Honestly this is all heresay anyway, Im sure some of these cold people if it really came down to it couldnt bring themselves to do this in real life and some of these bleeding hearts would end up abandoning it. In a real situation people would probably act very differently
Well the "definitely" option was to show that you'd do it without much consideration if placed in that circumstance. The "...but I'd hate myself" was to be more of the same, but the ramifications of doing that would cause much more distress. I.E. It'd be a lot harder for you to cope afterwards.
Those two are really the same, just the outcome and consequences are vastly different. One is you just kind of shrugging it off (amoral Darwinism), the other is you feeling awful (moral Darwinism).
I chose "Definitely without a doubt" however that's not the one I wanted to choose. What I would choose would be "if I had to sure" but the … moreonly reason I didn't choose that is because the second half of that option. I wouldn't hate my self just because of trying to survive. I already hate myself enough anyway. Just because you're thinking about survival doesn't mean you're a sick person. AJ does nothing for the group and is just a waste of time, supplies and is an alarm that draws walkers that follows you everywhere.
I don't care for AJ either, but leaving him won't be my first option. My first option would be to go find someone else to take him off my hands because I wouldn't be able to handle him in the sense that his whining would be annoying and will put my life at risk and just simply drive me insane. I will only sacrifice his life if it meant there was no way for me to get out. Consider it a last resort.
Honestly this is all heresay anyway, Im sure some of these cold people if it really came down to it couldnt bring themselves to do this in r… moreeal life and some of these bleeding hearts would end up abandoning it. In a real situation people would probably act very differently
Until AJ learns at least how to talk, run from danger, and perhaps use a gun, he is not helping neither Clementine, the group, nor himself. … moreI sort of feel bad for AJ however, because Rebecca and Alvin brought AJ into this shitty world, and AJ didn't make a choice. The moral is that do not give birth in an apocalypse, and if pregnant, use abortion pills to terminate the pregnancy immediately.
No but people who cant even see the other side of the argument kind of are mainly its because in a intense situation when you were cornered plenty of people would end up doing what they had to survive, its easy when people are sat behind a computer to go "Oh i'd just die and stay a hero" for most survivial instinct would kick in, people instinctively want to live its human nature, You'd regret it immensly but Im sure when it came down to it many people would save themselves first or at least wouldnt do what they hope they would.
This goes both ways of course Im sure no one would just chuck the baby at walkers and be fine and dandy.
A month or so ago I made a comment here on these forums exactly referencing this final MAS*H episode. A woman smotherd her baby in order to keep it quiet so the enemy soldiers wouldnt find them. Hawkeye's mind changed it to a chicken because he couldnt handle the reality of what happened. I think the point of the reference here is that people would be forced to do the unimaginable in order to survive.
There's a difference between talking about a videogame character and a legit real-life baby. When I first saw this thread's title I thought it would be a critique of baby characters in post apocalyptic settings, and if this had been the case I could understand where you're coming from.
But then I clicked on it and found it's only about how you would sociopathically take advantage of a child to feed to walkers as a 'last resort'.
I, personally, would keep AJ with me as a distraction in case of an emergency.
You admit and talk about this as if it would be a legitimate survival tactic actually to be used in a ZA. Based on your wording, you are no longer just talking about AJ alone but instead are talking about babies in general and how they should be treated in an apocalyptic scenario. That's where all this 'hate' you're getting is coming from. People don't give a fuck that you don't like AJ. They're attacking you because you are advocating and justifying child-murder.
AJ should be born in a place like Wellington, not in the wilderness infested with walkers. Also, since AJ is not my baby, I do not want to care for it. Period.
Dinosaurs became extinct, maybe the walkers are a hint that it's humans' turn. To reset the balance.
We had our chance, and evolution is simply taking back what is rightfully it's.
I always complain about AJ, but when it comes down to it, I'd do anything for that little sucker. I just hope season three won't be centered around him, although I'm pretty sure it will be.
