It's like he realized he was getting his butt kicked in the actual argument, so he had to resort to petty insults in order to take it off-to… morepic.
No, i grew tired of you not reading & understanding my messages.
Ironically enough, it backtracked since I'm undeniably calm while he gets angrier at me with every reply.
I dont get angry, i get bored and frustrated.
Because there's no way to tell. How do you or anyone know what Jane's true intentions were? We've actually discussed it both ways, which is interesting.
I asked my mom and she said she would be offended both ways. For me, obviosly. And also feel disrespected herself. Maybe I was just raised this way, but they always taught me that you should refer to dead people with a certain level of respect.
Haven't I already adressed your "example" and explain why I don't think it's valid?
Well I was going off of this statement of yours: "Maybe she didn't really believe it would go that way, but she realized it was a huge possi… morebility and that didn't stop her from hiding the baby and acting all hurt." But if you now want to bring it back to assuming that Jane knew this would be a fight to the death, then sure. I amended my example above to have the me outright planning for the murderer to kill someone. Would that make me an asshole? Yeah. Would that diminish the murderer's responsibility at all? No.
Well, I just asked my sister and she said that she would be more upset at someone calling me a nobody with no loved ones after she dies than someone saying that I should just get over her death. Try it out on your end.
Again with the causation argument. Please refer to my example to see why causation does not always lead to assigning blame.
Because there's no way to tell. How do you or anyone know what Jane's true intentions were? We've actually discussed it both ways, which is interesting.
My amended example is meant to show that Jane's true intentions, whatever they may be, don't have any bearing on Kenny's responsibility. I'll copy it here in case you missed it: "Taking my already extreme example even further, even if I let the murderer out, planning for him to murder someone, whether or not he does so is still up to him, thereby making him responsible for the murders committed." If you agree with that, then you would also have to agree that regardless of whether or not Jane wanted to start a fight to the death, Kenny is still responsible for his act of murdering her.
So if your mom felt offended and disrespected either way, then I'd say that, contrary to your assertion, Jane's insults and Kenny's insults were comparable in how offensive they were to the other party.
Haven't I already addressed your "example" and explain why I don't think it's valid?
As far as I can tell, your only argument against my example is an appeal to our lack of knowledge of Jane's true intentions. But, as I showed with my amended example, even if Jane's true intentions were to start a fight to the death, that doesn't diminish Kenny's responsibility.
Because there's no way to tell. How do you or anyone know what Jane's true intentions were? We've actually discussed it both ways, which is … moreinteresting.
I asked my mom and she said she would be offended both ways. For me, obviosly. And also feel disrespected herself. Maybe I was just raised this way, but they always taught me that you should refer to dead people with a certain level of respect.
Haven't I already adressed your "example" and explain why I don't think it's valid?
But why are we all the way back to the beginning of this argument once again? Are we just not understanding each other? You just keep stating the obvious. If it was that easy, there would be nothing to discuss. "Yep, Kenny killed Jane. Argument is over!" I'm trying to go deeper than that. Kenny is responsible for ultimately killing Jane, but Jane is reaponsible for that entire chain of events as well. That includes Kenny's breakdown, her own demise, etc.
How so? I'm actually saying that my mom found it offensive. This did nothing but support my idea that deceased people most likely don't appreciate being referred to as a "Bunch of dead people." Specially when they're being used as a weapon to hurt those they care about.
Might as well refer you to the first text of this reply.
Because there's no way to tell. How do you or anyone know what Jane's true intentions were? We've actually discussed it both ways, which is … moreinteresting.
My amended example is meant to show that Jane's true intentions, whatever they may be, don't have any bearing on Kenny's responsibility. I'll copy it here in case you missed it: "Taking my already extreme example even further, even if I let the murderer out, planning for him to murder someone, whether or not he does so is still up to him, thereby making him responsible for the murders committed." If you agree with that, then you would also have to agree that regardless of whether or not Jane wanted to start a fight to the death, Kenny is still responsible for his act of murdering her.
So if your mom felt offended and disrespected either way, then I'd say that, contrary to your assertion, Jane's insults and Kenny's insults were comparable in how offensive they were to the other part… [view original content]
You said, and I quote, "The point being made here is that any responsiblity Kenny has over this is overshadowed by Jane's." I was illustrating with my example that this is simply not true. In both my example and in the scenario with Kenny and Jane, the responsibility of the person committing the murder is in no way "overshadowed" by the responsibility of the person whose actions enabled the murder. That's what I'm arguing. If you're willing to retract that statement, then we can end this conversation.
Your argument was that what Kenny said "can't be compared to what Jane said to him" because Jane's was offensive to the deceased. The fact that your mom found both to be offensive to her suggests that the deceased would be offended by both Jane's insult or Kenny's insult. So the insults are comparable.
But why are we all the way back to the beginning of this argument once again? Are we just not understanding each other? You just keep statin… moreg the obvious. If it was that easy, there would be nothing to discuss. "Yep, Kenny killed Jane. Argument is over!" I'm trying to go deeper than that. Kenny is responsible for ultimately killing Jane, but Jane is reaponsible for that entire chain of events as well. That includes Kenny's breakdown, her own demise, etc.
How so? I'm actually saying that my mom found it offensive. This did nothing but support my idea that deceased people most likely don't appreciate being referred to as a "Bunch of dead people." Specially when they're being used as a weapon to hurt those they care about.
Might as well refer you to the first text of this reply.
And I stand by that. Just because Kenny ultimately pulled the knife we should ignore everything that led to the fight? Jane is indeed the one who most of the blame should be accredited to. You're asking me to ignore 80% of the fight.
Jane's plan causes the fight.
Jane takes out the knife first. ( I expect you to go on with that whole self-defense argument, but Kenny had no weapons whatsoever. She wanted to have an advantage more than anything else. And even if taking her knife out would have been completely necesary, it's still her fault. Intentions don't matter a whole when death is involved.)
Wait, I don't think you understood correctly. I only asked my mom about Jane's comment, not Kenny's. She said that a comment similar to the one Jane made would make her feel like both me and her are being disrespected.
You said, and I quote, "The point being made here is that any responsiblity Kenny has over this is overshadowed by Jane's." I was illustrati… moreng with my example that this is simply not true. In both my example and in the scenario with Kenny and Jane, the responsibility of the person committing the murder is in no way "overshadowed" by the responsibility of the person whose actions enabled the murder. That's what I'm arguing. If you're willing to retract that statement, then we can end this conversation.
Your argument was that what Kenny said "can't be compared to what Jane said to him" because Jane's was offensive to the deceased. The fact that your mom found both to be offensive to her suggests that the deceased would be offended by both Jane's insult or Kenny's insult. So the insults are comparable.
For the last time, the fight that was started did not necessitate or justify the murder that was committed. Kenny's decision to murder Jane was an independent choice that he made. Just as the murderer in my example would have had to made an independent choice to murder after I released him. I caused his release, just as Jane caused the fight. The release enabled the murderer to commit murder, just as the fight and the presence of the knife enabled Kenny to commit his murder. But it would be ludicrous to say that because of that, I am more guilty of the murder than the actual murderer is, just as it is ludicrous to say that Jane was more responsible for her murder than Kenny, the person who actually murdered her.
Ah, I was under the impression that you asked her about both Jane's comment and Kenny's.
And I stand by that. Just because Kenny ultimately pulled the knife we should ignore everything that led to the fight? Jane is indeed the on… moree who most of the blame should be accredited to. You're asking me to ignore 80% of the fight.
* Jane's plan causes the fight.
* Jane takes out the knife first. ( I expect you to go on with that whole self-defense argument, but Kenny had no weapons whatsoever. She wanted to have an advantage more than anything else. And even if taking her knife out would have been completely necesary, it's still her fault. Intentions don't matter a whole when death is involved.)
