I'm pretty sure any scientific Journal from a reputable source will show there is a very high chance of Rapists re-offending unless they are successfully rehabilitated through prison and even then there is still a chance(albeit lower then before they went to prison but still a high chance). The act releases Dopamine from the brain which is a feeling of "Pleasure". The brain will want this feeling again which in turn will give the rapist urges to do the same thing again,hence what I meant by it being like a drug.
I'm pretty sure any scientific Journal from a reputable source will show there is a very high chance of Rapists re-offending unless they are successfully rehabilitated through prison and even then there is still a chance(albeit lower then before they went to prison but still a high chance). The act release Dopamine from the brain which is a feeling of "Pleasure". The brain will want this feeling again which will give the rapist urges to do the same thing again,hence what I meant by it being like a drug.
The brain could just as easily urge Vince to do the same if he felt someone else was at risk. Instead of trying to take it to the police or being merciful, he killed a guy who was begging for his life. BEGGING. Doesn't sound much worse than rape to me.
Depending on dialogue, choice, Vince doesn't regret it either.
He wouldn't regret it because it was the right thing to do to save his brother. But he didn't get any pleasure out of killing as a serial killer would or a rapists does by raping.
The brain could just as easily urge Vince to do the same if he felt someone else was at risk. Instead of trying to take it to the police or being merciful, he killed a guy who was begging for his life. BEGGING. Doesn't sound much worse than rape to me.
Would you rather save a convicted rapist who would do the same thing again in the apocalypse? Or save an albeit cowardly guy who did no physical harm to others?
If it was a choice between a murderer and a rapist, that'd be different.
The brain could just as easily urge Vince to do the same if he felt someone else was at risk. Instead of trying to take it to the police or being merciful, he killed a guy who was begging for his life. BEGGING. Doesn't sound much worse than rape to me.
And yalling from a guy that rapes you and ruins your life? worse.
Vince could easily think that killing is a good solution to a problem like that, i.e. his BRAIN thinks it. Ergo, the reasoning in his brain could very well urge him to do the same thing again.
In the same way that a person may NEVER want to kill a human being, a person may think that killing like that is acceptable, which Vince clearly did. So he could very well do it again.
Don't talk to me like I'm an idiot, I've studied biology and psychology, I have a good enough understanding of how the brain works to aid me in a conversation about murderers thank you very much.
Vince killed a man in cold blood; it was not a rage induced crime of passion.
You can't justify that.
We have no idea about the circumstances behind why Vince killed that man.
His brother could have already been under threat of murder by the guy, or he could have just stolen his parking spot for all we know; just not enough information at this point.
Which is why I said that his actions were more morally grey than the crime of rape, which can't be given any form of justification..
We have no idea about the circumstances behind why Vince killed that man.
His brother could have already been under threat of murder by the guy, or he could have just stolen his parking spot for all we know; just not enough information at this point.
That doesn't matter. We know the man was on his knees, BEGGING for his life. We know that Vince's crime was bad enough that he was found guilty of MURDER as well.
Vince killed a man who was begging for mercy. I wouldn't want someone like that in my group.
This guy will argue to the end, I remember on a Larry thread he insisted that Larry was still alive and that it wasn't ambigious even when I said Telltale Confirmed that it was ambigious.
This guy will argue to the end, I remember on a Larry thread he insisted that Larry was still alive and that it wasn't ambigious even when I said Telltale Confirmed that it was ambigious.
Talking behind someone's back on a public forum is rather rude, but, whatever, continue.
(Just FYI, I believe that Larry died and in my canon playthrough I helped Kenny kill him. But whatever.)
That doesn't matter. We know the man was on his knees, BEGGING for his life. We know that Vince's crime was bad enough that he was found guilty of MURDER as well.
Vince killed a man who was begging for mercy. I wouldn't want someone like that in my group.
So by your logic, there's no threat you can make, or crime that you could commit that's horrible enough to make a moral person want to shoot you despite your protests? Brilliant.
(also, to briefly go off topic, I just watched the TV show, and the quickest someone has turned was three minutes, and Larry was not unconcious for as long as that. A*hem, sorry, just had to say that, back OT)
(also, to briefly go off topic, I just watched the TV show, and the quickest someone has turned was three minutes, and Larry was not unconcious for as long as that. A*hem, sorry, just had to say that, back OT)
That doesn't mean they haven't turned within a second within a minute,that was a few walkers tested in one lab hardly conclusive evidence to cover every walker in the world.
this isn't a discussion about whether vince is a bad person (who knows maybe Vince deserves to die) but clearly rape is worse than fraud
This is a thread about whether it is right to punish someone for something they did before the apocalypse started, even if they may be more useful alive.
