He really hasn't. I may have an unpopular stand on the subject, but that has nothing to with who has disproved who. Everything he has stated, I have adressed with an argument as good. As a matter of fact, I'm still waiting for him to answer many of my questions. I've provided him with scenes from the game, realistic examples, and sound thinking to fortify my point. If anyone had disproved anything, why would be still be talking? He knows that.
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.
That fact that you keep arguing has no relevance to if you've been disproven or not. Not trying to be rude, you just either don't understand what it means to be guilguilty for the murder or you just don't want to admit it. Either way, if Dome can't open your eyes I sure can't. Talk to you later.
He really hasn't. I may have an unpopular stand on the subject, but that has nothing to with who has disproved who. Everything he has stated… more, I have adressed with an argument as good. As a matter of fact, I'm still waiting for him to answer many of my questions. I've provided him with scenes from the game, realistic examples, and sound thinking to fortify my point. If anyone had disproved anything, why would be still be talking? He knows that.
Eh, okay. See you there.
Viva...but you keep bringing up my rather unpopular stand on this specific subject. You do realize that is a completely different thing from being "disproven", right? I'm not sure you understand the difference between those two. Dome has made some good points, and some silly ones for the sake of supporting his own arguments. Just like me. I fail to see how having "The people's opinion" makes him automatically correct.
That fact that you keep arguing has no relevance to if you've been disproven or not. Not trying to be rude, you just either don't understand… more what it means to be guilguilty for the murder or you just don't want to admit it. Either way, if Dome can't open your eyes I sure can't. Talk to you later.
I literally just explained this with my last post. Your example hinges on comparing Kenny's action of attacking Jane out of mostly anger to a shark's action of attacking a person when it feels threatened. We expect don't expect sharks to be able to maintain control when being threatened, but we do expect humans to maintain control when they're angry. The fact that Kenny doesn't attack out of pure instinct meant that he had control over his actions at that point, meaning that he is still the one to blame for his actions. I can't possibly make this any more clear, Salt.
I'm starting to think that you're not actually reading my responses. I keep on telling you that I blame Jane for the fight, so how can you possibly now claim that I keep arguing that Kenny started the fight? So let me make this very clear. I think it's Jane's fault that the fight happened. Okay? Okay. Now, even though it's Jane's fault that the fight happens, because Kenny was the initial aggressor and attacked Jane first, according to the logic that you used to call Kenny lunging at Jane with a knife "self-defense," that means that anything Jane did afterwards can be seen as self defense. The flaw in your logic is that you think that in the sequence of events [Kenny attacks --> Jane attacks --> Kenny attacks], Kenny's second attack should be considered self-defense because it is proceeded by Jane's attack. But then Jane's attack should also be treated as self-defense because it is proceeded by Kenny's first attack. Which I don't think you want to agree with.
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]
Viva...but you keep bringing up my rather unpopular stand on this specific subject. You do realize that is a completely different thing from… more being "disproven", right? I'm not sure you understand the difference between those two. Dome has made some good points, and some silly ones for the sake of supporting his own arguments. Just like me. I fail to see how having "The people's opinion" makes him automatically correct.
And he should control and/or stop himself from protecting himself and Clementine from a person he considered extremely dangerous? I'm starting to think the same, actually. I already explained to you how my example is perfectly valid. You're saying that my example is irrelevant just because Kenny's anger was the biggest factor in the fight, ignore that fear, overprotectiveness, and his overall distrust towards Jane. Why would Kenny's ability to "Control himself" diminish the relevance of my example? Going by your logic, 99% of these examples would be complete garbage. More than judging my example, you're making this a comparison between human beings and animals. Including their capabilities. Come on, Dome. I know you're better than that.
Dome, you have repeatedly stated that Kenneth was the aggressor and the one who staryed the fight. Going as far as to take out a very questionable scene of the game where Jane is supposedly "Backing off" to probe your idea that he was the one who kept escalating the fight and attacking her. You see the thing is, doesn't that make your logic flawed as well? Now you say that Jane started the fight, but respond to me telling me that calling his actions self-defense is an abomination while trying to convince me that Jane was indeed just defending herself and "backed away" at moments throughout the fight... What's going on here, Dome? Seems like we both are in serious need of the same medicine.
P.S: Dammit, time to work. Look for my next response as soon as I get back.
How does it "invalidate" my example?