Wait, I don't think you understood correctly. I only asked my mom about Jane's comment, not Kenny's. She said that a comment similar to the one Jane made would make her feel like both me and her are being disrespected.
For the last time, when I tried to justify Kenny's murder? This argument isn't even about that. Well, when you get yourself into a fight (Implied to be engineered so she could purposely get rid of Kenny), escalating the fight by slashing your opponent, and aggressively charging at a wounded man after being told to stop do make her responsible in my book. You do realize you're trying to change one's personal opinion, right? And you haven't really "proved" anything. We've both said our pieces, pieces that whether you like or not, are assumptions for the most part. You haven't been able to convince me since I've had a concrete answer for all of your points. <-That seemingly goes both ways.
For the last time, the fight that was started did not necessitate or justify the murder that was committed. Kenny's decision to murder Jane … morewas an independent choice that he made. Just as the murderer in my example would have had to made an independent choice to murder after I released him. I caused his release, just as Jane caused the fight. The release enabled the murderer to commit murder, just as the fight and the presence of the knife enabled Kenny to commit his murder. But it would be ludicrous to say that because of that, I am more guilty of the murder than the actual murderer is, just as it is ludicrous to say that Jane was more responsible for her murder than Kenny, the person who actually murdered her.
Ah, I was under the impression that you asked her about both Jane's comment and Kenny's.
I...didn't accuse you of trying to justify Kenny's act of murder. I'm accusing you of trying to downplay Kenny's guilt in said murder by claiming that Jane is more responsible for it than he was. That is, in fact, what you're doing, yes? If so, I presented an analogous scenario wherein the claim that enabling a murder to occur makes a person more responsible for the murder than the murderer himself, is ridiculous. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument. And your only options in response to it are:
A. Reject my scenario by pointing out how it is distinct from the Kenny/Jane scenario in some significant way
B. Claim that you don't think it would be ridiculous to say that I am more guilty of the murders committed by a murderer that I released than the murderer himself
C. Retract your claim that Jane is more responsible for her murder than Kenny
or D. Accept that there is inconsistency in your logic but refuse to change your stance.
I do realize that this is your personal opinion. I just want to point out inconsistencies that potentially exist within that opinion.
For the last time, when I tried to justify Kenny's murder? This argument isn't even about that. Well, when you get yourself into a fight (Im… moreplied to be engineered so she could purposely get rid of Kenny), escalating the fight by slashing your opponent, and aggressively charging at a wounded man after being told to stop do make her responsible in my book. You do realize you're trying to change one's personal opinion, right? And you haven't really "proved" anything. We've both said our pieces, pieces that whether you like or not, are assumptions for the most part. You haven't been able to convince me since I've had a concrete answer for all of your points. <-That seemingly goes both ways.
I see, but no. I might ask her tomorrow, though.
Despite my distaste for her personality, morals, integrity etc, and excluding the dirt, I do find Jane to be pretty. The pixie cut is cute, and her dark hair and eyes contrast nicely with her pale skin. There are a couple scenes (when she isn't scowling for once) where I saw glimpses of Audrey Hepburn..and then she opens her mouth. Looks are skin deep, and on the inside she is in no way pretty imo.
What's absurd is ignoring everything else that happened. It's also extremely convenient considering the side you have taken. In one of my first responses I pointed out how even the Wikipedia got this one right. Jane is indeed responsible for her own death. How does that example make sense if Jane intended to murder Kenny all along? You're picking and choosing only what makes said example remotely relevant. And what I said that "Maybe Jane truly didn't intend to kill Kenny" was simply me exploring that possibility. As it stands, any validity your example has is the equivalent of any determinant scene in TWD. I don't know how you can so passionately talk about inconsistency when you refuse to analyze anything but the ending of the fight.
I...didn't accuse you of trying to justify Kenny's act of murder. I'm accusing you of trying to downplay Kenny's guilt in said murder by cla… moreiming that Jane is more responsible for it than he was. That is, in fact, what you're doing, yes? If so, I presented an analogous scenario wherein the claim that enabling a murder to occur makes a person more responsible for the murder than the murderer himself, is ridiculous. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument. And your only options in response to it are:
A. Reject my scenario by pointing out how it is distinct from the Kenny/Jane scenario in some significant way
B. Claim that you don't think it would be ridiculous to say that I am more guilty of the murders committed by a murderer that I released than the murderer himself
C. Retract your claim that Jane is more responsible for her murder than Kenny
or D. Accept that there is inconsistency in your logic but refuse to change your stance.
… [view original content]
I can't tell if the debates you're in right now are intense, but civil, or are on the edge of becoming an argument and offensive. Maybe both. Either way, the points you've proposed in your post make sense to me, I think you've handled it pretty well given the temperament of the other members' comments.lol
edit: Got to the bottom of the thread, Zykelator is such a buzzkill sometimes.:/
Didn't I already explain it above? It is implied that Jane knew this would he a fight to death along, which completely changes this conversa… moretion. Assuming Jane wanted to kill Kenny and/or want the fight to go to extreme lenghts, why would you compare it with someone who genuinely didn't know?
You should probably ask them and see what they respond.
Did it "force" Kenny's mistake? I guess that's a strong word since it could have been avoided, but it did cause it. Causing and forcing are two completely different words with different meanings. No matter how you look at it, Kenny's last breakdown happens thanks to Jane.
The ending of the fight is what we're talking about. The murder. And who has more responsibility for it. Unless you want to make an argument explaining why Jane intending to kill Kenny would make her more responsible for her own death than he was, that point is irrelevant to this debate. Hell, even if she had intended for Kenny to murder her (equivalent to me intending for the murderer to murder someone after I release him), Kenny is still the one who made the decision to murder and thus still bears the majority of the responsibility for it, just as the murderer in my scenario would.
What's absurd is ignoring everything else that happened. It's also extremely convenient considering the side you have taken. In one of my fi… morerst responses I pointed out how even the Wikipedia got this one right. Jane is indeed responsible for her own death. How does that example make sense if Jane intended to murder Kenny all along? You're picking and choosing only what makes said example remotely relevant. And what I said that "Maybe Jane truly didn't intend to kill Kenny" was simply me exploring that possibility. As it stands, any validity your example has is the equivalent of any determinant scene in TWD. I don't know how you can so passionately talk about inconsistency when you refuse to analyze anything but the ending of the fight.
Well no not necessary, Jane has shown a lack of judgement, remorse, she lies a lot, no empathy for others... Leaving a baby alone in a car, where there are zombies around isn't exactly normal is it?
Viva, you should know that using unused clips in an argument is not a wise move at all. It didn't make it to the game for a reason. Could they have initially planned on going that way? It's likely, but the actual game never implies such thing.
I didn't take from the unused audio clip, I took from nuances.
We've been going over this for hours. You have no way to prove that the killing was benefitial to the rest of the group. I, on the other hand, provided you an in-game scene where all the walkers ignore our group. Fact vs. assumption is not much of a fight.
Which would be a solid argument if your were basing your side on fact. Seeing as we are arguing over something that didn't happen, and that would have completely changed the scene you think is a good "fact", you are playing on assumptions just as much as me. I have provided sound thinking prompted by the repercussions for killing Troy without Troy there to take the blame, you on the other hand have have played off of what did happen and not what would have happened had Jane humanely killed Troy.
The way you worded this is a bit confusing. I'm not quite sure what you want me to go over. Mind further explaining yourself or being a bit more clear?
You said "They were already walking towards Troy, so I doubt him dying would have stopped them from munching on the only person they saw talking." He wouldn't be talking if he was dead. And walkers go after the living. Ergo unless you did leave him able to talk then they would prefer their other target, Jane.
