BYOAC Talking Dead - Walking Dead Season 5

Main > Everything Else

<< < (51/84) > >>

RandyT:

--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on November 03, 2015, 11:34:43 pm ---Everyone has friends or family or followers/admirers of some kind, even if they are a really sick puppy. When you kill a person you might have gotten "revenge" or "justice" but you've potentially made an enemy of anyone associated with the person and now they want revenge on you. Violence begets more violence until the violence is so horrific that neither side can tolerate anymore... this isn't an opinion but rather a proven fact.

--- End quote ---

I also don't want this to end up in P'N'R, so I'll refrain from too many examples. But unfortunately, when "the violence is so horrific that neither side can tolerate anymore", it has reached the point where wars can be ended, and the two sides can agree on the terms of peaceful co-existence. Only when the losses are so severe, and further losses inevitable, does one side succumb. That is history. People aren't bits and bytes which can be manipulated by pure logic. They (we) just don't work that way.

Individuals prone to unchecked violence, and/or extremely violent societies, cannot be reasoned with. If they could, they probably wouldn't be as they are. They are a cancer on civilization and humanity in general. When dealing with cancer, you tear it out at it's root, by any means possible. At the center of the cancer, it is the most severe. You start there and work your way outward, removing what you must, and treating what you can. If it's not completely eradicated, you haven't finished the job.

If Eastman's philosophy becomes entrenched in the story line (which is already becoming a bit disconnected from the show's "reality"), I'll likely give up on it. The visceral challenges posed by the human condition are what makes it interesting. When they start watching people die around them because they want to be "civilized", I'll start rooting for the zombies.

dkersten:
I like the opposite viewpoints on this. I do think morality comes into play extensively, but any situation where your personal morality comes into question (whether it be religion based or not), other factors will influence your decisions, and the direction of the new culture, extensively.

I think in a world where people are desperate to do anything and in particular have seen first hand how trusting people they don't already know usually ends up killing them, there is no concern for the repercussions. Someone comes close and you kill them or they will kill you. You can introduce compassion but in a world where compassion is already rare if not extinct, it would just be met with even more distrust. Look at Eastman: He shows compassion and nearly ends up dead. The only thing that saved him was his own skill and propensity for violence. If Morgan had been accompanied by friends there is no way Eastman would have survived his own compassion.

Frankly the message I am starting to see is: You can be compassionate if you are the most dangerous person in the room.

That doesn't bode well for most people though. Just ask the people of Alexandria who fell victim to the Wolves attack. They had the tools to fight back but chose not to learn how because they wanted things to return to how they were before. That isn't going to happen. The only way you can have that philosophy is when you can back it up with the ability to do violence. Alexandria could grow as long as it has people like Rick in place to make sure that anyone threatening it in any way will be dealt with swiftly and decisively. Examples would need to be clearly displayed to any newcomers to show, without a shred of doubt, that not following the rules would have severe consequences.

There is a lot of irony in a situation like this because the only ones able to make the choice not to kill are the ones who are best at killing.

This show is about the "human condition." I always saw the "Post Apocalyptic" genre as the perfect platform for exploring this. Humankind will never live in perpetual peace. Sooner or later the power that keeps the peace will grow complacent and someone will realize they can take what they want. It will always lead to violence and war. Is there really any way the human species will not end up committing violence against itself? Randy makes a very strong point: eventually the losses of war and violence will cause one side to cave in and surrender. But what happens when the next generation comes to power and does not have the insight of the ones who found out how much war can really hurt? Once the memory of the cost of war fades, there is nothing to stop a human from waging war again. Perhaps you could say Humankind's biggest weakness is shortsightedness.

Food for thought.

Howard_Casto:
Without giving too much away in the books, planet earth on a grander scale is kind of where they are in the books. You've got this massive nation (the first world) which has, for the most part, learned the lesson that war is pointless and lives in a truly civilized society, under constant bombardment by these pockets of savagery (the meanest and most fanatical members of third world nations).

If you are paying any attention to the news at all, it should be apparent that violence DOES NOT WORK against these nuts. It's like trying to squash out an entire anthill one ant at a time. So the solution? You do the bare minimum in offensive moves and build a stronger defense. Eventually they will die off on their own because that level of fanaticism/lunacy isn't sustainable.

Randy you pose the argument that "people" aren't logical. I think you mean "some people" aren't logical. You know what your momma said about following others what with the bridge jumping and all. You have to be a better person than the people around you, or else you aren't worthy of survival. By your own logic the only way to get rid of evil is to kill evil off, the only problem is if you go to the same extremes as the evil, then you are evil. So if we go with your logic then it is impossible for good to win. Sorry but I'm more of an optimist than that.

There is a lot of truth to the concept that the more powerful you are, the more you have to restrain yourself and keep the moral high ground. When violent solutions are the easiest solutions is when it's time to stop using violence. If you don't then you will have a very lonely, very fascist planet real quick.

dkersten:

--- Quote from: Howard_Casto on November 04, 2015, 03:06:05 pm ---you pose the argument that "people" aren't logical. I think you mean "some people" aren't logical.
--- End quote ---
I can't speak for Randy, but I would counter this by saying that while individual people might very well be logical, a culture is not.

There is a demotivational poster (one of the originals) that says "Meetings: None of us is as dumb as All of us." This is insanely true. As a nation, we are a bunch of idiots and we aren't learning from our mistakes. As a race, we are not peaceful. We never will be peaceful. Sooner or later someone who is stronger will realize he can have what he wants and he will not have the "decency" or "morality" to see that it is wrong to just take it, and violence will happen. In some cases this will lead to more violence and it will only end when there is war and one side is finally hurt so bad that it surrenders or will face complete annihilation.

You say there are nuts out there who you cannot stop with violence, and that is true: they WANT violence, so the only thing you can do to stop them is eliminate them. History has shown that when you just shut yourself off and leave them to destroy themselves they don't, they just sit there waiting until you drop your guard and then come at you again. History also shows that eventually we also always drop our guard. Complacency. The next generation doesn't grow up fighting them so they start to think they can love them, so they open the doors to them and BAM, they are being hurt again. The only way to end it is to eliminate them completely, which of course is not possible if you are trying to be moral. You can't fight a war (and have it end) against a culture who believes the best thing that could happen to them is they could die fighting you.

harveybirdman:
I'll add this, Homer had this figured out ages ago... He wrote

"In All things, balance is better" or as I like to translate "In all things, balance is best"

I also agree with DK, when he says only the baddest mother ---smurfs--- can be compassionate. It makes me think of Jules from Pulp Fiction. Morgan's trying REAL hard to be the Shepard.

Navigation

 Message Index

Go to full version