All this "using a baby as a distraction" stuff has only come up just because some people want to defend a certain character's actions in the game. It's pretty absurd otherwise.
A month or so ago I made a comment here on these forums exactly referencing this final MAS*H episode. A woman smotherd her baby in order to… more keep it quiet so the enemy soldiers wouldnt find them. Hawkeye's mind changed it to a chicken because he couldnt handle the reality of what happened. I think the point of the reference here is that people would be forced to do the unimaginable in order to survive.
If I were smart enough, I wouldn't have taken responsibility for AJ in the first place because he's not my child and I don't want to even look at the baby for once.
It's nothing like planning to use it as bait. that's the extremest's who has abandoned any form of human compassion in order to be psychopath's and hide behind the term survivalist. I would even put AJ down first to save him from suffering rather than use as live bait.
Maybe one isnt much better than the other in the eye's of some people but it comes down to what is in your heart.
Not any more than, say, a parent letting another person's child die to save their own child. They're both doing it to avoid a negative outcome that they don't want to happen. They're both arguably even doing it for selfish reasons.
I'm glad I've found someone that feels the same way on the issue. It actually kind of disgusts me that so many people on this site defend the notion that 'the apocalypse has happened, therefore it's okay to do evil shit.'
All of your comments on this thread are pretty spot-on, actually so good for you.
but how can anyone be that twisted in the head
I've been listening to too much Cannibal Corpse. (I would post a pic of "Butchered at Birth," but I'd probably get banned).
First of all, we weren't talking about whether sacrificing a child to save your own life constituted an immoral act. We were talking about whether or not it constituted cowardice. And my response is that it's not if the person believes what they did to have been the right course of action.
But, sure, let's talk about it in terms of immorality. "Sacrificing a child to save your own life is wrong, period." I don't think this applies when refusing to sacrifice the child would still likely result in the child's death. If, for instance, Clementine is surrounded on all sides by walkers and the only way she can buy herself time to escape is by using AJ as bait, then if she fails to do that, both her and AJ will in all likelihood die. For a similar case with my parent/child example, let's say that as a parent, your child is dangling from a precipice and about to slip off. A smaller child is holding onto your child's leg, preventing your child from climbing up. You are far enough away from this situation that you cannot possibly help pull your child up. However, you have a gun with a single bullet in it. Is it either cowardly or immoral to shoot the other child to allow yours to climb to safety? I would say no to both.
The murkier case is when your decision influence which of two people live: you or the child; your child or another person's child. Personally, I don't think people are morally obligated to give up their lives for any other one life, especially if the person in question is still a child themselves, as is the case with Clem. I don't think there's anything special about babies that warrants valuing their lives above anyone else's. They're a human life, sure. But they're not anything more than that. And when weighing one human life that I have an attachment to vs another human life that I don't, it makes sense for the one that I am attached to to win out.
That's a different scenario entirely, and needs context in order to be considered immoral.
Sacrificing a child to save your own life is w… morerong, period. You don't need to elaborate more on the issue.
Your example on the other hand is incredibly vague, and needs a backstory in order for others to properly judge the situation.
I'm glad I've found someone that feels the same way on the issue. It actually kind of disgusts me that so many people on this site defend th… moree notion that 'the apocalypse has happened, therefore it's okay to do evil shit.'
All of your comments on this thread are pretty spot-on, actually so good for you.
Kenny seems to be a father-figure of Clementine. Well, maybe not, but I can treat Kenny as a survival partner, or a mentor, or even a fellow hunter. So if I could get him into his good side, then he can be an asset since he has the ability to survive. Also, Kenny only has one non-canon death in both seasons one and two. The only way for Kenny to die canonly is to shoot Kenny, which I would not do. A fight between people should be left uninterfered unless there is a plausible solution, but at that time, no one, except for that devil-minded Jane, know that AJ is still alive. Otherwise, I would have just shown AJ to them and then the fighting would cease immediately.