Sure, you know the basics of walker mechanism, but not to the extent that we're discussing. How would you know the way a zombie would react to certain situations? Jane could have shot Troy in the head and there's an equal chance that they still would have gone after his dead body or Jane. There's no way to tell. The idea that they would have automatically go after the group and murder everybody is a self-made assumption of yours.
Basics are all there is to know about walkers. I know the way a zombie reacts because it's how they always react. It doesn't change. Also, "or Jane." Didn't I already state that they could go after Jane? And that it's also bad, not fair to ask of her, and detrimental to the other group members she is near?... I'm not assuming they would just turn around and go after the group, as previously stated
-Zombies have the ability to detect scents and differentiate between the living and the dead, and prefer to feed on living flesh. ×Walking dead wiki
Walkers react to stimuli. Something a living person gives, and a motionless corpse doesn't. Jane would obviously be their target.
Why would you assume that the walkers will automatically come to the conclusion that Jane shot Troy and go after her, though? How can you prove that they wouldn't have still gone after Troy's corpse? I don't know when walkers becamse such astute creatures.
It's not being astute. In fact it's being quite the opposite. Instead of eating the flesh that is sitting in front of then they need to chase down their food. That's pretty dumb, but it's the way they work.
Viva, you should know that using unused clips in an argument is not a wise move at all. It didn't make it to the game for a reason. Could th… moreey have initially planned on going that way? It's likely, but the actual game never implies such thing.
Eh, the rest is right here, but I had to stop you there.
Actually not so highly unlikely when you take into account the action of killing him would have then been imprinted on Jane and likely the other group members. I just hadn't considered the implications of Troy not being present to take eyes of them in that regards.
We've been going over this for hours. You have no way to prove that the killing was benefitial to the rest of the group. I, on the other hand, provided you an in-game scene where all the walkers ignore our group. Fact vs. assumption is not much of a fight.
What do you mean? I thought you were talking about killing him humanely. Like a shot to the head. IF you are … [view original content]
I didn't take from the unused audio clip, I took from nuances.
You still included the unused clip in your response. Plus, that "Facial expression, etc" point you're making is highly debatable. I did provide you with a fact on the other hand.
"Troy, we talked about this..."
"You said you'd help, then I'd help."
Any logical person understands that rape was never even implied based on this conversation.
Which would be a solid argument if your were basing your side on fact. Seeing as we are arguing over something that didn't happen, and that would have completely changed the scene you think is a good "fact", you are playing on assumptions just as much as me. I have provided sound thinking prompted by the repercussions for killing Troy without Troy there to take the blame, you on the other hand have have played off of what did happen and not what would have happened had Jane humanely killed Troy.
I may have been basing on assumptions as much as you, but I've at least used scenes that actually happened in the game to support my ideas. Your assumption on the other hand have no base so far. You're just saying what you think. The only time you actually tried to buttres your point with actual facts you came up with a questionable arguments that's up for interpretation.
You said "They were already walking towards Troy, so I doubt him dying would have stopped them from munching on the only person they saw talking." He wouldn't be talking if he was dead. And walkers go after the living. Ergo unless you did leave him able to talk then they would prefer their other target, Jane.
Troy was still fresh meat, and they heard him yelling not too long ago. Again, this is nothing more than another far-fetched assumtion with the "Who knows" factor thrown in there. You would imagine that walkers are not preferable to people that have been dead for a while, but you were arguing that the walkers were almost on top of us. So why are you coming to the conclusion that they would just completely forget about Troy? You simply don't know how they would react in that situation.
Basics are all there is to know about walkers. I know the way a zombie reacts because it's how they always react. It doesn't change. Also, "or Jane." Didn't I already state that they could go after Jane? And that it's also bad, not fair to ask of her, and detrimental to the other group members she is near?... I'm not assuming they would just turn around and go after the group, as previously stated
To the rest of the group? No. Like I said, they were all quiet, away from Jane, and covered in walker guts. To Jane? Debatable. You're basing on a Wikipedia statement that could be as inconsistent as the writting in S2. You're jumping to yet another conclusion by implying that the walkers would conpletely ignore Jane being covered in guys and go after her because they heard a shot? That rather smart. However, you're arguing below that they're dumb creatures. What side are you on?
It's not being astute. In fact it's being quite the opposite. Instead of eating the flesh that is sitting in front of then they need to chase down their food. That's pretty dumb, but it's the way they work.
Viva, you should know that using unused clips in an argument is not a wise move at all. It didn't make it to the game for a reason. Could th… moreey have initially planned on going that way? It's likely, but the actual game never implies such thing.
I didn't take from the unused audio clip, I took from nuances.
We've been going over this for hours. You have no way to prove that the killing was benefitial to the rest of the group. I, on the other hand, provided you an in-game scene where all the walkers ignore our group. Fact vs. assumption is not much of a fight.
Which would be a solid argument if your were basing your side on fact. Seeing as we are arguing over something that didn't happen, and that would have completely changed the scene you think is a good "fact", you are playing on assumptions just as much as me. I have provided sound thinking prompted by the repercussions for killing Troy without Troy there to take the bl… [view original content]
Actually, what we're discussing is who should be held accountable for everything that happened. In order to do that we should have gone step by step instead of you jumping on the boat. Like I said, what would be the point if we didn't look further into these situations? If Jane came up with such a sinister plan to purposely make Kenny go insane and be a dirt ball to her she's got no one to blame for herself. Like I said in one of my previous responses, it is implied that Jane expected that all along. Knowing that, I should just give her a pass because "Kenny was the one who killed her!"? No. Kenny was also defending himself at that moment from someone whi presumably wanted to kill him for selfish reasons.
The ending of the fight is what we're talking about. The murder. And who has more responsibility for it. Unless you want to make an argument… more explaining why Jane intending to kill Kenny would make her more responsible for her own death than he was, that point is irrelevant to this debate. Hell, even if she had intended for Kenny to murder her (equivalent to me intending for the murderer to murder someone after I release him), Kenny is still the one who made the decision to murder and thus still bears the majority of the responsibility for it, just as the murderer in my scenario would.
I've said before that I blame Jane for the fight, but Kenny for the murder. Treating the two as a single event triggered by Jane ignores the level of agency and responsibility that Kenny had over the murder. Even if your assumption that Jane planned for Kenny to try commit murder is correct, that does not make her more responsible for the murder that he commits because it was his decision that causes it, not hers. I'm not "giving Jane a pass," I'm saying that giving Kenny a pass by saying things like "The fact that Kenny pulled the knife is probably, and ironically, the least important detail here." is wrong because, in terms of causing the murder to happen, getting a knife and stabbing someone in the chest with it is a pretty major part of it.
If you want to argue that Kenny lunging at Jane while she's on the ground and trying to back away from him is "defending himself," that's a different conversation for us to have.
Actually, what we're discussing is who should be held accountable for everything that happened. In order to do that we should have gone step… more by step instead of you jumping on the boat. Like I said, what would be the point if we didn't look further into these situations? If Jane came up with such a sinister plan to purposely make Kenny go insane and be a dirt ball to her she's got no one to blame for herself. Like I said in one of my previous responses, it is implied that Jane expected that all along. Knowing that, I should just give her a pass because "Kenny was the one who killed her!"? No. Kenny was also defending himself at that moment from someone whi presumably wanted to kill him for selfish reasons.
How is it the major part when the "Victim" knowingly put herself in that situation just so she could provoke someone else? Jane had no regards for her life. Her plan was suicidal and she still didn't give a damn about her own safety. Not for herself, not for Clementine, not for AJ. So, yes, I still believe she should be blamed the most for her death. And I already told you the difference between the one who should be held responsible and the one who did the killing. Jane is responsible for all bad things that hapened in the last 20 minutes of the game.
