I'm a rhetoric major from one of the highest academic universities in the world btw so I cut through your rhetoric like butter and I did it properly.
And does anyone really care? Boasting on the internet about something, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion, just makes you look like an arrogant dick, attempting to belittle everyone else's opinion because apparently you're so "smart". If you want to contribute to the topic, go ahead, but please, restrain from acting like you're automatically right due to your education.
Granted, I do actually agree with your points about Jane.
I know I said I wasn't inviting a debate but your rhetoric and reasoning are absolute garbage and are falsely and purposefully misleading, s… moreo as a rhetoric major and loyal Kennyist I have decided to destroy your false narrative point by point.
Willingly works in a community while being kept as prisoner, while undergoing the constant sexual harassment of one of the inhabitants.
She worked for her own self-interest in order to escape, not because she wanted to help others or be part of a group. Also, we have no evidence of her undergoing sexual abuse, just that she had plans to escape with Troy by implying that she'd fuck him. Considering she fucks Luke later for no reason, lets keep things in character and assume things were consensual. Also, she shot a man's dick off. MORALITY DEFINED!!!!
Helps a group of prisoners escape the man who they consider to be tyrant.
Again, she was acting in her own self-interest so … [view original content]
This wouldn't have changed the outcome of the story, though.
I am sure it wouldn't have too but just saying that it wasn't a smart thing to do and i would consider it to be a negative on her half that's all.
but I suppose that it was wrong of her to leave without telling anybody about it. I am trying very hard to understand why it was immoral to leave without discussing it with others.
That was basically my negative point but at the same time, i just felt that everyone needed each other and her leaving made them weaker in a time they needed everyone they can get. It's common courtesy quite frankly. I can see why you wouldn't think it's immoral though.
That is true, but others in the group yelled at her, too. We should put all of them in the same boat if we want to count this one—Jane, Mike and Kenny. And even then, I don't think that it should be counted as immoral to prevent her from falling onto the lake.
I guess my argument here is that Jane was closest to the situation. She actually might have been able to see Luke under the ice but felt there was no way Clem could save him and i get that she was trying to prevent her falling through the ice. Again it's more of an attitude towards it than anything but don't worry, i consider the others shouting as a negative too. I always hated that scene anyway, awful AWFUL writing.
Telling Clem to leave Sarah behind in the trailer without really making it look like she wanted to try to help her.
Even though she … morewas re-living Jamie's death, and it is understandable why she would think that it's impossible to save Sarah, yes, it was immoral. We can add that to the list.
Asking Luke to have sex with her at the worst possible time which put the group in danger as Luke would have or should have been on watch for walkers.
This wouldn't have changed the outcome of the story, though.
Telling Clem to pull her up and if Clem tells her to help Sarah she'll say "are you crazy? She's not getting out of that, it's suicide, pull me up". I'm aware if being silent she'll help her, but again her saying what she did paints a negative view here as again she seemingly doesn't really want to help her. Clem can also determinantly say "you didn't even want to save her. Don't pretend that you're sorry.
What s… [view original content]
I'm not trying to assert some sort of superior intelligence here, I was just pointing out my background in rhetoric in order to give credibility to my claims that his rhetoric was misleading. I wasn't saying that my background makes me automatically right, but it does show that I probably do know what I'm talking about when it comes to purposefully persuasive wording and dialogue. Sorry if that came off as arrogant or anything else, that truly wasn't my intention.
And to answer your question, yeah I would bet that some people care. Some people would take a person's credentials into consideration when listening to their argument and not just assume that every jamoke with Internet connection can provide the same quality of insight and discussion. I mean seriously, I felt it was sort of important to mention since a lot of members here are probably young teens.
I'm a rhetoric major from one of the highest academic universities in the world btw so I cut through your rhetoric like butter and I did it … moreproperly.
And does anyone really care? Boasting on the internet about something, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion, just makes you look like an arrogant dick, attempting to belittle everyone else's opinion because apparently you're so "smart". If you want to contribute to the topic, go ahead, but please, restrain from acting like you're automatically right due to your education.
Granted, I do actually agree with your points about Jane.
Comments
And does anyone really care? Boasting on the internet about something, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion, just makes you look like an arrogant dick, attempting to belittle everyone else's opinion because apparently you're so "smart". If you want to contribute to the topic, go ahead, but please, restrain from acting like you're automatically right due to your education.
Granted, I do actually agree with your points about Jane.
And he's not worth the energy to hate.
I am sure it wouldn't have too but just saying that it wasn't a smart thing to do and i would consider it to be a negative on her half that's all.
That was basically my negative point but at the same time, i just felt that everyone needed each other and her leaving made them weaker in a time they needed everyone they can get. It's common courtesy quite frankly. I can see why you wouldn't think it's immoral though.
I guess my argument here is that Jane was closest to the situation. She actually might have been able to see Luke under the ice but felt there was no way Clem could save him and i get that she was trying to prevent her falling through the ice. Again it's more of an attitude towards it than anything but don't worry, i consider the others shouting as a negative too. I always hated that scene anyway, awful AWFUL writing.
I'm not trying to assert some sort of superior intelligence here, I was just pointing out my background in rhetoric in order to give credibility to my claims that his rhetoric was misleading. I wasn't saying that my background makes me automatically right, but it does show that I probably do know what I'm talking about when it comes to purposefully persuasive wording and dialogue. Sorry if that came off as arrogant or anything else, that truly wasn't my intention.
And to answer your question, yeah I would bet that some people care. Some people would take a person's credentials into consideration when listening to their argument and not just assume that every jamoke with Internet connection can provide the same quality of insight and discussion. I mean seriously, I felt it was sort of important to mention since a lot of members here are probably young teens.