I literally just explained this with my last post. Your example hinges on comparing Kenny's act… moreion of attacking Jane out of mostly anger to a shark's action of attacking a person when it feels threatened. We expect don't expect sharks to be able to maintain control when being threatened, but we do expect humans to maintain control when they're angry. The fact that Kenny doesn't attack out of pure instinct meant that he had control over his actions at that point, meaning that he is still the one to blame for his actions. I can't possibly make this any more clear, Salt.
I'm starting to think that you're not actually reading my responses. I keep on telling you that I blame Jane for the fight, so how can you possibly now claim that I keep arguing that Kenny started the fight? So let me make this very clear. I think it's Jane's fault that the fight happened. Okay? Okay. Now, even though it's Jane's f… [view original content]
More than judging my example, you're making this a comparison between human beings and animals. Including their capabilities. Come on, Dome. I know you're better than that.
Are you actually serious? You were the one who made the human animal comparison with your shark example. Either you're just backtracking or you don't understand your own example. Further still, your defense of Kenny's actions as being driven by "fear, overprotectiveness, and his overall distrust" can be applied to Jane as well. So is Kenny now like a badass swimming in a sea full of sharks because he attacked someone who saw him as a threat?
Quote me one time throughout this entire exchange in which I claimed that Kenny started the fight. Go on. I'll wait. And I'm telling you that calling someone lunging at someone else with a knife while they're on the ground "self-defense" is ridiculous. The person on the ground scurrying backwards from the person attacking them? How can that be seen as anything other than self defense?
And he should control and/or stop himself from protecting himself and Clementine from a person he considered extremely dangerous? I'm starti… moreng to think the same, actually. I already explained to you how my example is perfectly valid. You're saying that my example is irrelevant just because Kenny's anger was the biggest factor in the fight, ignore that fear, overprotectiveness, and his overall distrust towards Jane. Why would Kenny's ability to "Control himself" diminish the relevance of my example? Going by your logic, 99% of these examples would be complete garbage. More than judging my example, you're making this a comparison between human beings and animals. Including their capabilities. Come on, Dome. I know you're better than that.
Dome, you have repeatedly stated that Kenneth was the aggressor and the one who staryed the fight. Going as far as to take out a very questionable scene of the game where Jane is supposedly "Backing off" to… [view original content]
dont you mean bonnie?
or lilly?
or probably carley?
NO! YOU DONT MEAN ANY OF THOSE! BECAUSE THIS
THIS!!!!
… more THHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IS THE MOST ATTRACTIVE AND CUTEST TWD CHARACTER!!!!
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.
Are you purposely being illogical at this point? Of course I made the comparison, but any rational human being understand that a comparison between an animal and a person can only go so far. My example did it's job by proving that Kenny found himself in a shark-like situation. Instead of properly adressing it or "disproving" it, you're throwing silly arguments at me like "Sharks can't reason!" and claiming that my argument was irrelevant because of a simple technicality that will always exist. I mean, hello? It's like putting salt on your coffee and expecting it to taste like green tea. I can't believe I had to write this paragraph to slowly explain this to you as if you were a kid.
You want evidence, Domie? Fine.
"Jane put her knife away and told him not to approach her. He's the one who charged at her and tried to choke her against the wall. She only took out her knife and slashed at him when he charges at her yet again."
"Wouldn't that mean that Jane was justified in taking the knife out in the first place, as we saw that he charged at her and tried to choke her against the wall and then came at her again? Or do you not thing that Kenny came at her with the intention to kill?"
Now, everyone with a brain expects you to say this wasn't what you meant instead of admitting the truth, which is why I'm gonna use your own quote:
"In the future, it would be a good idea to make sure that the words you're communicating align with the meaning you intend for them to have, rather than leaving it up to the other person to just assume that you mean something you're not saying."
At first I thought you weren't reading my responses. Now, I believe you didn't read yours either.
More than judging my example, you're making this a comparison between human beings and animals. Including their capabilities. Come on, Dome.… more I know you're better than that.
Are you actually serious? You were the one who made the human animal comparison with your shark example. Either you're just backtracking or you don't understand your own example. Further still, your defense of Kenny's actions as being driven by "fear, overprotectiveness, and his overall distrust" can be applied to Jane as well. So is Kenny now like a badass swimming in a sea full of sharks because he attacked someone who saw him as a threat?
