Its perfectly fine that you don't care about AJ, I don't know why people have such a hard time accepting that. But I do think keeping the child as a distraction is pretty messed up though.
Well, cowardice would mean that you think something should be done but your fear prevents you from doing it. For instance, Ben leaving Clem in the middle of the street back in episode 4 was an act of cowardice because he knew that he should have tried to help her. In this case, however, the other user clearly thinks that Clem saving the baby at the cost of her own life is something that she shouldn't be doing. So cowardice doesn't really factor in here.
Wrong: A coward is someone who is driven by fear, surviving has nothing to do with it.
Your actions of killing a baby for your own benef… moreit is selfish. In the end, you are a monster and a coward and always will be, because you are driven by fear. Not an insult, just the truth.
Well, cowardice would mean that you think something should be done but your fear prevents you from doing it. For instance, Ben leaving Clem … morein the middle of the street back in episode 4 was an act of cowardice because he knew that he should have tried to help her. In this case, however, the other user clearly thinks that Clem saving the baby at the cost of her own life is something that she shouldn't be doing. So cowardice doesn't really factor in here.
his point is legitimate. in REAL LIFE when YOUR LIFE is on the line and a baby thats not even yours is crying and attracting walkers from every direction i bet you would not be so securely placed on that high horse. food for thought
...right. That's not really a retort to what I was saying. Let me try it again. If a person thinks that he or she should do X and his or her fear prevents him or her from doing X, that person is behaving out of cowardice (i.e. being driven by fear). If, on the other hand, a person rationally chooses not to do X because he or she does not see that as something that should be done, that person is not being being driven by fear and therefore can't be said to have acted out of cowardice.
While a gunshot is louder, you can control when a gun fires and after it goes off, you can move to a different location without carrying the sound with you. Not the same for a baby. If that things starts crying, it's not going to stop until it feels like stopping or until something else stops it. Not to mention that to bandits, the sound of a gunshot signals "I'm a potential danger" whereas the sound of a baby's cry signals "I'm incredibly vulnerable."
That assumes that the baby's cry can even attract that many walkers. A gunshot is much louder.
Believe it or not, but a gunshot and a baby cry is not the same.
While a gunshot is louder, you can control when a gun fires and after it goes off, you can move to a different location without carrying the… more sound with you. Not the same for a baby. If that things starts crying, it's not going to stop until it feels like stopping or until something else stops it. Not to mention that to bandits, the sound of a gunshot signals "I'm a potential danger" whereas the sound of a baby's cry signals "I'm incredibly vulnerable."
...right. That's not really a retort to what I was saying. Let me try it again. If a person thinks that he or she should do X and his or her… more fear prevents him or her from doing X, that person is behaving out of cowardice (i.e. being driven by fear). If, on the other hand, a person rationally chooses not to do X because he or she does not see that as something that should be done, that person is not being being driven by fear and therefore can't be said to have acted out of cowardice.
Ok, the situation would have to be desperate. I'm talking surrounded on all sides, with only a few bullets to spare. It'd have to be a scenario that would call for little other solution than to use the baby to cover an escape.
Naturally I wouldn't just throw the baby at a single walker five feet away.
I actually have a question. So you'll let the baby die if it helps you escape an emergency situation. How much of an emergency situation wou… moreld it have to be? Would the baby be the first option you go for or the last? Say a couple zombies were approaching you and AJ. You could probably take them if you tried: shoot one in the head, do the knee thing with the other. But it would be an easier escape if you just threw AJ at them and ran. What would you do in that case?
Shocking as it may be, I'm in somewhat of a middle ground on the matter. I accept that baby is a huge liability to everyone around it but I'm not gung ho about keeping it around as bait. I'd do what I can for it, but if there's no way I can preserve its life without giving up my own, then there's no way I can preserve its life.
I think it's funny that you're the one that wants civil conversation when you're also the guy who's advocating for baby-murder.
Have fun … morewith the so-called 'name-calling' dude. I won't stoop to other people's level, but I can't say you don't deserve it. Using a baby as a 'distraction' for walkers? Are you fucking kidding me, bro?
Seriously, 10+ thumbs for this post? How come this website is plagued with so many "Kenny vs. Jane" debates when we have a bunch of child killers on the site. >_>
Not any more than, say, a parent letting another person's child die to save their own child. They're both doing it to avoid a negative outcome that they don't want to happen. They're both arguably even doing it for selfish reasons.