...Back away? She was either pushed by Kenny or Clementine. There was no backing away there. If you want to go this route, why don't we discuss how Kenny was backing away from her after getting slashed and Jane, instead of stopping the fight there, charged at him with the knife in his hand and tries to kill him before Kenny puts her through a sign. Oh, that was after trash-talking him and calling him a "Crusty piece of shit."
I've said before that I blame Jane for the fight, but Kenny for the murder. Treating the two as a single event triggered by Jane ignores the… more level of agency and responsibility that Kenny had over the murder. Even if your assumption that Jane planned for Kenny to try commit murder is correct, that does not make her more responsible for the murder that he commits because it was his decision that causes it, not hers. I'm not "giving Jane a pass," I'm saying that giving Kenny a pass by saying things like "The fact that Kenny pulled the knife is probably, and ironically, the least important detail here." is wrong because, in terms of causing the murder to happen, getting a knife and stabbing someone in the chest with it is a pretty major part of it.
If you want to argue that Kenny lunging at Jane while she's on the ground and trying to back away from him is "defending himself," that's a different conversation for us to have.
And I already told you the difference between the one who should be held responsible and the one who did the killing.
The one who did the killing should be held responsible for the killing. I don't understand how this is a controversial point. We blame people for murder when they willingly and unjustifiably end another person's life, which is exactly what Kenny did. What you're telling me is "A victim who puts herself in a position to have a crime committed against her is more responsible for the crime committed against her than the perpetrator," which is the definition of victim-blaming.
Backing away:
If you want to go this route, why don't we discuss how Kenny was backing away from her after getting slashed and Jane, instead of stopping the fight there, charged at him with the knife in his hand and tries to kill him before Kenny puts her through a sign. Oh, that was after trash-talking him and calling him a "Crusty piece of shit."
And if she had killed him there, I would of course assign her responsibility for murdering Kenny. As it stands, Kenny is the one who lunged at a person backing away from him before plunging a knife into their chest, not Jane.
How is it the major part when the "Victim" knowingly put herself in that situation just so she could provoke someone else? Jane had no regar… moreds for her life. Her plan was suicidal and she still didn't give a damn about her own safety. Not for herself, not for Clementine, not for AJ. So, yes, I still believe she should be blamed the most for her death. And I already told you the difference between the one who should be held responsible and the one who did the killing. Jane is responsible for all bad things that hapened in the last 20 minutes of the game.
...Back away? She was either pushed by Kenny or Clementine. There was no backing away there. If you want to go this route, why don't we discuss how Kenny was backing away from her after getting slashed and Jane, instead of stopping the fight there, charged at him with the knife in his hand and tries to kill him before Kenny puts her through a sign. Oh, that was after trash-talking him and calling him a "Crusty piece of shit."
When the victim purposely did put herself in that position? Yes, she should be held accountable. This wasn't about Jane making a mistake. She knew the fight would be a bloodbath. Like I said, her plan was suicidal, and despite knowing that, she went along with it. You mean to tell me that doesn't make her responsible? Someone who has no regards for her own life and makes an unnecessary mess like she did should be blamed on every logical place on Earth.
Wasn't that after she literally blinded Kenny? And she's not backing away. She saw Kenny grab the knife and tried to avoid getting stabbed. A difference exists between protecting yourself and backing away. It's impossible for Jane to back away at any point since pretty much wanted and asked for the fight. I can't believe you just compared backing away with Jane moving on step back to avoid a knife.
You just completely ignored my response. We're not discussing the murder now. Why do you keep trying to bring it down to that? Jane never backed away. Kenny did. Jane had a chance to tell him that AJ was fine after Kenny ran outside but she insisted in trying to kill Kenny and give zero damns about anyone at that point. Jane is responsible.
And I already told you the difference between the one who should be held responsible and the one who did the killing.
The one who di… mored the killing should be held responsible for the killing. I don't understand how this is a controversial point. We blame people for murder when they willingly and unjustifiably end another person's life, which is exactly what Kenny did. What you're telling me is "A victim who puts herself in a position to have a crime committed against her is more responsible for the crime committed against her than the perpetrator," which is the definition of victim-blaming.
Backing away:
If you want to go this route, why don't we discuss how Kenny was backing away from her after getting slashed and Jane, instead of stopping the fight there, charged at him with the knife in his hand and tries to kill him before Kenny puts her through a sign. Oh, that was after trash-talking him and calling him a "Crusty piec… [view original content]
You mean to tell me that doesn't make her responsible?
I mean to tell you that it doesn't make her more responsible than Kenny. That's it. A person who willingly kills another person without just cause is the one who bears the majority of the responsibility for it. Whatever responsibility you think Jane has, if she knew he was going to try to kill or not, cannot be greater than the responsibility that Kenny has.
Backing away means moving backward...away from the other person or thing. It meant that she wasn't attacking him when he attacked and killed her. If she had lunged at him, and then he stabbed her, I could buy that as self-defense, but that's not what happened.
We're not discussing the murder now.
I'm discussing the murder. If you want to discuss something else, you can do so but my point--my only point-- is and has always been that Kenny holds the majority of the responsibility for the murder.
When the victim purposely did put herself in that position? Yes, she should be held accountable. This wasn't about Jane making a mistake. Sh… moree knew the fight would be a bloodbath. Like I said, her plan was suicidal, and despite knowing that, she went along with it. You mean to tell me that doesn't make her responsible? Someone who has no regards for her own life and makes an unnecessary mess like she did should be blamed on every logical place on Earth.
Wasn't that after she literally blinded Kenny? And she's not backing away. She saw Kenny grab the knife and tried to avoid getting stabbed. A difference exists between protecting yourself and backing away. It's impossible for Jane to back away at any point since pretty much wanted and asked for the fight. I can't believe you just compared backing away with Jane moving on step back to avoid a knife.
You just completely ignored my response. We're not discussing the murder now. Why do you ke… [view original content]
It can be greater when that person knowingly went to swim in a sea full of sharks and told everyone "I'm a badass!" Jane would have killed Kenny as well if he hadn't found a way to avoid bleeding to death, move aside when she comes running at him, an losing yet another eyeball. Why were they trying to kill each other? Because Jane forced that situation upon them. Who does that make responsible? Certainly the one who played with a baby's life and came inside acting hurt.
Dome, we were discussing who backed away or not just five minutes ago. That was on a separate note from this murder thing we've been raging about for hours. Are you not focusing?
You mean to tell me that doesn't make her responsible?
I mean to tell you that it doesn't make her more responsible than Kenny. That… more's it. A person who willingly kills another person without just cause is the one who bears the majority of the responsibility for it. Whatever responsibility you think Jane has, if she knew he was going to try to kill or not, cannot be greater than the responsibility that Kenny has.
Backing away means moving backward...away from the other person or thing. It meant that she wasn't attacking him when he attacked and killed her. If she had lunged at him, and then he stabbed her, I could buy that as self-defense, but that's not what happened.
We're not discussing the murder now.
I'm discussing the murder. If you want to discuss something else, you can do so but my point--my only point-- is and has always been that Kenny holds the majority of the responsibility for the murder.
Lack of judgement, yes, as has Kenny. Lack of judgement, furthermore, is not a sign of Autism.
She does show remorse, so that's plain inc… moreorrect, but again, lack of remorse isn't a sign of Autism.
No empathy for others is again wrong, but once again, struggling to empathise isn't a sign of Autism except in uber extreme circumstances.
No, it's not normal. Killing a man who sleeps with your wife isn't normal. Bashing a man's brain in isn't normal.
I find it slightly concerning that you think if a person isn't 'normal' then they are automatically Autistic. That's just completely absurd.
Kenny is not a shark, SaltLick. If he were, we wouldn't be having this conversation because sharks can't murder people. Only people can murder people because only people grasp the concept of right and wrong. A shark attacks based on instinct and hunger, Kenny attacks based on a desire to kill.