Quote me one time throughout this entire exchange in which I claimed that Kenny started the fight. Go on. I'll wait. And I'm telling you that calling someone lunging at someone else with a knife while they're on the ground "self-defense" is ridiculous. The person on the ground scurrying backwards from the person attacking them? How can that be seen as anything other than self defense?
Kenny found himself in a "shark-like" situation? Because, what, like a shark, Kenny also feels fear? What is the relevance to that in determining his guilt? If you were trying to argue that Kenny can't be blamed for his action because he was acting out of instinct like a threatened shark, then that would at least be a cogent argument. Wrong, but cogent. But, no, it seems you just brought up the shark comparison for no apparent reason. You don't actually have an argument to go off of that comparison at all, do you?
Nowhere in those two quotes did I say that Kenny started the fight. I recounted how Kenny was the first one to physically attack the other person, which is an undeniable fact. The only way you could have construed my words to mean that Kenny started the fight is if you're equating being the first to physically attack as starting the fight...which is the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make.
I'm sitting here struggling to understand how someone can be so befuddled by their own logic. I don't mean to be rude, but is English your second language? Is that why we're having such difficulty understanding to each other? (You don't have to answer if you don't feel comfortable; I was just curious.)
Are you purposely being illogical at this point? Of course I made the comparison, but any rational human being understand that a comparison … morebetween an animal and a person can only go so far. My example did it's job by proving that Kenny found himself in a shark-like situation. Instead of properly adressing it or "disproving" it, you're throwing silly arguments at me like "Sharks can't reason!" and claiming that my argument was irrelevant because of a simple technicality that will always exist. I mean, hello? It's like putting salt on your coffee and expecting it to taste like green tea. I can't believe I had to write this paragraph to slowly explain this to you as if you were a kid.
You want evidence, Domie? Fine.
"Jane put her knife away and told him not to approach her. He's the one who charged at her and tried to choke her against the wall. She only took out her knife and slashed at him when he charges at her yet again."
"Wouldn't… [view original content]
Did you completely forget about the first half of this conversation? Nevermind. A more fitting question would be "Did you actually read it in the first place?" At first, I wasn't even comparing Kenny to a shark. I compared Jane to a human being literally committing suicide by swimming in a sea full of sharks. My comparison was directed towards Jane, not Kenny. (Ironic that you're talking about not understanding the English language or whatever. This is gold.) However, you once again misconstrued my words (Surprise!) and turned it into a Kenny-Sharks comparison. Good thing I still managed to make a great use of what you turned that into since it gave me an opportunity to adress a few other things regarding Kenny's behaviour. Now, in response to that rather childish statement of yours questioning whether my example had any true meaning behind it. Did you also forget that it was in response to you saying that Kenny had no logical reason to attack Jane? And my example was meant to prove that fear of a possible child murderer who has shown a vicious behavior in the past and the feeling of protecting Clementine from her were mora than rational reasons. I don't even know why I'm still arguing with you. You don't bother to read, and when you do, you try to twist my words around like a damn pretzel.
Just like I predicted, huh? And you're telling me that constantly stating that Kenny physically attacked her first can't be seen as you implying that he started the fight? Specially the way you worded those specific sentences. Just re-read that nicely written quote of yours, Dome.
Perhaps...I'm not sure. But I do know one thing, I'm not alone.
Kenny found himself in a "shark-like" situation? Because, what, like a shark, Kenny also feels fear? What is the relevance to that in determ… moreining his guilt? If you were trying to argue that Kenny can't be blamed for his action because he was acting out of instinct like a threatened shark, then that would at least be a cogent argument. Wrong, but cogent. But, no, it seems you just brought up the shark comparison for no apparent reason. You don't actually have an argument to go off of that comparison at all, do you?
Nowhere in those two quotes did I say that Kenny started the fight. I recounted how Kenny was the first one to physically attack the other person, which is an undeniable fact. The only way you could have construed my words to mean that Kenny started the fight is if you're equating being the first to physically attack as starting the fight...which is the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make.
I'm sitting here strugg… [view original content]
My example did it's job by proving that Kenny found himself in a shark-like situation.
[30 minutes later]
However, you once again misconstrued my words (Surprise!) and turned it into a Kenny-Sharks comparison.
...I...have no words.
Did you also forget that it was in response to you saying that Kenny had no logical reason to attack Jane? And my example was meant to prove that fear of a possible child murderer who has shown a vicious behavior in the past and the feeling of protecting Clementine from her were mora than rational reasons.