Good points, but I disagree with you. Leaving a baby to die or using it as bait is never a good thing. However, if you wanted to leave the baby, you should try to leave it in a safe environment with people you can trust.
Seems like a pretty unlikely situation to happen, then. Not sure it's worth keeping the baby around at all if that's your only plan for it. Seems far more likely for it to either die of natural causes before something like that comes up. But anyway, this is a far more reasonable stance than what I had originally assumed from your OP.
Ok, the situation would have to be desperate. I'm talking surrounded on all sides, with only a few bullets to spare. It'd have to be a scena… morerio that would call for little other solution than to use the baby to cover an escape.
Naturally I wouldn't just throw the baby at a single walker five feet away.
Well, the whole thing is based off an assumption that Clementine may be caught in a situation very similar to the one at the end of episode 3 with no one else to protect her.
Also, thank you for being cordial and polite through this warzone of a thread. I appreciate it greatly.
Seems like a pretty unlikely situation to happen, then. Not sure it's worth keeping the baby around at all if that's your only plan for it. … moreSeems far more likely for it to either die of natural causes before something like that comes up. But anyway, this is a far more reasonable stance than what I had originally assumed from your OP.
Well, the whole thing is based off an assumption that Clementine may be caught in a situation very similar to the one at the end of episode … more3 with no one else to protect her.
Also, thank you for being cordial and polite through this warzone of a thread. I appreciate it greatly.
If I had enough food for two, I don't see why the baby can't have some. But the baby better be prepared to face a little neglect. If I'm sleeping and the thing starts crying and raising hell, I'd probably go someplace a bit further away (as to not endanger my life).
Or, just knock it out with some whiskey (if I had any).
You're not as dark as your post had led me to believe. Seems to me, in actuality, you would be one of the people who does care for the baby, only more willing to leave it behind if things started looking dreary.
If I had enough food for two, I don't see why the baby can't have some. But the baby better be prepared to face a little neglect. If I'm sle… moreeping and the thing starts crying and raising hell, I'd probably go someplace a bit further away (as to not endanger my life).
Or, just knock it out with some whiskey (if I had any).
Well maybe I didn't word my post right, cause it's not quite as bad as people seem to think.
If you ended up getting attached to it?
Highly unlikely. But IF I did, I would naturally work to keep him safe. And IF caught in a similar condition to the one I've made for the scenario, I'd do everything in my power to protect him.
You're not as dark as your post had led me to believe. Seems to me, in actuality, you would be one of the people who does care for the baby,… more only more willing to leave it behind if things started looking dreary.
If you ended up getting attached to it?
Thank you for being amicable. And I completely understand why you'd do something like that. I'm just a bit pessimistic about the whole thing.
If it were you and me and AJ though, we'd definitely come to an agreement somewhere in the middle.
Well maybe I didn't word my post right, cause it's not quite as bad as people seem to think.
If you ended up getting attached to it?
… more
Highly unlikely. But IF I did, I would naturally work to keep him safe. And IF caught in a similar condition to the one I've made for the scenario, I'd do everything in my power to protect him.
Yeah, that's my fault. No use in changing the wording around now though, most people already have a very intense opinion of me by this time (and it's probably mostly very negative).
But, thank you for trying to actually start a conversation rather than being a dick. I know it's very easy to be the latter on a discussion like this.
Ok, I'm gonna comment again after I've perused this thread and read some more of your comments.
Apologies for coming off judgmental and aggressive earlier. I read your initial post and just assumed that you would throw the baby to the walkers at the first sign that things might get a little "iffy" so to speak. But I've looked through this thread some more, and I can see from some of your comments that I was wrong in assuming that you were just waiting to leave the little guy in front of a zombie or two the first chance you got. Honestly, if it was a very desperate situation like you described somewhere above, well, I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't do the same thing.
Sorry for misunderstanding you, and for those unfavorable comparisons I made back on page 2 or 3. I can't judge someone for doing something I might do myself if the situation got desperate enough, no matter how much I'd kill myself about it afterward.
Ok, I'm gonna comment again after I've perused this thread and read some more of your comments.
