I meant there is no point to continue conversation, because his arguments are so full of shit that i wont even bother replying. Besides, there is no point trying to reason with him.
All of season two was completely terrible imo, except for the ending.
I was so numb from all the lackluster and nonsensical plotlines/dialogue come ending time that I didn't even know which character I wanted to have survive the encounter. In the end, I shot Kenny simply because he was about to murder a woman in cold blood. You can't have that... and while I'll agree that the Kenny ending is the "better" ending, it's strange to me how Telltale would choose to reward you for becoming an accomplice to murder.
How come Clem is safer with Kenny? He almost made Clementine take a beating from Carver by forcing her to take the walkie talkie. His stubbo… morern behaviour caused the group to fall appart and Clementine got shot because of that. And he completely ignored Clementine when she was freezing to death after she fell under ice, because he was too busy beating Arvo for no reason.
It doesnt matter what we know about the fight between Jane and Kenny. From Kennys point of view, AJ died while Jane was taking care of him and he was ready to murder her because of that. Would any reasonable person try to murder someone else just because they believe they did something wrong? Killing someone is such a exreme and permanent thing to do, that you should be sure before you do it. I wouldnt want to be around person like that.
Theres a difference between choosing Kenny because "i like Kenny" and "I chose Kenny because he is safe to be around".
First statement is based on emotions, second is supposed to be rational/logical decision, which its not, because its been proven that Kenny isnt safe to be around. Even he admits that he doesnt trust himself to take care of you.
zykelator, I respect yours and each and every forum members opinion. I appreciate that you feel strongly enough for a character to defend th… moreem endlessly, but you need to change the record. You think Jane is the right person to be with right? Well then you can be with her. The game gives you that choice so what's the problem?
There have been countless times when I've disagreed with people on this forum but that doesn't mean I'm going to challenge them on it every chance I get. I believe in respect on these forums. We're all here for the same reason. Because we enjoy playing and discussing Telltale Games The Walking Dead.
All of season two was completely terrible imo, except for the ending.
I was so numb from all the lackluster and nonsensical plotlines/dia… morelogue come ending time that I didn't even know which character I wanted to have survive the encounter. In the end, I shot Kenny simply because he was about to murder a woman in cold blood. You can't have that... and while I'll agree that the Kenny ending is the "better" ending, it's strange to me how Telltale would choose to reward you for becoming an accomplice to murder.
She was ready to steal supplies for the group, very much like Kenny did in season 1.
If you steal from them, they will retaliate the robbery by trying to rob you. If you choose to let him go with everything, he will blame you for stealing the medicine he himself stole from his group. Its deteriminant.
And on you go... I've seen you say stuff like this 20 times, and gotten replies atleast 10 times in the same way I would deliver. I understand you believe what you think is the correct way. Now let us believe what we want, without bashing us.
Theres a difference between choosing Kenny because "i like Kenny" and "I chose Kenny because he is safe to be around".
First statement is b… moreased on emotions, second is supposed to be rational/logical decision, which its not, because its been proven that Kenny isnt safe to be around. Even he admits that he doesnt trust himself to take care of you.
I'm already disappointed in myself for getting involved in this never ending Kenny vs Jane debate. I respect your opinion because I like Jane too. But the way you go about things is all wrong. Almost all of your comments are in regards to the same thing. Let's just be done with this and talk about other things.
Theres a difference between choosing Kenny because "i like Kenny" and "I chose Kenny because he is safe to be around".
First statement is b… moreased on emotions, second is supposed to be rational/logical decision, which its not, because its been proven that Kenny isnt safe to be around. Even he admits that he doesnt trust himself to take care of you.
But shooting Kenny in that scenario is not murder.
MURDER
:the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Key word is "unlawful".. is there a legal justification in Kenny killing Jane? No. He's just mad at her and wants her to pay. That's classed as murder. Is there a legal justification in Clem killing Kenny? Yes, she's doing so in order to prevent the murder of someone else.
It's the same reason why, if you end up killing someone in self defense, it's classed as a lawful killing, not a murder.
You're opening a box filled with technicalities. It's no secret that I'm a Kenny loyalist, but if you want to argue that then you need to find out who mentions murderous intent first.