Are you saying that Kenny's fear of Jane justifies his murder of her? Is that now your argument?
And you're telling me that constantly stating that Kenny physically attacked her first can't be seen as you implying that he started the fight? Specially the way you worded those specific sentences.
Again, only if you're equating being the first to physically attack someone during a fight as starting the fight, but that's only something that you did in your interpretation. So hilariously, it seem that all this time, you were only arguing against your own preconceived notion.
Wait, so English is, in fact, your second language? If so, that makes a lot of sense. I mean your grammar is fine for the most part. But it can take a really long time for people from foreign backgrounds to develop a strong grasp of the nuances and logical structure of the language. Sorry if it seems like I was being harsh on you, then.
Did you completely forget about the first half of this conversation? Nevermind. A more fitting question would be "Did you actually read it i… moren the first place?" At first, I wasn't even comparing Kenny to a shark. I compared Jane to a human being literally committing suicide by swimming in a sea full of sharks. My comparison was directed towards Jane, not Kenny. (Ironic that you're talking about not understanding the English language or whatever. This is gold.) However, you once again misconstrued my words (Surprise!) and turned it into a Kenny-Sharks comparison. Good thing I still managed to make a great use of what you turned that into since it gave me an opportunity to adress a few other things regarding Kenny's behaviour. Now, in response to that rather childish statement of yours questioning whether my example had any true meaning behind it. Did you also forget that it was in response to you saying that Kenny had no logical reason to attac… [view original content]
I expected you to respond with this. Yet another reaponse you didn't read...
It wasn't my example at first, but didn't we come to terms that it turned into it once we started to discuss it? Haven't we been referring to it like that all along? I was reminding you that I didn't just throw this idea in your face as you seem to be implying that it came out of nowhere when it wasn't even my intial intention. Again... "It gave me a chance to adress a few other things about Kenny's behaviour." Didn't it become my example once I started to make an argument out of it and use to fortify my point? I'll say one thing, you're dodging any kind of coherence like a professional.
Twisting yet another sentence, are we? Never said such thing. He does have a rational reason to feel threatened by Jane which would force him to retaliate and attack her. The statement "It was perfectly okay for Kenny to put s knife through Jane's chest because he was scared" never came out of my mouth.
How so? How does the fact that your use of purposely confusing words to make yourself look smart lead to a bunch of logical gaps that seemingly demolish your own arguments? You can't confuse me because I have a very good vocabulary myself, but those two statements could have gone either way. Why shouldn't I be inclined to believe I'm right in believing you assumed Kenny started the fight based on those paragraphs which would indeed make me correct?
It's not, actually. Sorry if it seems like I'm not paying attention to your arguments or something like that. I never meant for you to feel ignored or overlooked. I'm not saying your points are not interesting, but repetitive, yes.
My example did it's job by proving that Kenny found himself in a shark-like situation.
[30 minutes later]
However, you once ag… moreain misconstrued my words (Surprise!) and turned it into a Kenny-Sharks comparison.
...I...have no words.
Did you also forget that it was in response to you saying that Kenny had no logical reason to attack Jane? And my example was meant to prove that fear of a possible child murderer who has shown a vicious behavior in the past and the feeling of protecting Clementine from her were mora than rational reasons.
Are you saying that Kenny's fear of Jane justifies his murder of her? Is that now your argument?
And you're telling me that constantly stating that Kenny physically attacked her first can't be seen as you implying that he started the fight? Specially the way you worded those specific sentences.
Again, only if you're equating being the first to physically attack so… [view original content]
I was reminding you that I didn't just throw this idea in your face as you seem to be implying that it came out of nowhere when it wasn't even my intial intention.
What was your initial intention, then? This train of thought started when I said: "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." You responded to that with "It can be greater when that person knowingly went to swim in a sea full of sharks and told everyone "I'm a badass!"" How can your statement possibly be a response to mine unless you were using the "sea of sharks" as an analogy for Kenny? Were you trying to say that if a person knowing does something dangerous, they bear the major responsibility for the harm that then befalls them, regardless of whether that harm comes from a bunch of mindless animals or a human being? Because that opens up a can of worms that I really don't think you want to open.
He does have a rational reason to feel threatened by Jane which would force him to retaliate and attack her.