Apologies for coming off judgmental and a… moreggressive earlier. I read your initial post and just assumed that you would throw the baby to the walkers at the first sign that things might get a little "iffy" so to speak. But I've looked through this thread some more, and I can see from some of your comments that I was wrong in assuming that you were just waiting to leave the little guy in front of a zombie or two the first chance you got. Honestly, if it was a very desperate situation like you described somewhere above, well, I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't do the same thing.
Sorry for misunderstanding you, and for those unfavorable comparisons I made back on page 2 or 3. I can't judge someone for doing something I might do myself if the situation got desperate enough, no matter how much I'd kill myself about it afterward.
Thank you for reading through again and apologizing. It was my fault for not being clearer in the description though, so I could see how some of the initial confusion would happen.
Honestly, I can't say I wouldn't still use the baby as bait if the situation wasn't dire enough, but It'd have to be quite a bad situation.
Ok, I'm gonna comment again after I've perused this thread and read some more of your comments.
Apologies for coming off judgmental and a… moreggressive earlier. I read your initial post and just assumed that you would throw the baby to the walkers at the first sign that things might get a little "iffy" so to speak. But I've looked through this thread some more, and I can see from some of your comments that I was wrong in assuming that you were just waiting to leave the little guy in front of a zombie or two the first chance you got. Honestly, if it was a very desperate situation like you described somewhere above, well, I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't do the same thing.
Sorry for misunderstanding you, and for those unfavorable comparisons I made back on page 2 or 3. I can't judge someone for doing something I might do myself if the situation got desperate enough, no matter how much I'd kill myself about it afterward.
I might. I don't know how I would react in an extremely dire situation, and if I DID do it, I don't think I could live with myself afterward. I wouldn't tow the baby around just for bait though. If I thought there was a chance of saving its life then I'd try. I'd do my damndest to take care of it and keep him alive as long as I could, but I'm not a brave person. Not by any means. If I was surrounded by a horde, facing an imminent, bloody death and AJ was literally my only way out? I'd like to say I wouldn't do it, that I wouldn't consider it even for a second, but I'm not sure I can say that truthfully. If I ever did do it I'd hate myself, probably for the rest of my life, no matter the circumstances I was in or how long I lived.
I chose "Definitely without a doubt" however that's not the one I wanted to choose. What I would choose would be "if I had to sure" but the only reason I didn't choose that is because the second half of that option. I wouldn't hate my self just because of trying to survive. I already hate myself enough anyway. Just because you're thinking about survival doesn't mean you're a sick person. AJ does nothing for the group and is just a waste of time, supplies and is an alarm that draws walkers that follows you everywhere.
I don't care for AJ either, but leaving him won't be my first option. My first option would be to go find someone else to take him off my hands because I wouldn't be able to handle him in the sense that his whining would be annoying and will put my life at risk and just simply drive me insane. I will only sacrifice his life if it meant there was no way for me to get out. Consider it a last resort.
Until AJ learns at least how to talk, run from danger, and perhaps use a gun, he is not helping neither Clementine, the group, nor himself. I sort of feel bad for AJ however, because Rebecca and Alvin brought AJ into this shitty world, and AJ didn't make a choice. The moral is that do not give birth in an apocalypse, and if pregnant, use abortion pills to terminate the pregnancy immediately.
Good points, but I disagree with you. Leaving a baby to die or using it as bait is never a good thing. However, if you wanted to leave the baby, you should try to leave it in a safe environment with people you can trust.
My Clementine is completely separated from anyone other than the baby by the end of season 2. So, that argument doesn't really carry much cl… moreout when the alternative is a slow lonely death. The baby does not serve me or my interests in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it hinders them greatly.
Now I can respect if you choose to hold on to some sense of value through AJ, but he doesn't make matters for Clementine any better. In fact, he lessens her chance of survival greatly. Whether you choose to accept this or not is completely irrelevant. He does hinder her survival chances, this is a fact. Another mouth to constantly care for, another life to constantly protect, and another ass to wipe is not what I want for my Clementine.
She's got more than enough to worry about without the inclusion of an infant who constantly cries out and needs supplies that Clementine doesn't have herself.
I disagree.. How does choosing to survive make one a coward? Must we all be willing to risk or sacrifice our lives just to die a hero?
