I'd like for people to explain the moral justification for Kenny as to why he was ok for murdering an unconscious man. I've seen people justify it to themselves, I just want to know what that is.
The medical argument is flimsy cause as we all know, Kenny was a fisherman, not a CPR certified fisherman. Just a plain old run-of-the-mill fisherman. So, he didn't know how many people survive a heart attack, he jumped the gun far enough for a person to unjustly die.
I haven't heard one single good argument yet. So, my cold biased opinion is still that Kenny wanted Larry gone and used the "oh my god, he's dead" bait to cover up a homicide.
I don't want medical stats nor do I want the "Larry was simply dead" argument.
So you want an argument not based on logic? You want an emotional based argument just like most/all of the Pro-Larry ones?
I'd like for people to explain the moral justification for Kenny as to why he was ok for murdering an unconscious man. I've seen people just… moreify it to themselves, I just want to know what that is.
The medical argument is flimsy cause as we all know, Kenny was a fisherman, not a CPR certified fisherman. Just a plain old run-of-the-mill fisherman. So, he didn't know how many people survive a heart attack, he jumped the gun far enough for a person to unjustly die.
I haven't heard one single good argument yet. So, my cold biased opinion is still that Kenny wanted Larry gone and used the "oh my god, he's dead" bait to cover up a homicide.
Morally justified or justified? It was justified because the odds of him recovering are astronomically less than him dying. Him dying means they are then trapped in an enclosed area with a very large and muscular being who's now trying to eat their flesh. Is it sad? Of course, especially with his daughter and a child in the room, but it's better than the alternate, likely outcome of him popping up and taking a chunk out of either's neck. The moral argument can hardly be categorized as right or wrong, one way or the other, it just was. The event itself can be categorized as the correct course of actions because of statistics, probabilities, circumstances, etc.
The medical argument isn't flimsy. Anyone with mediocre understanding of the human body knows CPR has a laughable chance of helping, especially so when there is no ambulance coming to the rescue with trained medical professionals and an AED. I believe it's definitely not uncommon for someone to know a doctor, or to know an EMT, or to have taken a CPR class, or anything of the sort. I've had many cases of all three. So no, it's definitely not a loose based argument predicated on him knowing information a normal person wouldn't, it's actually quite the opposite.
If you say so. I'm not arguing one way or the other that he wanted him dead. I believe he had distaste for Larry, but that's as far as I would go. He may have killed him because he wanted him dead, but more importantly he was killed because he needed to be dead.
I'd like for people to explain the moral justification for Kenny as to why he was ok for murdering an unconscious man. I've seen people just… moreify it to themselves, I just want to know what that is.
The medical argument is flimsy cause as we all know, Kenny was a fisherman, not a CPR certified fisherman. Just a plain old run-of-the-mill fisherman. So, he didn't know how many people survive a heart attack, he jumped the gun far enough for a person to unjustly die.
I haven't heard one single good argument yet. So, my cold biased opinion is still that Kenny wanted Larry gone and used the "oh my god, he's dead" bait to cover up a homicide.
well of course you haven't heard a good argument, since by removing medical context, you're pretty much fabricating a situation where you can't even propose a good argument, as the only ground left to argue upon is emotionally and morally based, and as a result, in favor of your already biased viewpoint towards the subject
the arguments you are striving for are just as flimsy, if not more so, than the medical arguments you insist on casting aside
I'd like for people to explain the moral justification for Kenny as to why he was ok for murdering an unconscious man. I've seen people just… moreify it to themselves, I just want to know what that is.
The medical argument is flimsy cause as we all know, Kenny was a fisherman, not a CPR certified fisherman. Just a plain old run-of-the-mill fisherman. So, he didn't know how many people survive a heart attack, he jumped the gun far enough for a person to unjustly die.
I haven't heard one single good argument yet. So, my cold biased opinion is still that Kenny wanted Larry gone and used the "oh my god, he's dead" bait to cover up a homicide.
Larry wanted to smash Duck's head in on an assumption that he was bit.
