Those are assumptions, but assumptions that Javi would be relatively safe in making. And he would at least be able to find someone to tell him how to get there, if not directly lead him there.
It's not always about people loving Clem and wanting to side with her, true, but I'm willing to bet like half of the people who went with Clementine did so just because she was Clementine. Or at least let that bias them into taking the moral reasons behind siding with her. Because she's Clem, for some reason people give her HUGE amounts of slack, when there's really no reason to do so.
Anyways, I'd continue this argument, but I'm real done arguing for the moment. I'm seriously like dead inside. Gonna take a break from the arguing thing.
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.
… more 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. Obviou… [view original content]
Your very own subjectivity proves objectivity, and your very own argument defeats itself. But are you making an argument for the case that I stated? Because your last sentence is in support of my worldview, based on what you said. You clearly stated that the "facts" (a term that I use loosely for that article) used in the article, were, and I quote, "widely respected and accepted". Which means that not only are mine not "widely respected and accepted", but that since mine are not that, they could be right since something that's not widely respected and accepted doesn't mean that it's wrong.
You either didn't read what I said carefully, correctly, or a mixture of both, because I never said what you seem to be implying that I said. And you rehashing the same thing over and over again isn't convincing me, and if you're not convincing me, then I have to wonder what your purpose is in all of this. Your morality may be based on feelings, tastes, and opinions, but that doesn't mean that everyone's morality is.
No, I'm just talking about definitive truths in the simplest form, truth that is definitive in spite of man's opinions.
Something that's widely respected and accepted doesn't constitute it as being right.
Your very own statement proves morality is subj… moreective.
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 com… [view original content]
Those are assumptions, but assumptions that Javi would be relatively safe in making. And he would at least be able to find someone to tell him how to get there, if not directly lead him there.
Fair enough. It's a reasonable way to think as Javier and one way to look at it. But personally, I like to think he would rather not take that risk and waste time trying to find someone else to lead him there when he already had a person that was going to do it.
It's not always about people loving Clem and wanting to side with her, true, but I'm willing to bet like half of the people who went with Clementine did so just because she was Clementine. Or at least let that bias them into taking the moral reasons behind siding with her. Because she's Clem, for some reason people give her HUGE amounts of slack, when there's really no reason to do so.
It goes both ways. I've seen many people on these forums admitting they hate Clementine on season 3 because "she's an asshole now" or because "the fans ruined her for me" and then they accuse people being biased towards her when it's obvious they are biased against her. Some people will side with Clem because they love her, other people will side against Clem because they hate her.
But why does this matter anyway? Why can't we just play the game how we want? I mean, is it really people's fault that Telltale decided to put Clementine in a game full of new characters and expect them to just treat her like any other character? It's bound to be some bias there. Either you like her or dislike her. I look at things from both sides, as a player who likes Clementine and as Javier who wants to protect his family and the people who are helping him. So far the options Telltale give us when siding with Clem make perfect sense for Javier as a character too. At least in my eyes it does. So I'm not really bothered by it.
Those are assumptions, but assumptions that Javi would be relatively safe in making. And he would at least be able to find someone to tell h… moreim how to get there, if not directly lead him there.
It's not always about people loving Clem and wanting to side with her, true, but I'm willing to bet like half of the people who went with Clementine did so just because she was Clementine. Or at least let that bias them into taking the moral reasons behind siding with her. Because she's Clem, for some reason people give her HUGE amounts of slack, when there's really no reason to do so.
Anyways, I'd continue this argument, but I'm real done arguing for the moment. I'm seriously like dead inside. Gonna take a break from the arguing thing.
And none of that is a valid argument to declare this second degree murder. Infact, the argument that she knows what a weapon misfire is would work in her defense if she's experienced with weapons. If she believed the bullets were not of quality, would not fire, and had experienced them fail to fire, there's no reason to believe she had any intent to cause him harm or death because she did not expect the bullets to fire.
The entire argument was between them was she wanted a refund for them, not that she wanted his life and there's a witness to that. First or second degree requires, premeditated or not, intent to kill. Rewatch the scene again, she never says the bullet in the gun are his, just that he knows they won't work. He didn't even hesitate to attack them once they misfired, he slowly stood up drawing his knife. Wasn't even worried about the girl pointing a gun at him during the struggle, he only panics once Javier slams him down and he's clearly outmatched.
Her reaction afterwards is also an argument to her intent. The first thing she says immediately after is "oh no", which again, does not sound like the reaction of someone who had just carried out something they intended to do. This is absolutely not a second degree murder case because there is no intent. The victims disregard for any danger from her after the gun is shown to contain his bullets only stands to support she believed they the bullets could not be fired.