I… mores the soldier that stands, exposing himself to the enemy brave or foolish? Is the soldier that hides behind a sandbag shooting a coward or smart? It's all about perception.
Choosing to take on the responsibility of a baby in a ZA is foolish imo.. Leaving the baby is smart imo.
and again i'll say this, placing labels on people like coward, murderer or whatever is pointless. Who cares what someone else thinks.
Leave a baby to die may earn me being called a coward or murderer, but so what, i'm still alive regardless what names you place on me. Your opinion doesnt help nor hinder me. The ONLY names or opinions that should matter are the ones we place on ourselves.
Senerio time: You and your family, no food, water, meds, nothing.. just a couple days away from death.. You come across a similar … [view original content]
Calling me a coward does nothing to strengthen your argument. In fact, I'm more sure than ever using AJ as bait is the right choice because of your insult.
Thank you.
Comments
Yeah, it is pretty harsh, but I wouldn't blame anyone for just ditching it or leaving it once it becomes too risky to keep.
Well, cowardice would mean that you think something should be done but your fear prevents you from doing it. For instance, Ben leaving Clem in the middle of the street back in episode 4 was an act of cowardice because he knew that he should have tried to help her. In this case, however, the other user clearly thinks that Clem saving the baby at the cost of her own life is something that she shouldn't be doing. So cowardice doesn't really factor in here.
Ben was driven by fear.
Thanks!
I know you did.
Have a puppy to make you feel better.
That assumes that the baby's cry can even attract that many walkers. A gunshot is much louder.
Believe it or not, but a gunshot and a baby cry is not the same.
...right. That's not really a retort to what I was saying. Let me try it again. If a person thinks that he or she should do X and his or her fear prevents him or her from doing X, that person is behaving out of cowardice (i.e. being driven by fear). If, on the other hand, a person rationally chooses not to do X because he or she does not see that as something that should be done, that person is not being being driven by fear and therefore can't be said to have acted out of cowardice.
While a gunshot is louder, you can control when a gun fires and after it goes off, you can move to a different location without carrying the sound with you. Not the same for a baby. If that things starts crying, it's not going to stop until it feels like stopping or until something else stops it. Not to mention that to bandits, the sound of a gunshot signals "I'm a potential danger" whereas the sound of a baby's cry signals "I'm incredibly vulnerable."
I'm confused on your stance here... are you for or against abandoning the baby?
Okay, so throwing a baby at walkers in fear of your life isn't cowardly?
Ok, the situation would have to be desperate. I'm talking surrounded on all sides, with only a few bullets to spare. It'd have to be a scenario that would call for little other solution than to use the baby to cover an escape.
Naturally I wouldn't just throw the baby at a single walker five feet away.
Shocking as it may be, I'm in somewhat of a middle ground on the matter. I accept that baby is a huge liability to everyone around it but I'm not gung ho about keeping it around as bait. I'd do what I can for it, but if there's no way I can preserve its life without giving up my own, then there's no way I can preserve its life.
I want people to stop with insults over my stance on AJ (a video game character). I don't think that's not too much to ask (or maybe it is).
Not any more than, say, a parent letting another person's child die to save their own child. They're both doing it to avoid a negative outcome that they don't want to happen. They're both arguably even doing it for selfish reasons.
Thank you for being amicable. And I completely understand why you'd do something like that. I'm just a bit pessimistic about the whole thing.
If it were you and me and AJ though, we'd definitely come to an agreement somewhere in the middle.
Seems like a pretty unlikely situation to happen, then. Not sure it's worth keeping the baby around at all if that's your only plan for it. Seems far more likely for it to either die of natural causes before something like that comes up. But anyway, this is a far more reasonable stance than what I had originally assumed from your OP.
Well, the whole thing is based off an assumption that Clementine may be caught in a situation very similar to the one at the end of episode 3 with no one else to protect her.
Also, thank you for being cordial and polite through this warzone of a thread. I appreciate it greatly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6-zFlhNeJU&feature=player_detailpage
So would you feed (and care for) the "escape button" or just drag it with you in case of emergency until it dies?
If I had enough food for two, I don't see why the baby can't have some. But the baby better be prepared to face a little neglect. If I'm sleeping and the thing starts crying and raising hell, I'd probably go someplace a bit further away (as to not endanger my life).