You're referring to only the initial attack by Kenny then. Are you saying that Kenny was justified in his initially rushing at Jane and choking her against the wall because he was afraid of her? Because there's a major problem with that argument and that is that Kenny's fear is based off of a mere assumption about what Jane did to AJ. He had no evidence that she was a "child murderer" aside from his own mistrust of her, and so any action that he takes based off that assumption is unjustified. Attacking someone because you're afraid of them after assuming that they did something based on no evidence is not "a rational reason."
How does the fact that your use of purposely confusing words to make yourself look smart lead to a bunch of logical gaps that seemingly demolish your own arguments?
I, uh, don't think that sentence is saying what you want that sentence to be saying.
Why shouldn't I be inclined to believe I'm right in believing you assumed Kenny started the fight based on those paragraphs which would indeed make me correct?
I want you to read the following three quotes taken from my posts preceding your accusation that I assumed Kenny started the fight:
I blame Jane for the fight, but I blame Kenny for the murder.
I caused his release, just as Jane caused the fight.
I've said before that I blame Jane for the fight, but Kenny for the murder.
Now you tell me. Why might it be unreasonable for you to assume that I was saying that Kenny started the fight?
I expected you to respond with this. Yet another reaponse you didn't read...
It wasn't my example at first, but didn't we come to terms t… morehat it turned into it once we started to discuss it? Haven't we been referring to it like that all along? I was reminding you that I didn't just throw this idea in your face as you seem to be implying that it came out of nowhere when it wasn't even my intial intention. Again... "It gave me a chance to adress a few other things about Kenny's behaviour." Didn't it become my example once I started to make an argument out of it and use to fortify my point? I'll say one thing, you're dodging any kind of coherence like a professional.
Twisting yet another sentence, are we? Never said such thing. He does have a rational reason to feel threatened by Jane which would force him to retaliate and attack her. The statement "It was perfectly okay for Kenny to put s knife through Jane's chest because he was scared" n… [view original content]
Well, she's one of the few characters who don't have a weird looking feature. Like, Carley had a really weird looking neck in episode 3, Molly had sort of a weird face texture...
Well, she's one of the few characters who don't have a weird looking feature. Like, Carley had a really weird looking neck in episode 3, Molly had sort of a weird face texture...
Well, she's one of the few characters who don't have a weird looking feature. Like, Carley had a really weird looking neck in episode 3, Molly had sort of a weird face texture...
You see, you keep bringing that comparison between a "bunch of mindless animals" and a human being. Wait, who said Sharks are mindless, anyway? You must not know a thing about Elasmobranchology. Dome...my example was meant to illustrate how regardless of whether a person is putting herself in a situation fo be devoured by walkers or get killed by an unstable man, they should be held responsible for their own death. Specially when that person had a chance to stop the brawl right before it became a fight to death. Instead, she went along with her plan because she thought she could take out an already wounded man who was also missing an eyeball. I don't even know what you're arguing for at this point. Any person who commits suicide (Whether directly or indirectly) is responsible for their own demise one way or the other. Dome, it's like I have to explain simple concepts like this one all the time and once I do you completely ignore it and jump on to another paragraph. Are you that desperate to disprove me?
I'm saying that Kenny was justified in retaliating. Choking her against the the wall was Kenny's decision, not mine. Since when does being justified for doing something make it completely right? Only in your quest to try to prove me wrong, huh? Take this example, my girlfriend just cheated on me with my bestfriend, ain't I justified in having some sort of negative reaction? Totally. Does it make it okay for me to beat her up or throw her off a rooftop? Debatable. I feel like a Middle School teacher right know.
That's what she said.
What affect does this have on those two short paragraphs I quoted you on? I have mentioned that you've seemed self-contradictory in a couple of times, but even if not, these examples have nothing to do with the fact that your previous statements can be read in many ways.
I was reminding you that I didn't just throw this idea in your face as you seem to be implying that it came out of nowhere when it wasn't ev… moreen my intial intention.
What was your initial intention, then? This train of thought started when I said: "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." You responded to that with "It can be greater when that person knowingly went to swim in a sea full of sharks and told everyone "I'm a badass!"" How can your statement possibly be a response to mine unless you were using the "sea of sharks" as an analogy for Kenny? Were you trying to say that if a person knowing does something dangerous, they bear the major responsibility for the harm that then befalls them, regardless … [view original content]
Comments
He really hasn't. I may have an unpopular stand on the subject, but that has nothing to with who has disproved who. Everything he has stated, I have adressed with an argument as good. As a matter of fact, I'm still waiting for him to answer many of my questions. I've provided him with scenes from the game, realistic examples, and sound thinking to fortify my point. If anyone had disproved anything, why would be still be talking? He knows that.
