The place where they are most different, is Kenny has a wholesome interest in kids.
He cares about them and doesn't want to see them hurt.
And as far as Clementine, Kenny has a fatherly view of her, and is fiercely protective of her.
And that is quite something!
Nate, I wouldn't trust around kids.
The reasons I wouldn't should be obvious.
And aside from that, Kenny is loyal, kind, brave, resourceful and a devoted father.
Nate is none of those things.
I think Kenny's character and Nate's character aren't that much different. People aren't black and white. It is the zombie Apocalypse, and … morethose people shot at you first. Personally i wouldn't care what Nate did to them, i don't know them personally so it wouldn't mean anything to me.
Nate was a dangerous psychopath.
He would smile at you, just as easily as shoot you dead.
Anyone who likes a character like that, and I mean this respectfully, may wish to take a step back and 're-examine their character.
My point mainly was, in a survival situation, whether in a "fantasy world" like TWD, or in the "Real World", you do not have to become the b… moread guy in order to survive.
You can still be virtuous, while being smart and cautious.
Herschel on the tv series proved that.
Anyone who thinks they have to become a bad guy to survive, may want to re-examine their character and beliefs.
As far as Kenny goes, his brutally murdering Carver was wrong.
However, in light of all the harm Carver had done, if kept alive he would've just come after the group again, and was therefore to dangerous to be kept alive.
Since he was already crippled and defenseless, the best thing would've been to just leave him for the walkers.
Carver wanted Kenny to kill him.
Cause he knew that in that moment, Kenny would be acting just like he would.
That kinda deviousness is Satanic.
And unfortunately Kenny took the bait, through Carver's taunts.
An… [view original content]
Nate was the only character in 400 Days I actually liked. He chased down Wyatt and Eddie for killing one of his friends, and I'd have done that myself. The whole rating game thing didn't make me think of him as a rapist or a pedophile, and him saying things like "How was the rack?" doesn't change my mind. A vast majority of guys say things like that everyday. That and we have no evidence of him being either beyond him fucking around with Russel and making a lot of players uncomfortable. The stunt he pulled with the walker I found funny, though I seem to be alone in that.
As for killing the old people I look at that as a morally grey action, even if that's not why he did it. The old woman was shot and dying. The old man obviously didn't have the heart to put her out of her misery, and when she turned she would have torn him to shreds. He might have been out for murder, but he did spare her anymore suffering, and he spared her husband from being brutally and horrifically torn to shreds by her corpse. Plus they did shoot at him and trash his truck, not that that justifies him killing them, but it's not like they were innocent passerbys. We never saw Nate act violently against anyone that didn't act violently against him first. Also, a lot of people were pissed and refused to accept Nick's apology/wanted him dead because he almost shot Clem, well the old guy fired way more than one bullet, so I assume those people must have felt the same about the old couple.
Overall I though he was an interesting character, and a believable one. All of the characters felt believable, don't get me wrong, but I just found Nate to be the most interesting. He got the most reaction out of me, from my initial fear of him killing me, to the humorous truck drive, to the gun fight, and then the final decision. Best written character in the dlc in my opinion, and I sure hope to see him again.
> He chased down Wyatt and Eddie for killing one of his friends, and I'd have done that myself.
Any of us would, sure. However, it's pretty damn clear those guys were screwed up and weren't innocent. Nate wasn't being noble. He was no doubt a jackass at the gas station and was a jackass on the chase seeking revenge for the death of another jackass.
As for him being a rapist or not, it's entirely possible given his "hunger for a woman" speech which pretty definitively paints him as a misogynistic piece of shit who views women as just sexual objects for men because that's all men have now, on top of the derisive way he says "Women?!" when Russell calls him on his shit. I don't know if it was intentional that he be painted as a rapist, but it certainly wouldn't be a surprise. Not sure where people are getting that he's a pedophile, though.
> even if that's not why he did it
Then it's not a morally grey action. It's an act of evil that may have spared them future pain, but considering that a painful death awaits most people in this world, you can easily use this logic to say that you should just shoot anyone in the head on sight because, "hey, at least it's not getting eaten alive!" If the *intent* to lessen suffering is not there, then there is no grey area.
And if the argument is then that they had it coming or that it's not *that* bad because they were shooting at them, well then, fuck, I guess Lee's teachings weren't all that important after all. "I do it because I have to..." "Naaah! Everyone who crosses us should die, boy howdy! Even if they're completely defenseless, at your mercy, were fighting in their own self-defense, and you could literally take about ten different routes with your life in that moment other than killing them."
