannot be told that you didn't cooperate with the police by not talking to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
greatn posted:Also Lois couldn't spell. Like it was a major character trait that this hot shot reporter doesn't know how to spell words. That was a callback to the first Donner film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
The "Lois can't spell" gags get me every time, I won't lie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:The "Lois can't spell" gags get me every time, I won't lie. It was pretty bad in Superman Returns but that was entirely because Kate Bosworth is horrible at everything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:This is... actually super interesting. So what's the idea here? That it's the laws job to prove you did it and bring you to justice, and not necessarily your responsibility to report it? If hypothetically asked why you didn't report it to the police, what would be the legally appropriate response? It is absolutely the state's job to prove you did it. Not having to self incriminate is a constitutional right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:The authorities tolerate the vigilantes because nobody is dying. Well no; that would be stupid. The authorities don't give a poo poo if a person dies. The fantasy that Superman will turn into a 'Justice Lord' if he executes Lex Luthor has nothing to do with the sanctity of life or whatever. The authorities oppose such an action because it represents an attack on the free market. People seem to forget that Batman Began purely as a way for a billionaire to combat the mafia - by, effectively, replacing them. No loftier goal than that. No threat to the system, or to those in power. What happens if a worker dies in one of the shoddy Chinese factories mass-producing batsmobile components? Does Batman immediately quit in disgrace, commit suicide, because his actions have killed someone? Of course not. That doesn't count for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:It was pretty bad in Superman Returns but that was entirely because Kate Bosworth is horrible at everything. I still think both her and Katie Holmes get a real bad rap for their 2005 superhero love interest performances
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I still think both her and Katie Holmes get a real bad rap for their 2005 superhero love interest performances Bosworth is just bad in everything except that Jason Statham flick where she plays a meth addict.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
It's strange how killing is the line that the general public don't want vigilantes to cross. Like, the riots over black people getting shot usually only involve some property damage but people are still ready to crack down on that end. Or is this another one of those things that doesn't count because Batman's fictional?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Or is this another one of those things that doesn't count because Batman's fictional? It's a beautiful ideal. You can't argue convincingly against Faith.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's strange how killing is the line that the general public don't want vigilantes to cross. Like, the riots over black people getting shot usually only involve some property damage but people are still ready to crack down on that end. The intense fixation on the 'no killing rule' has nothing to do with its content ("no killing"). It is purely the fact that the rule is a rule. "‘Rule Girls’ are heterosexual women who follow precise rules as to how they let themselves be seduced (accept a date only if you are asked at least three days in advance etc). Although the rules correspond to customs which used to regulate the behaviour of old-fashioned women actively pursued by old-fashioned men, the Rule Girls phenomenon does not involve a return to conservative values: women now freely choose their own rules – an instance of the ‘reflexivisation’ of everyday customs in today’s ‘risk society’. According to the risk society theory of Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck and others, we no longer live our lives in compliance with Nature or Tradition; there is no symbolic order or code of accepted fictions (what Lacan calls the ‘Big Other’) to guide us in our social behaviour. All our impulses, from sexual orientation to ethnic belonging, are more and more often experienced as matters of choice. Things which once seemed self-evident – how to feed and educate a child, how to proceed in sexual seduction, how and what to eat, how to relax and amuse oneself – have now been ‘colonised’ by reflexivity, and are experienced as something to be learned and decided on." -Zizek
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:These actually exist. It's somehow dumber looking than I was thinking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Instead of becoming a vigilante it would be more realistic for Bruce to join Gotham PD so he can kill with impunity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Instead of becoming a vigilante it would be more realistic for Bruce to join Gotham PD so he can kill with impunity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Instead of becoming a vigilante it would be more realistic for Bruce to join Gotham PD so he can kill with impunity. There are Batmans where that happens and in some he ends up disillusioned with the corruption and focus on petty crime and oppression and others where he just chokes under having to follow the rules. There are also batmans where he is actually commissioner Gordon piloting a robot suit. Hell Steven King has an unpublished Batman story he made. Pretty much every Batman concept is out there and each one a different interpretation of Batman equally valid and terrible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
There's even one where Batman is one of the best films ever made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Its a shame that thing has not really anything to do with Nosferatu. Which, granted, is sort of like winning the lottery and being sad you didn't win twice in one day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Yeah, weirdly it's more like Metropolis and a medley of other German cinema than that film specifically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:57 |
|
|
[quote="Barudak" post="Z63510491"] There are also btmans where he is actually commissioner Gordon piloting a robot suit. [/quote] Big O was an excellent show.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 03:35
|
|
