I keep wondering how it would have turned out with them if Mark hadn't received that injury. Maybe everything would have gone well. Until someone cut his finger or something.
Damn you dojo, I watched the whole video and it got me interested, then I clicked on another one made by this Vsauce guy, and this is what I'm doing instead of going to bed (1 AM here).
Actually Liked the St. Johns. As Tara Once said,
"He used the one skill he had to survive. Should we really be angry at him about that?"
Though I will openly admit, I killed both of them, and Laughed. No one pulls Clem's Hair. NO ONE.
Damn you dojo, I watched the whole video and it got me interested, then I clicked on another one made by this Vsauce guy, and this is what I'm doing instead of going to bed (1 AM here).
Hm, I guess I could be more understanding if they would not have a large cornfield surrounding their house and a cow, who gives them enough baking ingredients to produce a basket full of biscuits. Also they look so well-fed, those little gourmands.
Actually Liked the St. Johns. As Tara Once said,
"He used the one skill he had to survive. Should we really be angry at him about that?"
Though I will openly admit, I killed both of them, and Laughed. No one pulls Clem's Hair. NO ONE.
Right before when you can kill Danny, he says something along the lines of "If you kill, the meat gets tainted." and Lee replies "You're already tainted."
Hm, I guess I could be more understanding if they would not have a large cornfield surrounding their house and a cow, who gives them enough baking ingredients to produce a basket full of biscuits. Also they look so well-fed, those little gourmands.
Yes, that's what I assumed. I mean, they shouldn't resort to eating people unless it's really necessary to survive, not for cultivating their body fat.
If many other characters can be (and have been) excused of their transgressions because of the apocalypse and how hard it is to maintain one's humanity in such a world, there is really no reason the St. Johns can't also be given that same consideration. Or perhaps not excused, but to be evaluated a little deeper than being deemed monsters.
Some would say that internal struggle of retaining humanity ceases to matter when you begin harming people, and I would argue that implicates our entire group after the end of episode 2 where they steal the food. And yes, that applies even if you chose not to take it, because Lee and Clem nevertheless benefit from that food. I do not believe you can draw a line between indirectly hurting people and directly hurting people if in both cases you are doing it purely for your own benefit. When you knowingly do something that very well could harm others, you have sacrificed a part of your humanity for the sake of survival.
The only real difference between the two actions is the bloodiness of one over the other, but as many others have said when examining the survivalist characters of the story, after a while, you just kind of get used to the bloodiness and horror of the zombie apocalypse. If people like Shane can be said to be "ahead of the curve", why couldn't the St. Johns also be viewed in such a way? The rejection of human togetherness and a cold, logical focus on survival is something that can be said of many fan-favorite characters. What is the difference between the characters of the St. Johns and say, Kenny, who has become so attuned to the zombie apocalypse that he can reduce a man's face to bloody soup, and even flat out ask Clementine if she's lost her taste for that kind of depravity if she disapproves of him beating up a teenager?
"Kenny doesn't kill innocents", you say... nonsense, I say. There are no innocents in the zombie apocalypse, as many survivalist fans of this series will tell you. Either they all die out, or they live long enough to become what they despise. Even in season one early on, Kenny is also the kind of person who may not straight up kill an "innocent", in the sense that they did nothing wrong to our group, but he will sacrifice them or allow them to suffer more than they should to benefit himself. I am referring to Beatrice and Omid.
M'ask you all sumthin'... if the St. Johns were cannibalizing the Save Lots bandits, would you still think they were depraved and evil? If they only specifically targeted those that wronged them for food, would that still be morally bankrupt? Think about it for a second. We've all become accustomed to justifying coldblooded murder when it's someone who has wronged our main characters. "I want to shoot Arvo for what he did, and Mike too", for instance. Is it then really that much of a departure if the St. Johns were to then "put that meat to better use"? And if not, then it would seem cannibalism in and of itself is not the dividing line that separates men and monsters. So really, it comes down to "they wronged our group", which I would argue is not a strong foundation of morality.
........
Alright, I gotta go to school now, so I'm done with the bull. They're bastards, but I do think so too are a lot of characters in this story. It's what makes TWD so interesting. But I felt there needed to at least be some kind of defense in this defense thread, even if it is a load of crap. :P
Right before when you can kill Danny, he says something along the lines of "If you kill, the meat gets tainted." and Lee replies "You're already tainted."
Comments
Fucking glorious. This thread needs to be in a museum, lol. I was really expecting you to defend them too :P
I was expecting it to just say "They were hungry".
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qWAF9PgDg2c
Is it bad I'm kinda curious how human meat tastes?
They don't have a lot of redeeming qualities, do they?
I keep wondering how it would have turned out with them if Mark hadn't received that injury. Maybe everything would have gone well. Until someone cut his finger or something.
Actually Liked the St. Johns. As Tara Once said,
"He used the one skill he had to survive. Should we really be angry at him about that?"
Though I will openly admit, I killed both of them, and Laughed. No one pulls Clem's Hair. NO ONE.
Damn you dojo, I watched the whole video and it got me interested, then I clicked on another one made by this Vsauce guy, and this is what I'm doing instead of going to bed (1 AM here).
In their defense, that meat looked pretty damn tasty.
I actually envy Andy. I wish I got to feel what Clem's curly dark hair feels like
The meat gets tainted.
Hm, I guess I could be more understanding if they would not have a large cornfield surrounding their house and a cow, who gives them enough baking ingredients to produce a basket full of biscuits. Also they look so well-fed, those little gourmands.
Huh?
The moment you saw the bear trap, you know something's really going on.
Right before when you can kill Danny, he says something along the lines of "If you kill, the meat gets tainted." and Lee replies "You're already tainted."
True dat. XD At least Lee killed them or they might've come across Bob eventually...
They were well fed because they ate people BEFORE lee and the others arrived.
Then Lee comes in with a pitchfork
You're already tainted!
"But I'm the good guy! Tyreese, Help!"
"I won't."
Edited to say this because I originally posted something stupid, and there isn't a "Delete Reply" button.
Yes, that's what I assumed. I mean, they shouldn't resort to eating people unless it's really necessary to survive, not for cultivating their body fat.
Alright, guess it's up to me...
If many other characters can be (and have been) excused of their transgressions because of the apocalypse and how hard it is to maintain one's humanity in such a world, there is really no reason the St. Johns can't also be given that same consideration. Or perhaps not excused, but to be evaluated a little deeper than being deemed monsters.
Some would say that internal struggle of retaining humanity ceases to matter when you begin harming people, and I would argue that implicates our entire group after the end of episode 2 where they steal the food. And yes, that applies even if you chose not to take it, because Lee and Clem nevertheless benefit from that food. I do not believe you can draw a line between indirectly hurting people and directly hurting people if in both cases you are doing it purely for your own benefit. When you knowingly do something that very well could harm others, you have sacrificed a part of your humanity for the sake of survival.
The only real difference between the two actions is the bloodiness of one over the other, but as many others have said when examining the survivalist characters of the story, after a while, you just kind of get used to the bloodiness and horror of the zombie apocalypse. If people like Shane can be said to be "ahead of the curve", why couldn't the St. Johns also be viewed in such a way? The rejection of human togetherness and a cold, logical focus on survival is something that can be said of many fan-favorite characters. What is the difference between the characters of the St. Johns and say, Kenny, who has become so attuned to the zombie apocalypse that he can reduce a man's face to bloody soup, and even flat out ask Clementine if she's lost her taste for that kind of depravity if she disapproves of him beating up a teenager?
"Kenny doesn't kill innocents", you say... nonsense, I say. There are no innocents in the zombie apocalypse, as many survivalist fans of this series will tell you. Either they all die out, or they live long enough to become what they despise. Even in season one early on, Kenny is also the kind of person who may not straight up kill an "innocent", in the sense that they did nothing wrong to our group, but he will sacrifice them or allow them to suffer more than they should to benefit himself. I am referring to Beatrice and Omid.
M'ask you all sumthin'... if the St. Johns were cannibalizing the Save Lots bandits, would you still think they were depraved and evil? If they only specifically targeted those that wronged them for food, would that still be morally bankrupt? Think about it for a second. We've all become accustomed to justifying coldblooded murder when it's someone who has wronged our main characters. "I want to shoot Arvo for what he did, and Mike too", for instance. Is it then really that much of a departure if the St. Johns were to then "put that meat to better use"? And if not, then it would seem cannibalism in and of itself is not the dividing line that separates men and monsters. So really, it comes down to "they wronged our group", which I would argue is not a strong foundation of morality.
........
Alright, I gotta go to school now, so I'm done with the bull. They're bastards, but I do think so too are a lot of characters in this story. It's what makes TWD so interesting. But I felt there needed to at least be some kind of defense in this defense thread, even if it is a load of crap. :P
He was probably lying.
From what people who visited islands that see native people that used to practice it, it's pork. Why you think our DNA is simliar?
Oh thank god... This was just a joke. I honestly wasn't in the mood to argue with someone defending cannibalism.