We were discussing backing away to show that Jane wasn't attack Kenny when he murdered her. What, did you think we were just doing it as an entirely separate point of discussion? That stemmed solely from your claim that "Kenny was also defending himself at that moment from someone whi presumably wanted to kill him for selfish reasons."
It can be greater when that person knowingly went to swim in a sea full of sharks and told everyone "I'm a badass!" Jane would have killed K… moreenny as well if he hadn't found a way to avoid bleeding to death, move aside when she comes running at him, an losing yet another eyeball. Why were they trying to kill each other? Because Jane forced that situation upon them. Who does that make responsible? Certainly the one who played with a baby's life and came inside acting hurt.
Dome, we were discussing who backed away or not just five minutes ago. That was on a separate note from this murder thing we've been raging about for hours. Are you not focusing?
Actually, sharks not only attack because they're hungry, Dome. Sharks also attack when they feel threatened which perfectly fits Kenny's situation with Jane. As of right know, my exanple is perfectly valid.
Well, obviously, everything is related to the main point we are arguing about. However, there was no need for you to ignore half of my response and throw the same "But Kenny killed Jane!" statement in there.
Kenny is not a shark, SaltLick. If he were, we wouldn't be having this conversation because sharks can't murder people. Only people can murd… moreer people because only people grasp the concept of right and wrong. A shark attacks based on instinct and hunger, Kenny attacks based on a desire to kill.
We were discussing backing away to show that Jane wasn't attack Kenny when he murdered her. What, did you think we were just doing it as an entirely separate point of discussion? That stemmed solely from your claim that "Kenny was also defending himself at that moment from someone whi presumably wanted to kill him for selfish reasons."
I said "instinct and hunger," Salt. You really want to argue that Kenny killed Jane out of a self-preserving instinct, when he lunged at her while calling her a baby killer? You really want to argue that he didn't kill Jane because he thought she killed AJ when he said as much himself? If not, then no, your example isn't valid.
What is the half of your argument that you think I'm ignoring? The thing about how Jane was wrong for provoking Kenny? I never claimed otherwise. But that doesn't take away from Kenny's guilt. I keep having to bring up the fact that "Kenny killed Jane" because you seem to think that this fact isn't the primary consideration in assigning blame for Jane being killed by Kenny. Do you not see how ludicrous that is?
Actually, sharks not only attack because they're hungry, Dome. Sharks also attack when they feel threatened which perfectly fits Kenny's sit… moreuation with Jane. As of right know, my exanple is perfectly valid.
Well, obviously, everything is related to the main point we are arguing about. However, there was no need for you to ignore half of my response and throw the same "But Kenny killed Jane!" statement in there.
Sharks attack when they feel threatened or endangered. Kenny had every right to feel this way if he believed Jane had just murdered a child. It's that simple.
I provided you an example of Kenny backing away and Jane unjustifiably going after him to kill him instead of stopping the fight and you didn't even adress it or try to prove is as not valid.
Your response, and I quote:
"And if she had killed him there, I would of course assign her responsibility for murdering Kenny."
We weren't discussing a bunch of "What IF's" situations. I simply showed you the moment where Kenny backed away and Jane tried to kill him to counter-argue your idea that Jane was simply backing away throughout the fight and Kenny was the one who kept attacking her.
P.S: I'm off to work. I'll be back in a few hours to continue.
I said "instinct and hunger," Salt. You really want to argue that Kenny killed Jane out of a self-preserving instinct, when he lunged at her… more while calling her a baby killer? You really want to argue that he didn't kill Jane because he thought she killed AJ when he said as much himself? If not, then no, your example isn't valid.
What is the half of your argument that you think I'm ignoring? The thing about how Jane was wrong for provoking Kenny? I never claimed otherwise. But that doesn't take away from Kenny's guilt. I keep having to bring up the fact that "Kenny killed Jane" because you seem to think that this fact isn't the primary consideration in assigning blame for Jane being killed by Kenny. Do you not see how ludicrous that is?
Kenny had every right to feel this way if he believed Jane had just murdered a child.
If you think that Kenny attacked Jane out of anything but anger, not fear or being threatened but anger, then you saw a different scene than the one I saw.
I simply showed you the moment where Kenny backed away and Jane tried to kill him to counter-argue your idea that Jane was simply backing away throughout the fight and Kenny was the one who kept attacking her.
I didn't say that she was backing away throughout the fight. I said that she was backing when he lunged at her. She wasn't attacking him when he went in for the kill. He can't be defending himself when he's the one on the offensive.
Sharks attack when they feel threatened or endangered. Kenny had every right to feel this way if he believed Jane had just murdered a child.… more It's that simple.
I provided you an example of Kenny backing away and Jane unjustifiably going after him to kill him instead of stopping the fight and you didn't even adress it or try to prove is as not valid.
Your response, and I quote:
"And if she had killed him there, I would of course assign her responsibility for murdering Kenny."
We weren't discussing a bunch of "What IF's" situations. I simply showed you the moment where Kenny backed away and Jane tried to kill him to counter-argue your idea that Jane was simply backing away throughout the fight and Kenny was the one who kept attacking her.
P.S: I'm off to work. I'll be back in a few hours to continue.
I didn't say anger wasn't probably the main reason. The way Kenny saw it, Jane had just murdered a child or left him to die somewhere. Why is is so absurd to assume that Kenny felt threatened by having such a dangerous woman by his side? He even delivers a very interesting line after he kills Jane, which strongly supports my theory.
"I was protecting you."
Why must one person be limited to going through just one feeling at a time as if they were robots? Haven't you ever felt angry, depressed, and dispirited at the same time? Arguing that Kenny could not have been going through a set of emotions which included anger, fear, and a sense of overprotectiveness over Clementine is just an all around weak argument.
I didn't say that she was backing away throughout the fight. I said that she was backing when he lunged at her. She wasn't attacking him when he went in for the kill. He can't be defending himself when he's the one on the offensive.
Actually, he can defend himself if his opponent escalates the fight by taking out a knife and repeatedly tries to stab him. Let's assume you're right even if you're not...What's the validity of your example? Jane literally took a half step back just to avoid getting stabbed. In my example, however, Kenny literally runs outside and Jane does nothing but take the fight to the extreme when she had a chance to stop it.
Kenny had every right to feel this way if he believed Jane had just murdered a child.
If you think that Kenny attacked Jane out of a… morenything but anger, not fear or being threatened but anger, then you saw a different scene than the one I saw.
I simply showed you the moment where Kenny backed away and Jane tried to kill him to counter-argue your idea that Jane was simply backing away throughout the fight and Kenny was the one who kept attacking her.
I didn't say that she was backing away throughout the fight. I said that she was backing when he lunged at her. She wasn't attacking him when he went in for the kill. He can't be defending himself when he's the one on the offensive.
If anger was the main reason Kenny killed Jane, then that invalidates your shark example because anger isn't the main reason why sharks attack people. Sharks operate fully on animal instincts. That's why we don't expect them to be able to control themselves and not attack and kill people. We do, however, expect that of humans. Even Kenny.
The "validity of my example" (I think you mean "relevance" or "significance") is that it shows that Jane wasn't attacking Kenny when he went in for the kill. If you want to claim that what Kenny did was still self defense because Jane had attacked him before, then your stance on self defense would be that after a person has attacked you, anything you do following that should be viewed as self-defense, including lunging at them with a knife with the intent to kill. Are you sure you want to go down that road?
I didn't say anger wasn't probably the main reason. The way Kenny saw it, Jane had just murdered a child or left him to die somewhere. Why i… mores is so absurd to assume that Kenny felt threatened by having such a dangerous woman by his side? He even delivers a very interesting line after he kills Jane, which strongly supports my theory.
"I was protecting you."