Kenny assuming Larry was dead and smashing his head in is sort of ironic in the end
I thought you said no medical stats. And once again, CPR alone will not revive someone having a heart attack, it is a temporary fix until paramedics arrive.
what does that have to do with anything
Because, for someone who is so adamantly against every single character trait of Jane. You t… morealk a lot like her. That's all.
"Oh, God, he's stopped breathing!" - Lilly
"He's not dead! Lee, please, help me!" -Lily
Unconscious people breathe, dead people don't. He died. Yeah there's a CHANCE that CPR might work but he DIED and from what we know so far in what's written in the lore, the infection starts as soon as the person dies. btw CPR isn't as effective as movies make it seem.
Yes, a very big chance CPR would work. Recitation does work, especially for people who only momentarily stop breathing.
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a lifesaving technique useful in many emergencies, including heart attack or near drowning, in which someone's breathing or heartbeat has stopped. The American Heart Association recommends that everyone — untrained bystanders and medical personnel alike — begin CPR with chest compressions
I think he was mainly looking out for Lilly, Telltale took out the nicer things Larry would say in episode 1 and episode 2, the only bad thing Larry ever did was punch Lee to the ground because he thought Lee was a danger to the group... kind of like how Kenny and Jane felt about each other.
I mean I hated the guy. But, that never even factored into me thinking it was ok to murder him because I'd be able to get off "scott-free."
I figured if I helped him, things would've been different. We could start anew, water under the bridge.
I thought you said no medical stats. And once again, CPR alone will not revive someone having a heart attack, it is a temporary fix until paramedics arrive.
Stop picturing it as a medical recourse and seeing it as it is. Kenny killed a father. Killed a father by smashing his head in. Smashing his head in front of his daughter. In front of his daughter close enough to paint her face.
That's like me saying it was cool for Derek Vineyard to curb stomp that black guy in American History X. He killed a potential burglar very quick and painlessly. So, was it ok? Unless you're somewhat bigoted, everyone agrees it was wrong to tell the "filthy monkey" to bite down on a curb as he splits his head in two in front of his scared younger brother. That's how moral action works, it doesn't need calculated medical stats to understand how fucked up something is.
well of course you haven't heard a good argument, since by removing medical context, you're pretty much fabricating a situation where you ca… moren't even propose a good argument, as the only ground left to argue upon is emotionally and morally based, and as a result, in favor of your already biased viewpoint towards the subject
the arguments you are striving for are just as flimsy, if not more so, than the medical arguments you insist on casting aside
No it's not.
Stop picturing it as a medical recourse and seeing it as it is. Kenny killed a father. Killed a father by smashing his head … morein. Smashing his head in front of his daughter. In front of his daughter close enough to paint her face.
That's like me saying it was cool for Derek Vineyard to curb stomp that black guy in American History X. He killed a potential burglar very quick and painlessly. So, was it ok? Unless you're somewhat bigoted, everyone agrees it was wrong to tell the "filthy monkey" to bite down on a curb as he splits his head in two in front of his scared younger brother. That's how moral action works, it doesn't need calculated medical stats to understand how fucked up something is.
Yeah but Larry was already on the ground, most likely dead. Removing the medical part of him having a server heart attack changes the situation on weather or not its moral. Kenny didnt want to do it but its a bad situation. Its not like Larry was just being annoying in the meat locker so Kenny decided to kill him
No it's not.
Stop picturing it as a medical recourse and seeing it as it is. Kenny killed a father. Killed a father by smashing his head … morein. Smashing his head in front of his daughter. In front of his daughter close enough to paint her face.
That's like me saying it was cool for Derek Vineyard to curb stomp that black guy in American History X. He killed a potential burglar very quick and painlessly. So, was it ok? Unless you're somewhat bigoted, everyone agrees it was wrong to tell the "filthy monkey" to bite down on a curb as he splits his head in two in front of his scared younger brother. That's how moral action works, it doesn't need calculated medical stats to understand how fucked up something is.
Ok, so he smashed a "dead man's" face in front of his daughter close enough to paint her distraught face?
It's still a little fucked up, … moredon't you think? Or, do you have medical stats to disprove that Lilly had her father's brains caught in her hair?
You haven't answered my question, still.