The answer is Jane, if we take all dialogue choices into consideration at the samer time; picking the right dialogue option will make her tell Clementine that it's time to kill Kenny, which is before he mentions any murderous intent. At that point Kenny is now fighting for his life, Jane has pulled a knife and already mentioned she intends to kill him.
They fight on and Kenny then mentions that he's going to kill her too so as I see it at that point it's a equal fight in terms of morality, both of them intends to kill the other. either none of them or both of them are defending themselves at that point.
Obviously I chose not to shoot because I know Kenny better, but I can in no way see that not shooting him is any more being a murder accomplice than shooting him is being direct murder.
But shooting Kenny in that scenario is not murder.
MURDER
:the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
… more
Key word is "unlawful".. is there a legal justification in Kenny killing Jane? No. He's just mad at her and wants her to pay. That's classed as murder. Is there a legal justification in Clem killing Kenny? Yes, she's doing so in order to prevent the murder of someone else.
It's the same reason why, if you end up killing someone in self defense, it's classed as a lawful killing, not a murder.
"I'm a Kenny loyalist" your bias clearly shines through.
I liked Kenny a lot.
I liked Jane a lot.
I like Jane a lot less so now, knowing that she manipulated Kenny into believing she killed the baby.
Would I still shoot Kenny in that scenario? Yes. Because it's still murder.
Would I shoot Jane if it were the other way around, and it were her trying to thrust a knife into the chest of someone she has pinned down? Yes. Because it's murder.
"shooting him is being direct murder."
Stop being biased for just a second.
That statement is 100% incorrect.
Clem killed in order to prevent a murder. You just said it yourself, they both wanted to murder each other.
Killing in order to prevent a murder is not murder. That is not a "technicality", that's how it works in a court of law.
You're opening a box filled with technicalities. It's no secret that I'm a Kenny loyalist, but if you want to argue that then you need to fi… morend out who mentions murderous intent first.
The answer is Jane, if we take all dialogue choices into consideration at the samer time; picking the right dialogue option will make her tell Clementine that it's time to kill Kenny, which is before he mentions any murderous intent. At that point Kenny is now fighting for his life, Jane has pulled a knife and already mentioned she intends to kill him.
They fight on and Kenny then mentions that he's going to kill her too so as I see it at that point it's a equal fight in terms of morality, both of them intends to kill the other. either none of them or both of them are defending themselves at that point.
Obviously I chose not to shoot because I know Kenny better, but I can in no way see that not shooting him is any more being a murder accomplice than shooting him is being direct murder.
I like Jane a lot less so now, knowing that she manipulated Kenny into believing she killed the baby. Would I still shoot Kenny in that scenario? Yes. Because it's still murder.Would I shoot Jane if it were the other way around, and it were her trying to thrust a knife into the chest of someone she has pinned down?
Look. That Kenny ended up taking the advantage does not mean Jane is a victim. You can say murder is evil either way, whatever floats your boat, but that Kenny ended up taking the advantage does not Jane is a victim.
"I'm a Kenny loyalist" your bias clearly shines through.
I liked Kenny a lot.
I liked Jane a lot.
I like Jane a lot less so now, knowing … morethat she manipulated Kenny into believing she killed the baby.
Would I still shoot Kenny in that scenario? Yes. Because it's still murder.
Would I shoot Jane if it were the other way around, and it were her trying to thrust a knife into the chest of someone she has pinned down? Yes. Because it's murder.
"shooting him is being direct murder."
Stop being biased for just a second.
That statement is 100% incorrect.
Clem killed in order to prevent a murder. You just said it yourself, they both wanted to murder each other.
Killing in order to prevent a murder is not murder. That is not a "technicality", that's how it works in a court of law.
"I'm a Kenny loyalist" your bias clearly shines through.
I liked Kenny a lot.
I liked Jane a lot.
I like Jane a lot less so now, knowing … morethat she manipulated Kenny into believing she killed the baby.
Would I still shoot Kenny in that scenario? Yes. Because it's still murder.
Would I shoot Jane if it were the other way around, and it were her trying to thrust a knife into the chest of someone she has pinned down? Yes. Because it's murder.
"shooting him is being direct murder."
Stop being biased for just a second.
That statement is 100% incorrect.
Clem killed in order to prevent a murder. You just said it yourself, they both wanted to murder each other.