I know it's kept somewhat ambiguous, but the fact that he clearly doesn't want to broach the subject with Russell sets off major red lights. "Have you been here before?" "Russell... not now." Why wouldn't he just say "No"? My personal view? Because the fucker *was* there before and the gang that Eddie and Wyatt got mixed up with are the same dudes that messed with the old couple. But that is, like I said, a personal view.
The fact that there are people that actually defend and glorify Nate for this (not you, other folks in this thread) is both sad, and yet, not too surprising. I guess TellTale should be commended for creating a character that accurately reflects the sociopathic tendencies in a lot of people out there in the world.
Viewing him as an interesting character is fine by me. No arguments there. Praising and glorifying him like on this thread and saying he should come back as a hero or that he already *was* an anti-hero seriously makes me sick to my stomach. Pretty par for the course for this fandom, though, so I'm not sure why it gets a reaction out of me at this point.
Nate was the only character in 400 Days I actually liked. He chased down Wyatt and Eddie for killing one of his friends, and I'd have done t… morehat myself. The whole rating game thing didn't make me think of him as a rapist or a pedophile, and him saying things like "How was the rack?" doesn't change my mind. A vast majority of guys say things like that everyday. That and we have no evidence of him being either beyond him fucking around with Russel and making a lot of players uncomfortable. The stunt he pulled with the walker I found funny, though I seem to be alone in that.
As for killing the old people I look at that as a morally grey action, even if that's not why he did it. The old woman was shot and dying. The old man obviously didn't have the heart to put her out of her misery, and when she turned she would have torn him to shreds. He might have been out for murder, but he did spare her anymore suffering, and he spared her husband fro… [view original content]
>Not sure where people are getting that he's a pedophile, though.
He was interested in the girl Russel mentioned who was around 15 or 16.
What is perfectly legal in other countries, but then there is this magical country called the "USA" in which having consent sex with a 17 year old is considered child absuse, but if you have sex with a 18 year old it's perfectly legal and no one will give a shit.
> He chased down Wyatt and Eddie for killing one of his friends, and I'd have done that myself.
Any of us would, sure. However, it's… more pretty damn clear those guys were screwed up and weren't innocent. Nate wasn't being noble. He was no doubt a jackass at the gas station and was a jackass on the chase seeking revenge for the death of another jackass.
As for him being a rapist or not, it's entirely possible given his "hunger for a woman" speech which pretty definitively paints him as a misogynistic piece of shit who views women as just sexual objects for men because that's all men have now, on top of the derisive way he says "Women?!" when Russell calls him on his shit. I don't know if it was intentional that he be painted as a rapist, but it certainly wouldn't be a surprise. Not sure where people are getting that he's a pedophile, though.
> even if that's not why he did it
Then it's not a morally grey action. It's an a… [view original content]
With the comments he made about the teenage girl Russell mentioned, he sure sounded like a pedophile.
So you can hardly blame me, or anyone else for thinking that.
Sheesh, why are people talking about Nate as if he's a raging pedophile? It's not like the dude will jump anyone's bones, or else he'd have banged that hot granny.
Hey, wait, he DID bang her. Hah.
He talks about girls as sexual objects alone with a young guy, What a horrible person , we should shoot him in the head now.
You should play a video game called DayZ to see how human nature truly would react in the Zombie Apocalypse. Your a little delusional if you think people would help each other just like that. I also think it is unfair of you to judge Nate on line he said, and label him a rapist/misogynistic person on one line of text.
The life in the ZA is hard.
The ZA is a hard place to live, and i'll kill anyone who tries to steal my can of beans!
> He chased down Wyatt and Eddie for killing one of his friends, and I'd have done that myself.
Any of us would, sure. However, it's… more pretty damn clear those guys were screwed up and weren't innocent. Nate wasn't being noble. He was no doubt a jackass at the gas station and was a jackass on the chase seeking revenge for the death of another jackass.
As for him being a rapist or not, it's entirely possible given his "hunger for a woman" speech which pretty definitively paints him as a misogynistic piece of shit who views women as just sexual objects for men because that's all men have now, on top of the derisive way he says "Women?!" when Russell calls him on his shit. I don't know if it was intentional that he be painted as a rapist, but it certainly wouldn't be a surprise. Not sure where people are getting that he's a pedophile, though.
> even if that's not why he did it
Then it's not a morally grey action. It's an a… [view original content]
I have no doubt he was being a jackass to Wyatt and Eddie, but the fact remains that Eddie killed Nate's friend because he was scared and didn't want Nate in his life. I don't think that justifies Eddie's murder anymore than Nate's can be justified.