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 d… moreied. 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.
Quote something before saying things like that. I can't just guess what part are you talking about.
Because your last sentence is in support of my worldview, based on what you said.
Are you talking about:
"Are you talking about those 'definitive truths' that heavily vary from person to person?"
You know that something that varies from a person to person is subjective, right? So if that statement is in support of your worldview, then it seems like you agreed with me that morality is subjective.
You clearly stated that the "facts" (a term that I use loosely for that article) used in the article, were, and I quote, "widely respected and accepted"
Ah, yes, i did fuck up in that one, i thought you were talking about morality, but you were talking about what i said before about the article. Sorry.
Even though i made a mistake there, it didn't turn out horrible. What you said actually can be used to prove morality is subjective. For example, just because majority of people think killing is morally wrong doesn't mean it's objectively morally wrong. Morality and concepts of right and wrong are based on emotions and opinions, so even if a majority of people shared similar morals, it wouldn't make morality not subjective.
Which means that not only are mine not "widely respected and accepted", but that since mine are not that, they could be right since something that's not widely respected and accepted doesn't mean that it's wrong.
Yeah, they could be right. But that doesn't mean i think you are right.
Your morality may be based on feelings, tastes, and opinions, but that doesn't mean that everyone's morality is.
Everyone's morality is based either on emotions or opinions or both. What else could it be based on if not those things?
Anyway, you really have to start quoting parts that you refer to. Most of the time i spent looking for my posts and reading them to make sure what exactly are you referring to.
Your very own subjectivity proves objectivity, and your very own argument defeats itself. But are you making an argument for the case that I… more stated? Because your last sentence is in support of my worldview, based on what you said. You clearly stated that the "facts" (a term that I use loosely for that article) used in the article, were, and I quote, "widely respected and accepted". Which means that not only are mine not "widely respected and accepted", but that since mine are not that, they could be right since something that's not widely respected and accepted doesn't mean that it's wrong.
You either didn't read what I said carefully, correctly, or a mixture of both, because I never said what you seem to be implying that I said. And you rehashing the same thing over and over again isn't convincing me, and if you're not convincing me, then I have to wonder what your purpose is in all of this. Your morality may be based on feelings, tastes,… [view original content]
In order for morality to be objective, actions and things would have to stay 'right' or 'wrong' no matter what people think about them.
There would have to be 'ultimate truths', like for example - killing a person is bad. That statement would have to remain true even if everybody on the would disagreed with that statement.
But you see, if everybody on the world disagreed with that statement it would no longer be true. Therefore morality is not objective.
However, if you would say "Earth is a oblate spheroid" and everybody would disagree, it wouldn't make that statement false. Therefore Earth being a oblate spheroid is a fact - it is objective.
Your very own subjectivity proves objectivity, and your very own argument defeats itself. But are you making an argument for the case that I… more stated? Because your last sentence is in support of my worldview, based on what you said. You clearly stated that the "facts" (a term that I use loosely for that article) used in the article, were, and I quote, "widely respected and accepted". Which means that not only are mine not "widely respected and accepted", but that since mine are not that, they could be right since something that's not widely respected and accepted doesn't mean that it's wrong.
You either didn't read what I said carefully, correctly, or a mixture of both, because I never said what you seem to be implying that I said. And you rehashing the same thing over and over again isn't convincing me, and if you're not convincing me, then I have to wonder what your purpose is in all of this. Your morality may be based on feelings, tastes,… [view original content]
He actually spouts a one liner as he gets out of the chair in a more deliberate than lunging fashion as he pulls out his knife. Between all of this I really don't believe either of them expected the bullets to fire. She was upset and went about the situation wrong, but I don't think she intended to kill him. She backs away saying "oh no" as soon as she sees what happened, which isn't quite the reaction you'd expect from someone who intended to do something. Just my take on it, though.
Exactly my thoughts. And Clementine stopped that truck for Javier so I figured I owed her one. I don't know what she was going for with the … moregun. Right, the bullets don't work, but the more times you pull the trigger the bigger chance you have of shooting someone. I'm thinking it was the heat of the moment, she was mad and wasn't thinking clearly. Though it is odd how she lost her cool so badly and all of the sudden she's scheming. I want to see more of what she's been through now, she's obviously seen some shit.
They should have extended the gameplay further by giving the choice to play as Javier or Clem. Maybe they'll add a New Game+ or something like that where you can play as Clem or maybe in Episode 4-??? you will take the reins of her decisions again.