If Danny was in the middle and he had to shoot Vince or Justin, by everyone's logic Vince should be killed.
I don't have a problem with people believing things, as long as their reasons for doing so are justifiable.
That doesn't mean they haven't turned within a second within a minute,that was a few walkers tested in one lab hardly conclusive evidence to cover every walker in the world.
It wasn't just the walkers they had tested in a lab, they had REPORTS of some turning in that short a time.
Although I do agree with you, that walkers could turn sooner in theory, it just seems unlikely that the exception to the rule would take place in an ambiguous situation, from a narrative point of view.
To be fair though, Kenny and Lee didn't know that, so their mistake is understandable.
It wasn't just the walkers they had tested in a lab, they had REPORTS of some turning in that short a time.
Yes but each lab may have had a few what I'm saying is there could have been millions who turned within a few seconds or within a minute or 2 minutes,the shortest in any lab was 3 minutes but that doesn't mean 3 minutes is scientifically the quickest someone can turn.It's not fact.
This is a thread about whether it is right to punish someone for something they did before the apocalypse started, even if they may be more useful alive.
If Danny was in the middle and he had to shoot Vince or Justin, by everyone's logic Vince should be killed.
I don't have a problem with people believing things, as long as their reasons for doing so are justifiable.
yeah, if we were playing Danny i would have shot Vince, but i wouldn't have liked Danny.
also if we were playing Justin and we heard that vice killed someone to protect his brother i would have shot Danny
Yes but each lab may have had a few what I'm saying is there could have been millions who turned within a few seconds or within a minute or 2 minutes,the shortest in any lab was 3 minutes but that doesn't mean 3 minutes is scientifically the quickest someone can turn.It's not fact.
That doesn't answer my point that it would have been a stupid time in the narrative to reveal that they can turn that quickly, so it's unlikely that they did choose that to be the first time.
That doesn't answer my point that it would have been a stupid time in the narrative to reveal that they can turn that quickly, so it's unlikely that they did choose that to be the first time.
If your playing the game with the knowlege of stuff you've learned in the tv series or comics your doing it wrong.
The creators mentioned in an interview once that many factors can influence how fast someone can turn, the main factor being their aggression as this somehow makes the transition into being a walker easier. So by that criteria, Larry would be the quickest to turn out of most survivors.
Back on topic, I chose Danny during my canon walkthrough due to his bravery and willingness to take action when needed. I only regretted this later when I heard Russell implying that Danny had perhaps returned to his criminal nature. So at first I did agree with Flog. We had no idea who he truly was before the apocalypse and perhaps he deserved the benefit of the doubt such as Lee was often given. And in the moment, you would have to be somewhat of an asshat to choose a sniveling, cowardly Justin over a guy who just stood in front of a SHOTGUN for his prison mates.
The creators mentioned in an interview once that many factors can influence how fast someone can turn, the main factor being their aggression as this somehow makes the transition into being a walker easier. So by that criteria, Larry would be the quickest to turn out of most survivors.
Back on topic, I chose Danny during my canon walkthrough due to his bravery and willingness to take action when needed. I only regretted this later when I heard Russell implying that Danny had perhaps returned to his criminal nature. So at first I did agree with Flog. We had no idea who he truly was before the apocalypse and perhaps he deserved the benefit of the doubt such as Lee was often given. And in the moment, you would have to be somewhat of an asshat to choose a sniveling, cowardly Justin over a guy who just stood in front of a SHOTGUN for his prison mates.
That was exactly my motivation for choosing Danny! But since Vince only comes if you saved Justin, I guess they thought it was the wrong choice
There have been good people who killed in the line of passion, however not a single good person has committed rape. Danny lying about it didnt help either.
There have been good people who killed in the line of passion, however not a single good person has committed rape. Danny lying about it didnt help either.
Comments
I'm pretty sure any scientific Journal from a reputable source will show there is a very high chance of Rapists re-offending unless they are successfully rehabilitated through prison and even then there is still a chance(albeit lower then before they went to prison but still a high chance). The act releases Dopamine from the brain which is a feeling of "Pleasure". The brain will want this feeling again which in turn will give the rapist urges to do the same thing again,hence what I meant by it being like a drug.
Vince killed a 20-30 year old, he can rape an 18 year old too!
We don't need evidence.
The brain could just as easily urge Vince to do the same if he felt someone else was at risk. Instead of trying to take it to the police or being merciful, he killed a guy who was begging for his life. BEGGING. Doesn't sound much worse than rape to me.