It's still a little fucked up, don't you think? Or, do you have medical stats to disprove tha… moret Lilly had her father's brains caught in her hair?
Please stop beating around the preverbal bush and answer the question. Please.
You haven't answered my question, still.
It's still a little fucked up, don't you think? Or, do you have medical stats to disprove tha… moret Lilly had her father's brains caught in her hair?
Please stop beating around the preverbal bush and answer the question. Please.
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a lifesaving technique useful in many emergencies, including heart attack or near drowning, in which someone's breathing or heartbeat has stopped. The American Heart Association recommends that everyone — untrained bystanders and medical personnel alike — begin CPR with chest compressions.
Seeing as I cited similar snippets of information in a conversation with you, which you stated were medical stats, I'd assume you would hold yourself to the same standard.
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a lifesaving technique useful in many emergencies, including heart attack or near drowning, in which … moresomeone's breathing or heartbeat has stopped. The American Heart Association recommends that everyone — untrained bystanders and medical personnel alike — begin CPR with chest compressions.
Seeing as I cited similar snippets of information in a conversation with you, which you stated were medical stats, I'd assume you would hold yourself to the same standard.
I'm going by your definition of medical stats. I didn't feature/manipulate any statistics/numbers in my post, all I did was give the definition of a heart attack, explain the difference between drowning and a heart attack, as well as why CPR alone isn't sufficient to revive a heart attack victim. You are being selective/biased when it comes to factual information.
it wasn't morally right but it was necessary the odds were against larry you don't just get up from a heart attack after a couple of compressions and since we are on the topic of morals aren't you the guy who wanted aj to be left for dead and used as bait? what is moral about that? you are being a hypocrite if you think killing larry for survival is not moral but leaving the baby as bait for survival is moral
since we are on the topic of morals aren't you the guy who wanted aj to be left for dead and used as bait?
I was wondering when someone would ask that.
No, I said that I would use A.J. as a distraction to cover an escape if circumstances were dire enough, surrounded on all sides with nothing but the clothes on my back. I would, however, care for him but keep the thought in the back of my mind as insurance. I would never come to use it unless the circumstance itself were dire enough.
it wasn't morally right but it was necessary the odds were against larry you don't just get up from a heart attack after a couple of compres… moresions and since we are on the topic of morals aren't you the guy who wanted aj to be left for dead and used as bait? what is moral about that? you are being a hypocrite if you think killing larry for survival is not moral but leaving the baby as bait for survival is moral
I'm going to follow my own advice and walk away from whatever kind of an argument this has blossomed out to be.
I find it sad that I'm actually getting pulled into a debate about the difference of a text-book definition off of a medically certified website and a statistic pulled from wherever. If you wish to continue this extremely off-topic "argument" be my guest. You know it was wrong for Kenny to smash in Larry's head. Yet, here you are picking apart my every word and trying to distract from the question you have yet to answer.
Using medical stats no one knew during the time of Larry's death is a new level of straw grasping. Kenny had no idea only blank point blank people survive a heart attack. Neither did Lee or Lilly, so the only thing fueling their judgment at the time were either paranoia (Kenny) or hope (Lee and Lilly). Nothing else.
I'm going by your definition of medical stats. I didn't feature/manipulate any statistics/numbers in my post, all I did was give the definit… moreion of a heart attack, explain the difference between drowning and a heart attack, as well as why CPR alone isn't sufficient to revive a heart attack victim. You are being selective/biased when it comes to factual information.
This may be one of the most closed minded, single sided, ridiculous, obtuse arguments I've ever seen in this forum.
Stop picturing it as a medical recourse and seeing it as it is.
What do you mean as it is? As it was he had just had a heart attack. How can you possibly sit there and tell people not to focus on the entire premise of and reasoning for the situation??
He has an alien inside his heart that could burst out at any time and devour us all! But why do you think we should shoot him in the chest?
Kenny killed a father. Killed a father by smashing his head in. Smashing his head in front of his daughter. In front of his daughter close enough to paint her face.
Sad, traumatizing, necessary. We know.
I've never seen American History X so I can't comment on the rest, but I'm sure you've construed that point to your liking.
No it's not.