Killing in order to prevent a murder is not murder. That is not a "technicality", that's how it works in a court of law.
Yeah, I kinda said it to be clear you know? You say it shines through like I'm trying to hide it O_o
And you have not countered my argument yet. I see them as equals which is why I see both choices as correct.
I've read it, you haven't really countered the argument either. Shooting him is still as much murder as not is being an accomplice to Jane's.
Also, please stop talking about "my bias" that I can admit I like Kenny more does not mean I'm blind to his criticism, so please stop feeling superior because of it.
Are you deliberately being thick?
MURDER=UNLAWFUL KILLING.
I don't know how many times I have to say this in order for you to wrap your he… moread around it.
Clementine does not UNLAWFULLY kill Kenny. Killing someone in order to prevent them from murdering someone is NOT murder, it is a LAWFUL KILLING.
Are you deliberately being thick?
MURDER=UNLAWFUL KILLING.
I don't know how many times I have to say this in order for you to wrap your head around it.
Clementine does not UNLAWFULLY kill Kenny. Killing someone in order to prevent them from murdering someone is NOT murder, it is a LAWFUL KILLING.
I've read it, you haven't really countered the argument either. Shooting him is still as much murder as not is being an accomplice to Jane's… more.
Also, please stop talking about "my bias" that I can admit I like Kenny more does not mean I'm blind to his criticism, so please stop feeling superior because of it.
Are you deliberately being thick?
MURDER=UNLAWFUL KILLING.
I don't know how many times I have to say this in order for you to wrap your he… moread around it.
Clementine does not UNLAWFULLY kill Kenny. Killing someone in order to prevent them from murdering someone is NOT murder, it is a LAWFUL KILLING.
Are you deliberately being thick? MURDER=UNLAWFUL KILLING. I don't know how many times I have to say this in order for you to wrap your head around it. Clementine does not UNLAWFULLY kill Kenny. Killing someone in order to prevent them from murdering someone is NOT murder, it is a LAWFUL KILLING.
Are you deliberately being thick?
MURDER=UNLAWFUL KILLING.
I don't know how many times I have to say this in order for you to wrap your he… moread around it.
Clementine does not UNLAWFULLY kill Kenny. Killing someone in order to prevent them from murdering someone is NOT murder, it is a LAWFUL KILLING.
Are you deliberately being thick? MURDER=UNLAWFUL KILLING. I don't know how many times I have to say this in order for you to wrap your head… more around it. Clementine does not UNLAWFULLY kill Kenny. Killing someone in order to prevent them from murdering someone is NOT murder, it is a LAWFUL KILLING.
What makes what Jane did LAWFUL?
Spoiler Alert: nothing.
I like Jane a lot less so now, knowing that she manipulated Kenny into believing she killed the baby. Would I still shoot Kenny in that scen… moreario? Yes. Because it's still murder.Would I shoot Jane if it were the other way around, and it were her trying to thrust a knife into the chest of someone she has pinned down?
Look. That Kenny ended up taking the advantage does not mean Jane is a victim. You can say murder is evil either way, whatever floats your boat, but that Kenny ended up taking the advantage does not Jane is a victim.
I'm trying to say that I view both choices as morally equal.
I seem to have been stumbling around a bit in the definitions, and I don't know if this is a language barrier (English is my fourth language) but I've always been told that murder is = killing, unlawful or not.
I looked up the definition on a online site in English and it seems you are right about it. I'll not edit my earlier posts though, since i learned something today. My language has two words with different definitions that both translate into "murder" you see.
I might require some more time to think about my position in this argument, but I'd like you you can further explain your view on the situation for me so I can understand it better.
And Hi zykelator, I have no wish to entertain you right now.
It's ridiculous really.
You try to look at a situation objectively, without giving preference to either character, and the first reply you get is "AS A KENNY LOYALIST" ...ugh
I'm trying to say that I view both choices as morally equal.
I seem to have been stumbling around a bit in the definitions, and I don't k… morenow if this is a language barrier (English is my fourth language) but I've always been told that murder is = killing, unlawful or not.
I looked up the definition on a online site in English and it seems you are right about it. I'll not edit my earlier posts though, since i learned something today. My language has two words with different definitions that both translate into "murder" you see.
I might require some more time to think about my position in this argument, but I'd like you you can further explain your view on the situation for me so I can understand it better.