He wouldn't regret it because it was the right thing to do to save his brother. But he didn't get any pleasure out of killing as a serial killer would or a rapists does by raping.
We don't know WHY he killed him. Raping and killing is not the same, you should know.
That is not how the brain works..
He can also say no.
Danny says he regrets it too. That makes everything ok right? Good.
Would you rather save a convicted rapist who would do the same thing again in the apocalypse? Or save an albeit cowardly guy who did no physical harm to others?
If it was a choice between a murderer and a rapist, that'd be different.
And yalling from a guy that rapes you and ruins your life? worse.
....are you serious?
Vince could easily think that killing is a good solution to a problem like that, i.e. his BRAIN thinks it. Ergo, the reasoning in his brain could very well urge him to do the same thing again.
In the same way that a person may NEVER want to kill a human being, a person may think that killing like that is acceptable, which Vince clearly did. So he could very well do it again.
Don't talk to me like I'm an idiot, I've studied biology and psychology, I have a good enough understanding of how the brain works to aid me in a conversation about murderers thank you very much.
There's more to the brain than dopamine.
Which is why I said that his actions were more morally grey than the crime of rape, which can't be given any form of justification..
We have no idea about the circumstances behind why Vince killed that man.
His brother could have already been under threat of murder by the guy, or he could have just stolen his parking spot for all we know; just not enough information at this point.
Hmm,
1)Man rapes you and ruins your life
2) Man kills you as you beg on your knees for mercy and kills you.
These two things seem pretty much equivalent.
To reduce this to a very simple question, would you rather be raped or murdered? I know my answer.
And people who gets raped Dose want them to do that?
stop arguing with everyone. That makes you stupid.
That doesn't matter. We know the man was on his knees, BEGGING for his life. We know that Vince's crime was bad enough that he was found guilty of MURDER as well.
Vince killed a man who was begging for mercy. I wouldn't want someone like that in my group.
Would you rather Lobster Hands or Snake tongue?
Talking behind someone's back on a public forum is rather rude, but, whatever, continue.
(Just FYI, I believe that Larry died and in my canon playthrough I helped Kenny kill him. But whatever.)
Both, always both
As a girl, i rather get murdererd then get raped and losing my.... yeah, you know.
So by your logic, there's no threat you can make, or crime that you could commit that's horrible enough to make a moral person want to shoot you despite your protests? Brilliant.
That doesn't mean they haven't turned within a second within a minute,that was a few walkers tested in one lab hardly conclusive evidence to cover every walker in the world.
Would you rather Lobster Hands or Snake tongue?[/QUOTE]
Lobstar hands, think of all the awesome things you could grab.
Like, guns.
This is a thread about whether it is right to punish someone for something they did before the apocalypse started, even if they may be more useful alive.
If Danny was in the middle and he had to shoot Vince or Justin, by everyone's logic Vince should be killed.
I don't have a problem with people believing things, as long as their reasons for doing so are justifiable.
It wasn't just the walkers they had tested in a lab, they had REPORTS of some turning in that short a time.
Although I do agree with you, that walkers could turn sooner in theory, it just seems unlikely that the exception to the rule would take place in an ambiguous situation, from a narrative point of view.
To be fair though, Kenny and Lee didn't know that, so their mistake is understandable.
Yes but each lab may have had a few what I'm saying is there could have been millions who turned within a few seconds or within a minute or 2 minutes,the shortest in any lab was 3 minutes but that doesn't mean 3 minutes is scientifically the quickest someone can turn.It's not fact.
yeah, if we were playing Danny i would have shot Vince, but i wouldn't have liked Danny.
also if we were playing Justin and we heard that vice killed someone to protect his brother i would have shot Danny
That doesn't answer my point that it would have been a stupid time in the narrative to reveal that they can turn that quickly, so it's unlikely that they did choose that to be the first time.
If your playing the game with the knowlege of stuff you've learned in the tv series or comics your doing it wrong.
Back on topic, I chose Danny during my canon walkthrough due to his bravery and willingness to take action when needed. I only regretted this later when I heard Russell implying that Danny had perhaps returned to his criminal nature. So at first I did agree with Flog. We had no idea who he truly was before the apocalypse and perhaps he deserved the benefit of the doubt such as Lee was often given. And in the moment, you would have to be somewhat of an asshat to choose a sniveling, cowardly Justin over a guy who just stood in front of a SHOTGUN for his prison mates.
That was exactly my motivation for choosing Danny! But since Vince only comes if you saved Justin, I guess they thought it was the wrong choice
Firstly, it's 'you're*' (sorry, I hate it when people get that wrong), and secondly, that has no bearing on my actual argument whatsoever.
My overall point Exactly.