So 95% of players sided with Clem.
That shows how badly Telltale messed up by not having her be the protagonist.
Maybe they should try listening to the fanbase.
I was part of the 5 per cent that told the truth lol
I think a lot of the players are too attached to Clementine or maybe they felt they owed something to her,
I told the truth because I thought it wasn't right that she expected me to cover for her after witnessing her kill someone. Just because it was an accident didn't make it right in my eyes.
Therefore, killing a human is as wrong as killing any other animal
And killing a child is as wrong as killing an adult.
And killing someone who murdered your family is as wrong as killing a random stranger.
Disagreeing with those statements is just like saying morality is subjective. You see, if you say that killing is wrong, then killing, no matter what, and no matter if justified or not, is wrong.
If the killing is 'less wrong' or 'more wrong' depending on what or who is killed and why, then morality can't be objective.
You can say killing any other animals is less wrong than killing a human, because you're a human yourself - subjective
You can say killing a child is less wrong as killing an adult because out instinct is to protect the children - subjective
You can say killing a person who murdered your family is less wrong than killing a random stranger, because your actions were justified - subjective
Also, if just the act of killing is wrong, it means carnivore animals are murderers and every day they do something that is wrong.
Your very own subjectivity proves objectivity, and your very own argument defeats itself. But are you making an argument for the case that I… more stated? Because your last sentence is in support of my worldview, based on what you said. You clearly stated that the "facts" (a term that I use loosely for that article) used in the article, were, and I quote, "widely respected and accepted". Which means that not only are mine not "widely respected and accepted", but that since mine are not that, they could be right since something that's not widely respected and accepted doesn't mean that it's wrong.
You either didn't read what I said carefully, correctly, or a mixture of both, because I never said what you seem to be implying that I said. And you rehashing the same thing over and over again isn't convincing me, and if you're not convincing me, then I have to wonder what your purpose is in all of this. Your morality may be based on feelings, tastes,… [view original content]
That's not how misfiring bullets work. Misfiring bullets are either a cause of the gun, or a single faulty bullet. But even then, the bullet has a chance to fire. The chance is never 0%, and Clem should have known that.
Clementine also didn't want a refund. She just wanted to get revenge. She said that she didn't want her batteries back, but instead just wanted regular bullets. When Eli refused, that's when he pulled his knife, got sat down, and that's when Clem started firing. It was revenge at that point.
Again, there doesn't need to be intent to kill. She should have known that, even with faulty bullets, a gun can still fire. And she should have known what she was doing.
And none of that is a valid argument to declare this second degree murder. Infact, the argument that she knows what a weapon misfire is woul… mored work in her defense if she's experienced with weapons. If she believed the bullets were not of quality, would not fire, and had experienced them fail to fire, there's no reason to believe she had any intent to cause him harm or death because she did not expect the bullets to fire.
The entire argument was between them was she wanted a refund for them, not that she wanted his life and there's a witness to that. First or second degree requires, premeditated or not, intent to kill. Rewatch the scene again, she never says the bullet in the gun are his, just that he knows they won't work. He didn't even hesitate to attack them once they misfired, he slowly stood up drawing his knife. Wasn't even worried about the girl pointing a gun at him during the struggle, he only panics once Javier slams him down and … [view original content]
Yeah, but in a way, Javier would do it considering she is his one chance to get back to his family (that he knew of) and was helping him and brought him to Prescott in the first place.
He wouldn't really have much reason to not side with Clementine here.
Initially I went with the knee-jerk reaction to back up Clementine but the more I thought about it, the more it wouldn't make sense for Javi… more. He isn't me, he doesn't know this abrasive young woman's backstory.
It just made more sense for me that Javi builds a trusting relationship with Clem over time and an incident like that one isn't the best foot to start on.
If anything I'm more upset at the fact Clem waves a loaded gun in a man's face, allegedly functional bullets or no. Has Lee taught you nothing?
I would've chosen that purely out of bias, nothing wrong with that! I mean, it's not like allot of people didn't make certain decisions in any TTG game without a hint of bias.
Harpadarpa linked a definition from Google about 2nd Degree Murder, and you replied "I don't care what Google thinks! I can form my own opinion."
You're literally saying the Google definition, which is ACCURATE is wrong because you think differently.
That's like saying:
"Sir, you are under arrest for assassinating the President!"
"Um, no, actually, I have a different opinion on if its okay or not to assassinate the President."
No mr. Jameson. I said I could form my opinion on whether Clementine committed murder or if she didn't. I didn't need other people to do the thinking for me.
I didn't say that was how misfiring works, I said she suspected the quality of the bullets was bad, and they wouldn't fire. This isn't a kid who spent years at the gun range, her knowledge of guns, as far as we know, is in their use. That was how Lee trained her, and she outright states she believes he traded her bullets that would not fire, and she wanted real ones. She did not think these bullets would shoot, but that she traded him blanks in exchange for her goods.
And no, she fired when she said he sold him bullets that wouldn't shoot. That's when he gets up rather slowly pulling his knife. After he had known her gun contained his bullets. Her firing wasn't revenge, it was trying to prove a point.
And you're right, I only said intent in regards to the legal status of second degree murder. She did kill him, but she wasn't trying to and didn't think she could. It's tragic, but not malicious, and she immediately expressed shock at what happened.
That's not how misfiring bullets work. Misfiring bullets are either a cause of the gun, or a single faulty bullet. But even then, the bullet… more has a chance to fire. The chance is never 0%, and Clem should have known that.
Clementine also didn't want a refund. She just wanted to get revenge. She said that she didn't want her batteries back, but instead just wanted regular bullets. When Eli refused, that's when he pulled his knife, got sat down, and that's when Clem started firing. It was revenge at that point.
Again, there doesn't need to be intent to kill. She should have known that, even with faulty bullets, a gun can still fire. And she should have known what she was doing.
Harpadarpa linked a definition from Google about 2nd Degree Murder, and you replied "I don't care what Google thinks! I can form my own opin… moreion."
You're literally saying the Google definition, which is ACCURATE is wrong because you think differently.
That's like saying:
"Sir, you are under arrest for assassinating the President!"
"Um, no, actually, I have a different opinion on if its okay or not to assassinate the President."
Do you realize how fucking stupid that sounds?
Lol, Google was simply defining a legal term. It's not about what Google thinks, it's about a quick definition for second degree murder. And… more it's accurate.
And then Javi pushed him into the chair. He was forcefully put in the chair. He was forced into the chair.
Two wrongs don't make a right. In a court of law, Clementine would be found a murderer anyways, as he was incapacitated by the time she started shooting at him.
What does people not appreciating life in the apocalypse have to do with anything? People still don't like murder for murder's sake, as Clem committed.
Still, assuming the bullets have a 100% failure rate is ridiculous, and Clementine had no reasonable reason to not understand that, especially after her YEARS of hands on experience with poorly maintained weaponry.
What the fuck was that about annoying pacifists? What? What does that have to do with anything?
She's NOT distraught. Literally her only reaction i… [view original content]
Harpadarpa linked a definition from Google about 2nd Degree Murder, and you replied "I don't care what Google thinks! I can form my own opin… moreion."
You're literally saying the Google definition, which is ACCURATE is wrong because you think differently.
That's like saying:
"Sir, you are under arrest for assassinating the President!"
"Um, no, actually, I have a different opinion on if its okay or not to assassinate the President."
Do you realize how fucking stupid that sounds?
Maybe not that but her being in a choice clearly makes it obvious. Every other choice is pushing 50/50 in episode 1. All choices containing clementine are at 85%+
So 95% of players sided with Clem.
That shows how badly Telltale messed up by not having her be the protagonist.
Maybe they should try listening to the fanbase.
Honestly I was expecting the same outcome either way on my first play through. "Tell the truth" I thought to myself will Tripp really believe that it was an accident and I had no part in it 5 minutes after he specifically asked me to not get into any trouble. I genuinely thought we both would get in trouble either way only difference being in one scenario you are "best friends in shit together" but in the other asides from being in trouble and making Tripp mad you also made the person who was going to help you mad. So I went for the cover up, got my bleeding eye which was already more evidence for our story then "i dindu nutn".
No. By the way you phrased your sentence, I didn't misinterpret anything. Either rephrase your sentences better next time or figure out that saying you can form your own opinion on 2ND DEGREE MURDER is an absolutely stupid thing to say. Or maybe you do realize how stupid you sound, and you're covering your own ass right now.
Especially when Clem has shown herself resourceful and useful, and Eli has shown himself to be a scumbag with little care in the world
Besides, its not exactly lying, as he in fact DID attack us, besides, I dont think in that world that we should hang in antics such as lying or telling the truth, that might sound cold, and I dont mean that telling the truth should be avoided, or that it isnt a good thing, but in this case, it would only create more problems, besides at that point in time, I knew more about Clem than Tripp and co, even if we dont consider previous games.
Why is it a stupid thing to say that I can form my own opinion on whether she committed second degree murder? I don't believe she did. I gave the reasons why I think that. If you think I'm stupid for that, fine. But please, fuck off already.
No. By the way you phrased your sentence, I didn't misinterpret anything. Either rephrase your sentences better next time or figure out that… more saying you can form your own opinion on 2ND DEGREE MURDER is an absolutely stupid thing to say. Or maybe you do realize how stupid you sound, and you're covering your own ass right now.
But... she totally did commit second degree murder. Whether it was accidental or not. Forming your own opinion on that is the same thing as saying that you have a different opinion on what 2nd degree murder is.
You can have your own opinions on a great many things, but this is just saying: "I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION OF FEDERAL LAWS!"
Why is it a stupid thing to say that I can form my own opinion on whether she committed second degree murder? I don't believe she did. I gave the reasons why I think that. If you think I'm stupid for that, fine. But please, fuck off already.
Except she totally didn't commit 2nd degree murder. Here's a quote from search.uslegal.com - Second degree murder is a death which results from an assault which is likely to cause death. Second degree murder is distinguished from first degree murder, which is a premeditated, intentional killing or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape or armed robbery. Second degree murder is not murder committed in the "heat of passion".
Murder in the second degree includes homicides committed with malice aforethought, that lack deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, or participation in a felony punishable by life imprisonment. To prove murder in the second degree, the state must establish that the perpetrator committed the killing with malice.
As with murder in the first degree, malice means an intent to inflict grievous bodily injury without legal justification, or an intent to act in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury. -End quote
You're so eager to call me stupid for disagreeing with you yet the crime most fitting for what our dear emotional teenager did would be voluntary manslaughter.
Quote- Voluntary manslaughter includes killing in heat of passion, in self-defense, or while committing a felony. Manslaughter lacks the element of malice necessary to be found guilty of murder.
One court has defined it as "the unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood:
1. upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or
2.from the excessive use of force in self-defense."
"§ 2903.03. Voluntary manslaughter.
(A) No person, while under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite the person into using deadly force, shall knowingly cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, a felony of the first degree."
But... she totally did commit second degree murder. Whether it was accidental or not. Forming your own opinion on that is the same thing as … moresaying that you have a different opinion on what 2nd degree murder is.
You can have your own opinions on a great many things, but this is just saying: "I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION OF FEDERAL LAWS!"
I lied for her b/c while she made a mistake, i didn't want them to hurt her...and i don't think Javi would've either. He doesn't seem that cold hearted yet.
I stayed with Clem to fight off the bandits. I figured that was the better choice to protect Javi's family.
I shot Conrad. I shot him b/c he took Gabe hostage, not b/c he wanted to bargain Clementine.
I wanted Clem to trust me, but i think i made the choices based on what i thought Javi would do with/forb Clementine given that i think Javi is still trusting, especially with someone that's the same age as his nephew.
I like to think that somewhere, in this zombie apocalypse world, there's a little community that prescribes its beliefs to google definitions.
-- "Hey Johnny, I took and ate your orange when you weren't looking."
- "That's great man." starts typing on the PC
-- "What are you doing, man?
- "steal /stiːl/ verb, gerund or present participle: stealing; take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."
-- "Fuck..."
Lol, Google was simply defining a legal term. It's not about what Google thinks, it's about a quick definition for second degree murder. And… more it's accurate.
And then Javi pushed him into the chair. He was forcefully put in the chair. He was forced into the chair.
Two wrongs don't make a right. In a court of law, Clementine would be found a murderer anyways, as he was incapacitated by the time she started shooting at him.
What does people not appreciating life in the apocalypse have to do with anything? People still don't like murder for murder's sake, as Clem committed.
Still, assuming the bullets have a 100% failure rate is ridiculous, and Clementine had no reasonable reason to not understand that, especially after her YEARS of hands on experience with poorly maintained weaponry.
What the fuck was that about annoying pacifists? What? What does that have to do with anything?
She's NOT distraught. Literally her only reaction i… [view original content]
Comments
I had to lie, Clem's my friend
Those are assumptions, but assumptions that Javi would be relatively safe in making. And he would at least be able to find someone to tell him how to get there, if not directly lead him there.
It's not always about people loving Clem and wanting to side with her, true, but I'm willing to bet like half of the people who went with Clementine did so just because she was Clementine. Or at least let that bias them into taking the moral reasons behind siding with her. Because she's Clem, for some reason people give her HUGE amounts of slack, when there's really no reason to do so.
Anyways, I'd continue this argument, but I'm real done arguing for the moment. I'm seriously like dead inside. Gonna take a break from the arguing thing.
Your very own subjectivity proves objectivity, and your very own argument defeats itself. But are you making an argument for the case that I stated? Because your last sentence is in support of my worldview, based on what you said. You clearly stated that the "facts" (a term that I use loosely for that article) used in the article, were, and I quote, "widely respected and accepted". Which means that not only are mine not "widely respected and accepted", but that since mine are not that, they could be right since something that's not widely respected and accepted doesn't mean that it's wrong.
You either didn't read what I said carefully, correctly, or a mixture of both, because I never said what you seem to be implying that I said. And you rehashing the same thing over and over again isn't convincing me, and if you're not convincing me, then I have to wonder what your purpose is in all of this. Your morality may be based on feelings, tastes, and opinions, but that doesn't mean that everyone's morality is.
No, I'm just talking about definitive truths in the simplest form, truth that is definitive in spite of man's opinions.
Fair enough. It's a reasonable way to think as Javier and one way to look at it. But personally, I like to think he would rather not take that risk and waste time trying to find someone else to lead him there when he already had a person that was going to do it.
It goes both ways. I've seen many people on these forums admitting they hate Clementine on season 3 because "she's an asshole now" or because "the fans ruined her for me" and then they accuse people being biased towards her when it's obvious they are biased against her. Some people will side with Clem because they love her, other people will side against Clem because they hate her.
But why does this matter anyway? Why can't we just play the game how we want? I mean, is it really people's fault that Telltale decided to put Clementine in a game full of new characters and expect them to just treat her like any other character? It's bound to be some bias there. Either you like her or dislike her. I look at things from both sides, as a player who likes Clementine and as Javier who wants to protect his family and the people who are helping him. So far the options Telltale give us when siding with Clem make perfect sense for Javier as a character too. At least in my eyes it does. So I'm not really bothered by it.
So 95% of players sided with Clem.
That shows how badly Telltale messed up by not having her be the protagonist.
Maybe they should try listening to the fanbase.
And none of that is a valid argument to declare this second degree murder. Infact, the argument that she knows what a weapon misfire is would work in her defense if she's experienced with weapons. If she believed the bullets were not of quality, would not fire, and had experienced them fail to fire, there's no reason to believe she had any intent to cause him harm or death because she did not expect the bullets to fire.
The entire argument was between them was she wanted a refund for them, not that she wanted his life and there's a witness to that. First or second degree requires, premeditated or not, intent to kill. Rewatch the scene again, she never says the bullet in the gun are his, just that he knows they won't work. He didn't even hesitate to attack them once they misfired, he slowly stood up drawing his knife. Wasn't even worried about the girl pointing a gun at him during the struggle, he only panics once Javier slams him down and he's clearly outmatched.
Her reaction afterwards is also an argument to her intent. The first thing she says immediately after is "oh no", which again, does not sound like the reaction of someone who had just carried out something they intended to do. This is absolutely not a second degree murder case because there is no intent. The victims disregard for any danger from her after the gun is shown to contain his bullets only stands to support she believed they the bullets could not be fired.
Excuse me? How exactly is that even logical?
Quote something before saying things like that. I can't just guess what part are you talking about.
Are you talking about:
"Are you talking about those 'definitive truths' that heavily vary from person to person?"
You know that something that varies from a person to person is subjective, right? So if that statement is in support of your worldview, then it seems like you agreed with me that morality is subjective.
Ah, yes, i did fuck up in that one, i thought you were talking about morality, but you were talking about what i said before about the article. Sorry.
Even though i made a mistake there, it didn't turn out horrible. What you said actually can be used to prove morality is subjective. For example, just because majority of people think killing is morally wrong doesn't mean it's objectively morally wrong. Morality and concepts of right and wrong are based on emotions and opinions, so even if a majority of people shared similar morals, it wouldn't make morality not subjective.
Yeah, they could be right. But that doesn't mean i think you are right.
Everyone's morality is based either on emotions or opinions or both. What else could it be based on if not those things?
Anyway, you really have to start quoting parts that you refer to. Most of the time i spent looking for my posts and reading them to make sure what exactly are you referring to.
In order for morality to be objective, actions and things would have to stay 'right' or 'wrong' no matter what people think about them.
There would have to be 'ultimate truths', like for example - killing a person is bad. That statement would have to remain true even if everybody on the would disagreed with that statement.
But you see, if everybody on the world disagreed with that statement it would no longer be true. Therefore morality is not objective.
However, if you would say "Earth is a oblate spheroid" and everybody would disagree, it wouldn't make that statement false. Therefore Earth being a oblate spheroid is a fact - it is objective.
He actually spouts a one liner as he gets out of the chair in a more deliberate than lunging fashion as he pulls out his knife. Between all of this I really don't believe either of them expected the bullets to fire. She was upset and went about the situation wrong, but I don't think she intended to kill him. She backs away saying "oh no" as soon as she sees what happened, which isn't quite the reaction you'd expect from someone who intended to do something. Just my take on it, though.
Yeah I'm not going to make an excuse that what she did wasn't justified. She was doing the same thing Nick was doing.
They should have extended the gameplay further by giving the choice to play as Javier or Clem. Maybe they'll add a New Game+ or something like that where you can play as Clem or maybe in Episode 4-??? you will take the reins of her decisions again.
I was part of the 5 per cent that told the truth lol
I think a lot of the players are too attached to Clementine or maybe they felt they owed something to her,
I told the truth because I thought it wasn't right that she expected me to cover for her after witnessing her kill someone. Just because it was an accident didn't make it right in my eyes.
And my another point.
You claim morality is objective.
And you claim killing is wrong.
Therefore, killing a human is as wrong as killing any other animal
And killing a child is as wrong as killing an adult.
And killing someone who murdered your family is as wrong as killing a random stranger.
Disagreeing with those statements is just like saying morality is subjective. You see, if you say that killing is wrong, then killing, no matter what, and no matter if justified or not, is wrong.
If the killing is 'less wrong' or 'more wrong' depending on what or who is killed and why, then morality can't be objective.
You can say killing any other animals is less wrong than killing a human, because you're a human yourself - subjective
You can say killing a child is less wrong as killing an adult because out instinct is to protect the children - subjective
You can say killing a person who murdered your family is less wrong than killing a random stranger, because your actions were justified - subjective
Also, if just the act of killing is wrong, it means carnivore animals are murderers and every day they do something that is wrong.
That's not how misfiring bullets work. Misfiring bullets are either a cause of the gun, or a single faulty bullet. But even then, the bullet has a chance to fire. The chance is never 0%, and Clem should have known that.
Clementine also didn't want a refund. She just wanted to get revenge. She said that she didn't want her batteries back, but instead just wanted regular bullets. When Eli refused, that's when he pulled his knife, got sat down, and that's when Clem started firing. It was revenge at that point.
Again, there doesn't need to be intent to kill. She should have known that, even with faulty bullets, a gun can still fire. And she should have known what she was doing.
Yeah, but in a way, Javier would do it considering she is his one chance to get back to his family (that he knew of) and was helping him and brought him to Prescott in the first place.
He wouldn't really have much reason to not side with Clementine here.
I would've chosen that purely out of bias, nothing wrong with that! I mean, it's not like allot of people didn't make certain decisions in any TTG game without a hint of bias.
Harpadarpa linked a definition from Google about 2nd Degree Murder, and you replied "I don't care what Google thinks! I can form my own opinion."
You're literally saying the Google definition, which is ACCURATE is wrong because you think differently.
That's like saying:
"Sir, you are under arrest for assassinating the President!"
"Um, no, actually, I have a different opinion on if its okay or not to assassinate the President."
Do you realize how fucking stupid that sounds?
I didn't say that was how misfiring works, I said she suspected the quality of the bullets was bad, and they wouldn't fire. This isn't a kid who spent years at the gun range, her knowledge of guns, as far as we know, is in their use. That was how Lee trained her, and she outright states she believes he traded her bullets that would not fire, and she wanted real ones. She did not think these bullets would shoot, but that she traded him blanks in exchange for her goods.
And no, she fired when she said he sold him bullets that wouldn't shoot. That's when he gets up rather slowly pulling his knife. After he had known her gun contained his bullets. Her firing wasn't revenge, it was trying to prove a point.
And you're right, I only said intent in regards to the legal status of second degree murder. She did kill him, but she wasn't trying to and didn't think she could. It's tragic, but not malicious, and she immediately expressed shock at what happened.
Carlos you are a god. Let me have your children.
Jesus christ it was a fucking accident plain and simple reading WAY to much into this shit
Chill, dude. I think it was second degree murder.
I guess you didn't read the comment above.
I did, that was my response to it.
Maybe not that but her being in a choice clearly makes it obvious. Every other choice is pushing 50/50 in episode 1. All choices containing clementine are at 85%+
Because the guy pulls a knife on Xavier for no reason and tries to kill him, I had no empathy left for him after that.