Eh, okay. See you there.
That fact that you keep arguing has no relevance to if you've been disproven or not. Not trying to be rude, you just either don't understand what it means to be guilguilty for the murder or you just don't want to admit it. Either way, if Dome can't open your eyes I sure can't. Talk to you later.
Viva...but you keep bringing up my rather unpopular stand on this specific subject. You do realize that is a completely different thing from being "disproven", right? I'm not sure you understand the difference between those two. Dome has made some good points, and some silly ones for the sake of supporting his own arguments. Just like me. I fail to see how having "The people's opinion" makes him automatically correct.
I literally just explained this with my last post. Your example hinges on comparing Kenny's action of attacking Jane out of mostly anger to a shark's action of attacking a person when it feels threatened. We expect don't expect sharks to be able to maintain control when being threatened, but we do expect humans to maintain control when they're angry. The fact that Kenny doesn't attack out of pure instinct meant that he had control over his actions at that point, meaning that he is still the one to blame for his actions. I can't possibly make this any more clear, Salt.
I'm starting to think that you're not actually reading my responses. I keep on telling you that I blame Jane for the fight, so how can you possibly now claim that I keep arguing that Kenny started the fight? So let me make this very clear. I think it's Jane's fault that the fight happened. Okay? Okay. Now, even though it's Jane's fault that the fight happens, because Kenny was the initial aggressor and attacked Jane first, according to the logic that you used to call Kenny lunging at Jane with a knife "self-defense," that means that anything Jane did afterwards can be seen as self defense. The flaw in your logic is that you think that in the sequence of events [Kenny attacks --> Jane attacks --> Kenny attacks], Kenny's second attack should be considered self-defense because it is proceeded by Jane's attack. But then Jane's attack should also be treated as self-defense because it is proceeded by Kenny's first attack. Which I don't think you want to agree with.
K.
And he should control and/or stop himself from protecting himself and Clementine from a person he considered extremely dangerous? I'm starting to think the same, actually. I already explained to you how my example is perfectly valid. You're saying that my example is irrelevant just because Kenny's anger was the biggest factor in the fight, ignore that fear, overprotectiveness, and his overall distrust towards Jane. Why would Kenny's ability to "Control himself" diminish the relevance of my example? Going by your logic, 99% of these examples would be complete garbage. More than judging my example, you're making this a comparison between human beings and animals. Including their capabilities. Come on, Dome. I know you're better than that.
Dome, you have repeatedly stated that Kenneth was the aggressor and the one who staryed the fight. Going as far as to take out a very questionable scene of the game where Jane is supposedly "Backing off" to probe your idea that he was the one who kept escalating the fight and attacking her. You see the thing is, doesn't that make your logic flawed as well? Now you say that Jane started the fight, but respond to me telling me that calling his actions self-defense is an abomination while trying to convince me that Jane was indeed just defending herself and "backed away" at moments throughout the fight... What's going on here, Dome? Seems like we both are in serious need of the same medicine.
P.S: Dammit, time to work. Look for my next response as soon as I get back.
Are you actually serious? You were the one who made the human animal comparison with your shark example. Either you're just backtracking or you don't understand your own example. Further still, your defense of Kenny's actions as being driven by "fear, overprotectiveness, and his overall distrust" can be applied to Jane as well. So is Kenny now like a badass swimming in a sea full of sharks because he attacked someone who saw him as a threat?
Quote me one time throughout this entire exchange in which I claimed that Kenny started the fight. Go on. I'll wait. And I'm telling you that calling someone lunging at someone else with a knife while they're on the ground "self-defense" is ridiculous. The person on the ground scurrying backwards from the person attacking them? How can that be seen as anything other than self defense?
Her looks are a mix of 15% lesbian 35% male and 40% monkey
Who is the one with ben?
Then what's the other 10%?
Shel and Lilly look so alike. o_O
#fknrektm8
Frustrated means angry.
That, I can agree with.
Your love for Bonnie is... um... very dedicated.
dUDE
Shel's a reused model of Lilly.
Satan.
Hey, lesbians can be beautiful.
Jane does look like a monkey though. Particularly when she 'seduces' Troy. Leave it to the idiot to have bad taste.
