Oh please, **almost everyone **saved Carley because she was the woman, and he was a fat nerd, lol.
I think everyone can agree on that, let's be honest here.
I think the Carley/Doug choice was informed more by the amount of opportunities Telltale gave us to get to know Carley and not Doug. I felt already familiar with Carley at that point. I knew nothing of Doug.
Yes, If I saw someone taking a hatchet to a baby, and lopped its head off, yes I would be fine with murdering the person that lopped a baby's head off.
Your point is absolutely disgusting or just plain naive, because you are not seeing the full picture here.
Yeah, you're missing the point. No matter what Kenny believes, he is "knowingly and willingly" killing Jane. And you're cool with that. In f… moreact the desire to kill is so strong, it seems you can't even understand why someone wouldn't want to murder her. You are cool with murder in this scenario.
So even if Jane killed the baby for sport (reminder: she didn't), you're in that club here. You're in the group with the killers.
Easy Kenny is a giant piece of shit.Why would I want to save an out of control maniac who has a sick obsession with smashing faces. He is like a serial killer.
My morals are chilling? Only one of us opened this discussion being cool with murder and is now using an extreme example which didn't happen to justify that. Only one of us is being just fine and dandy with killing.
You don't understand why someone wouldn't want to prevent a murder. It didn't even occur to you.
Good god your sense of morals is chilling.
Yes, If I saw someone taking a hatchet to a baby, and lopped its head off, yes I would be fine… more with murdering the person that lopped a baby's head off.
Your point is absolutely disgusting or just plain naive, because you are not seeing the full picture here.
You mean you saved a woman who murdered a baby? That was the thought at the time.
At any point she could have stopped the conflict by saying she was just manipulating him and that the baby was fine.
Oh please, **almost everyone **saved Carley because she was the woman, and he was a fat nerd, lol.
I think everyone can agree on that, let's be honest here.
Easy Kenny is a giant piece of shit.Why would I want to save an out of control maniac who has a sick obsession with smashing faces. He is like a serial killer.
My morals are chilling? Only one of us opened this discussion being cool with murder and is now using an extreme example which didn't happen… more to justify that. Only one of us is being just fine and dandy with killing.
You don't understand why someone wouldn't want to prevent a murder. It didn't even occur to you.
Jane lived because she was my friend. Clem might have needed to be manipulated to see what kind of person Kenny was after he smashed Caver's face off but that was enough for me.
Yes, it was stupid she didn't do that. Nevertheless we have agreed that knowledge plays no role in the decision for exactly the reason you state in your post.
What we witness is a murder in progress and our actions prevent that murder. It's very simple. The other important piece of knowledge we don't have in that moment is whether Kenny will survive it. Given Clem survived a bullet seemingly miraculously and we could have shot Kenny anywhere, killing him was not an inevitability. Both his death and the fact that Jane didn't speak up about the baby say more about the writers funneling us into the ending than it says about either character.
Umm...by preventing murder you mean committing murder?
And no, that was a perfectly logical example because as WE BOTH stated, at the tim… moree, that is what was thought.
You know what could have prevented anyone from being murdered? Jane telling Kenny that the baby was not harmed and that she was manipulating him.
Jane lived because she was my friend. Clem might have needed to be manipulated to see what kind of person Kenny was after he smashed Caver's face off but that was enough for me.
I don't have to. No. I knew Carley much better and I imagine other did too. I didn't have the same issues you appear to about Doug being a "fat nerd" and that didn't even occur to me so, no, I'm guessing many others made the choice for the same reasons I did.
Yes, it was stupid she didn't do that. Nevertheless we have agreed that knowledge plays no role in the decision for exactly the reason you state in your post.
No, it was deliberate that she didn't tell Kenny the baby was unharmed, because she wanted Clem to side with her against Kenny, and since throughout the entire conflict, she still never said it, because she was perfectly fine with trying to kill Kenny.
it was far more than "stupid", it was incredibly sick. She was perfectly fine with letting Kenny believe she had just murdered a baby, so she could get Clem to side with her, or hope to kill Kenny.
And no, what we witness is a woman having killed a baby and a man attempting to kill her.
Yes, it was stupid she didn't do that. Nevertheless we have agreed that knowledge plays no role in the decision for exactly the reason you s… moretate in your post.
What we witness is a murder in progress and our actions prevent that murder. It's very simple. The other important piece of knowledge we don't have in that moment is whether Kenny will survive it. Given Clem survived a bullet seemingly miraculously and we could have shot Kenny anywhere, killing him was not an inevitability. Both his death and the fact that Jane didn't speak up about the baby say more about the writers funneling us into the ending than it says about either character.