I'm definitely bias towards Clementine I won't lie about it but I was kinda surprised it was 95%
I guess you misinterpreted it. Again.
You're the one saying it's either "lie" or "tell the truth".
Honestly I was expecting the same outcome either way on my first play through. "Tell the truth" I thought to myself will Tripp really believe that it was an accident and I had no part in it 5 minutes after he specifically asked me to not get into any trouble. I genuinely thought we both would get in trouble either way only difference being in one scenario you are "best friends in shit together" but in the other asides from being in trouble and making Tripp mad you also made the person who was going to help you mad. So I went for the cover up, got my bleeding eye which was already more evidence for our story then "i dindu nutn".
Who cares?
Even the new players would trust Clementine more than a guy that had screen time of 30 seconds, pulled out a knife and attacked Javi.
If they were smart not to make choices that include Clementine the choices would be a bit harder, and yet here we are.
Not mutually exclusive as principles, I mean. Not all the time, anyway.
No. By the way you phrased your sentence, I didn't misinterpret anything. Either rephrase your sentences better next time or figure out that saying you can form your own opinion on 2ND DEGREE MURDER is an absolutely stupid thing to say. Or maybe you do realize how stupid you sound, and you're covering your own ass right now.
Especially when Clem has shown herself resourceful and useful, and Eli has shown himself to be a scumbag with little care in the world
Besides, its not exactly lying, as he in fact DID attack us, besides, I dont think in that world that we should hang in antics such as lying or telling the truth, that might sound cold, and I dont mean that telling the truth should be avoided, or that it isnt a good thing, but in this case, it would only create more problems, besides at that point in time, I knew more about Clem than Tripp and co, even if we dont consider previous games.
Why is it a stupid thing to say that I can form my own opinion on whether she committed second degree murder? I don't believe she did. I gave the reasons why I think that. If you think I'm stupid for that, fine. But please, fuck off already.
But... she totally did commit second degree murder. Whether it was accidental or not. Forming your own opinion on that is the same thing as saying that you have a different opinion on what 2nd degree murder is.
You can have your own opinions on a great many things, but this is just saying: "I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION OF FEDERAL LAWS!"
Except she totally didn't commit 2nd degree murder. Here's a quote from search.uslegal.com - Second degree murder is a death which results from an assault which is likely to cause death. Second degree murder is distinguished from first degree murder, which is a premeditated, intentional killing or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape or armed robbery. Second degree murder is not murder committed in the "heat of passion".
Murder in the second degree includes homicides committed with malice aforethought, that lack deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, or participation in a felony punishable by life imprisonment. To prove murder in the second degree, the state must establish that the perpetrator committed the killing with malice.
As with murder in the first degree, malice means an intent to inflict grievous bodily injury without legal justification, or an intent to act in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury. -End quote
You're so eager to call me stupid for disagreeing with you yet the crime most fitting for what our dear emotional teenager did would be voluntary manslaughter.
Quote- Voluntary manslaughter includes killing in heat of passion, in self-defense, or while committing a felony. Manslaughter lacks the element of malice necessary to be found guilty of murder.
One court has defined it as "the unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood:
1. upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or
2.from the excessive use of force in self-defense."
"§ 2903.03. Voluntary manslaughter.
(A) No person, while under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation occasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite the person into using deadly force, shall knowingly cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another's pregnancy.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, a felony of the first degree."
I lied for her b/c while she made a mistake, i didn't want them to hurt her...and i don't think Javi would've either. He doesn't seem that cold hearted yet.
I stayed with Clem to fight off the bandits. I figured that was the better choice to protect Javi's family.
I shot Conrad. I shot him b/c he took Gabe hostage, not b/c he wanted to bargain Clementine.
I wanted Clem to trust me, but i think i made the choices based on what i thought Javi would do with/forb Clementine given that i think Javi is still trusting, especially with someone that's the same age as his nephew.
I like to think that somewhere, in this zombie apocalypse world, there's a little community that prescribes its beliefs to google definitions.
-- "Hey Johnny, I took and ate your orange when you weren't looking."
- "That's great man." starts typing on the PC
-- "What are you doing, man?
- "steal /stiːl/ verb, gerund or present participle: stealing; take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."
-- "Fuck..."
So funny reading this "I did it because "some crazy exuse", that's why."
But we all know why we do it.
That last line convinced me. Something tells me she could have just moved the gun, knowing that the bullets are faulty...