And Hi zykelator, I have no wish to entertain you right now.
It's ridiculous really.
You try to look at a situation objectively, without giving preference to either character, and the first reply you get is "AS A KENNY LOYALIST" ...ugh
Sorry I thought you meant a "victim" as in a victim in the situation, as if she didn't "have it coming"
If you mean a victim of murder, t… morehen yes she is a victim. Why? Because he had her pinned down. She was subdued. He could have easily restrained her, especially since he is much bigger. But he decided to shove the knife through her chest, because he was mad, and he wanted her dead. He wanted revenge.
Malicious killing is the very premise of UNLWAFUL killing.
[mur-der]
noun
1.Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation
Sorry I thought you meant a "victim" as in a victim in the situation, as if she didn't "have it coming"
If you mean a victim of murder, then yes she is a victim. Why? Because he had her pinned down. She was subdued. He could have easily restrained her, especially since he is much bigger. But he decided to shove the knife through her chest, because he was mad, and he wanted her dead. He wanted revenge.
Malicious killing is the very premise of UNLWAFUL killing.
[mur-der]
noun
1.Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation
Sorry I thought you meant a "victim" as in a victim in the situation, as if she didn't "have it coming"
If you mean a victim of murder, t… morehen yes she is a victim. Why? Because he had her pinned down. She was subdued. He could have easily restrained her, especially since he is much bigger. But he decided to shove the knife through her chest, because he was mad, and he wanted her dead. He wanted revenge.
Malicious killing is the very premise of UNLWAFUL killing.
[mur-der]
noun
1.Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation
The only way Jane WOULDN'T have been classed as a victim of murder is if Kenny were acting in self defense.
Which is not the case because h… moree is the one who INITIATED the conflict (already with intent to murder) and he had her SUBDUED when he killed her.
If that is not murder I do not know what is.
Comments
Alan I followed a lot of your debates and you make so much sense lol
All of season two was completely terrible imo, except for the ending.
I was so numb from all the lackluster and nonsensical plotlines/dialogue come ending time that I didn't even know which character I wanted to have survive the encounter. In the end, I shot Kenny simply because he was about to murder a woman in cold blood. You can't have that... and while I'll agree that the Kenny ending is the "better" ending, it's strange to me how Telltale would choose to reward you for becoming an accomplice to murder.
Duuuude.... seriously? You're just looking for an argument by the looks of it. Getting reeeaaaaal tired of this shit. -_____-
Theres a difference between choosing Kenny because "i like Kenny" and "I chose Kenny because he is safe to be around".
First statement is based on emotions, second is supposed to be rational/logical decision, which its not, because its been proven that Kenny isnt safe to be around. Even he admits that he doesnt trust himself to take care of you.
That was...intended to be the joke...I guess it was a bit esoteric.
Theres another person who makes no sense.
Well, by the way you think there's not really a way to stay "clean." Either you become a accomplice or you murder Kenny yourself.
She was ready to steal supplies for the group, very much like Kenny did in season 1.
If you steal from them, they will retaliate the robbery by trying to rob you. If you choose to let him go with everything, he will blame you for stealing the medicine he himself stole from his group. Its deteriminant.
ps. Aj was safer inside the car than outside.
And on you go... I've seen you say stuff like this 20 times, and gotten replies atleast 10 times in the same way I would deliver. I understand you believe what you think is the correct way. Now let us believe what we want, without bashing us.
I'm already disappointed in myself for getting involved in this never ending Kenny vs Jane debate. I respect your opinion because I like Jane too. But the way you go about things is all wrong. Almost all of your comments are in regards to the same thing. Let's just be done with this and talk about other things.
I'll start. "How was your day?"
But shooting Kenny in that scenario is not murder.
MURDER
:the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Key word is "unlawful".. is there a legal justification in Kenny killing Jane? No. He's just mad at her and wants her to pay. That's classed as murder. Is there a legal justification in Clem killing Kenny? Yes, she's doing so in order to prevent the murder of someone else.
It's the same reason why, if you end up killing someone in self defense, it's classed as a lawful killing, not a murder.
facepalm...Would you STOP already??Please.....
You're opening a box filled with technicalities. It's no secret that I'm a Kenny loyalist, but if you want to argue that then you need to find out who mentions murderous intent first.