Why must one person be limited to going through just one feeling at a time as if they were robots? Haven't you ever felt angry, depressed, and dispirited at the same time? Arguing that Kenny could not have been going through a set of emotions which included anger, fear, and a sense of overprotectiveness over Clementine is just an all around weak argument.
I didn't say that she was backing away throughout the fight. I said that she was backing when he lunged at her. She wasn't attacking him when he went in for the kill. He can't be defending himself when he's the one on the offen… [view original content]
How does it "invalidate" my example? It's still perfectly valid. As it stands, you haven't been able to prove me wrong on my statement that Kenny felt threatened by Jane which contributed to his attack. Why does the fact that Kenny was angry more than anything else completely wipe everything else off the map? That's just a silly statement. I even gave you a line that strongly supports the idea that Kenny was protecting both Clementine and himself. This isn't a math test where only the student with the higher score gets a diploma, Dome. Oh, and you didn't answer a lot of my questions.
So what is it considered when you're trying to avoid getting killed by someone? Why should the question "Who started the fight?" completely change the definition of self-defense? Also, you keep arguing that Kenny started the fight. Are you sure it wasn't Jane with her plan? Kenny attacked first, but Jane started the fight by provoking and lying to him. Your example pales in comparison to mine when it comes to proving that an individual was backing away and his opponent kept attacking him. It makes you look a bit simple-minded when you consider Kenny the one who started the fight just because he attacked first and ignore everything that lead to the fight in the first place.
If anger was the main reason Kenny killed Jane, then that invalidates your shark example because anger isn't the main reason why sharks atta… moreck people. Sharks operate fully on animal instincts. That's why we don't expect them to be able to control themselves and not attack and kill people. We do, however, expect that of humans. Even Kenny.
The "validity of my example" (I think you mean "relevance" or "significance") is that it shows that Jane wasn't attacking Kenny when he went in for the kill. If you want to claim that what Kenny did was still self defense because Jane had attacked him before, then your stance on self defense would be that after a person has attacked you, anything you do following that should be viewed as self-defense, including lunging at them with a knife with the intent to kill. Are you sure you want to go down that road?
How does it "invalidate" my example? It's still perfectly valid. As it stands, you haven't been able to prove me wrong on my statement that … moreKenny felt threatened by Jane which contributed to his attack. Why does the fact that Kenny was angry more than anything else completely wipe everything else off the map? That's just a silly statement. I even gave you a line that strongly supports the idea that Kenny was protecting both Clementine and himself. This isn't a math test where only the student with the higher score gets a diploma, Dome. Oh, and you didn't answer a lot of my questions.
So what is it considered when you're trying to avoid getting killed by someone? Why should the question "Who started the fight?" completely change the definition of self-defense? Also, you keep arguing that Kenny started the fight. Are you sure it wasn't Jane with her plan? Kenny attacked first, but Jane started the fight by provoking and lying to him. Your ex… [view original content]
Comments
[removed]
Because there's no way to tell. How do you or anyone know what Jane's true intentions were? We've actually discussed it both ways, which is interesting.
I asked my mom and she said she would be offended both ways. For me, obviosly. And also feel disrespected herself. Maybe I was just raised this way, but they always taught me that you should refer to dead people with a certain level of respect.
Haven't I already adressed your "example" and explain why I don't think it's valid?
My amended example is meant to show that Jane's true intentions, whatever they may be, don't have any bearing on Kenny's responsibility. I'll copy it here in case you missed it: "Taking my already extreme example even further, even if I let the murderer out, planning for him to murder someone, whether or not he does so is still up to him, thereby making him responsible for the murders committed." If you agree with that, then you would also have to agree that regardless of whether or not Jane wanted to start a fight to the death, Kenny is still responsible for his act of murdering her.
So if your mom felt offended and disrespected either way, then I'd say that, contrary to your assertion, Jane's insults and Kenny's insults were comparable in how offensive they were to the other party.
As far as I can tell, your only argument against my example is an appeal to our lack of knowledge of Jane's true intentions. But, as I showed with my amended example, even if Jane's true intentions were to start a fight to the death, that doesn't diminish Kenny's responsibility.
But why are we all the way back to the beginning of this argument once again? Are we just not understanding each other? You just keep stating the obvious. If it was that easy, there would be nothing to discuss. "Yep, Kenny killed Jane. Argument is over!" I'm trying to go deeper than that. Kenny is responsible for ultimately killing Jane, but Jane is reaponsible for that entire chain of events as well. That includes Kenny's breakdown, her own demise, etc.
How so? I'm actually saying that my mom found it offensive. This did nothing but support my idea that deceased people most likely don't appreciate being referred to as a "Bunch of dead people." Specially when they're being used as a weapon to hurt those they care about.
Might as well refer you to the first text of this reply.
You said, and I quote, "The point being made here is that any responsiblity Kenny has over this is overshadowed by Jane's." I was illustrating with my example that this is simply not true. In both my example and in the scenario with Kenny and Jane, the responsibility of the person committing the murder is in no way "overshadowed" by the responsibility of the person whose actions enabled the murder. That's what I'm arguing. If you're willing to retract that statement, then we can end this conversation.
Your argument was that what Kenny said "can't be compared to what Jane said to him" because Jane's was offensive to the deceased. The fact that your mom found both to be offensive to her suggests that the deceased would be offended by both Jane's insult or Kenny's insult. So the insults are comparable.
And I stand by that. Just because Kenny ultimately pulled the knife we should ignore everything that led to the fight? Jane is indeed the one who most of the blame should be accredited to. You're asking me to ignore 80% of the fight.
Jane's plan causes the fight.
Jane takes out the knife first. ( I expect you to go on with that whole self-defense argument, but Kenny had no weapons whatsoever. She wanted to have an advantage more than anything else. And even if taking her knife out would have been completely necesary, it's still her fault. Intentions don't matter a whole when death is involved.)
Wait, I don't think you understood correctly. I only asked my mom about Jane's comment, not Kenny's. She said that a comment similar to the one Jane made would make her feel like both me and her are being disrespected.
For the last time, the fight that was started did not necessitate or justify the murder that was committed. Kenny's decision to murder Jane was an independent choice that he made. Just as the murderer in my example would have had to made an independent choice to murder after I released him. I caused his release, just as Jane caused the fight. The release enabled the murderer to commit murder, just as the fight and the presence of the knife enabled Kenny to commit his murder. But it would be ludicrous to say that because of that, I am more guilty of the murder than the actual murderer is, just as it is ludicrous to say that Jane was more responsible for her murder than Kenny, the person who actually murdered her.
Ah, I was under the impression that you asked her about both Jane's comment and Kenny's.
For the last time, when I tried to justify Kenny's murder? This argument isn't even about that. Well, when you get yourself into a fight (Implied to be engineered so she could purposely get rid of Kenny), escalating the fight by slashing your opponent, and aggressively charging at a wounded man after being told to stop do make her responsible in my book. You do realize you're trying to change one's personal opinion, right? And you haven't really "proved" anything. We've both said our pieces, pieces that whether you like or not, are assumptions for the most part. You haven't been able to convince me since I've had a concrete answer for all of your points. <-That seemingly goes both ways.
I see, but no. I might ask her tomorrow, though.
I...didn't accuse you of trying to justify Kenny's act of murder. I'm accusing you of trying to downplay Kenny's guilt in said murder by claiming that Jane is more responsible for it than he was. That is, in fact, what you're doing, yes? If so, I presented an analogous scenario wherein the claim that enabling a murder to occur makes a person more responsible for the murder than the murderer himself, is ridiculous. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument. And your only options in response to it are:
A. Reject my scenario by pointing out how it is distinct from the Kenny/Jane scenario in some significant way
B. Claim that you don't think it would be ridiculous to say that I am more guilty of the murders committed by a murderer that I released than the murderer himself
C. Retract your claim that Jane is more responsible for her murder than Kenny
or D. Accept that there is inconsistency in your logic but refuse to change your stance.