I'm glad I've found someone that feels the same way on the issue. It actually kind of disgusts me that so many people on this site defend th… moree notion that 'the apocalypse has happened, therefore it's okay to do evil shit.'
All of your comments on this thread are pretty spot-on, actually so good for you.
What on Earth makes you so special you think you can label someone as a selfish piece of shit? Selfish acts don't make someone a piece of shit. If it were so simple as a selfish act makes someone a selfish person then everyone would be selfish. You included. The line between right and wrong isn't black and white, it isn't even a line. It's a blob of grey inside a lighter grey blob with darker grey mixed in. Perhaps you think it is that simple; but to anyone who can contemplate even marginally above the lowest dominator can easy see that it simply isn't that simple. Simple.
Comments
His heart is disgustingly* set in stone.
YEAH!
MAH MAN!
Literally.
Irony at it's best, ladies and gentlemen.
Honestly this is all heresay anyway, Im sure some of these cold people if it really came down to it couldnt bring themselves to do this in real life and some of these bleeding hearts would end up abandoning it. In a real situation people would probably act very differently
It was a baby!
Relying on personal assumptions yet again are we?
You must be great with deductive reasoning.
Well the "definitely" option was to show that you'd do it without much consideration if placed in that circumstance. The "...but I'd hate myself" was to be more of the same, but the ramifications of doing that would cause much more distress. I.E. It'd be a lot harder for you to cope afterwards.
Those two are really the same, just the outcome and consequences are vastly different. One is you just kind of shrugging it off (amoral Darwinism), the other is you feeling awful (moral Darwinism).
Not wanting to abandoning a newborn to a terrible death makes you a bleeding heart?
that's just not practical. The world has to continue on and you need births for that.
Clem wouldnt. She'd still have Kenny.
No but people who cant even see the other side of the argument kind of are mainly its because in a intense situation when you were cornered plenty of people would end up doing what they had to survive, its easy when people are sat behind a computer to go "Oh i'd just die and stay a hero" for most survivial instinct would kick in, people instinctively want to live its human nature, You'd regret it immensly but Im sure when it came down to it many people would save themselves first or at least wouldnt do what they hope they would.
This goes both ways of course Im sure no one would just chuck the baby at walkers and be fine and dandy.
Dinosaurs became extinct, maybe the walkers are a hint that it's humans' turn. To reset the balance.
We had our chance, and evolution is simply taking back what is rightfully it's.
Sorry. Miswording. I meant leave Wellington with just Kenny.
A month or so ago I made a comment here on these forums exactly referencing this final MAS*H episode. A woman smotherd her baby in order to keep it quiet so the enemy soldiers wouldnt find them. Hawkeye's mind changed it to a chicken because he couldnt handle the reality of what happened. I think the point of the reference here is that people would be forced to do the unimaginable in order to survive.
You talk tough but in real life you would be the first to run away, trust me.
There's a difference between talking about a videogame character and a legit real-life baby. When I first saw this thread's title I thought it would be a critique of baby characters in post apocalyptic settings, and if this had been the case I could understand where you're coming from.
But then I clicked on it and found it's only about how you would sociopathically take advantage of a child to feed to walkers as a 'last resort'.
You admit and talk about this as if it would be a legitimate survival tactic actually to be used in a ZA. Based on your wording, you are no longer just talking about AJ alone but instead are talking about babies in general and how they should be treated in an apocalyptic scenario. That's where all this 'hate' you're getting is coming from. People don't give a fuck that you don't like AJ. They're attacking you because you are advocating and justifying child-murder.
AJ should be born in a place like Wellington, not in the wilderness infested with walkers. Also, since AJ is not my baby, I do not want to care for it. Period.
now im worried...
All this "using a baby as a distraction" stuff has only come up just because some people want to defend a certain character's actions in the game. It's pretty absurd otherwise.
I dont think thats the same as planning to use a child as bait.
If I type words of morality, I speak words of morality.
You don't know me. You don't know if I'll do something or not.
What was that? I couldn't hear you over your amorality.
