But I don't understand why you think Ben can't change. That doesn't make sense, people change all the time... especially after going through a lot, like Ben did.
He's well intentioned there's no doubt there but I think at times he just gets too scared or lacks common sense that's hard to change but not enough to leave him to plummet to his death when he's just a kid
Kenny has definitely changed, and you realize that when Katjaa asks what happened in the meatlocker. She knows Kenny's changing and she doesn't like it.
And so has Clem, on episode 4 she starts disobbeying Lee and wanting to participate more (like going to Crawford, exploring the house, going under the door)...
Well, Clem even comments on how Ben doesn't look the same when they come back from Crawford if you save him.
But real-life people are capable of changing too, you don't really need in-game examples to know that Ben could change...
Actually he did. On a number of occasions in episode 2 he showed signs of softening to Lee if Lee showed support for Lily.
did lilly ?
Again, yes. The more Lee backs Lily, the more she is willing to trust him.
has kenny ?
Definitely! Depending on events, Kenny becomes either more trusting of Lee or becomes more self-serving.
has clem ?
Yes again. She goes from being a kid who hides and is scared to a confident child who stands up for what she believes in and the people she trusts.
Seriously? You're going to try to argue that people don't change in a story that's all about how people change when put under pressure.
The whole point of the zombie horror genre is about how exceptional circumstances can change people. How the seemingly nice teacher can become a heartless killer in the name of survival. Or how a murderer can find redemption by fighting to save the weak and protect them.
You really don't know people if you think they can't change.
depends what you mean in terms of Larry knew that Lee was a muderer so he was naturally wary but admittedly he didn't change much. Lilly did as at the start of the game she was good friends with carley and was a calm and collected leader of the group she then loses control of the group goes through alot of stress and kills carley and also suffers her fathers death and abandons the group she formly lead or gets abadoned herself.Kenny again has he helped duck rather then save shawn at hershel's farm and with his family dead I think he replaced he's family loss with nothing he has become more selfish as a result but his motives have changed once he's safe then what? Whats he got to live for his wife and kid are dead so what's he gonna do? Clem has become a girl who used to draw ponies to an eight year old girl who shot a zombie and saved molly's life she also doesn't complain when people swear and no longer thinks as killing as bad so I would argue she has changed the most
i never said people can't change i just asked for clarification, so now putting words in my mouth eh ? bad form..
if you noticed i left out some of the characters because they have also 'changed'
and i know people 'CAN' change but not everyone does. you see growth for other characters like christa and omid who new the group for less time and they learned and have settled in the simple fact is ben has not.
if he has i must of missed so lets show some proof of the almighty ben ?
i never said people can't change i just asked for clarification, so now putting words in my mouth eh ? bad form..
if you noticed i left out some of the characters because they have also 'changed'
and i know people 'CAN' change but not everyone does. you see growth for other characters like christa and omid who new the group for less time and they learned and have settled in the simple fact is ben has not.
if he has i must of missed so lets show some proof of the almighty ben ?
Then maybe you shouldn't have made it look like you firmly believe Ben can't change? That kinda gives off the idea that you think people can't change, sorry if I misinterpreted you, but it's not really my fault.
The experience that would be capable of changing Ben happens at the very end of the episode, we haven't had a chance to see how it really affected him. And how have Omid and Christa showed growth? The group has known them for a day or so ._.
Ben became more and more useless as time went on...not a change really I guess but once he could kinda be trusted but lying repeatedly, he became a coward pretty quickly actually.
If you want prove of Ben changing he went from a scared kid who saw his friend and teacher die and who was scared of bandits to standing up to kenny and admitting like a man it was his fault and he was sorry and vowed to help also willing to die to help the group
If you want prove of Ben changing he went from a scared kid who saw his friend and teacher die and who was scared of bandits to standing up to kenny and admitting like a man it was his fault and he was sorry and vowed to help also willing to die to help the group
hmmm ben only fessed up cos he couldn't handle the guilt anymore for the second time lee warned him to keep his shit to him self, yet for the second time he didn't and he chose the worse time ever to air his dirty laundry.. so no thats more of a step back than forward. and to give up his life for everyone else ? is a cowards way out again imo.
now to throw a spanner in the works on my second play through i saved him, for the sole purpose to see if my insight in to bens mind is correct.
and i know people 'CAN' change but not everyone does.
People can change if they choose to. Ben, by the end of Episode 4, chooses to. So basically you're saying that Ben can change. And you have zero facts to say he won't change. Just an opinion based on ... well your claim that people can't change but they can change but they can't.
Ummm... not particularly solid ground you're standing on there.
you see growth for other characters like christa and omid who new the group for less time and they learned and have settled in the simple fact is ben has not.
if he has i must of missed so lets show some proof of the almighty ben ?
It's not that you've missed it. It's that you've chosen to ignore it due to the attribution error that Ben = idiot. So you just wait for him to prove you right and point at that to say "see! Idiot!" But Ben's actions have changed over the course of the game and he has chosen to man up and change.
Furthermore, your claim that while people can change some won't is not sufficient enough reason to let him die. Which is the point of this argument. You cannot know who will choose to change and who won't. But you cannot remotely predict another person's actions enough to be able to say you are morally justified in letting them die.
Particularly when your argument is built on such shaky foundations as the above flip-flopping you've done.
I would go so far as to say that the only reason you are able to even consider sacrificing Ben is because it's a computer game and not real life. I see a lot of this bravado type "survival of the fittest" erroneous arguing from gamers. The thing is, in most people it seems to be more of a "look how hard I am, I can make the *tough* choices."
But choosing to let someone die because they are perceived as a liability is not making a tough choice. It's resorting to the easy way out to avoid the responsibility of choosing to let someone die when you could have saved them.
Ben has changed a lot since you first met him and he has never done anything to morally justify letting him fall to his death.
argh
I know where my wife, a former school teaher, was coming from when she said "I just can't reach them"
So many keep using terms like moral, murder, right & wrong.
In a species extinction event the rules change.
You're still applying sociological perspective in a situation where it is no longer is a consideration.
how about, this is a different universe.
It only exists in 2 demensions.
In this alternate universe there are only degrees of foward, back, left & right.
You're talking about gravity in a universe where up & down do not exist. :eek:
argh
I know where my wife, a former school teaher, was coming from when she said "I just can't reach them"
So many keep using terms like moral, murder, right & wrong.
In a species extinction event the rules change.
You're still applying sociological perspective in a situation where it is no longer is a consideration.
how about, this is a different universe.
It only exists in 2 demensions.
In this alternate universe there are only degrees of foward, back, left & right.
You're talking about gravity in a universe where up & down do not exist. :eek:
Morality and Ethics exist to ensure the long term survival of our species. These things exist regardless of the situation, and as a matter of fact are *more* important in an extinction level event because there will always be strength in numbers. The way to ensure those numbers are willing to work together is either though tyranny - which always has a short life span - or ethical co-operation.
We see it all the time during major disasters. The people who survive are the ones who work together to help each other.
There is very little evidence to support the idea that morality is luxury. It is quite the opposite. It's what ensures our survival.
As for the second part of your post - that's purely irrelevant. Ethics and morality exist whether there's gravity, no stars, one dimension or a million. It's a poor choice of example because it has no link to what is being argued here.
But I don't understand why you think Ben can't change. That doesn't make sense, people change all the time... especially after going through a lot, like Ben did.
People do not change as long as they have no reason to. He fucks up over and over and over and you still clean up his mistakes and protect him. The first opportunity he actually has to go out like a hero and make a sacrifice for the good of the group and you people are telling me its wrong to give him a hero's send off? Him dying for the cause would be the ultimate slate cleaner. And it was. I felt he went out with dignity and bravado.
Sweet Jesus, NO!!
You can not fall down in a two dementional universe.
But that has no relevance to an argument about ethics and morality. It's like trying to argue a concept like love versus hate by talking about the mechanics of a ball point pen.
Your two dimensional universe argument has not relevance to humans surviving in a zombie apocalypse. For one, in a two dimensional universe the rules of that universe have always been constant. You can't argue it's like our world turning into a two dimensional universe - because a zombie apocalypse is nothing like that at all and trying to use that as an argument against moral behaviour is is... well... absurd.
NO!!
What your sociological perspective interpets as these things is altered by the event.
Actually it's from an anthropological and psychological perspective. Combined with anecdotal evidence and study into ethics and human nature.
Your argument is flawed at the core because you are seeing a zombie apocalypse as the equivalent of the universe changing and that this will somehow fundamentally change how humans behave. However anthropology has proven that from the dawn of time humans have had concepts of morality and the benefit of banding together to protect the weak and the elderly.
Even before humanity was homo sapien sapiens - when they were still a mix of Homo Sapiens, Australopithecus and the like, they banded into communities which protected the weak and elderly and worked together to defend their communities against predators.
The whole survival of the fittest, kill the liability? Humanity as a species has gone against that goal for about 200,000 years. That's before we even developed civilisation or the written word.
So excuse me for remaining sceptical about this fantasy that suddenly a zombie outbreak is going to undo millennia of evolution and survival instinct because of some misguided notion that survival negates morality. Some people will believe that - but as a species? No. Most people will do the moral thing even in an extinction level situation.
Edit: And if you look at the stats for this game, that is the case here too. About as to be expected.
People do not change as long as they have no reason to. He fucks up over and over and over and you still clean up his mistakes and protect him. The first opportunity he actually has to go out like a hero and make a sacrifice for the good of the group and you people are telling me its wrong to give him a hero's send off? Him dying for the cause would be the ultimate slate cleaner. And it was. I felt he went out with dignity and bravado.
Except he doesn't die for the good of the group. They had already got away by that point. His death was not a hero's send off. It was him being swallowed up by his guilt.
Furthermore, he is more valuable alive and being able to continue to help people than just falling to his death.
Romanticise it all you like - but Ben's falling to his death is not heroic. It's tragic.
That sounds more like you romanticizing the value of his loss... Let's be quite frank, shall we? He brings nothing to the table. Not survival skills. Not quality commentary. Not comic relief. Nothing. His loss is incidental at best. Sweet relief from his bungling efforts at worst. Saving him there just means he has yet another chance to get more people killed in an effort to prove himself useful...which he isn't.
i guess you've now resorted to semantics about what i said 'again out of context' at different stages of this debate.
so since the next logical step for you is to get personal and then insult me.
just cos i'd rather have trust worthy skilled and honest people with me instead of lying pathetic cowards makes me a 'bravado type chest puffer'
hard choices ?
you say letting someone die is easy ? erm shouldn't that be the other way round ?
game over real life ? what now ? spitballing...
congrats you successfully ranted on about stuff that wasn't even related to the topic then brought in the gamer versus real life card and bordering on insults.
That sounds more like you romanticizing the value of his loss... Let's be quite frank, shall we? He brings nothing to the table. Not survival skills. Not quality commentary. Not comic relief. Nothing. His loss is incidental at best. Sweet relief from his bungling efforts at worst. Saving him there just means he has yet another chance to get more people killed in an effort to prove himself useful...which he isn't.
i guess you've now resorted to semantics about what i said 'again out of context' at different stages of this debate.
Exactly how. That was taken from a debate about will Ben change. And you said "A Leopard doesn't change its spots."
Here people said Ben can change, you said he couldn't and then said you never argued that people can't change.
That's not semantics, that's you being caught out changing your argument.
so since the next logical step for you is to get personal and then insult me.
Please. Show me where I have personally insulted you.
just cos i'd rather have trust worthy skilled and honest people with me instead of lying pathetic cowards makes me a 'bravado type chest puffer'
Not my words. You are the one who chose to perceive Ben as such - that doesn't actually make him what you claim.
hard choices ?
you say letting someone die is easy ? erm shouldn't that be the other way round ?
Nope. And you're proving it. It's very easy to rely on some simple stock solution of "why bother trying to help him learn to survive when you can give up on him."
You're having a real hard time trying to see why he should live. Seems to me that the hard choice is trying to work out how to survive without having to sacrifice anyone.
game over real life ? what now ? spitballing...
congrats you successfully ranted on about stuff that wasn't even related to the topic then brought in the gamer versus real life card and bordering on insults.
I did not intend to personally insult you. My point was that it seems an oddly common thing among gamers to talk tough about survival games, but survival isn't about being hard. It's about being smart, wise and compassionate.
congrats you and ben are soulmates
*shrug* I guess that is meant to insult me. Frankly, I'd be happy to have Ben on my team. He means well, and as long as he isn't neglected - like he is in the game - he could become a valuable asset. He's young, he's fit and he's fast. He just needs to work on his fear and be taught to be more open about what he intends to do before he acts.
That sounds more like you romanticizing the value of his loss... Let's be quite frank, shall we? He brings nothing to the table. Not survival skills. Not quality commentary. Not comic relief. Nothing. His loss is incidental at best. Sweet relief from his bungling efforts at worst. Saving him there just means he has yet another chance to get more people killed in an effort to prove himself useful...which he isn't.
Actually he brings an extra pair of hands, an extra body and because he's a teenager who is clearly a jock - fitness, speed, more energy and strength. His bungling around is because the group is so dysfunctional they aren't making the best use of the assets in the group. With proper support and guidance, Ben would be really useful.
But it's easier to just write him off than see the potential, I guess.
i wish you the best of british aka luck with ben on your team
i've had enough of this going round in circles off topic nonsense
looking back since it was clear the leopard saying wasn't accurate for the other group members i changed my stance to them NOT BEN. but i see he has the 'potential' to change but personally it wasn't happening quick enough and in a 'game' that is based on quick choices i made a hard judgement call on ben.
as to why anyone would 'hold his hand' through a ZA assuming you have the time, people and resources to do it it's still asking alot plus theres is no guarantee he will 'get a gold star' but i bet you'd give him an 'A' for effort ?
which when a walker is on his ass he makes one attempt to kill it and misses thus resulting in that walker getting ben meat makes all the aforementioned efforts moot ?! but of course he could kill it and win the fight and be a hero yay for ben... but my points have always been thats going to cost you..
so what i'm seeing here is most people will give ben as many chances as it takes, will give him a blanket if he's cold, which kind of sounds like your wet nursing him.
in most of the media formats that show a weak link they are either killed/exiled or abused.
His bungling around is because the group is so dysfunctional they aren't making the best use of the assets in the group. With proper support and guidance, Ben would be really useful.
You yourself admitted he is stupid, and you cannot cure stupid. Ignorance is temporary. Stupidity is forever.
But it's easier to just write him off than see the potential, I guess.
I just want to know where you saw even a single hint of promise from him in this entire game. Name me one time he has done something to benefit the group that didn't end in tragedy?
Based on what? The letterman jacket? You realize even the waterboy gets one of those? He has the muscles of a wet noodle. lol nice
I just want to know where you saw even a single hint of promise from him in this entire game. Name me one time he has done something to benefit the group that didn't end in tragedy? me too
So did chuck. I don't see people saying leaving him on his own was inhumane.
Chuck was surrounded. It was not the same situation at all.
Based on what? The letterman jacket? You realize even the waterboy gets one of those? He has the muscles of a wet noodle.
Based on the fact that he is introduced as an athlete and has an athlete's build. There has been zero evidence that he has wet noodle muscles. But evidence that he is likely a track and field athlete. We don't know.
You yourself admitted he is stupid, and you cannot cure stupid. Ignorance is temporary. Stupidity is forever.
Stupidity is not forever. That's absolute bull. IQ changes all the time and can be improved. Ben's naïveté and short-sightedness can be worked with to fix.
I just want to know where you saw even a single hint of promise from him in this entire game. Name me one time he has done something to benefit the group that didn't end in tragedy?
He offers to help. The tragedies have been a result of the entire group's behaviour. He has sat watch, he always is willing to do what is asked of him.
What I want to know is why you are so dead set to ignore Kenny, Lily and Lee's involvement in these tragedies and lump all the blame on him.
He offers to help. The tragedies have been a result of the entire group's behaviour. He has sat watch, he always is willing to do what is asked of him.
haven't we been over this already ?
lee said to protect clem.
upon entering savanah ben and clem are surrounded, ben runs away.
ben asks to help once they decide to explore the town as no one gave him a job to do.
lee benches him because of his actions with clem
upon returning lee see's ben watching kenny getting drunk and almost has a drink too then gives lee some bad attitude.
and again asks why he's not being allowed to contribute
seriously evin you starting to appear almost as naive as ben.
Ah, but we didn't know everyone was safe until afterwards... Hindsight does not negate the fact that it would be a heroic act.
Umm. Yes we did because everyone else was already out of the building and Lee went back for Ben. It wasn't hindsight. It was blatantly obvious at the time it was happening.
I panicked and helped Kenny kill Larry. I didn't want to be stuck in there with a 300 pound dead guy. I wanted to drop Ben. In fact, I was disappointed that threatening him was all I could do when he confessed to me. But I chose to save him because he's just a stupid kid.
I panicked and helped Kenny kill Larry. I didn't want to be stuck in there with a 300 pound dead guy. I wanted to drop Ben. In fact, I was disappointed that threatening him was all I could do when he confessed to me. But I chose to save him because he's just a stupid kid.
And stupid is deadly in the ZA. Stupid gets people killed.
Again. None of which morally justifies letting Ben die.
You can't claim "there's a risk so he's better off dead" to make it morally right. It isn't.
Clementine is just as much of a risk. Kenny is the biggest risk, his actions have directly led to people's deaths. Carly died because of Kenny killing Larry and undermining Lily to the point that she was paranoid of everyone. Katjaa killed herself because Kenny was not paying attention to what was happening to her. Brie died because Kenny decided to force everyone to vote on Ben's future in the middle of a Zombie attack instead of waiting until they got to safety.
He never has a plan, is quick to turn on his friends and only looks out for himself.
i thought it was lee/christa, because kenny wanted to kill ben right there and then.
seriously evin are you super glued in to this mind set you have ?
katjaa killed her self because she couldn't live with out duck quoting her
'i love him more than life it's self'
brie actually died because the walkers came through the door that was blocked by the hatchet,
(GUESS WHO REMOVED IT) YES THAT'S RIGHT MUTHAFUCKER IT WAS BEN...
humble pie time does it taste good with your cheese and wine ?
is it also morally correct to ignore dangers ? is it acceptable to endanger a child ? is it fair to judge someone on their actions ? yes in a place where law doesn't exist justice should be served.
now so far ben is guilty of murder or manslaughter depending on your definition.
a child is 5 to 12, a teenager is 13 to 19 and adult is 19 to 40 ish 40 ish onwards is mature or should be.
And it's also a lot easier to understand Ben if you're a teenager who's had a sheltered life yourself, which obviously most people on this forum aren't...
Again. None of which morally justifies letting Ben die.
You can't claim "there's a risk so he's better off dead" to make it morally right. It isn't.
Clementine is just as much of a risk. Kenny is the biggest risk, his actions have directly led to people's deaths. Carly died because of Kenny killing Larry and undermining Lily to the point that she was paranoid of everyone. Katjaa killed herself because Kenny was not paying attention to what was happening to her. Brie died because Kenny decided to force everyone to vote on Ben's future in the middle of a Zombie attack instead of waiting until they got to safety.
He never has a plan, is quick to turn on his friends and only looks out for himself.
Comments
care to use a quote to be more precise ?
did larry ?
did lilly ?
has kenny ?
has clem ?
Kenny has definitely changed, and you realize that when Katjaa asks what happened in the meatlocker. She knows Kenny's changing and she doesn't like it.
And so has Clem, on episode 4 she starts disobbeying Lee and wanting to participate more (like going to Crawford, exploring the house, going under the door)...
Well, Clem even comments on how Ben doesn't look the same when they come back from Crawford if you save him.
But real-life people are capable of changing too, you don't really need in-game examples to know that Ben could change...
Actually he did. On a number of occasions in episode 2 he showed signs of softening to Lee if Lee showed support for Lily.
Again, yes. The more Lee backs Lily, the more she is willing to trust him.
Definitely! Depending on events, Kenny becomes either more trusting of Lee or becomes more self-serving.
Yes again. She goes from being a kid who hides and is scared to a confident child who stands up for what she believes in and the people she trusts.
Seriously? You're going to try to argue that people don't change in a story that's all about how people change when put under pressure.
The whole point of the zombie horror genre is about how exceptional circumstances can change people. How the seemingly nice teacher can become a heartless killer in the name of survival. Or how a murderer can find redemption by fighting to save the weak and protect them.
You really don't know people if you think they can't change.
if you noticed i left out some of the characters because they have also 'changed'
and i know people 'CAN' change but not everyone does. you see growth for other characters like christa and omid who new the group for less time and they learned and have settled in the simple fact is ben has not.
if he has i must of missed so lets show some proof of the almighty ben ?
Then maybe you shouldn't have made it look like you firmly believe Ben can't change? That kinda gives off the idea that you think people can't change, sorry if I misinterpreted you, but it's not really my fault.
The experience that would be capable of changing Ben happens at the very end of the episode, we haven't had a chance to see how it really affected him. And how have Omid and Christa showed growth? The group has known them for a day or so ._.
since lee helped save omid she's changed her mind about him and trusts lee enough to support him in his quest to save clem.
thing is i do firmly believe ben can't change but the current point on people changing is ben is the only one who won't.
hmmm ben only fessed up cos he couldn't handle the guilt anymore for the second time lee warned him to keep his shit to him self, yet for the second time he didn't and he chose the worse time ever to air his dirty laundry.. so no thats more of a step back than forward. and to give up his life for everyone else ? is a cowards way out again imo.
now to throw a spanner in the works on my second play through i saved him, for the sole purpose to see if my insight in to bens mind is correct.
bring on the flames...
Really? Putting words in your mouth?
Let me refresh your memory...
So now you're saying he can change his spots?
People can change if they choose to. Ben, by the end of Episode 4, chooses to. So basically you're saying that Ben can change. And you have zero facts to say he won't change. Just an opinion based on ... well your claim that people can't change but they can change but they can't.
Ummm... not particularly solid ground you're standing on there.
It's not that you've missed it. It's that you've chosen to ignore it due to the attribution error that Ben = idiot. So you just wait for him to prove you right and point at that to say "see! Idiot!" But Ben's actions have changed over the course of the game and he has chosen to man up and change.
Furthermore, your claim that while people can change some won't is not sufficient enough reason to let him die. Which is the point of this argument. You cannot know who will choose to change and who won't. But you cannot remotely predict another person's actions enough to be able to say you are morally justified in letting them die.
Particularly when your argument is built on such shaky foundations as the above flip-flopping you've done.
I would go so far as to say that the only reason you are able to even consider sacrificing Ben is because it's a computer game and not real life. I see a lot of this bravado type "survival of the fittest" erroneous arguing from gamers. The thing is, in most people it seems to be more of a "look how hard I am, I can make the *tough* choices."
But choosing to let someone die because they are perceived as a liability is not making a tough choice. It's resorting to the easy way out to avoid the responsibility of choosing to let someone die when you could have saved them.
Ben has changed a lot since you first met him and he has never done anything to morally justify letting him fall to his death.
I know where my wife, a former school teaher, was coming from when she said "I just can't reach them"
So many keep using terms like moral, murder, right & wrong.
In a species extinction event the rules change.
You're still applying sociological perspective in a situation where it is no longer is a consideration.
how about, this is a different universe.
It only exists in 2 demensions.
In this alternate universe there are only degrees of foward, back, left & right.
You're talking about gravity in a universe where up & down do not exist. :eek:
Morality and Ethics exist to ensure the long term survival of our species. These things exist regardless of the situation, and as a matter of fact are *more* important in an extinction level event because there will always be strength in numbers. The way to ensure those numbers are willing to work together is either though tyranny - which always has a short life span - or ethical co-operation.
We see it all the time during major disasters. The people who survive are the ones who work together to help each other.
There is very little evidence to support the idea that morality is luxury. It is quite the opposite. It's what ensures our survival.
As for the second part of your post - that's purely irrelevant. Ethics and morality exist whether there's gravity, no stars, one dimension or a million. It's a poor choice of example because it has no link to what is being argued here.
Some rules are constant.
Sweet Jesus, NO!!
You can not fall down in a two dementional universe.
NO!!
What your sociological perspective interprets as these things is altered by the event.
okay, Im done riding this merry-go-round.
Carry on.
People do not change as long as they have no reason to. He fucks up over and over and over and you still clean up his mistakes and protect him. The first opportunity he actually has to go out like a hero and make a sacrifice for the good of the group and you people are telling me its wrong to give him a hero's send off? Him dying for the cause would be the ultimate slate cleaner. And it was. I felt he went out with dignity and bravado.
But that has no relevance to an argument about ethics and morality. It's like trying to argue a concept like love versus hate by talking about the mechanics of a ball point pen.
Your two dimensional universe argument has not relevance to humans surviving in a zombie apocalypse. For one, in a two dimensional universe the rules of that universe have always been constant. You can't argue it's like our world turning into a two dimensional universe - because a zombie apocalypse is nothing like that at all and trying to use that as an argument against moral behaviour is is... well... absurd.
Actually it's from an anthropological and psychological perspective. Combined with anecdotal evidence and study into ethics and human nature.
Your argument is flawed at the core because you are seeing a zombie apocalypse as the equivalent of the universe changing and that this will somehow fundamentally change how humans behave. However anthropology has proven that from the dawn of time humans have had concepts of morality and the benefit of banding together to protect the weak and the elderly.
Even before humanity was homo sapien sapiens - when they were still a mix of Homo Sapiens, Australopithecus and the like, they banded into communities which protected the weak and elderly and worked together to defend their communities against predators.
The whole survival of the fittest, kill the liability? Humanity as a species has gone against that goal for about 200,000 years. That's before we even developed civilisation or the written word.
So excuse me for remaining sceptical about this fantasy that suddenly a zombie outbreak is going to undo millennia of evolution and survival instinct because of some misguided notion that survival negates morality. Some people will believe that - but as a species? No. Most people will do the moral thing even in an extinction level situation.
Edit: And if you look at the stats for this game, that is the case here too. About as to be expected.
Except he doesn't die for the good of the group. They had already got away by that point. His death was not a hero's send off. It was him being swallowed up by his guilt.
Furthermore, he is more valuable alive and being able to continue to help people than just falling to his death.
Romanticise it all you like - but Ben's falling to his death is not heroic. It's tragic.
i guess you've now resorted to semantics about what i said 'again out of context' at different stages of this debate.
so since the next logical step for you is to get personal and then insult me.
just cos i'd rather have trust worthy skilled and honest people with me instead of lying pathetic cowards makes me a 'bravado type chest puffer'
hard choices ?
you say letting someone die is easy ? erm shouldn't that be the other way round ?
game over real life ? what now ? spitballing...
congrats you successfully ranted on about stuff that wasn't even related to the topic then brought in the gamer versus real life card and bordering on insults.
congrats you and ben are soulmates
preach it brother
A 'fucking' MEN
#bro fist#
Exactly how. That was taken from a debate about will Ben change. And you said "A Leopard doesn't change its spots."
Here people said Ben can change, you said he couldn't and then said you never argued that people can't change.
That's not semantics, that's you being caught out changing your argument.
Please. Show me where I have personally insulted you.
Not my words. You are the one who chose to perceive Ben as such - that doesn't actually make him what you claim.
Nope. And you're proving it. It's very easy to rely on some simple stock solution of "why bother trying to help him learn to survive when you can give up on him."
You're having a real hard time trying to see why he should live. Seems to me that the hard choice is trying to work out how to survive without having to sacrifice anyone.
I did not intend to personally insult you. My point was that it seems an oddly common thing among gamers to talk tough about survival games, but survival isn't about being hard. It's about being smart, wise and compassionate.
*shrug* I guess that is meant to insult me. Frankly, I'd be happy to have Ben on my team. He means well, and as long as he isn't neglected - like he is in the game - he could become a valuable asset. He's young, he's fit and he's fast. He just needs to work on his fear and be taught to be more open about what he intends to do before he acts.
All things you can teach anyone to do. So thanks.
Edit:
Actually he brings an extra pair of hands, an extra body and because he's a teenager who is clearly a jock - fitness, speed, more energy and strength. His bungling around is because the group is so dysfunctional they aren't making the best use of the assets in the group. With proper support and guidance, Ben would be really useful.
But it's easier to just write him off than see the potential, I guess.
i wish you the best of british aka luck with ben on your team
i've had enough of this going round in circles off topic nonsense
looking back since it was clear the leopard saying wasn't accurate for the other group members i changed my stance to them NOT BEN. but i see he has the 'potential' to change but personally it wasn't happening quick enough and in a 'game' that is based on quick choices i made a hard judgement call on ben.
as to why anyone would 'hold his hand' through a ZA assuming you have the time, people and resources to do it it's still asking alot plus theres is no guarantee he will 'get a gold star' but i bet you'd give him an 'A' for effort ?
which when a walker is on his ass he makes one attempt to kill it and misses thus resulting in that walker getting ben meat makes all the aforementioned efforts moot ?! but of course he could kill it and win the fight and be a hero yay for ben... but my points have always been thats going to cost you..
so what i'm seeing here is most people will give ben as many chances as it takes, will give him a blanket if he's cold, which kind of sounds like your wet nursing him.
in most of the media formats that show a weak link they are either killed/exiled or abused.
ben is a 'band geek'
http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Ben_Paul
Chuck was surrounded. It was not the same situation at all.
Based on the fact that he is introduced as an athlete and has an athlete's build. There has been zero evidence that he has wet noodle muscles. But evidence that he is likely a track and field athlete. We don't know.
Stupidity is not forever. That's absolute bull. IQ changes all the time and can be improved. Ben's naïveté and short-sightedness can be worked with to fix.
He offers to help. The tragedies have been a result of the entire group's behaviour. He has sat watch, he always is willing to do what is asked of him.
What I want to know is why you are so dead set to ignore Kenny, Lily and Lee's involvement in these tragedies and lump all the blame on him.
haven't we been over this already ?
lee said to protect clem.
upon entering savanah ben and clem are surrounded, ben runs away.
ben asks to help once they decide to explore the town as no one gave him a job to do.
lee benches him because of his actions with clem
upon returning lee see's ben watching kenny getting drunk and almost has a drink too then gives lee some bad attitude.
and again asks why he's not being allowed to contribute
seriously evin you starting to appear almost as naive as ben.
Ah, but we didn't know everyone was safe until afterwards... Hindsight does not negate the fact that it would be a heroic act.
Umm. Yes we did because everyone else was already out of the building and Lee went back for Ben. It wasn't hindsight. It was blatantly obvious at the time it was happening.
lee stayed behind for ben he didn't go back...
but what your failing to grasp here is some of us DON'T WANT TO RISK ANYMORE people dying from stupid or to put it another way AVOIDABLE deaths.
if ben had died instead of travis/david the group would be soo much better off.
travis maybe not much better but i reckon his father would of drilled some smarts in to him and david well music doesn't happen with out instruments.
And stupid is deadly in the ZA. Stupid gets people killed.
You can't claim "there's a risk so he's better off dead" to make it morally right. It isn't.
Clementine is just as much of a risk. Kenny is the biggest risk, his actions have directly led to people's deaths. Carly died because of Kenny killing Larry and undermining Lily to the point that she was paranoid of everyone. Katjaa killed herself because Kenny was not paying attention to what was happening to her. Brie died because Kenny decided to force everyone to vote on Ben's future in the middle of a Zombie attack instead of waiting until they got to safety.
He never has a plan, is quick to turn on his friends and only looks out for himself.
But you still are willing to take that risk.
Just a kid? the guy is at least 17...that's old enough to join the army in some countries. Not buying it.
i thought it was lee/christa, because kenny wanted to kill ben right there and then.
seriously evin are you super glued in to this mind set you have ?
katjaa killed her self because she couldn't live with out duck quoting her
'i love him more than life it's self'
brie actually died because the walkers came through the door that was blocked by the hatchet,
humble pie time does it taste good with your cheese and wine ?
is it also morally correct to ignore dangers ? is it acceptable to endanger a child ? is it fair to judge someone on their actions ? yes in a place where law doesn't exist justice should be served.
now so far ben is guilty of murder or manslaughter depending on your definition.
a child is 5 to 12, a teenager is 13 to 19 and adult is 19 to 40 ish 40 ish onwards is mature or should be.
You assume much. I went alone into episode 5.