I do realize that this is your personal opinion. I just want to point out inconsistencies that potentially exist within that opinion.
Despite my distaste for her personality, morals, integrity etc, and excluding the dirt, I do find Jane to be pretty. The pixie cut is cute, and her dark hair and eyes contrast nicely with her pale skin. There are a couple scenes (when she isn't scowling for once) where I saw glimpses of Audrey Hepburn..and then she opens her mouth. Looks are skin deep, and on the inside she is in no way pretty imo.
That haircut was horrendous though.:/
What's absurd is ignoring everything else that happened. It's also extremely convenient considering the side you have taken. In one of my first responses I pointed out how even the Wikipedia got this one right. Jane is indeed responsible for her own death. How does that example make sense if Jane intended to murder Kenny all along? You're picking and choosing only what makes said example remotely relevant. And what I said that "Maybe Jane truly didn't intend to kill Kenny" was simply me exploring that possibility. As it stands, any validity your example has is the equivalent of any determinant scene in TWD. I don't know how you can so passionately talk about inconsistency when you refuse to analyze anything but the ending of the fight.
I can't tell if the debates you're in right now are intense, but civil, or are on the edge of becoming an argument and offensive. Maybe both. Either way, the points you've proposed in your post make sense to me, I think you've handled it pretty well given the temperament of the other members' comments.lol
edit: Got to the bottom of the thread, Zykelator is such a buzzkill sometimes.:/
The ending of the fight is what we're talking about. The murder. And who has more responsibility for it. Unless you want to make an argument explaining why Jane intending to kill Kenny would make her more responsible for her own death than he was, that point is irrelevant to this debate. Hell, even if she had intended for Kenny to murder her (equivalent to me intending for the murderer to murder someone after I release him), Kenny is still the one who made the decision to murder and thus still bears the majority of the responsibility for it, just as the murderer in my scenario would.
Lack of judgement, yes, as has Kenny. Lack of judgement, furthermore, is not a sign of Autism.
She does show remorse, so that's plain incorrect, but again, lack of remorse isn't a sign of Autism.
No empathy for others is again wrong, but once again, struggling to empathise isn't a sign of Autism except in uber extreme circumstances.
No, it's not normal. Killing a man who sleeps with your wife isn't normal. Bashing a man's brain in isn't normal.
I find it slightly concerning that you think if a person isn't 'normal' then they are automatically Autistic. That's just completely absurd.
rolls eyes harder
I didn't take from the unused audio clip, I took from nuances.
Which would be a solid argument if your were basing your side on fact. Seeing as we are arguing over something that didn't happen, and that would have completely changed the scene you think is a good "fact", you are playing on assumptions just as much as me. I have provided sound thinking prompted by the repercussions for killing Troy without Troy there to take the blame, you on the other hand have have played off of what did happen and not what would have happened had Jane humanely killed Troy.
You said "They were already walking towards Troy, so I doubt him dying would have stopped them from munching on the only person they saw talking." He wouldn't be talking if he was dead. And walkers go after the living. Ergo unless you did leave him able to talk then they would prefer their other target, Jane.
Basics are all there is to know about walkers. I know the way a zombie reacts because it's how they always react. It doesn't change. Also, "or Jane." Didn't I already state that they could go after Jane? And that it's also bad, not fair to ask of her, and detrimental to the other group members she is near?... I'm not assuming they would just turn around and go after the group, as previously stated
-Zombies have the ability to detect scents and differentiate between the living and the dead, and prefer to feed on living flesh. ×Walking dead wiki
Walkers react to stimuli. Something a living person gives, and a motionless corpse doesn't. Jane would obviously be their target.
It's not being astute. In fact it's being quite the opposite. Instead of eating the flesh that is sitting in front of then they need to chase down their food. That's pretty dumb, but it's the way they work.
Yuck rolling around in cow shit isn't attractive.
You still included the unused clip in your response. Plus, that "Facial expression, etc" point you're making is highly debatable. I did provide you with a fact on the other hand.
"Troy, we talked about this..."
"You said you'd help, then I'd help."
Any logical person understands that rape was never even implied based on this conversation.
I may have been basing on assumptions as much as you, but I've at least used scenes that actually happened in the game to support my ideas. Your assumption on the other hand have no base so far. You're just saying what you think. The only time you actually tried to buttres your point with actual facts you came up with a questionable arguments that's up for interpretation.
Troy was still fresh meat, and they heard him yelling not too long ago. Again, this is nothing more than another far-fetched assumtion with the "Who knows" factor thrown in there. You would imagine that walkers are not preferable to people that have been dead for a while, but you were arguing that the walkers were almost on top of us. So why are you coming to the conclusion that they would just completely forget about Troy? You simply don't know how they would react in that situation.
To the rest of the group? No. Like I said, they were all quiet, away from Jane, and covered in walker guts. To Jane? Debatable. You're basing on a Wikipedia statement that could be as inconsistent as the writting in S2. You're jumping to yet another conclusion by implying that the walkers would conpletely ignore Jane being covered in guys and go after her because they heard a shot? That rather smart. However, you're arguing below that they're dumb creatures. What side are you on?
Adressed in the above paragraph.
Actually, what we're discussing is who should be held accountable for everything that happened. In order to do that we should have gone step by step instead of you jumping on the boat. Like I said, what would be the point if we didn't look further into these situations? If Jane came up with such a sinister plan to purposely make Kenny go insane and be a dirt ball to her she's got no one to blame for herself. Like I said in one of my previous responses, it is implied that Jane expected that all along. Knowing that, I should just give her a pass because "Kenny was the one who killed her!"? No. Kenny was also defending himself at that moment from someone whi presumably wanted to kill him for selfish reasons.
I've said before that I blame Jane for the fight, but Kenny for the murder. Treating the two as a single event triggered by Jane ignores the level of agency and responsibility that Kenny had over the murder. Even if your assumption that Jane planned for Kenny to try commit murder is correct, that does not make her more responsible for the murder that he commits because it was his decision that causes it, not hers. I'm not "giving Jane a pass," I'm saying that giving Kenny a pass by saying things like "The fact that Kenny pulled the knife is probably, and ironically, the least important detail here." is wrong because, in terms of causing the murder to happen, getting a knife and stabbing someone in the chest with it is a pretty major part of it.
If you want to argue that Kenny lunging at Jane while she's on the ground and trying to back away from him is "defending himself," that's a different conversation for us to have.
How is it the major part when the "Victim" knowingly put herself in that situation just so she could provoke someone else? Jane had no regards for her life. Her plan was suicidal and she still didn't give a damn about her own safety. Not for herself, not for Clementine, not for AJ. So, yes, I still believe she should be blamed the most for her death. And I already told you the difference between the one who should be held responsible and the one who did the killing. Jane is responsible for all bad things that hapened in the last 20 minutes of the game.
...Back away? She was either pushed by Kenny or Clementine. There was no backing away there. If you want to go this route, why don't we discuss how Kenny was backing away from her after getting slashed and Jane, instead of stopping the fight there, charged at him with the knife in his hand and tries to kill him before Kenny puts her through a sign. Oh, that was after trash-talking him and calling him a "Crusty piece of shit."
The one who did the killing should be held responsible for the killing. I don't understand how this is a controversial point. We blame people for murder when they willingly and unjustifiably end another person's life, which is exactly what Kenny did. What you're telling me is "A victim who puts herself in a position to have a crime committed against her is more responsible for the crime committed against her than the perpetrator," which is the definition of victim-blaming.
Backing away:
And if she had killed him there, I would of course assign her responsibility for murdering Kenny. As it stands, Kenny is the one who lunged at a person backing away from him before plunging a knife into their chest, not Jane.