If I were smart enough, I wouldn't have taken responsibility for AJ in the first place because he's not my child and I don't want to even look at the baby for once.
It's nothing like planning to use it as bait. that's the extremest's who has abandoned any form of human compassion in order to be psychopath's and hide behind the term survivalist. I would even put AJ down first to save him from suffering rather than use as live bait.
Maybe one isnt much better than the other in the eye's of some people but it comes down to what is in your heart.
Agreed
Can't say I'll miss him.
That's a different scenario entirely, and needs context in order to be considered immoral.
Sacrificing a child to save your own life is wrong, period. You don't need to elaborate more on the issue.
Your example on the other hand is incredibly vague, and needs a backstory in order for others to properly judge the situation.
I'm glad I've found someone that feels the same way on the issue. It actually kind of disgusts me that so many people on this site defend the notion that 'the apocalypse has happened, therefore it's okay to do evil shit.'
All of your comments on this thread are pretty spot-on, actually so good for you.
I listen to slam death metal all the god-damn time and I have better morals than you.
No excuses.
First of all, we weren't talking about whether sacrificing a child to save your own life constituted an immoral act. We were talking about whether or not it constituted cowardice. And my response is that it's not if the person believes what they did to have been the right course of action.
But, sure, let's talk about it in terms of immorality. "Sacrificing a child to save your own life is wrong, period." I don't think this applies when refusing to sacrifice the child would still likely result in the child's death. If, for instance, Clementine is surrounded on all sides by walkers and the only way she can buy herself time to escape is by using AJ as bait, then if she fails to do that, both her and AJ will in all likelihood die. For a similar case with my parent/child example, let's say that as a parent, your child is dangling from a precipice and about to slip off. A smaller child is holding onto your child's leg, preventing your child from climbing up. You are far enough away from this situation that you cannot possibly help pull your child up. However, you have a gun with a single bullet in it. Is it either cowardly or immoral to shoot the other child to allow yours to climb to safety? I would say no to both.
The murkier case is when your decision influence which of two people live: you or the child; your child or another person's child. Personally, I don't think people are morally obligated to give up their lives for any other one life, especially if the person in question is still a child themselves, as is the case with Clem. I don't think there's anything special about babies that warrants valuing their lives above anyone else's. They're a human life, sure. But they're not anything more than that. And when weighing one human life that I have an attachment to vs another human life that I don't, it makes sense for the one that I am attached to to win out.
Thank you.
My hope for this fandom is slowly decreasing.
I think you misunderstood me. Im saying Kenny is the liability.
Kenny seems to be a father-figure of Clementine. Well, maybe not, but I can treat Kenny as a survival partner, or a mentor, or even a fellow hunter. So if I could get him into his good side, then he can be an asset since he has the ability to survive. Also, Kenny only has one non-canon death in both seasons one and two. The only way for Kenny to die canonly is to shoot Kenny, which I would not do. A fight between people should be left uninterfered unless there is a plausible solution, but at that time, no one, except for that devil-minded Jane, know that AJ is still alive. Otherwise, I would have just shown AJ to them and then the fighting would cease immediately.
Oh how your ideals would change when people start eating each other and there is no one to admire your outstanding moral compass.
Oh how your ideals would change when people start eating each other and there is no one to admire your outstanding moral compass.
I don't need people to admire my moral compass. That's for me to do, not them.
You can't admire your moral compass when it gets you killed.
I'd rather die with dignity than a selfish piece of shit.
Jussayin.
What on Earth makes you so special you think you can label someone as a selfish piece of shit? Selfish acts don't make someone a piece of shit. If it were so simple as a selfish act makes someone a selfish person then everyone would be selfish. You included. The line between right and wrong isn't black and white, it isn't even a line. It's a blob of grey inside a lighter grey blob with darker grey mixed in. Perhaps you think it is that simple; but to anyone who can contemplate even marginally above the lowest dominator can easy see that it simply isn't that simple. Simple.