The answer is Jane, if we take all dialogue choices into consideration at the samer time; picking the right dialogue option will make her tell Clementine that it's time to kill Kenny, which is before he mentions any murderous intent. At that point Kenny is now fighting for his life, Jane has pulled a knife and already mentioned she intends to kill him.
They fight on and Kenny then mentions that he's going to kill her too so as I see it at that point it's a equal fight in terms of morality, both of them intends to kill the other. either none of them or both of them are defending themselves at that point.
Obviously I chose not to shoot because I know Kenny better, but I can in no way see that not shooting him is any more being a murder accomplice than shooting him is being direct murder.
"I'm a Kenny loyalist" your bias clearly shines through.
I liked Kenny a lot.
I liked Jane a lot.
I like Jane a lot less so now, knowing that she manipulated Kenny into believing she killed the baby.
Would I still shoot Kenny in that scenario? Yes. Because it's still murder.
Would I shoot Jane if it were the other way around, and it were her trying to thrust a knife into the chest of someone she has pinned down? Yes. Because it's murder.
"shooting him is being direct murder."
Stop being biased for just a second.
That statement is 100% incorrect.
Clem killed in order to prevent a murder. You just said it yourself, they both wanted to murder each other.
Killing in order to prevent a murder is not murder. That is not a "technicality", that's how it works in a court of law.
Look. That Kenny ended up taking the advantage does not mean Jane is a victim. You can say murder is evil either way, whatever floats your boat, but that Kenny ended up taking the advantage does not Jane is a victim.
Yeah, I kinda said it to be clear you know? You say it shines through like I'm trying to hide it O_o
And you have not countered my argument yet. I see them as equals which is why I see both choices as correct.
Read my edit.
I've read it, you haven't really countered the argument either. Shooting him is still as much murder as not is being an accomplice to Jane's.
Also, please stop talking about "my bias" that I can admit I like Kenny more does not mean I'm blind to his criticism, so please stop feeling superior because of it.
Isac are you kidding me? There is no law in the ZA...
Are you deliberately being thick?
MURDER=UNLAWFUL KILLING.
I don't know how many times I have to say this in order for you to wrap your head around it.
Clementine does not UNLAWFULLY kill Kenny. Killing someone in order to prevent them from murdering someone is NOT murder, it is a LAWFUL KILLING.
Isac there is no law in the ZA.. Zyke same goes to you.
Reasoning with some Kenny fans just wont work.
What makes what Jane did LAWFUL?
Spoiler Alert: nothing.
Isac there is no law in the ZA.
???
I never said Jane was a victim.
I said I would shoot her just like I did Kenny if it were the other way around.
I'm trying to say that I view both choices as morally equal.
I seem to have been stumbling around a bit in the definitions, and I don't know if this is a language barrier (English is my fourth language) but I've always been told that murder is = killing, unlawful or not.
I looked up the definition on a online site in English and it seems you are right about it. I'll not edit my earlier posts though, since i learned something today. My language has two words with different definitions that both translate into "murder" you see.
I might require some more time to think about my position in this argument, but I'd like you you can further explain your view on the situation for me so I can understand it better.
And Hi zykelator, I have no wish to entertain you right now.
By saying that what Kenny did is unlawful, you are saying that Jane is the victim the eyes of the law.
Sad to see this thread has become all about Kenny vs Jane.
..what the hell does that change???
Well, what did you expect?
It's ridiculous really.
You try to look at a situation objectively, without giving preference to either character, and the first reply you get is "AS A KENNY LOYALIST" ...ugh
Survival of Clementine has always been my priority, which i thought was pretty obvious. What is your priority?
Actually, you are far for looking at it objectively. You are kind of biased.
Really, really biased.
Okay, I am going to ask you this again:
I just thought people could just talk about the endings not go into all out war about who is better.
Sorry I thought you meant a "victim" as in a victim in the situation, as if she didn't "have it coming"
If you mean a victim of murder, then yes she is a victim. Why? Because he had her pinned down. She was subdued. He could have easily restrained her, especially since he is much bigger. But he decided to shove the knife through her chest, because he was mad, and he wanted her dead. He wanted revenge.
Malicious killing is the very premise of UNLWAFUL killing.
[mur-der]
noun
1.Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation