That's not true. First degree murder is what you're thinking of. First degree murder is a "premeditated" murder. That means intentional and thought out.
I never claimed that's what Clem did. I said she committed murder in the SECOND degree. Which has the definition I've given you multiple times.
So you decide what's a matter up for discussion based solely on your perception and understanding of the situation? Sure. Okay. I'm not disc… moreussing then. It was an accident. Murder is intentional. She knowingly pulled the trigger of a gun that previously fired only defective bullets, everyone makes mistakes. This was a small one at that.
I chose to cover for Clem, because at that point i needed her to help me to get back to my family. She was the only one who promised me to go there. So, in that moment I saw this choice as either I tell the full truth and we will be in trouble or I will cover for her and we will be on our way to junkyard asap. I chose the latter, because we can't change what hapenned in there anymore, every second counts and that guy was an asshole. Only reason he accepted to refund the batteries was because he was not able to kill Javier at first. Doesn't make it right to kill him, but risking my family for the full truth was not worth it from my perspective.
Subjective means it varies from a person to person, objective means it's true no matter what you believe in.
Morals are entirely subjective. So as emotions.
Humans consider some things wrong or right basing on how they feel about them.
You can't use scientific methods to prove something morally right or wrong.
Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany and its collaborators probably didn't see what they did as wrong either, but it still doesn't mean that they were right in what they did.
What if i think they were right in what they did? Am i wrong? If so, then how am i wrong?
Because we already went through this, i will link you this instead
I have already iterated it to you once before, so I don't find it necessary to go through it all again. However, there are objective moral v… morealues, meaning that there's a difference between right and wrong, which also concludes that there is objective rights and objective wrongs. Nevertheless, Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany and its collaborators probably didn't see what they did as wrong either, but it still doesn't mean that they were right in what they did.
The reason you'd call it murder is because it's one of the textbook definitions of murder. She should go to prison for it. If this were the … morewild west, in a town that cared about the law, Clementine WOULD hang.
This is the apocalypse. But communities like Prescott still aren't okay with people like Clementine murdering mostly innocent people for the hell of it.
Also, just because Javi CAN do worse, doesn't mean he always does. Clementine, regardless of ALL variables, is totally willing to murder, and then swiftly cover it up.
Eli not being an innocent lamb doesn't excuse his murder. He was kind of a dickhead, sure. But he still didn't deserve to die there. And Clementine murdered him.
To me it matters. The terminology that we use has a huge impact on how we think. And I think it's important to regard Clem as what she is. A stone cold murderer, who got away with her crimes.
Everyone is a murderer in the apocalypse, specially 4 years in. What's your point? I can't figure out if you're trying to make her look like some cold blooded murderer who just likes to kill people for the kicks or something, or if you're just being very technical about which terms people are using to describe what she did.
It was accidental, but it was still murder. Murder in the second degree has nothing to do with intentional or unintentional. Look at all th… moree other times I've described what second degree murder is. I'm not going to define it again, unless you have some sort of question about it. If so, shoot. But otherwise, Clementine is a murderer.
A stone cold murderer, who got away with her crimes.
Not really, since she either got a stern talking to from Tripp or spent the night with Javier in a kennel with a door that's not even locked.
She murdered an innocent man. She committed an unjustifiable murder. The only unjustifiable murder by any protagonists prior to Eli's death was the death of the senator Lee killed, and DETERMINATELY Ben. Even then, Ben's death was much more justifiable than Eli's. And when Clem does that, when Clem murders and doesn't care, it hurts me. My point is that she IS some cold blooded murderer. She doesn't kill for kicks, but she doesn't give a fuck that she murdered an innocent man.
And I am being very technical about which terms to use, because I think the terms we use are important, especially in this case. Where people are willing to forget about a straight up stone cold murder just because it's Clementine. People are letting the past blind them, and I just wanted to update the terms they use when doing so.
Everyone is a murderer in the apocalypse, specially 4 years in. What's your point? I can't figure out if you're trying to make her look like… more some cold blooded murderer who just likes to kill people for the kicks or something, or if you're just being very technical about which terms people are using to describe what she did.
A stone cold murderer, who got away with her crimes.
Not really, since she either got a stern talking to from Tripp or spent the night with Javier in a kennel with a door that's not even locked.
What.
Seriously? She clearly intended to pull the trigger on the fatal strike.
It was Eli's fault? Yeah, how dare he sit in front of C… morelementine as she threw her gun pointing tantrum. Eli was incapacitated, unable to do anything but watch in horror.
Oh, I see what you were trying to say all along now. I don't agree with you. She didn't "murdered Eli for the hell of it" and he certainly wasn't innocent. You seem to think Clem should be executed for what she did, and yet Eli, who just tried to kill her with a knife and would've succeeded if Javi wasn't there, was merely only a "dickhead". Got you. If you honestly think she did it on purpose then I don't have anything else to say to you. It's your opinion, and I gave mine above, I don't want to sound like a broken record, so.
The reason you'd call it murder is because it's one of the textbook definitions of murder. She should go to prison for it. If this were the … morewild west, in a town that cared about the law, Clementine WOULD hang.
This is the apocalypse. But communities like Prescott still aren't okay with people like Clementine murdering mostly innocent people for the hell of it.
Also, just because Javi CAN do worse, doesn't mean he always does. Clementine, regardless of ALL variables, is totally willing to murder, and then swiftly cover it up.
Eli not being an innocent lamb doesn't excuse his murder. He was kind of a dickhead, sure. But he still didn't deserve to die there. And Clementine murdered him.
To me it matters. The terminology that we use has a huge impact on how we think. And I think it's important to regard Clem as what she is. A stone cold murderer, who got away with her crimes.
He already tried to tell her that she was wrong, and she didn't listen. She firmly believed that she was duped, and nothing Eli was gonna say would have stopped her. They had already had a long discussion before the outburst.
Her finger did not "slip" three times. I don't know what you're even implying.
He didn't deserve an on the spot execution. He was incapacitated when he was killed. I know she didn't murder Eli for the hell of it. That's what I just said. Eli was only innocent in that at the time of his death, he was totally incapable of defending himself. He was not attacking Clem. That's what I mean when I say he was innocent. Not that he didn't do anything worth punishment, but that Clem murdered him once he was already dealt with.
I DON'T THINK SHE DID IT ON PURPOSE. LISTEN TO WHAT I'M SAYING. Murder doesn't have to be intentional. I've described second degree murder a million times at this point. If you don't understand what it is, look at all my other comments.
Oh, I see what you were trying to say all along now. I don't agree with you. She didn't "murdered Eli for the hell of it" and he certainly w… moreasn't innocent. You seem to think Clem should be executed for what she did, and yet Eli, who just tried to kill her with a knife and would've succeeded if Javi wasn't there, was merely only a "dickhead". Got you. If you honestly think she did it on purpose then I don't have anything else to say to you. It's your opinion, and I gave mine above, I don't want to sound like a broken record, so.
Fortunately, I'm not using scientific methods to prove a point. As a matter of fact, I'm not using scientific methods at all. Morals are not entirely subjective, they are not even subjective one bit.
If you think that what happened in Nazi Germany during 1941 to 1945 is right, then I really don't know what to say for you. And yes, you would in fact be wrong. How are you wrong? If the murder of 1.5 million children, which only represented about two-thirds of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe, if that somehow sits right in your conscience, then you might be worse off than I had originally thought. These were innocent bystanders who were murdered at the hands of Hitler's dictatorship. Why did you provide me with an address link to WordPress? Is that where your source of information comes from? I can already see illogical fallacies in the article, so there's no point in making reference to it as a legitimate source of information. Again, if morals are subjective, meaning to say that we determine our own morality, that would also mean we can subjectively have objective morals. It doesn't make any sense. The only logical conclusion is that there are in fact objective morals. You will not change it, and you will not change me believing it.
Subjective means it varies from a person to person, objective means it's true no matter what you believe in.
Morals are entirely subjecti… moreve. So as emotions.
Humans consider some things wrong or right basing on how they feel about them.
You can't use scientific methods to prove something morally right or wrong.
Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany and its collaborators probably didn't see what they did as wrong either, but it still doesn't mean that they were right in what they did.
What if i think they were right in what they did? Am i wrong? If so, then how am i wrong?
Because we already went through this, i will link you this instead
He already tried to tell her that she was wrong, and she didn't listen. She firmly believed that she was duped, and nothing Eli was gonna sa… morey would have stopped her. They had already had a long discussion before the outburst.
Her finger did not "slip" three times. I don't know what you're even implying.
If only it was, silence being a valid option that is. It's a complicated situation indeed. I personally had the most difficult time in making a decision here.
Yes, it's a complicated situation but unfortunately a decision needs to be made since silence isn't an option this time around.
Thanks for sharing your view, I understand your point.
You say he was an innocent person when he sold God knows how many faulty bullets to people (and probably got many killed) and then tries to kill a kid when she confronts him about it. The only reason he didn't kill her right there was because Javier intervened. Sure, he was unarmed when Clementine pulls the trigger but he was not innocent. I'm starting to think you and I have different definitions for certain words.
When she realizes what she's done, she is shocked and in disbelief for a few seconds. But because people start coming in, she gets herself together and survival instinct kicks in. She's been alone for years, relying only on herself, I'm guessing at this point putting emotions aside and thinking about her options is something that comes naturally to her. Which is what she did in that situation.
She murdered an innocent man. She committed an unjustifiable murder. The only unjustifiable murder by any protagonists prior to Eli's death … morewas the death of the senator Lee killed, and DETERMINATELY Ben. Even then, Ben's death was much more justifiable than Eli's. And when Clem does that, when Clem murders and doesn't care, it hurts me. My point is that she IS some cold blooded murderer. She doesn't kill for kicks, but she doesn't give a fuck that she murdered an innocent man.
And I am being very technical about which terms to use, because I think the terms we use are important, especially in this case. Where people are willing to forget about a straight up stone cold murder just because it's Clementine. People are letting the past blind them, and I just wanted to update the terms they use when doing so.
The first time she intentionally pulled the trigger to prove a point, and she did. After that, Eli pissed her off and while she was fired up, her finger slipped. I'm literally implying just that: it slipped. What BetterToSleep said works as well.
Honestly, her poor trigger discipline and Eli's dumbassery were to blame for the killing.
He already tried to tell her that she was wrong, and she didn't listen. She firmly believed that she was duped, and nothing Eli was gonna sa… morey would have stopped her. They had already had a long discussion before the outburst.
Her finger did not "slip" three times. I don't know what you're even implying.
Okay, we'll talk in different definitions. I'm talking in the real, tangible, well used definition, and you can talk in your made up fucking rules for all I care. I'm done explaining what the real definition of FUCKING MURDER is.
Again, he was still incapacitated. It's never okay to murder someone in the state he was in. Unless they're someone who is a constant, and direct threat to you. Eli was neither.
When she realizes what she's done, her first reaction is to put responsibility on Javi to cover up her murder. She did not care that he died.
You say he was an innocent person when he sold God knows how many faulty bullets to people (and probably got many killed) and then tries to … morekill a kid when she confronts him about it. The only reason he didn't kill her right there was because Javier intervened. Sure, he was unarmed when Clementine pulls the trigger but he was not innocent. I'm starting to think you and I have different definitions for certain words.
When she realizes what she's done, she is shocked and in disbelief for a few seconds. But because people start coming in, she gets herself together and survival instinct kicks in. She's been alone for years, relying only on herself, I'm guessing at this point putting emotions aside and thinking about her options is something that comes naturally to her. Which is what she did in that situation.
I didn't say he did. Clementine didn't intend to just execute him right there though. The way you're phrasing your comments sometimes seem to contradict what you say afterwards. "people like Clementine murdering mostly innocent people for the hell of it." How are you not saying that Clementine killed Eli for the hell of it when you just included her name in that example? And "Clementine is totally willing to murder". How is she willing if she didn't do it on purpose? Come on, which one is it?
He didn't deserve an on the spot execution. He was incapacitated when he was killed. I know she didn't murder Eli for the hell of it. That's… more what I just said. Eli was only innocent in that at the time of his death, he was totally incapable of defending himself. He was not attacking Clem. That's what I mean when I say he was innocent. Not that he didn't do anything worth punishment, but that Clem murdered him once he was already dealt with.
I DON'T THINK SHE DID IT ON PURPOSE. LISTEN TO WHAT I'M SAYING. Murder doesn't have to be intentional. I've described second degree murder a million times at this point. If you don't understand what it is, look at all my other comments.
Okay, we'll talk in different definitions. I'm talking in the real, tangible, well used definition, and you can talk in your made up fucking… more rules for all I care. I'm done explaining what the real definition of FUCKING MURDER is.
Again, he was still incapacitated. It's never okay to murder someone in the state he was in. Unless they're someone who is a constant, and direct threat to you. Eli was neither.
When she realizes what she's done, her first reaction is to put responsibility on Javi to cover up her murder. She did not care that he died.
Why did you provide me with an address link to WordPress? Is that where your source of information comes from? I can already see illogical fallacies in the article, so there's no point in making reference to it as a legitimate source of information.
No. I googled it and opened a random articled, because there is a lot of them. I picked the one that looked most detailed. And the article itself is something about discussed thousands of times and the facts they used are widely respected and accepted, i don't really see why would i even bother checking the source. I would check them if the information were doubtful.
then you might be worse off than I had originally thought
Key word - IF. Never said i actually think what Hitler did was right. I said IF i thought like that.
Again, if morals are subjective, meaning to say that we determine our own morality, that would also mean we can subjectively have objective morals. It doesn't make any sense.
It's not easy to consciously change your moral codex (maybe you can't even do it at all).
Definition of objective:
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Definition of subjective:
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Morality is heavily connected with emotions and opinions. Morality is subjective.
Overall, you really haven't tried too hard to prove morality is objective. You said you don't use scientific methods, then ranted about what a terrible person i am, and on the end, you said you're not open-minded.
Fortunately, I'm not using scientific methods to prove a point. As a matter of fact, I'm not using scientific methods at all. Morals are not… more entirely subjective, they are not even subjective one bit.
If you think that what happened in Nazi Germany during 1941 to 1945 is right, then I really don't know what to say for you. And yes, you would in fact be wrong. How are you wrong? If the murder of 1.5 million children, which only represented about two-thirds of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe, if that somehow sits right in your conscience, then you might be worse off than I had originally thought. These were innocent bystanders who were murdered at the hands of Hitler's dictatorship. Why did you provide me with an address link to WordPress? Is that where your source of information comes from? I can already see illogical fallacies in the article, so there's no point in making reference to it as a legitimate source of information… [view original content]
In which he preferred pulling a knife on a girl holding a gun that had bullets he claimed worked, rather than renegotiating an exchange of goods taking into account the bullets left.
Seriously, he actually struggles with Javier for a while considering he's doing so in front of the girl, holding a gun, with bullets he INSISTS work.
He already tried to tell her that she was wrong, and she didn't listen. She firmly believed that she was duped, and nothing Eli was gonna sa… morey would have stopped her. They had already had a long discussion before the outburst.
Her finger did not "slip" three times. I don't know what you're even implying.
Did I say she murdered for the hell of it? Well I'm gonna ask for some slack on that one. I've been dealing with mindless Clem fanboys for days, and I didn't sleep last night. Simply misspoke. Anyways, I gtg for now. I'll be back with some more arguments in a while.
He didn't deserve an on the spot execution.
I didn't say he did. Clementine didn't intend to just execute him right there though. Th… moree way you're phrasing your comments sometimes seem to contradict what you say afterwards. "people like Clementine murdering mostly innocent people for the hell of it." How are you not saying that Clementine killed Eli for the hell of it when you just included her name in that example? And "Clementine is totally willing to murder". How is she willing if she didn't do it on purpose? Come on, which one is it?
If you google "is morality subjective" you get this:
"The reason morality is subjective is because there is no common moral law that ALL people agree on. If objective moral codes existed like "murder is bad" than there would be no murderers. But there are murderers. The reason most societies outlaw murder is because it is for the logical salvation of the society."
Not saying Google is always right or anything, but if you straight out say i won't change your opinion, then what about countless threads and articles about it?
Fortunately, I'm not using scientific methods to prove a point. As a matter of fact, I'm not using scientific methods at all. Morals are not… more entirely subjective, they are not even subjective one bit.
If you think that what happened in Nazi Germany during 1941 to 1945 is right, then I really don't know what to say for you. And yes, you would in fact be wrong. How are you wrong? If the murder of 1.5 million children, which only represented about two-thirds of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe, if that somehow sits right in your conscience, then you might be worse off than I had originally thought. These were innocent bystanders who were murdered at the hands of Hitler's dictatorship. Why did you provide me with an address link to WordPress? Is that where your source of information comes from? I can already see illogical fallacies in the article, so there's no point in making reference to it as a legitimate source of information… [view original content]
Something that's widely respected and accepted doesn't constitute it as being right. I'm fully assured in what I believe, to the point that no amount of supposed evidence will change it. The reason being is because I have seen more than enough to believe what I already believe, and I have also seen more than enough to not believe what I already don't believe.
I never once said that you did. Didn't I use the word "if" as well?
The opportunity presents itself everyday for people to change their mind on how they view things, but it's entirely up to them to do it. In some cases, morality is closely associated with personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, because in those select few cases people based their perspective on how they feel instead of what is real. However, your undoing is to say that everyone conducts themselves in the same manner (not that you're saying that), or to say that just because some people do base their perspective on the various different things already mentioned, that morality is subjective now. What do I have to prove? Your argument is self-defeating, which renders it null and void. I'm not using scientific methods, I'm reasoning with you by means of logic. I don't know you well enough to say what kind of person you are, but what I do know is that I'm not a good person. I hold myself accountable to the same things that I would anyone else, like yourself. I never once said that I wasn't open-minded, if I'm remembering correctly. Now what I will say is that I'm not open-minded in this case scenario. When it comes to definitive truths, my mind will remain closed.
Why did you provide me with an address link to WordPress? Is that where your source of information comes from? I can already see illogical f… moreallacies in the article, so there's no point in making reference to it as a legitimate source of information.
No. I googled it and opened a random articled, because there is a lot of them. I picked the one that looked most detailed. And the article itself is something about discussed thousands of times and the facts they used are widely respected and accepted, i don't really see why would i even bother checking the source. I would check them if the information were doubtful.
then you might be worse off than I had originally thought
Key word - IF. Never said i actually think what Hitler did was right. I said IF i thought like that.
Again, if morals are subjective, meaning to say that we determine our own morality, that would also mean we can subjectively have objective morals. I… [view original content]
Countless threads and articles will still not change my mind. Objective morality can exist with a moral law giver. This would be to say that irrespective of the opinions of man, a moral law can still be enforced on humanity, for them to either believe or not, with a moral law giver coexisting who has established rights and wrongs. The opinion of man, whether to believe or not, is irrelevant at this point, because of what has already been established.
If you google "is morality subjective" you get this:
"The reason morality is subjective is because there is no common moral law that ALL … morepeople agree on. If objective moral codes existed like "murder is bad" than there would be no murderers. But there are murderers. The reason most societies outlaw murder is because it is for the logical salvation of the society."
Not saying Google is always right or anything, but if you straight out say i won't change your opinion, then what about countless threads and articles about it?
And I can't see why a good defense lawyer wouldn't argue her near death experience at the hands of his products we'd already seen not working would not indicate it wasn't a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life, which is also included in the definition of second hand murder. She fully believed, because of an incident minutes before the confrontation, the bullets in the gun would not fire. How would she demonstrate an obvious lack of concern for human life if she believed the bullets posed no threat?
This would not be considered as an assault which had death as reasonable outcome because she genuinely did not expect the gun to fire, just as it had failed to before, meaning there was no intent. Can't believe this argument has gone on for so long lol
Murder in the second degree, not manslaughter. Manslaughter is the entirely accidental killing of another person. 2nd degree murder is an as… moresault which had death as a reasonable outcome. Clementine committed murder, not manslaughter.
Just something I wanted to point out.
And yeah, I did that as well.
Something that's widely respected and accepted doesn't constitute it as being right.
Your very own statement proves morality is subjective.
Also, something that's widely unaccepted doesn't make it wrong either.
In some cases, morality is closely associated with personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, because in those select few cases people based their perspective on how they feel instead of what is real. However, your undoing is to say that everyone conducts themselves in the same manner (not that you're saying that), or to say that just because some people do base their perspective on the various different things already mentioned, that morality is subjective now. What do I have to prove? Your argument is self-defeating
Just because everyone's morality is based on feelings, tastes, opinions doesn't make it objective. It is still subjective. Because it's based on one's feelings, tastes and opinions.
When it comes to definitive truths, my mind will remain closed.
Are you talking about those 'definitive truths' that heavily vary from person to person?
Countless threads and articles will still not change my mind. Objective morality can exist with a moral law giver. This would be to say that… more irrespective of the opinions of man, a moral law can still be enforced on humanity, for them to either believe or not, with a moral law giver coexisting who has established rights and wrongs. The opinion of man, whether to believe or not, is irrelevant at this point, because of what has already been established.
Well, that's fine, but I think some people are letting the "Clem fanboys" cloud their judgment a bit too much lately.
I know what second degree murder is but that's not even the point anymore. It's not about the term, it's about how you are throwing around the word "murder" in your comments that is bothering me. You say you think she didn't do it on purpose but the way you phrase certain things gives me the impression that you think she fully meant to murder him and that she's a vicious killer for doing it.
Yes, it was murder, if you want to get technical about it, but as I see it, it's the circumstances that matter when making the choice between covering for Clementine or tell the truth. I think everyone knows killing Eli was wrong but that it was unintentional. The question here is how you choose to deal with it. I just don't agree that, in that situation, it was justified to tell the truth and risk having her locked up for days or worse, when Javier needed her. Simple as that. It was also a situation of "what would people gain from knowing the truth?" Nothing. It was done. It was wrong but what's the point in dwelling on it? Unless you think justice is important. But that's not how I play games that are set in the apocalypse. But that's just me.
Did I say she murdered for the hell of it? Well I'm gonna ask for some slack on that one. I've been dealing with mindless Clem fanboys for d… moreays, and I didn't sleep last night. Simply misspoke. Anyways, I gtg for now. I'll be back with some more arguments in a while.
I don't think she did it on purpose, but I do think there's a distinction between manslaughter and second degree murder for a reason. She still is a murderer.
I think the thing gained from knowing the truth is that they knew the truth. I don't like lies and misinformation under any circumstance. Besides, it's unreasonable to think that nobody at Prescott knew the way to the junkyard nearby, especially with the meta knowledge we have of TTG, which is that their choices impact almost nothing. So I knew Javi could get there regardless. And I do think justice is somewhat important. The game can't just pass off casual murder, and be like, "oh well, you love Clem anyways, who cares?" I think that's the most offensive part to me. That TTG just expects to love Clem no matter what she does. And it pisses me off that for most people, TTG's right.
Well, that's fine, but I think some people are letting the "Clem fanboys" cloud their judgment a bit too much lately.
I know what second … moredegree murder is but that's not even the point anymore. It's not about the term, it's about how you are throwing around the word "murder" in your comments that is bothering me. You say you think she didn't do it on purpose but the way you phrase certain things gives me the impression that you think she fully meant to murder him and that she's a vicious killer for doing it.
Yes, it was murder, if you want to get technical about it, but as I see it, it's the circumstances that matter when making the choice between covering for Clementine or tell the truth. I think everyone knows killing Eli was wrong but that it was unintentional. The question here is how you choose to deal with it. I just don't agree that, in that situation, it was justified to tell the truth and risk having her locked up for days or wo… [view original content]
I told the truth because i can't lie about something that happened like that. plus, the truth always comes out eventually, so if i lied and then it was revealed i lied, then that's a bad thing to happen in terms of being trusted.
Like a lot of users said, 95% of players probably thought it was an accident because she didn't know that there was real bullets in the gun. So it was an accident to them and given her pleading to Javier, 95% of people weren't going to tell them the truth.
In which he preferred pulling a knife on a girl holding a gun that had bullets he claimed worked, rather than renegotiating an exchange of g… moreoods taking into account the bullets left.
Seriously, he actually struggles with Javier for a while considering he's doing so in front of the girl, holding a gun, with bullets he INSISTS work.
That's not a defense. He was helpless by the time Clementine had started pulling the trigger, and he remained helpless until the moment he died. Eli was guilty of some things, too, but he was already dealt with by the time Clementine decided to point her gun at him. There was no reason to continue the violence, yet Clem did anyways, to make a point. And that point cost Eli his life.
Clem knows enough about weapons to know what a misfiring bullet is. It's unreasonable for her not to. And it's unreasonable for her to think that they had a 100% misfire rate.
And I can't see why a good defense lawyer wouldn't argue her near death experience at the hands of his products we'd already seen not workin… moreg would not indicate it wasn't a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life, which is also included in the definition of second hand murder. She fully believed, because of an incident minutes before the confrontation, the bullets in the gun would not fire. How would she demonstrate an obvious lack of concern for human life if she believed the bullets posed no threat?
This would not be considered as an assault which had death as reasonable outcome because she genuinely did not expect the gun to fire, just as it had failed to before, meaning there was no intent. Can't believe this argument has gone on for so long lol
I don't think she did it on purpose, but I do think there's a distinction between manslaughter and second degree murder for a reason.
I didn't say there wasn't. But we stopped talking about what those terms mean long ago and we were discussing something else now.
Besides, it's unreasonable to think that nobody at Prescott knew the way to the junkyard nearby, especially with the meta knowledge we have of TTG, which is that their choices impact almost nothing. So I knew Javi could get there regardless.
Well, that's just assumptions from your part. Javier doesn't know those people, and Clementine even said before "the people on the other hand, are not my favorite". Why should he believe anyone would be willing to help him? Specially when he was just involved in a shooting? Would he really risk that? I like to think he wouldn't. And we're talking about making decisions based on what Javier would think, not the player. Obviously we knew the plot would advance regardless what choice we made. That's not the point though.
The game can't just pass off casual murder, and be like, "oh well, you love Clem anyways, who cares?" I think that's the most offensive part to me. That TTG just expects to love Clem no matter what she does. And it pisses me off that for most people, TTG's right.
But it's not always about "loving Clem and wanting to side with her". Some people actually have genuine reasons to choose the options that are in favor of her. I like Clem, but I made that decision not only thinking about her but also thinking about what would Javi do in that situation. Or at least "my Javi". And I don't think Telltale expects people to do that, if anything I think they are trying to make these decisions tougher for people who like Clementine by making her do bad things and being reckless, but it's obviously not working. But they give players plenty of options to call her out on things she does/says and not side with her at all so I don't see what's the problem.
I don't think she did it on purpose, but I do think there's a distinction between manslaughter and second degree murder for a reason. She st… moreill is a murderer.
I think the thing gained from knowing the truth is that they knew the truth. I don't like lies and misinformation under any circumstance. Besides, it's unreasonable to think that nobody at Prescott knew the way to the junkyard nearby, especially with the meta knowledge we have of TTG, which is that their choices impact almost nothing. So I knew Javi could get there regardless. And I do think justice is somewhat important. The game can't just pass off casual murder, and be like, "oh well, you love Clem anyways, who cares?" I think that's the most offensive part to me. That TTG just expects to love Clem no matter what she does. And it pisses me off that for most people, TTG's right.
Comments
That's not true. First degree murder is what you're thinking of. First degree murder is a "premeditated" murder. That means intentional and thought out.
I never claimed that's what Clem did. I said she committed murder in the SECOND degree. Which has the definition I've given you multiple times.
I chose to cover for Clem, because at that point i needed her to help me to get back to my family. She was the only one who promised me to go there. So, in that moment I saw this choice as either I tell the full truth and we will be in trouble or I will cover for her and we will be on our way to junkyard asap. I chose the latter, because we can't change what hapenned in there anymore, every second counts and that guy was an asshole. Only reason he accepted to refund the batteries was because he was not able to kill Javier at first. Doesn't make it right to kill him, but risking my family for the full truth was not worth it from my perspective.
Subjective means it varies from a person to person, objective means it's true no matter what you believe in.
Morals are entirely subjective. So as emotions.
Humans consider some things wrong or right basing on how they feel about them.
You can't use scientific methods to prove something morally right or wrong.
What if i think they were right in what they did? Am i wrong? If so, then how am i wrong?
Because we already went through this, i will link you this instead
Not really, since she either got a stern talking to from Tripp or spent the night with Javier in a kennel with a door that's not even locked.
See? We all agree!
And not testing the loaded gun on Eli's face wasn't?
They're not mutually exclusive.
Everyone is a murderer in the apocalypse, specially 4 years in. What's your point? I can't figure out if you're trying to make her look like some cold blooded murderer who just likes to kill people for the kicks or something, or if you're just being very technical about which terms people are using to describe what she did.
No offense or anything, but...
A stern talking to? A single night in an unlocked cell? For murdering a dude?
That ain't "Justice" in any sense of the word.
She murdered an innocent man. She committed an unjustifiable murder. The only unjustifiable murder by any protagonists prior to Eli's death was the death of the senator Lee killed, and DETERMINATELY Ben. Even then, Ben's death was much more justifiable than Eli's. And when Clem does that, when Clem murders and doesn't care, it hurts me. My point is that she IS some cold blooded murderer. She doesn't kill for kicks, but she doesn't give a fuck that she murdered an innocent man.
And I am being very technical about which terms to use, because I think the terms we use are important, especially in this case. Where people are willing to forget about a straight up stone cold murder just because it's Clementine. People are letting the past blind them, and I just wanted to update the terms they use when doing so.
She did not get a murderer's punishment, even when telling the truth. Javier indeterminately lightens that load for Clem, which I really dislike.
No, her finger clearly slipped. Like I said, Eli could've told her some of the bullets do indeed work and if he did he would still be alive right now.
Could you please read even one of the comment threads identical to yours before posting? It's still second degree murder.
Oh, I see what you were trying to say all along now. I don't agree with you. She didn't "murdered Eli for the hell of it" and he certainly wasn't innocent. You seem to think Clem should be executed for what she did, and yet Eli, who just tried to kill her with a knife and would've succeeded if Javi wasn't there, was merely only a "dickhead". Got you. If you honestly think she did it on purpose then I don't have anything else to say to you. It's your opinion, and I gave mine above, I don't want to sound like a broken record, so.
He already tried to tell her that she was wrong, and she didn't listen. She firmly believed that she was duped, and nothing Eli was gonna say would have stopped her. They had already had a long discussion before the outburst.
Her finger did not "slip" three times. I don't know what you're even implying.
He didn't deserve an on the spot execution. He was incapacitated when he was killed. I know she didn't murder Eli for the hell of it. That's what I just said. Eli was only innocent in that at the time of his death, he was totally incapable of defending himself. He was not attacking Clem. That's what I mean when I say he was innocent. Not that he didn't do anything worth punishment, but that Clem murdered him once he was already dealt with.
I DON'T THINK SHE DID IT ON PURPOSE. LISTEN TO WHAT I'M SAYING. Murder doesn't have to be intentional. I've described second degree murder a million times at this point. If you don't understand what it is, look at all my other comments.
Fortunately, I'm not using scientific methods to prove a point. As a matter of fact, I'm not using scientific methods at all. Morals are not entirely subjective, they are not even subjective one bit.
If you think that what happened in Nazi Germany during 1941 to 1945 is right, then I really don't know what to say for you. And yes, you would in fact be wrong. How are you wrong? If the murder of 1.5 million children, which only represented about two-thirds of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe, if that somehow sits right in your conscience, then you might be worse off than I had originally thought. These were innocent bystanders who were murdered at the hands of Hitler's dictatorship. Why did you provide me with an address link to WordPress? Is that where your source of information comes from? I can already see illogical fallacies in the article, so there's no point in making reference to it as a legitimate source of information. Again, if morals are subjective, meaning to say that we determine our own morality, that would also mean we can subjectively have objective morals. It doesn't make any sense. The only logical conclusion is that there are in fact objective morals. You will not change it, and you will not change me believing it.
That she has a twitchy finger?
If only it was, silence being a valid option that is. It's a complicated situation indeed. I personally had the most difficult time in making a decision here.
But thanks for sharing your thoughts, too!
You say he was an innocent person when he sold God knows how many faulty bullets to people (and probably got many killed) and then tries to kill a kid when she confronts him about it. The only reason he didn't kill her right there was because Javier intervened. Sure, he was unarmed when Clementine pulls the trigger but he was not innocent. I'm starting to think you and I have different definitions for certain words.
When she realizes what she's done, she is shocked and in disbelief for a few seconds. But because people start coming in, she gets herself together and survival instinct kicks in. She's been alone for years, relying only on herself, I'm guessing at this point putting emotions aside and thinking about her options is something that comes naturally to her. Which is what she did in that situation.
The first time she intentionally pulled the trigger to prove a point, and she did. After that, Eli pissed her off and while she was fired up, her finger slipped. I'm literally implying just that: it slipped. What BetterToSleep said works as well.
Honestly, her poor trigger discipline and Eli's dumbassery were to blame for the killing.
Okay, we'll talk in different definitions. I'm talking in the real, tangible, well used definition, and you can talk in your made up fucking rules for all I care. I'm done explaining what the real definition of FUCKING MURDER is.
Again, he was still incapacitated. It's never okay to murder someone in the state he was in. Unless they're someone who is a constant, and direct threat to you. Eli was neither.
When she realizes what she's done, her first reaction is to put responsibility on Javi to cover up her murder. She did not care that he died.
I didn't say he did. Clementine didn't intend to just execute him right there though. The way you're phrasing your comments sometimes seem to contradict what you say afterwards. "people like Clementine murdering mostly innocent people for the hell of it." How are you not saying that Clementine killed Eli for the hell of it when you just included her name in that example? And "Clementine is totally willing to murder". How is she willing if she didn't do it on purpose? Come on, which one is it?
Ok, here I thought we could have a civilized discussion. Guess not then.
No. I googled it and opened a random articled, because there is a lot of them. I picked the one that looked most detailed. And the article itself is something about discussed thousands of times and the facts they used are widely respected and accepted, i don't really see why would i even bother checking the source. I would check them if the information were doubtful.
Key word - IF. Never said i actually think what Hitler did was right. I said IF i thought like that.
It's not easy to consciously change your moral codex (maybe you can't even do it at all).
Definition of objective:
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Definition of subjective:
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Morality is heavily connected with emotions and opinions. Morality is subjective.
Overall, you really haven't tried too hard to prove morality is objective. You said you don't use scientific methods, then ranted about what a terrible person i am, and on the end, you said you're not open-minded.
In which he preferred pulling a knife on a girl holding a gun that had bullets he claimed worked, rather than renegotiating an exchange of goods taking into account the bullets left.
Seriously, he actually struggles with Javier for a while considering he's doing so in front of the girl, holding a gun, with bullets he INSISTS work.
Did I say she murdered for the hell of it? Well I'm gonna ask for some slack on that one. I've been dealing with mindless Clem fanboys for days, and I didn't sleep last night. Simply misspoke. Anyways, I gtg for now. I'll be back with some more arguments in a while.
This is stupid and shows your bias.
I need to get to the junkyard to find my family.
Clems the one who's going to bring me there.
I should throw her under the bus so, as far as I know, I have no one to show me how to get to my family.
If you google "is morality subjective" you get this:
"The reason morality is subjective is because there is no common moral law that ALL people agree on. If objective moral codes existed like "murder is bad" than there would be no murderers. But there are murderers. The reason most societies outlaw murder is because it is for the logical salvation of the society."
Not saying Google is always right or anything, but if you straight out say i won't change your opinion, then what about countless threads and articles about it?
Something that's widely respected and accepted doesn't constitute it as being right. I'm fully assured in what I believe, to the point that no amount of supposed evidence will change it. The reason being is because I have seen more than enough to believe what I already believe, and I have also seen more than enough to not believe what I already don't believe.
I never once said that you did. Didn't I use the word "if" as well?
The opportunity presents itself everyday for people to change their mind on how they view things, but it's entirely up to them to do it. In some cases, morality is closely associated with personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, because in those select few cases people based their perspective on how they feel instead of what is real. However, your undoing is to say that everyone conducts themselves in the same manner (not that you're saying that), or to say that just because some people do base their perspective on the various different things already mentioned, that morality is subjective now. What do I have to prove? Your argument is self-defeating, which renders it null and void. I'm not using scientific methods, I'm reasoning with you by means of logic. I don't know you well enough to say what kind of person you are, but what I do know is that I'm not a good person. I hold myself accountable to the same things that I would anyone else, like yourself. I never once said that I wasn't open-minded, if I'm remembering correctly. Now what I will say is that I'm not open-minded in this case scenario. When it comes to definitive truths, my mind will remain closed.
Countless threads and articles will still not change my mind. Objective morality can exist with a moral law giver. This would be to say that irrespective of the opinions of man, a moral law can still be enforced on humanity, for them to either believe or not, with a moral law giver coexisting who has established rights and wrongs. The opinion of man, whether to believe or not, is irrelevant at this point, because of what has already been established.
And I can't see why a good defense lawyer wouldn't argue her near death experience at the hands of his products we'd already seen not working would not indicate it wasn't a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life, which is also included in the definition of second hand murder. She fully believed, because of an incident minutes before the confrontation, the bullets in the gun would not fire. How would she demonstrate an obvious lack of concern for human life if she believed the bullets posed no threat?
This would not be considered as an assault which had death as reasonable outcome because she genuinely did not expect the gun to fire, just as it had failed to before, meaning there was no intent. Can't believe this argument has gone on for so long lol
Your very own statement proves morality is subjective.
Also, something that's widely unaccepted doesn't make it wrong either.
Just because everyone's morality is based on feelings, tastes, opinions doesn't make it objective. It is still subjective. Because it's based on one's feelings, tastes and opinions.
Are you talking about those 'definitive truths' that heavily vary from person to person?
Well, that's fine, but I think some people are letting the "Clem fanboys" cloud their judgment a bit too much lately.
I know what second degree murder is but that's not even the point anymore. It's not about the term, it's about how you are throwing around the word "murder" in your comments that is bothering me. You say you think she didn't do it on purpose but the way you phrase certain things gives me the impression that you think she fully meant to murder him and that she's a vicious killer for doing it.
Yes, it was murder, if you want to get technical about it, but as I see it, it's the circumstances that matter when making the choice between covering for Clementine or tell the truth. I think everyone knows killing Eli was wrong but that it was unintentional. The question here is how you choose to deal with it. I just don't agree that, in that situation, it was justified to tell the truth and risk having her locked up for days or worse, when Javier needed her. Simple as that. It was also a situation of "what would people gain from knowing the truth?" Nothing. It was done. It was wrong but what's the point in dwelling on it? Unless you think justice is important. But that's not how I play games that are set in the apocalypse. But that's just me.
I don't think she did it on purpose, but I do think there's a distinction between manslaughter and second degree murder for a reason. She still is a murderer.
I think the thing gained from knowing the truth is that they knew the truth. I don't like lies and misinformation under any circumstance. Besides, it's unreasonable to think that nobody at Prescott knew the way to the junkyard nearby, especially with the meta knowledge we have of TTG, which is that their choices impact almost nothing. So I knew Javi could get there regardless. And I do think justice is somewhat important. The game can't just pass off casual murder, and be like, "oh well, you love Clem anyways, who cares?" I think that's the most offensive part to me. That TTG just expects to love Clem no matter what she does. And it pisses me off that for most people, TTG's right.
I'm just frustrated with people not being satisfied with what murder is, and changing it to suit their needs.
I think this guy broke me:
Sorry if I was overly hostile. I'm just fucking annoyed.
I told the truth because i can't lie about something that happened like that. plus, the truth always comes out eventually, so if i lied and then it was revealed i lied, then that's a bad thing to happen in terms of being trusted.
Like a lot of users said, 95% of players probably thought it was an accident because she didn't know that there was real bullets in the gun. So it was an accident to them and given her pleading to Javier, 95% of people weren't going to tell them the truth.
Haven't even thought of that. That is actually one of the best defenses of Clem in this situation I've heard yet.
That's not a defense. He was helpless by the time Clementine had started pulling the trigger, and he remained helpless until the moment he died. Eli was guilty of some things, too, but he was already dealt with by the time Clementine decided to point her gun at him. There was no reason to continue the violence, yet Clem did anyways, to make a point. And that point cost Eli his life.
Clem knows enough about weapons to know what a misfiring bullet is. It's unreasonable for her not to. And it's unreasonable for her to think that they had a 100% misfire rate.
I didn't say there wasn't. But we stopped talking about what those terms mean long ago and we were discussing something else now.
Well, that's just assumptions from your part. Javier doesn't know those people, and Clementine even said before "the people on the other hand, are not my favorite". Why should he believe anyone would be willing to help him? Specially when he was just involved in a shooting? Would he really risk that? I like to think he wouldn't. And we're talking about making decisions based on what Javier would think, not the player. Obviously we knew the plot would advance regardless what choice we made. That's not the point though.
But it's not always about "loving Clem and wanting to side with her". Some people actually have genuine reasons to choose the options that are in favor of her. I like Clem, but I made that decision not only thinking about her but also thinking about what would Javi do in that situation. Or at least "my Javi". And I don't think Telltale expects people to do that, if anything I think they are trying to make these decisions tougher for people who like Clementine by making her do bad things and being reckless, but it's obviously not working. But they give players plenty of options to call her out on things she does/says and not side with her at all so I don't see what's the problem.