Stop picturing it as a medical recourse and seeing it as it is. Kenny killed a father. Killed a father by smashing his head … morein. Smashing his head in front of his daughter. In front of his daughter close enough to paint her face.
That's like me saying it was cool for Derek Vineyard to curb stomp that black guy in American History X. He killed a potential burglar very quick and painlessly. So, was it ok? Unless you're somewhat bigoted, everyone agrees it was wrong to tell the "filthy monkey" to bite down on a curb as he splits his head in two in front of his scared younger brother. That's how moral action works, it doesn't need calculated medical stats to understand how fucked up something is.
This may be one of the most closed minded, single sided, ridiculous, obtuse arguments I've ever seen in this forum
Because it doesn't favor your opinion? Or because you can't justify Kenny's extremely malicious and unnecessary action?
The rest of your post is just... wow.
I've never seen American History X so I can't comment on the rest, but I'm sure you've construed that point to your liking
Yes, you're right. I "construed" it to my liking, a movie you've never seen... Way to throw a way an argument about not assuming things when you directly assume things.
I'm done with this conversation. You can continue to "argue" your points to yourself.
This may be one of the most closed minded, single sided, ridiculous, obtuse arguments I've ever seen in this forum.
Stop picturing it … moreas a medical recourse and seeing it as it is.
What do you mean as it is? As it was he had just had a heart attack. How can you possibly sit there and tell people not to focus on the entire premise of and reasoning for the situation??
He has an alien inside his heart that could burst out at any time and devour us all! But why do you think we should shoot him in the chest?
Kenny killed a father. Killed a father by smashing his head in. Smashing his head in front of his daughter. In front of his daughter close enough to paint her face.
Sad, traumatizing, necessary. We know.
I've never seen American History X so I can't comment on the rest, but I'm sure you've construed that point to your liking.
When I first saw someone on this forum mention about using AJ as bait I was kinda shocked. It was something that never entered my mind til I read it here. I will say I wouldn't use him as "bait", however if I found myself cornered by walker's with no chance to get away, I could proably use AJ in that dire situation as a distraction so I could get away. Sure it's sacrificing him to save my own life, but If I didn't and just let the walker's kill me, they would just get AJ too and we're both lost. I know that would haunt me afterward's but in the world of a ZA, these kind of decision's would need to be made to survive and I'm not going to worry about the morality of it. I would just feel bad for AJ.
since we are on the topic of morals aren't you the guy who wanted aj to be left for dead and used as bait?
I was wondering when some… moreone would ask that.
No, I said that I would use A.J. as a distraction to cover an escape if circumstances were dire enough, surrounded on all sides with nothing but the clothes on my back. I would, however, care for him but keep the thought in the back of my mind as insurance. I would never come to use it unless the circumstance itself were dire enough.
People seem to misconstrue that a lot.
Because it doesn't favor your opinion? Or because you can't justify Kenny's extremely malicious and unnecessary action?
I love differing opinions. They just need to contain a few basics like common sense and can't negate integral things like, say, what actually fucking happened.
The rest of your post is just... wow.
As can be said for the entirety of your posts.
Yes, you're right. I "construed" it to my liking, a movie you've never seen... Way to throw a way an argument about not assuming things when you directly assume things.
I don't need to see the movie to understand your type of arguing and using a semi-applicaple scene from a movie, then construing it to aid your point when the intent of the original was only loosely (if at all) based on the point you're trying to commit it to. It's a weak and overused tactic, easy to spot.
I'm done with this conversation. You can continue to "argue" your points to yourself.
This may be one of the most closed minded, single sided, ridiculous, obtuse arguments I've ever seen in this forum
Because it doesn'… moret favor your opinion? Or because you can't justify Kenny's extremely malicious and unnecessary action?
The rest of your post is just... wow.
I've never seen American History X so I can't comment on the rest, but I'm sure you've construed that point to your liking
Yes, you're right. I "construed" it to my liking, a movie you've never seen... Way to throw a way an argument about not assuming things when you directly assume things.
I'm done with this conversation. You can continue to "argue" your points to yourself.
So why are you even ASKING this question in the first place when you already know the answer?
You're telling people to prove you wrong, when you removed any perspective that allows the situation to be seen as anything BUT wrong in the first place
It's a loaded question: when you isolate the situation entirely into moral standards and base it upon that singular concept, there's no way to prove it wrong in the first place, since the concept of morality itself objectively classifies the act as wrong, through and through, which pretty much makes the entire purpose of this thread moot, doesn't it?
No it's not.
Stop picturing it as a medical recourse and seeing it as it is. Kenny killed a father. Killed a father by smashing his head … morein. Smashing his head in front of his daughter. In front of his daughter close enough to paint her face.
That's like me saying it was cool for Derek Vineyard to curb stomp that black guy in American History X. He killed a potential burglar very quick and painlessly. So, was it ok? Unless you're somewhat bigoted, everyone agrees it was wrong to tell the "filthy monkey" to bite down on a curb as he splits his head in two in front of his scared younger brother. That's how moral action works, it doesn't need calculated medical stats to understand how fucked up something is.
That's exactly what it is. A weird fasciation with hearing your opinion validated by others I suppose?
This image is yellow and red. But if you forget about the red and assume, for all intents and purposes, that the red is no longer present then what is it?
So why are you even ASKING this question in the first place when you already know the answer?
You're telling people to prove you wrong, w… morehen you removed any perspective that allows the situation to be seen as anything BUT wrong in the first place
It's a loaded question: when you isolate the situation entirely into moral standards and base it upon that singular concept, there's no way to prove it wrong in the first place, since the concept of morality itself objectively classifies the act as wrong, through and through, which pretty much makes the entire purpose of this thread moot, doesn't it?
Lotta self-righteousness in this thread.
Far as I'm concerned, Kenny was right for killing Larry because it was pragmatic AND Larry was g… morearbage.
How many of you Larry-defenders were pissed when Kenny was abusing and beating a crippled boy within an inch of his life? Not many, I bet.
I've already answered your question in our previous conversation, I have no control over whether or not you choose to ignore it.
I'm not trying to start an argument. All I am pointing out is that in our previous conversation, you said that the information I utilized was "medical statistics". Because they were apparently "medical stats", you completely ignored that section of the post. Clearly they weren't, so I'm assuming that when you say medical stats, you don't want any factual medical information regarding heart attacks used. I then pointed out that you posted information in a similar fashion that I did, after you said you don't want any "medical stats"(at least your definition of them) to come into play, so it shows that you only deem the use of medical facts/information accurate and valid when it is you posting them. That is being selective/biased, which is why I replied to you in your thread in the first place.
I'm going to follow my own advice and walk away from whatever kind of an argument this has blossomed out to be.
I find it sad that I'm ac… moretually getting pulled into a debate about the difference of a text-book definition off of a medically certified website and a statistic pulled from wherever. If you wish to continue this extremely off-topic "argument" be my guest. You know it was wrong for Kenny to smash in Larry's head. Yet, here you are picking apart my every word and trying to distract from the question you have yet to answer.
Using medical stats no one knew during the time of Larry's death is a new level of straw grasping. Kenny had no idea only blank point blank people survive a heart attack. Neither did Lee or Lilly, so the only thing fueling their judgment at the time were either paranoia (Kenny) or hope (Lee and Lilly). Nothing else.
Anyway, I'm done with this conversation.
Fuck whats Morally right, Whats morally right about being an old racist asshole as my Lee described him and punching a man and leaving him for dead when he just risked his life for you to get pills for your heart condition.. If you recall he wanted to smash Duck's head in back in ep 1. I held that bitch back while Kenny did the deed, he had what was coming to him.
That's what we're talking about...
The morality of Larry and Lily backstabbing Lee? Oh yeah, we're talking about Kenny murdering an unconscious man in cold blood.
Stay on track.
It's ok. You can't talk sense into some of the Kenny fans. They believe, because Kenny (an experienced commercial fisherman) said Larry was dead. He was clinically dead.
Wow.... The same could be said for your hate for the guy. It's so funny. If it were Lee that did exactly what Kenny had done almost all of you would be defending him using the same arguments we are in defending Kenny.
Miracles happen
It's ok. You can't talk sense into some of the Kenny fans. They believe, because Kenny (an experienced commercial fi… moresherman) said Larry was dead. He was clinically dead.
It didn't matter if Larry got up and started doing the "Charleston." Kenny and a small sum of his extremely misguided fans would've thought he were dead all the same.
It can't be helped, just nod your head and move along I suppose...
Larry was a prick till the very end, but I liked Lilly, so my disdain for what Kenny did has more to do with her than her father. I won't excuse her murdering Doug/Carley and how she threatened Ben, but I still sort of sympathized with her. I think pressure from her dad made her so abrasive, and I kind of recall and interview where one of the writers said he was actually abusive towards her at one point, so yeah, Larry doesn't get any of my sympathy, but I was totally team Lilly in that situation. Also I really didn't want Clementine seeing Lee support that kind of violence, even if it was done to indirectly save her life.
Doesn't mean I don't like Kenny. I do. I don't think what he did was right, per se, but then again--what WOULD be the right thing to do, if you genuinely thought someone might turn and attack everyone in the vicinity, including an 8 year old girl? Honestly, we might as well condemn the entire cabin group for taking precaution with Clementine when she was bitten by a dog as well.
Oh wait, this entire forum already does do that. Never mind.
Comments
I'd like for people to explain the moral justification for Kenny as to why he was ok for murdering an unconscious man. I've seen people justify it to themselves, I just want to know what that is.
The medical argument is flimsy cause as we all know, Kenny was a fisherman, not a CPR certified fisherman. Just a plain old run-of-the-mill fisherman. So, he didn't know how many people survive a heart attack, he jumped the gun far enough for a person to unjustly die.
I haven't heard one single good argument yet. So, my cold biased opinion is still that Kenny wanted Larry gone and used the "oh my god, he's dead" bait to cover up a homicide.
Even if your brain is still alive you start turning. You cant call it murder if you know for certain he was alive and saveable.
Morally justified or justified? It was justified because the odds of him recovering are astronomically less than him dying. Him dying means they are then trapped in an enclosed area with a very large and muscular being who's now trying to eat their flesh. Is it sad? Of course, especially with his daughter and a child in the room, but it's better than the alternate, likely outcome of him popping up and taking a chunk out of either's neck. The moral argument can hardly be categorized as right or wrong, one way or the other, it just was. The event itself can be categorized as the correct course of actions because of statistics, probabilities, circumstances, etc.
The medical argument isn't flimsy. Anyone with mediocre understanding of the human body knows CPR has a laughable chance of helping, especially so when there is no ambulance coming to the rescue with trained medical professionals and an AED. I believe it's definitely not uncommon for someone to know a doctor, or to know an EMT, or to have taken a CPR class, or anything of the sort. I've had many cases of all three. So no, it's definitely not a loose based argument predicated on him knowing information a normal person wouldn't, it's actually quite the opposite.
If you say so. I'm not arguing one way or the other that he wanted him dead. I believe he had distaste for Larry, but that's as far as I would go. He may have killed him because he wanted him dead, but more importantly he was killed because he needed to be dead.
well of course you haven't heard a good argument, since by removing medical context, you're pretty much fabricating a situation where you can't even propose a good argument, as the only ground left to argue upon is emotionally and morally based, and as a result, in favor of your already biased viewpoint towards the subject
the arguments you are striving for are just as flimsy, if not more so, than the medical arguments you insist on casting aside
Poetic justice, not ironic.
I thought you said no medical stats. And once again, CPR alone will not revive someone having a heart attack, it is a temporary fix until paramedics arrive.
"keep it civil i guess."
I think he was mainly looking out for Lilly, Telltale took out the nicer things Larry would say in episode 1 and episode 2, the only bad thing Larry ever did was punch Lee to the ground because he thought Lee was a danger to the group... kind of like how Kenny and Jane felt about each other.
Tell me where I ever stated medical stats, please.
No it's not.
Stop picturing it as a medical recourse and seeing it as it is. Kenny killed a father. Killed a father by smashing his head in. Smashing his head in front of his daughter. In front of his daughter close enough to paint her face.