Are you purposely being illogical at this point? Of course I made the comparison, but any rational human being understand that a comparison between an animal and a person can only go so far. My example did it's job by proving that Kenny found himself in a shark-like situation. Instead of properly adressing it or "disproving" it, you're throwing silly arguments at me like "Sharks can't reason!" and claiming that my argument was irrelevant because of a simple technicality that will always exist. I mean, hello? It's like putting salt on your coffee and expecting it to taste like green tea. I can't believe I had to write this paragraph to slowly explain this to you as if you were a kid.
You want evidence, Domie? Fine.
"Jane put her knife away and told him not to approach her. He's the one who charged at her and tried to choke her against the wall. She only took out her knife and slashed at him when he charges at her yet again."
"Wouldn't that mean that Jane was justified in taking the knife out in the first place, as we saw that he charged at her and tried to choke her against the wall and then came at her again? Or do you not thing that Kenny came at her with the intention to kill?"
Now, everyone with a brain expects you to say this wasn't what you meant instead of admitting the truth, which is why I'm gonna use your own quote:
"In the future, it would be a good idea to make sure that the words you're communicating align with the meaning you intend for them to have, rather than leaving it up to the other person to just assume that you mean something you're not saying."
At first I thought you weren't reading my responses. Now, I believe you didn't read yours either.
Good night, my friend.
i kno right?
Kenny found himself in a "shark-like" situation? Because, what, like a shark, Kenny also feels fear? What is the relevance to that in determining his guilt? If you were trying to argue that Kenny can't be blamed for his action because he was acting out of instinct like a threatened shark, then that would at least be a cogent argument. Wrong, but cogent. But, no, it seems you just brought up the shark comparison for no apparent reason. You don't actually have an argument to go off of that comparison at all, do you?
Nowhere in those two quotes did I say that Kenny started the fight. I recounted how Kenny was the first one to physically attack the other person, which is an undeniable fact. The only way you could have construed my words to mean that Kenny started the fight is if you're equating being the first to physically attack as starting the fight...which is the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make.
I'm sitting here struggling to understand how someone can be so befuddled by their own logic. I don't mean to be rude, but is English your second language? Is that why we're having such difficulty understanding to each other? (You don't have to answer if you don't feel comfortable; I was just curious.)
Did you completely forget about the first half of this conversation? Nevermind. A more fitting question would be "Did you actually read it in the first place?" At first, I wasn't even comparing Kenny to a shark. I compared Jane to a human being literally committing suicide by swimming in a sea full of sharks. My comparison was directed towards Jane, not Kenny. (Ironic that you're talking about not understanding the English language or whatever. This is gold.) However, you once again misconstrued my words (Surprise!) and turned it into a Kenny-Sharks comparison. Good thing I still managed to make a great use of what you turned that into since it gave me an opportunity to adress a few other things regarding Kenny's behaviour. Now, in response to that rather childish statement of yours questioning whether my example had any true meaning behind it. Did you also forget that it was in response to you saying that Kenny had no logical reason to attack Jane? And my example was meant to prove that fear of a possible child murderer who has shown a vicious behavior in the past and the feeling of protecting Clementine from her were mora than rational reasons. I don't even know why I'm still arguing with you. You don't bother to read, and when you do, you try to twist my words around like a damn pretzel.
Just like I predicted, huh? And you're telling me that constantly stating that Kenny physically attacked her first can't be seen as you implying that he started the fight? Specially the way you worded those specific sentences. Just re-read that nicely written quote of yours, Dome.
Perhaps...I'm not sure. But I do know one thing, I'm not alone.
Not as much as I love Luke, I can tell you that. -casually sips water with a grin-
Jane is sorta pretty, but Molly is muuuuuuch, much better.
[30 minutes later]
...I...have no words.
Are you saying that Kenny's fear of Jane justifies his murder of her? Is that now your argument?
Again, only if you're equating being the first to physically attack someone during a fight as starting the fight, but that's only something that you did in your interpretation. So hilariously, it seem that all this time, you were only arguing against your own preconceived notion.
Wait, so English is, in fact, your second language? If so, that makes a lot of sense. I mean your grammar is fine for the most part. But it can take a really long time for people from foreign backgrounds to develop a strong grasp of the nuances and logical structure of the language. Sorry if it seems like I was being harsh on you, then.
I expected you to respond with this. Yet another reaponse you didn't read...
