He's bad, but is he wrong?
I think we can all agree that Bill Carver is a "Bad guy"... but does that necessarily makes him wrong? Is he right when he says that we wont be able to live without a "shepherd" to guide us? Would humanity even make it if everyone went the direction we did: wandering to God knows where with no plan, expecting something easier than what we are given, looking for more than what we are offered?
Is Carver right: do we need a shepherd to guide what's left of humanity?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
One bump for good measure. Way to many fanfic threads pushing this down.
A leader is good but Carver was a psychopath so I think everyone is better off without him.
Aw, come on guys. You've got to have something to say!
Is seriously nobody interested in commenting in a reasonable discussion?
An intersting political argument; that some people think that people need a dictator when times get really rough. We want to think nice, good people will lead people to the future, but it doesn't always end up that way. But, there's a dictator and there's a cult leader - there's episode 2 Carver and episode 3 Carver...
We definitely need a leader, we just need one who isn't a cruel, murderous psychopath.
I think it's bullshit, people don't need a "shepherd" to guide them, what people need is intelligence to know what it has to be done or not and lucky.
Well yeah, leaders are good. But I don't want no leader that kills a man over blueberries.
It's not about the blueberries. It's about sending a message!
Honestly, Any good group should have a Kenny and Lilly, so that neither has the absolute power to make descisions unquestioned.
Because that worked out so well for the group that actually had a Kenny and a Lilly...Diverse opinions are good, but there needs to be some way to resolve a deadlock.
In a lot of ways this argument is reflected by the power struggle between Lily's "tough is all we got" realist perspective and Kenny's "we find something better" idealism. Of course, Season One vindicates neither philosophy.
Idealist society gets people killed, realist society makes them wish they were dead.
Good shepherds don't need to lead their sheep at gunpoint. And they don't kill their sheep for acting too "sheepish." I actually think that a set-up like Carver had probably would be the best chance that humanity has to endure the apocalypse. But forcing people to into being governed by an authority they despise is just asking for a revolt.
Well, I'm really trying to allude to people like Franco in Spain and Park Chung Hee in Korea. They both have highly controvesial legacies, Franco becoming leader after the Spanish Civil War and Park after a coup d'etat - they revitalized the economy at the expense of personal freedoms (including disappearances, torture etc...) In the case of Korea, the previous president Kim Dae-Jung (1998-2003) was actually kidnapped and tortured under the Park Chung Hee regime. Nonetheless, Franco and Park remain controversial figures - some people heralding their economic and geopolitical success, other people despising their abuses. To give an example of their popularity, Park's portrait can still easily be bought in Korea, and even more importantly his daughter is the current president. (Not that she's like her father politically; politically she's more like the previous president...)
No denying, leaders are good. Leaders, most of the time are good guiders. But, Carver was just crazy in some ways. He killed a man by saying he was "weak in character."
Well first I thought he was kinda like... Well he wanted the master race of people
This group needs more Lee.
A Jane is a best way to handle the apocalypse. No leadership, No dictatorship, No bullshit. Only shooting peoples' dicks.
exactly.
I think his general idea of having a leader is good but his opinions on what makes a good leader were wrong.