When the victim purposely did put herself in that position? Yes, she should be held accountable. This wasn't about Jane making a mistake. She knew the fight would be a bloodbath. Like I said, her plan was suicidal, and despite knowing that, she went along with it. You mean to tell me that doesn't make her responsible? Someone who has no regards for her own life and makes an unnecessary mess like she did should be blamed on every logical place on Earth.
Wasn't that after she literally blinded Kenny? And she's not backing away. She saw Kenny grab the knife and tried to avoid getting stabbed. A difference exists between protecting yourself and backing away. It's impossible for Jane to back away at any point since pretty much wanted and asked for the fight. I can't believe you just compared backing away with Jane moving on step back to avoid a knife.
You just completely ignored my response. We're not discussing the murder now. Why do you keep trying to bring it down to that? Jane never backed away. Kenny did. Jane had a chance to tell him that AJ was fine after Kenny ran outside but she insisted in trying to kill Kenny and give zero damns about anyone at that point. Jane is responsible.
I mean to tell you that it doesn't make her more responsible than Kenny. That's it. A person who willingly kills another person without just cause is the one who bears the majority of the responsibility for it. Whatever responsibility you think Jane has, if she knew he was going to try to kill or not, cannot be greater than the responsibility that Kenny has.
Backing away means moving backward...away from the other person or thing. It meant that she wasn't attacking him when he attacked and killed her. If she had lunged at him, and then he stabbed her, I could buy that as self-defense, but that's not what happened.
I'm discussing the murder. If you want to discuss something else, you can do so but my point--my only point-- is and has always been that Kenny holds the majority of the responsibility for the murder.
It can be greater when that person knowingly went to swim in a sea full of sharks and told everyone "I'm a badass!" Jane would have killed Kenny as well if he hadn't found a way to avoid bleeding to death, move aside when she comes running at him, an losing yet another eyeball. Why were they trying to kill each other? Because Jane forced that situation upon them. Who does that make responsible? Certainly the one who played with a baby's life and came inside acting hurt.
Dome, we were discussing who backed away or not just five minutes ago. That was on a separate note from this murder thing we've been raging about for hours. Are you not focusing?
Don't put words in my mouth , i said that it was possible for her to be autistic, because it is a spectrum disorder.
How did we even get to this point... I thought we were talking about her beauty, which i don't find her beautiful because of her horrible personality.
Kenny is not a shark, SaltLick. If he were, we wouldn't be having this conversation because sharks can't murder people. Only people can murder people because only people grasp the concept of right and wrong. A shark attacks based on instinct and hunger, Kenny attacks based on a desire to kill.
We were discussing backing away to show that Jane wasn't attack Kenny when he murdered her. What, did you think we were just doing it as an entirely separate point of discussion? That stemmed solely from your claim that "Kenny was also defending himself at that moment from someone whi presumably wanted to kill him for selfish reasons."
Actually, sharks not only attack because they're hungry, Dome. Sharks also attack when they feel threatened which perfectly fits Kenny's situation with Jane. As of right know, my exanple is perfectly valid.
Well, obviously, everything is related to the main point we are arguing about. However, there was no need for you to ignore half of my response and throw the same "But Kenny killed Jane!" statement in there.
I said "instinct and hunger," Salt. You really want to argue that Kenny killed Jane out of a self-preserving instinct, when he lunged at her while calling her a baby killer? You really want to argue that he didn't kill Jane because he thought she killed AJ when he said as much himself? If not, then no, your example isn't valid.
What is the half of your argument that you think I'm ignoring? The thing about how Jane was wrong for provoking Kenny? I never claimed otherwise. But that doesn't take away from Kenny's guilt. I keep having to bring up the fact that "Kenny killed Jane" because you seem to think that this fact isn't the primary consideration in assigning blame for Jane being killed by Kenny. Do you not see how ludicrous that is?
Sharks attack when they feel threatened or endangered. Kenny had every right to feel this way if he believed Jane had just murdered a child. It's that simple.
I provided you an example of Kenny backing away and Jane unjustifiably going after him to kill him instead of stopping the fight and you didn't even adress it or try to prove is as not valid.
Your response, and I quote:
"And if she had killed him there, I would of course assign her responsibility for murdering Kenny."
We weren't discussing a bunch of "What IF's" situations. I simply showed you the moment where Kenny backed away and Jane tried to kill him to counter-argue your idea that Jane was simply backing away throughout the fight and Kenny was the one who kept attacking her.
P.S: I'm off to work. I'll be back in a few hours to continue.
If you think that Kenny attacked Jane out of anything but anger, not fear or being threatened but anger, then you saw a different scene than the one I saw.
I didn't say that she was backing away throughout the fight. I said that she was backing when he lunged at her. She wasn't attacking him when he went in for the kill. He can't be defending himself when he's the one on the offensive.
She kind of looks like something from Planet of the Apes.
no.
THIS, is what you call attractive.
I didn't say anger wasn't probably the main reason. The way Kenny saw it, Jane had just murdered a child or left him to die somewhere. Why is is so absurd to assume that Kenny felt threatened by having such a dangerous woman by his side? He even delivers a very interesting line after he kills Jane, which strongly supports my theory.
"I was protecting you."
Why must one person be limited to going through just one feeling at a time as if they were robots? Haven't you ever felt angry, depressed, and dispirited at the same time? Arguing that Kenny could not have been going through a set of emotions which included anger, fear, and a sense of overprotectiveness over Clementine is just an all around weak argument.
Actually, he can defend himself if his opponent escalates the fight by taking out a knife and repeatedly tries to stab him. Let's assume you're right even if you're not...What's the validity of your example? Jane literally took a half step back just to avoid getting stabbed. In my example, however, Kenny literally runs outside and Jane does nothing but take the fight to the extreme when she had a chance to stop it.
If anger was the main reason Kenny killed Jane, then that invalidates your shark example because anger isn't the main reason why sharks attack people. Sharks operate fully on animal instincts. That's why we don't expect them to be able to control themselves and not attack and kill people. We do, however, expect that of humans. Even Kenny.
The "validity of my example" (I think you mean "relevance" or "significance") is that it shows that Jane wasn't attacking Kenny when he went in for the kill. If you want to claim that what Kenny did was still self defense because Jane had attacked him before, then your stance on self defense would be that after a person has attacked you, anything you do following that should be viewed as self-defense, including lunging at them with a knife with the intent to kill. Are you sure you want to go down that road?
How does it "invalidate" my example? It's still perfectly valid. As it stands, you haven't been able to prove me wrong on my statement that Kenny felt threatened by Jane which contributed to his attack. Why does the fact that Kenny was angry more than anything else completely wipe everything else off the map? That's just a silly statement. I even gave you a line that strongly supports the idea that Kenny was protecting both Clementine and himself. This isn't a math test where only the student with the higher score gets a diploma, Dome. Oh, and you didn't answer a lot of my questions.
So what is it considered when you're trying to avoid getting killed by someone? Why should the question "Who started the fight?" completely change the definition of self-defense? Also, you keep arguing that Kenny started the fight. Are you sure it wasn't Jane with her plan? Kenny attacked first, but Jane started the fight by provoking and lying to him. Your example pales in comparison to mine when it comes to proving that an individual was backing away and his opponent kept attacking him. It makes you look a bit simple-minded when you consider Kenny the one who started the fight just because he attacked first and ignore everything that lead to the fight in the first place.
I soo want to join in, but Dome will probably do a better job of disproving you than I could.
Hasn't been able to so far.
Now that you're here, where's my response to our conversation below...?
Actually he really has. I don't understand how someone as smart as you can misconstrue what it means to be responsible for murder so badly.
I've been busy at drill. I'll get to it soon enough, Monday maybe.