It wasn't my example at first, but didn't we come to terms that it turned into it once we started to discuss it? Haven't we been referring to it like that all along? I was reminding you that I didn't just throw this idea in your face as you seem to be implying that it came out of nowhere when it wasn't even my intial intention. Again... "It gave me a chance to adress a few other things about Kenny's behaviour." Didn't it become my example once I started to make an argument out of it and use to fortify my point? I'll say one thing, you're dodging any kind of coherence like a professional.
Twisting yet another sentence, are we? Never said such thing. He does have a rational reason to feel threatened by Jane which would force him to retaliate and attack her. The statement "It was perfectly okay for Kenny to put s knife through Jane's chest because he was scared" never came out of my mouth.
How so? How does the fact that your use of purposely confusing words to make yourself look smart lead to a bunch of logical gaps that seemingly demolish your own arguments? You can't confuse me because I have a very good vocabulary myself, but those two statements could have gone either way. Why shouldn't I be inclined to believe I'm right in believing you assumed Kenny started the fight based on those paragraphs which would indeed make me correct?
It's not, actually. Sorry if it seems like I'm not paying attention to your arguments or something like that. I never meant for you to feel ignored or overlooked. I'm not saying your points are not interesting, but repetitive, yes.
I think he was joking.
I Chang'd my mind, she's kinda hot.
Nope. Just Chang'ing!
What was your initial intention, then? This train of thought started when I said: "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." You responded to that with "It can be greater when that person knowingly went to swim in a sea full of sharks and told everyone "I'm a badass!"" How can your statement possibly be a response to mine unless you were using the "sea of sharks" as an analogy for Kenny? Were you trying to say that if a person knowing does something dangerous, they bear the major responsibility for the harm that then befalls them, regardless of whether that harm comes from a bunch of mindless animals or a human being? Because that opens up a can of worms that I really don't think you want to open.
You're referring to only the initial attack by Kenny then. Are you saying that Kenny was justified in his initially rushing at Jane and choking her against the wall because he was afraid of her? Because there's a major problem with that argument and that is that Kenny's fear is based off of a mere assumption about what Jane did to AJ. He had no evidence that she was a "child murderer" aside from his own mistrust of her, and so any action that he takes based off that assumption is unjustified. Attacking someone because you're afraid of them after assuming that they did something based on no evidence is not "a rational reason."
I, uh, don't think that sentence is saying what you want that sentence to be saying.
I want you to read the following three quotes taken from my posts preceding your accusation that I assumed Kenny started the fight:
Now you tell me. Why might it be unreasonable for you to assume that I was saying that Kenny started the fight?
Well, she's one of the few characters who don't have a weird looking feature. Like, Carley had a really weird looking neck in episode 3, Molly had sort of a weird face texture...
Bro, don't talk shit 'bout my beautiful blonde haired waifu's weird face textures.
There's the right smile...
And then there's the one that screams murderous psychopath...
I'm gonna get a lot a hate, but I agree Molly's texture made her skin look splotchy, and Carley had an unrealistically long neck.
You see, you keep bringing that comparison between a "bunch of mindless animals" and a human being. Wait, who said Sharks are mindless, anyway? You must not know a thing about Elasmobranchology. Dome...my example was meant to illustrate how regardless of whether a person is putting herself in a situation fo be devoured by walkers or get killed by an unstable man, they should be held responsible for their own death. Specially when that person had a chance to stop the brawl right before it became a fight to death. Instead, she went along with her plan because she thought she could take out an already wounded man who was also missing an eyeball. I don't even know what you're arguing for at this point. Any person who commits suicide (Whether directly or indirectly) is responsible for their own demise one way or the other. Dome, it's like I have to explain simple concepts like this one all the time and once I do you completely ignore it and jump on to another paragraph. Are you that desperate to disprove me?
I'm saying that Kenny was justified in retaliating. Choking her against the the wall was Kenny's decision, not mine. Since when does being justified for doing something make it completely right? Only in your quest to try to prove me wrong, huh? Take this example, my girlfriend just cheated on me with my bestfriend, ain't I justified in having some sort of negative reaction? Totally. Does it make it okay for me to beat her up or throw her off a rooftop? Debatable. I feel like a Middle School teacher right know.
That's what she said.
What affect does this have on those two short paragraphs I quoted you on? I have mentioned that you've seemed self-contradictory in a couple of times, but even if not, these examples have nothing to do with the fact that your previous statements can be read in many ways.
THANK YOU, FINALLY SOMEONE WHO AGREES WITH THAT.