No it was stupid and was going to lead to her death. It was too big a gamble for someone who had shown herself to be a survivor. So no, it just plain stupid. And yet not related to the topic because we've agreed we don't have that information at the time. It's completely irrelevant.
Yes, it was stupid she didn't do that. Nevertheless we have agreed that knowledge plays no role in the decision for exactly the reason you s… moretate in your post.
No, it was deliberate that she didn't tell Kenny the baby was unharmed, because she wanted Clem to side with her against Kenny, and since throughout the entire conflict, she still never said it, because she was perfectly fine with trying to kill Kenny.
it was far more than "stupid", it was incredibly sick. She was perfectly fine with letting Kenny believe she had just murdered a baby, so she could get Clem to side with her, or hope to kill Kenny.
And no, what we witness is a woman having killed a baby and a man attempting to kill her.
How is wasting time to smash a guy's face off when you could just shoot him and leave show that his heart is in the right place?
Why would the inhuman monster try to help Kenny until there was no choice but to have a confrontation. Kenny needed to go long before that. If your morals or the fact that you like Kenny is why you saved him I'm cool with that this is a game you save who want.
Mm I'm the opposite.
Though he was violent, his heart was in the right place and never strayed.
Jane was an inhuman monster on the insid… moree, but with a nice body on the outside.
So my morals told me he should live because he was a more moral man.
No it was stupid and was going to lead to her death. It was too big a gamble for someone who had shown herself to be a survivor. So no, it just plain stupid. And yet not related to the topic because we've agreed we don't have that information at the time. It's completely irrelevant.
You can't shrink the entire argument by labeling it "stupid".
Especially because it was DELIBERATE.
And if you agree that she would have done anything to survive than you would believe that she would have killed the baby to survive.
No it was stupid and was going to lead to her death. It was too big a gamble for someone who had shown herself to be a survivor. So no, it j… moreust plain stupid. And yet not related to the topic because we've agreed we don't have that information at the time. It's completely irrelevant.
Are you implying that Jane could have intervened before the walker killed Clem, because if so then you must be looking at a different image than I am. And immediately after the second image, Kenny was busy blaming Clem for what happens rather than thinking about how his yelling at a little girl for something that wasn't her fault might attract the mass of zombies surrounding them.
Did it ever accur to your fat skull that Kenny was far away from Clem on the ice incident because he had to chase an escaping enemy?
First of all, you should learn to make your points without insulting the other person. Second of all, the point was that in the aftermath of Clem falling into the ice, Jane's priority was taking care of Clem, Kenny's priority was taking his anger out on Arvo. That's just the fact of the situation. And it speaks to the nature of each character. Jane is an end-justifies-the-means thinker who does whatever she has to in order to preserve or conserve as many lives as she can. Kenny, while usually well-intentioned, acts in the moment based on his gut and doesn't think about who he's harming with his actions.
You wanna talk about saving people? Really?
Did it ever accur to your fat skull that Kenny was far away from Clem on the ice incident because he had to chase an escaping enemy?
Moving on from the baby info because it's irrelevant, you've brought it back around to killing=wrong and yet you still don't get why people might prevent a murder. So we've come full circle here.
No it was stupid and was going to lead to her death. It was too big a gamble for someone who had shown herself to be a survivor. So no, it j… moreust plain stupid. And yet not related to the topic because we've agreed we don't have that information at the time. It's completely irrelevant.
You can't shrink the entire argument by labeling it "stupid".
Especially because it was DELIBERATE.
And if you agree that she would have done anything to survive than you would believe that she would have killed the baby to survive.
Kenny went to "save" a person that was as good as dead, who he loved. Jane ran after a girl she just met died from walker ripping her throat off. You can hardly compare these two.
You wanna talk about saving people? Really?
Did it ever accur to your fat skull that Kenny was far away from Clem on the ice incident because he had to chase an escaping enemy?
Smashing the face of a senseless murderer? I don't mind.
As I stated in another post here;
If I saw a man lopping a baby's head off with a hatchet, I don't mind killing that someone kills that man and smashes his face in, would you?
Why would the inhuman monster deliberately manipulate Kenny into thinking that she killed a baby just so she could watch him explode to try and get Clem on her side? Because that is an "inhuman monster".
Why didn't she admit midfight that it was all a ruse and that the baby was fine? She could have prevented any murder. Because she wanted Kenny to think she had murdered a baby so she could have him go off and kill him or run away with Clem. But wait? If her endgame was to run away with Clem surely she would have had to leave the baby in the car to die so Clem wouldnt find it, find out she was lying, and go back to Kenny.
So she either WAS going to let the baby die, or wanted to kill Kenny.
How is wasting time to smash a guy's face off when you could just shoot him and leave show that his heart is in the right place?
Why would … morethe inhuman monster try to help Kenny until there was no choice but to have a confrontation. Kenny needed to go long before that. If your morals or the fact that you like Kenny is why you saved him I'm cool with that this is a game you save who want.
I don't think it's as clear-cut as this. With Arvo, Kenny was clearly the cruel, inhumane figure while Jane largely shows empathy for him. Yes, you might not have cared for him after his group tried to rob you, but you should still feel bad about treating another human being like Kenny treated Arvo.
While Jane is survival-minded, it's not just her survival that she looks out for. The whole reason she robs or threatens Arvo at all was because he had supplies that the group needed and she was afraid that he would find out where the others are and pose a threat to them. She gained literally nothing from confronting him. She did it because she wanted to help the group. And the times she advocated leaving someone behind was when trying to help them put the lives of others at risk.
So, no, I don't think you could say that Kenny vs Jane breaks down to morality vs survival. A closer breakdown might be deontological ethics vs consequentialism or intuitive reasoning vs logical reasoning.
It's not preventing a murder, it's witnessing a murder for a murder of a baby.
And here I made a pretty great point in another post: Why didn't she admit mid-fight that it was all a ruse and that the baby was fine? She could have prevented anyone dying.
Because she wanted Kenny to think she had murdered a baby so she could have him flip out on her and in turn kill him in front of Clem, putting her in the right in Clem's eyes
Or simply she just wanted to expose Kenny as a hothead so Clem would run away with her right? But wait if her endgame was to run away with Clem, exposing Kenny as a badguy, surely she would have had to leave the baby in the car to die. If she went and got the baby back Clem would clearly find out it was alive and Clem would go running back to Kenny.
So she either WAS going to let the baby die, and/or wanted to kill Kenny from the start.
Moving on from the baby info because it's irrelevant, you've brought it back around to killing=wrong and yet you still don't get why people might prevent a murder. So we've come full circle here.
It's not preventing a murder, it's witnessing a murder for a murder of a baby.
And here I made a pretty great point in another post: Why … moredidn't she admit mid-fight that it was all a ruse and that the baby was fine? She could have prevented anyone dying.
Because she wanted Kenny to think she had murdered a baby so she could have him flip out on her and in turn kill him in front of Clem, putting her in the right in Clem's eyes
* Or simply she just wanted to expose Kenny as a hothead so Clem would run away with her right? But wait if her endgame was to run away with Clem, exposing Kenny as a badguy, surely she would have had to leave the baby in the car to die. If she went and got the baby back Clem would clearly find out it was alive and Clem would go running back to Kenny.
So she either WAS going to let the baby die, and/or wanted to kill Kenny from the start.
Good point except I recall a moment after she left and Clem admits to robbing Arvo that Clem says something about how Clem only took the painkillers for the pregnant mom and Jane ran off with the rest of his supplies alone.
I don't think it's as clear-cut as this. With Arvo, Kenny was clearly the cruel, inhumane figure while Jane largely shows empathy for him. Y… morees, you might not have cared for him after his group tried to rob you, but you should still feel bad about treating another human being like Kenny treated Arvo.
While Jane is survival-minded, it's not just her survival that she looks out for. The whole reason she robs or threatens Arvo at all was because he had supplies that the group needed and she was afraid that he would find out where the others are and pose a threat to them. She gained literally nothing from confronting him. She did it because she wanted to help the group. And the times she advocated leaving someone behind was when trying to help them put the lives of others at risk.
So, no, I don't think you could say that Kenny vs Jane breaks down to morality vs survival. A closer breakdown might be deontological ethics vs consequentialism or intuitive reasoning vs logical reasoning.
I picked her because she is safer companion than Kenny and i wasnt going to go for suicide mission looking for Wellington. Kenny forcing my Clementine to north wasnt helping his situation either.
I get that she is one of those hardcore survivalist "faux-tough" persons, but why bother surviving if you have nothing to survive for? And when you sacrifice morality you're the same as an animal then. Might as well just eat a bullet. Kenny is pretty screwed up and temperamental but at least his heart is in the right place, and he's so screwed up because he lost his child, his wife, his girlfriend, and plenty of others. Meanwhile Jane didn't lose anyone, she willingly left them.
Who you are you to say whats the meaning of life? Heres a spoiler : there isnt. We have to decide ourselves what is meaningful to us and why keep going, so meaning of life is subjective. Another spoiler : we are animals, just more intelligent than other animals.
Jane lost her sister... What the hell are you talking about? Her sister was suicidal and she couldnt do anything to save her life. You might aswell argue that Kenny lost Katjaa willingly, because she shot her brains out next to him.
I believe that Clem was talking about how Jane took his gun, which she did but didn't actually keep. Even if you refused to take any of the stuff and give him his bag back, he still accuses you of stealing and Clem responds that Jane was the one who stole,not her. So she could only have been talking about the gun. I'm unsure what happened to the rest of the medicine (or what it even was), but Jane didn't seem to have it on her and had no use for it herself, since she wasn't injured.
Good point except I recall a moment after she left and Clem admits to robbing Arvo that Clem says something about how Clem only took the painkillers for the pregnant mom and Jane ran off with the rest of his supplies alone.
Wasting time to brutalize Carver when trying to escape shows a lack of control. I was for killing Carver but escaping was more important so just put a bullet in him.
Jane didn't manipulate Kenny into thinking she killed the baby he did that on his own. She said it was an accident Kenny couldn't take it so he decided she murdered the baby so he could have a reason to kill. Putting the baby in the car in a snowstorm where the wind ,snow, walkers and Kenny can't get to it was not to kill but to save the baby.
If she wanted Kenny dead she could have let the Russian kill him at he beginning of the episode.
Smashing the face of a senseless murderer? I don't mind.
As I stated in another post here;
If I saw a man lopping a baby's head off with… more a hatchet, I don't mind killing that someone kills that man and smashes his face in, would you?
Why would the inhuman monster deliberately manipulate Kenny into thinking that she killed a baby just so she could watch him explode to try and get Clem on her side? Because that is an "inhuman monster".
Why didn't she admit midfight that it was all a ruse and that the baby was fine? She could have prevented any murder. Because she wanted Kenny to think she had murdered a baby so she could have him go off and kill him or run away with Clem. But wait? If her endgame was to run away with Clem surely she would have had to leave the baby in the car to die so Clem wouldnt find it, find out she was lying, and go back to Kenny.
So she either WAS going to let the baby die, or wanted to kill Kenny.
I believe that Clem was talking about how Jane took his gun, which she did but didn't actually keep. Even if you refused to take any of the … morestuff and give him his bag back, he still accuses you of stealing and Clem responds that Jane was the one who stole,not her. So she could only have been talking about the gun. I'm unsure what happened to the rest of the medicine (or what it even was), but Jane didn't seem to have it on her and had no use for it herself, since she wasn't injured.
You don't actually see what happens to the bag after that, I don't think, but there was no indication that Jane took it when she left. Also, as I added above, even if you don't take the bag at all, Clem still tells Arvo that Jane was the one who stole from him, which means that she must have been referring to the gun.
I saved Jane cause i felt like Kenny took this one step too far
then the whole "the baby is not rly dead lol" thing happened and i regreted this so fucking much so i left her and now it's only Clem and AJ
Firstly, that's not an answer. Secondly, the reason it's NOT relevant is that you're speculating on motives based on information given after the choice in your topic is made. We have both agreed: we can only act on the information we have at the time. And so this is not relevant.
You know you're argument is deconstructing pretty fast, man...lmao.
How is it not relevant to everything we have argued, and this entire comment chain, and this whole original post?
Comments
Oh please, **almost everyone **saved Carley because she was the woman, and he was a fat nerd, lol.
I think everyone can agree on that, let's be honest here.
not a bit silly, it was VERY silly and its one of my main problems witg S2.
Good god your sense of morals is chilling.
Yes, If I saw someone taking a hatchet to a baby, and lopped its head off, yes I would be fine with murdering the person that lopped a baby's head off.
Your point is absolutely disgusting or just plain naive, because you are not seeing the full picture here.
Easy Kenny is a giant piece of shit.Why would I want to save an out of control maniac who has a sick obsession with smashing faces. He is like a serial killer.
I prevented a murder of an innocent
Woman and ended a poor man's suffering. I saved her because it was the right thing to do.
My morals are chilling? Only one of us opened this discussion being cool with murder and is now using an extreme example which didn't happen to justify that. Only one of us is being just fine and dandy with killing.
You don't understand why someone wouldn't want to prevent a murder. It didn't even occur to you.
You mean you saved a woman who murdered a baby? That was the thought at the time.
At any point she could have stopped the conflict by saying she was just manipulating him and that the baby was fine.
I don't agree with it. So lol, no I don't everyone can agree with it.
And so was she, but she was "sexy" so she got to live.
Umm...by preventing murder you mean committing murder?
And no, that was a perfectly logical example because as WE BOTH stated, at the time, that is what was thought.
You know what could have prevented anyone from being murdered? Jane telling Kenny that the baby was not harmed and that she was manipulating him.
You at least have to agree that that was the major reason why she was saved by most people though right?
Then you are naive, watch some youtube playtroughs, most of them admits to save Carler because she got boobs
Jane lived because she was my friend. Clem might have needed to be manipulated to see what kind of person Kenny was after he smashed Caver's face off but that was enough for me.
Yes, it was stupid she didn't do that. Nevertheless we have agreed that knowledge plays no role in the decision for exactly the reason you state in your post.
What we witness is a murder in progress and our actions prevent that murder. It's very simple. The other important piece of knowledge we don't have in that moment is whether Kenny will survive it. Given Clem survived a bullet seemingly miraculously and we could have shot Kenny anywhere, killing him was not an inevitability. Both his death and the fact that Jane didn't speak up about the baby say more about the writers funneling us into the ending than it says about either character.
I for one wasn't taking the game overly seriously during A New Day and just saved Carley for dat ass.
Mm I'm the opposite.
Though he was violent, his heart was in the right place and never strayed.
Jane was an inhuman monster on the inside, but with a nice body on the outside.
So my morals told me he should live because he was a more moral man.
I don't have to. No. I knew Carley much better and I imagine other did too. I didn't have the same issues you appear to about Doug being a "fat nerd" and that didn't even occur to me so, no, I'm guessing many others made the choice for the same reasons I did.
No, it was deliberate that she didn't tell Kenny the baby was unharmed, because she wanted Clem to side with her against Kenny, and since throughout the entire conflict, she still never said it, because she was perfectly fine with trying to kill Kenny.
it was far more than "stupid", it was incredibly sick. She was perfectly fine with letting Kenny believe she had just murdered a baby, so she could get Clem to side with her, or hope to kill Kenny.
And no, what we witness is a woman having killed a baby and a man attempting to kill her.
No it was stupid and was going to lead to her death. It was too big a gamble for someone who had shown herself to be a survivor. So no, it just plain stupid. And yet not related to the topic because we've agreed we don't have that information at the time. It's completely irrelevant.
Youtube does not equal all of humanity. Thankfully.
How is wasting time to smash a guy's face off when you could just shoot him and leave show that his heart is in the right place?
Why would the inhuman monster try to help Kenny until there was no choice but to have a confrontation. Kenny needed to go long before that. If your morals or the fact that you like Kenny is why you saved him I'm cool with that this is a game you save who want.
You can't shrink the entire argument by labeling it "stupid".
Especially because it was DELIBERATE.
And if you agree that she would have done anything to survive than you would believe that she would have killed the baby to survive.
Are you implying that Jane could have intervened before the walker killed Clem, because if so then you must be looking at a different image than I am. And immediately after the second image, Kenny was busy blaming Clem for what happens rather than thinking about how his yelling at a little girl for something that wasn't her fault might attract the mass of zombies surrounding them.
First of all, you should learn to make your points without insulting the other person. Second of all, the point was that in the aftermath of Clem falling into the ice, Jane's priority was taking care of Clem, Kenny's priority was taking his anger out on Arvo. That's just the fact of the situation. And it speaks to the nature of each character. Jane is an end-justifies-the-means thinker who does whatever she has to in order to preserve or conserve as many lives as she can. Kenny, while usually well-intentioned, acts in the moment based on his gut and doesn't think about who he's harming with his actions.
Moving on from the baby info because it's irrelevant, you've brought it back around to killing=wrong and yet you still don't get why people might prevent a murder. So we've come full circle here.
Both your guesses are way off, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Kenny went to "save" a person that was as good as dead, who he loved. Jane ran after a girl she just met died from walker ripping her throat off. You can hardly compare these two.
I saved Jane cause i felt like Kenny took this one step too far
then the whole "the baby is not rly dead lol" thing happened and i regreted this so fucking much so i left her and now it's only Clem and AJ
Smashing the face of a senseless murderer? I don't mind.
As I stated in another post here;
If I saw a man lopping a baby's head off with a hatchet, I don't mind killing that someone kills that man and smashes his face in, would you?
Why would the inhuman monster deliberately manipulate Kenny into thinking that she killed a baby just so she could watch him explode to try and get Clem on her side? Because that is an "inhuman monster".
Why didn't she admit midfight that it was all a ruse and that the baby was fine? She could have prevented any murder. Because she wanted Kenny to think she had murdered a baby so she could have him go off and kill him or run away with Clem. But wait? If her endgame was to run away with Clem surely she would have had to leave the baby in the car to die so Clem wouldnt find it, find out she was lying, and go back to Kenny.
So she either WAS going to let the baby die, or wanted to kill Kenny.
I don't think it's as clear-cut as this. With Arvo, Kenny was clearly the cruel, inhumane figure while Jane largely shows empathy for him. Yes, you might not have cared for him after his group tried to rob you, but you should still feel bad about treating another human being like Kenny treated Arvo.
While Jane is survival-minded, it's not just her survival that she looks out for. The whole reason she robs or threatens Arvo at all was because he had supplies that the group needed and she was afraid that he would find out where the others are and pose a threat to them. She gained literally nothing from confronting him. She did it because she wanted to help the group. And the times she advocated leaving someone behind was when trying to help them put the lives of others at risk.
So, no, I don't think you could say that Kenny vs Jane breaks down to morality vs survival. A closer breakdown might be deontological ethics vs consequentialism or intuitive reasoning vs logical reasoning.
It's not preventing a murder, it's witnessing a murder for a murder of a baby.
And here I made a pretty great point in another post: Why didn't she admit mid-fight that it was all a ruse and that the baby was fine? She could have prevented anyone dying.
Because she wanted Kenny to think she had murdered a baby so she could have him flip out on her and in turn kill him in front of Clem, putting her in the right in Clem's eyes
So she either WAS going to let the baby die, and/or wanted to kill Kenny from the start.
How is this relevant?
Good point except I recall a moment after she left and Clem admits to robbing Arvo that Clem says something about how Clem only took the painkillers for the pregnant mom and Jane ran off with the rest of his supplies alone.
I picked her because she is safer companion than Kenny and i wasnt going to go for suicide mission looking for Wellington. Kenny forcing my Clementine to north wasnt helping his situation either.
Who you are you to say whats the meaning of life? Heres a spoiler : there isnt. We have to decide ourselves what is meaningful to us and why keep going, so meaning of life is subjective. Another spoiler : we are animals, just more intelligent than other animals.
Jane lost her sister... What the hell are you talking about? Her sister was suicidal and she couldnt do anything to save her life. You might aswell argue that Kenny lost Katjaa willingly, because she shot her brains out next to him.
I believe that Clem was talking about how Jane took his gun, which she did but didn't actually keep. Even if you refused to take any of the stuff and give him his bag back, he still accuses you of stealing and Clem responds that Jane was the one who stole,not her. So she could only have been talking about the gun. I'm unsure what happened to the rest of the medicine (or what it even was), but Jane didn't seem to have it on her and had no use for it herself, since she wasn't injured.
Wasting time to brutalize Carver when trying to escape shows a lack of control. I was for killing Carver but escaping was more important so just put a bullet in him.
Jane didn't manipulate Kenny into thinking she killed the baby he did that on his own. She said it was an accident Kenny couldn't take it so he decided she murdered the baby so he could have a reason to kill. Putting the baby in the car in a snowstorm where the wind ,snow, walkers and Kenny can't get to it was not to kill but to save the baby.
If she wanted Kenny dead she could have let the Russian kill him at he beginning of the episode.
No I'm pretty sure it was that Clem only took the painkillers and she took the entire bag, and it was syringes, gauze, other medicines etc.
You don't actually see what happens to the bag after that, I don't think, but there was no indication that Jane took it when she left. Also, as I added above, even if you don't take the bag at all, Clem still tells Arvo that Jane was the one who stole from him, which means that she must have been referring to the gun.
You know you're argument is deconstructing pretty fast, man...lmao.
How is it not relevant to everything we have argued, and this entire comment chain, and this whole original post?
Why regret that decision? The situation was real to Kenny and that was his honest reaction to it.
Firstly, that's not an answer. Secondly, the reason it's NOT relevant is that you're speculating on motives based on information given after the choice in your topic is made. We have both agreed: we can only act on the information we have at the time. And so this is not relevant.
If you feel it is relevant, demonstrate that.