That's like me saying it was cool for Derek Vineyard to curb stomp that black guy in American History X. He killed a potential burglar very quick and painlessly. So, was it ok? Unless you're somewhat bigoted, everyone agrees it was wrong to tell the "filthy monkey" to bite down on a curb as he splits his head in two in front of his scared younger brother. That's how moral action works, it doesn't need calculated medical stats to understand how fucked up something is.
You cant say Kenny killed Larry because its not confirmed wether he was alive or dead.
Ok, so he smashed a "dead man's" face in front of his daughter close enough to paint her distraught face?
It's still a little fucked up, don't you think? Or, do you have medical stats to disprove that Lilly had her father's brains caught in her hair?
Yeah but Larry was already on the ground, most likely dead. Removing the medical part of him having a server heart attack changes the situation on weather or not its moral. Kenny didnt want to do it but its a bad situation. Its not like Larry was just being annoying in the meat locker so Kenny decided to kill him
Stop being so salty. Would you rather Larry have turned and eaten everyone?
You haven't answered my question, still.
Please stop beating around the preverbal bush and answer the question. Please.
Even if he turned ( which i think isn´t the case) he will probably start eating Lily , giving Kenny an chance for killing him with the saltlick
Yes its fucked up.
Not anymore fucked up than Larry turning and eating everyone tho.
You dont have medical stats to prove Lilly had Larry's brain in her hair either .-.
Wow.
Seeing as I cited similar snippets of information in a conversation with you, which you stated were medical stats, I'd assume you would hold yourself to the same standard.
Yes, because a clean-cut definition is the same thing as a statistic which can be manipulated.
Well that 8% survival rate from heart attacks has not increased in 30 years.
I'm going by your definition of medical stats. I didn't feature/manipulate any statistics/numbers in my post, all I did was give the definition of a heart attack, explain the difference between drowning and a heart attack, as well as why CPR alone isn't sufficient to revive a heart attack victim. You are being selective/biased when it comes to factual information.
it wasn't morally right but it was necessary the odds were against larry you don't just get up from a heart attack after a couple of compressions and since we are on the topic of morals aren't you the guy who wanted aj to be left for dead and used as bait? what is moral about that? you are being a hypocrite if you think killing larry for survival is not moral but leaving the baby as bait for survival is moral
I was wondering when someone would ask that.
No, I said that I would use A.J. as a distraction to cover an escape if circumstances were dire enough, surrounded on all sides with nothing but the clothes on my back. I would, however, care for him but keep the thought in the back of my mind as insurance. I would never come to use it unless the circumstance itself were dire enough.
People seem to misconstrue that a lot.
I'm going to follow my own advice and walk away from whatever kind of an argument this has blossomed out to be.
I find it sad that I'm actually getting pulled into a debate about the difference of a text-book definition off of a medically certified website and a statistic pulled from wherever. If you wish to continue this extremely off-topic "argument" be my guest. You know it was wrong for Kenny to smash in Larry's head. Yet, here you are picking apart my every word and trying to distract from the question you have yet to answer.
Using medical stats no one knew during the time of Larry's death is a new level of straw grasping. Kenny had no idea only blank point blank people survive a heart attack. Neither did Lee or Lilly, so the only thing fueling their judgment at the time were either paranoia (Kenny) or hope (Lee and Lilly). Nothing else.
Anyway, I'm done with this conversation.
This may be one of the most closed minded, single sided, ridiculous, obtuse arguments I've ever seen in this forum.
What do you mean as it is? As it was he had just had a heart attack. How can you possibly sit there and tell people not to focus on the entire premise of and reasoning for the situation??
He has an alien inside his heart that could burst out at any time and devour us all! But why do you think we should shoot him in the chest?
Sad, traumatizing, necessary. We know.
I've never seen American History X so I can't comment on the rest, but I'm sure you've construed that point to your liking.
Because it doesn't favor your opinion? Or because you can't justify Kenny's extremely malicious and unnecessary action?
The rest of your post is just... wow.
Yes, you're right. I "construed" it to my liking, a movie you've never seen... Way to throw a way an argument about not assuming things when you directly assume things.
I'm done with this conversation. You can continue to "argue" your points to yourself.
When I first saw someone on this forum mention about using AJ as bait I was kinda shocked. It was something that never entered my mind til I read it here. I will say I wouldn't use him as "bait", however if I found myself cornered by walker's with no chance to get away, I could proably use AJ in that dire situation as a distraction so I could get away. Sure it's sacrificing him to save my own life, but If I didn't and just let the walker's kill me, they would just get AJ too and we're both lost. I know that would haunt me afterward's but in the world of a ZA, these kind of decision's would need to be made to survive and I'm not going to worry about the morality of it. I would just feel bad for AJ.
I love differing opinions. They just need to contain a few basics like common sense and can't negate integral things like, say, what actually fucking happened.
As can be said for the entirety of your posts.
I don't need to see the movie to understand your type of arguing and using a semi-applicaple scene from a movie, then construing it to aid your point when the intent of the original was only loosely (if at all) based on the point you're trying to commit it to. It's a weak and overused tactic, easy to spot.
Toodles.
So why are you even ASKING this question in the first place when you already know the answer?
You're telling people to prove you wrong, when you removed any perspective that allows the situation to be seen as anything BUT wrong in the first place
It's a loaded question: when you isolate the situation entirely into moral standards and base it upon that singular concept, there's no way to prove it wrong in the first place, since the concept of morality itself objectively classifies the act as wrong, through and through, which pretty much makes the entire purpose of this thread moot, doesn't it?
That's exactly what it is. A weird fasciation with hearing your opinion validated by others I suppose?
This image is yellow and red. But if you forget about the red and assume, for all intents and purposes, that the red is no longer present then what is it?
Lotta self-righteousness in this thread.
Far as I'm concerned, Kenny was right for killing Larry because it was pragmatic AND Larry was garbage.
How many of you Larry-defenders were pissed when Kenny was abusing and beating a crippled boy within an inch of his life? Not many, I bet.
I defended Larry and Arvo.
(Arvo more so)
I've already answered your question in our previous conversation, I have no control over whether or not you choose to ignore it.
I'm not trying to start an argument. All I am pointing out is that in our previous conversation, you said that the information I utilized was "medical statistics". Because they were apparently "medical stats", you completely ignored that section of the post. Clearly they weren't, so I'm assuming that when you say medical stats, you don't want any factual medical information regarding heart attacks used. I then pointed out that you posted information in a similar fashion that I did, after you said you don't want any "medical stats"(at least your definition of them) to come into play, so it shows that you only deem the use of medical facts/information accurate and valid when it is you posting them. That is being selective/biased, which is why I replied to you in your thread in the first place.
Fuck whats Morally right, Whats morally right about being an old racist asshole as my Lee described him and punching a man and leaving him for dead when he just risked his life for you to get pills for your heart condition.. If you recall he wanted to smash Duck's head in back in ep 1. I held that bitch back while Kenny did the deed, he had what was coming to him.
Can't murder a guy who's already dead.
Not the same as duck. Duck was still alive, the person cleaning him said he hadn't been bitten. Larry had died. He was going to reanimate.
Wow.... The same could be said for your hate for the guy. It's so funny. If it were Lee that did exactly what Kenny had done almost all of you would be defending him using the same arguments we are in defending Kenny.
Larry was a prick till the very end, but I liked Lilly, so my disdain for what Kenny did has more to do with her than her father. I won't excuse her murdering Doug/Carley and how she threatened Ben, but I still sort of sympathized with her. I think pressure from her dad made her so abrasive, and I kind of recall and interview where one of the writers said he was actually abusive towards her at one point, so yeah, Larry doesn't get any of my sympathy, but I was totally team Lilly in that situation. Also I really didn't want Clementine seeing Lee support that kind of violence, even if it was done to indirectly save her life.
Doesn't mean I don't like Kenny. I do. I don't think what he did was right, per se, but then again--what WOULD be the right thing to do, if you genuinely thought someone might turn and attack everyone in the vicinity, including an 8 year old girl? Honestly, we might as well condemn the entire cabin group for taking precaution with Clementine when she was bitten by a dog as well.
Oh wait, this entire forum already does do that. Never mind.