Or, just knock it out with some whiskey (if I had any).
Thanks!
He grow and he become usefull, just like Clementine in season 1.
You're not as dark as your post had led me to believe. Seems to me, in actuality, you would be one of the people who does care for the baby, only more willing to leave it behind if things started looking dreary.
If you ended up getting attached to it?
Well maybe I didn't word my post right, cause it's not quite as bad as people seem to think.
Highly unlikely. But IF I did, I would naturally work to keep him safe. And IF caught in a similar condition to the one I've made for the scenario, I'd do everything in my power to protect him.
I can definitely understand why someone would leave AJ due to being incapable of taking care of him.
I voted! and it seems most people agree with me.
In the end though, everyone agrees with the Strawpoll.
Even you!
Yeah, first time I read your post all I was thinking is you were dragging the baby through the mud waiting for a chance to throw it at a walker
Yeah, that's my fault. No use in changing the wording around now though, most people already have a very intense opinion of me by this time (and it's probably mostly very negative).
But, thank you for trying to actually start a conversation rather than being a dick. I know it's very easy to be the latter on a discussion like this.
Ok, I'm gonna comment again after I've perused this thread and read some more of your comments.
Apologies for coming off judgmental and aggressive earlier. I read your initial post and just assumed that you would throw the baby to the walkers at the first sign that things might get a little "iffy" so to speak. But I've looked through this thread some more, and I can see from some of your comments that I was wrong in assuming that you were just waiting to leave the little guy in front of a zombie or two the first chance you got. Honestly, if it was a very desperate situation like you described somewhere above, well, I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't do the same thing.
Sorry for misunderstanding you, and for those unfavorable comparisons I made back on page 2 or 3. I can't judge someone for doing something I might do myself if the situation got desperate enough, no matter how much I'd kill myself about it afterward.
My idea!
You'd really do that? Sacrifice a baby to save yourself?
Thank you for reading through again and apologizing. It was my fault for not being clearer in the description though, so I could see how some of the initial confusion would happen.
Honestly, I can't say I wouldn't still use the baby as bait if the situation wasn't dire enough, but It'd have to be quite a bad situation.
I might. I don't know how I would react in an extremely dire situation, and if I DID do it, I don't think I could live with myself afterward. I wouldn't tow the baby around just for bait though. If I thought there was a chance of saving its life then I'd try. I'd do my damndest to take care of it and keep him alive as long as I could, but I'm not a brave person. Not by any means. If I was surrounded by a horde, facing an imminent, bloody death and AJ was literally my only way out? I'd like to say I wouldn't do it, that I wouldn't consider it even for a second, but I'm not sure I can say that truthfully. If I ever did do it I'd hate myself, probably for the rest of my life, no matter the circumstances I was in or how long I lived.
I chose "Definitely without a doubt" however that's not the one I wanted to choose. What I would choose would be "if I had to sure" but the only reason I didn't choose that is because the second half of that option. I wouldn't hate my self just because of trying to survive. I already hate myself enough anyway. Just because you're thinking about survival doesn't mean you're a sick person. AJ does nothing for the group and is just a waste of time, supplies and is an alarm that draws walkers that follows you everywhere.
I don't care for AJ either, but leaving him won't be my first option. My first option would be to go find someone else to take him off my hands because I wouldn't be able to handle him in the sense that his whining would be annoying and will put my life at risk and just simply drive me insane. I will only sacrifice his life if it meant there was no way for me to get out. Consider it a last resort.
Until AJ learns at least how to talk, run from danger, and perhaps use a gun, he is not helping neither Clementine, the group, nor himself. I sort of feel bad for AJ however, because Rebecca and Alvin brought AJ into this shitty world, and AJ didn't make a choice. The moral is that do not give birth in an apocalypse, and if pregnant, use abortion pills to terminate the pregnancy immediately.
We should have left that helpless brat at Wellington and then Kenny and Clementine will be free of liabilities.
Humanity > Survival
Just because the world has gone down to shit, doesn't mean you have to go down with it.
I'd rather die a hero than die being teared apart by a walker, and knowing I killed an innocent baby.
You must be great with children.
Next time you babysit, be sure to tell them how you'll sacrifice them to Satan so you can die another day.