As for him being a rapist, I'd need more evidence than him talking the way he did with Russel. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm not making that my label of him without more evidence.
Nate talks about wanting a woman, but Eddie talks about paying for sex. Did that set off any red flags for you about him? Also, talking about people as sexual objects isn't a male only phenomenon. If you don't believe me you can check Norman Reedus's Facebook page and see for yourself first hand. If the genders of Russel's story had been reversed, and Nate had been a woman speaking the exact same way, but about men, would that have angered you? I'm curious.
Killing random passerbys and killing someone who is about to die and eat their husband are very different things. I'm not sure how you or anyone else would get, "you can easily use this logic to say that you should just shoot anyone in the head on sight because, 'hey, at least it's not getting eaten alive,'" from this, "The old woman was shot and dying. The old man obviously didn't have the heart to put her out of her misery, and when she turned she would have torn him to shreds. He might have been out for murder, but he did spare her anymore suffering, and he spared her husband from being brutally and horrifically torn to shreds by her corpse." I wasn't trying to defend random murder, the point was that killing the old people is probably the merciful option considering what would have happened shortly thereafter, because he actually would have been eaten alive.
"Everyone who crosses us should die, boy howdy!" Consider for a moment how most people have felt about the St. Johns, Carver, and even Nick when he nearly shoots you. Then consider how many people killed both St. Johns, watched Carver die, and allowed Nick to be killed. This may not be you, but it certainly isn't a feeling limited to just Nate. I personally killed both St. Johns, watched Carver die, and saved Nick.
Again, it isn't an impossibility, but I don't believe he was the one who attacked the old people originally. Nate meets Russel 143 days after Wyatt's story, and he's coming from far down the road. At that point he wasn't with his gang anymore, and there's no way that old lady was shot 143 days prior.
I definitely don't think Nate was noble, or a hero by any means. He was just a very interesting and well written character; the only one I liked in 400 Days.
> He chased down Wyatt and Eddie for killing one of his friends, and I'd have done that myself.
Any of us would, sure. However, it's… more pretty damn clear those guys were screwed up and weren't innocent. Nate wasn't being noble. He was no doubt a jackass at the gas station and was a jackass on the chase seeking revenge for the death of another jackass.
As for him being a rapist or not, it's entirely possible given his "hunger for a woman" speech which pretty definitively paints him as a misogynistic piece of shit who views women as just sexual objects for men because that's all men have now, on top of the derisive way he says "Women?!" when Russell calls him on his shit. I don't know if it was intentional that he be painted as a rapist, but it certainly wouldn't be a surprise. Not sure where people are getting that he's a pedophile, though.
> even if that's not why he did it
Then it's not a morally grey action. It's an a… [view original content]
Even in the US, a 16 year old is legal to engage in sex with whoever they want. I'm pretty sure he assumed the girl was around Russell's age and given the fact that he asked about breast size he was at the worst an ephebophile (someone with a primary interest in those age 15-19). Considering how popular "just 18" and "teen" categories are among porn viewers, its not even a particularly strange interest without a zombie apocalypse to be slimming down the pickings.
With the comments he made about the teenage girl Russell mentioned, he sure sounded like a pedophile.
So you can hardly blame me, or anyone else for thinking that.
Though that may be the law in some states, like in Las Vegas Nevada for example, that does not make it right.
Just because the law says something is ok, doesn't always make it morally right.
Even in the US, a 16 year old is legal to engage in sex with whoever they want. I'm pretty sure he assumed the girl was around Russell's age… more and given the fact that he asked about breast size he was at the worst an ephebophile (someone with a primary interest in those age 15-19). Considering how popular "just 18" and "teen" categories are among porn viewers, its not even a particularly strange interest without a zombie apocalypse to be slimming down the pickings.
I totally agree. I don't get the fanfare for that guy. He really irritated me. I, like you, could not get into Russell's storyline because of that abrasive a-hole, Nate.
Even in the US, a 16 year old is legal to engage in sex with whoever they want. I'm pretty sure he assumed the girl was around Russell's age… more and given the fact that he asked about breast size he was at the worst an ephebophile (someone with a primary interest in those age 15-19). Considering how popular "just 18" and "teen" categories are among porn viewers, its not even a particularly strange interest without a zombie apocalypse to be slimming down the pickings.
I totally agree. I don't get the fanfare for that guy. He really irritated me. I, like you, could not get into Russell's storyline because of that abrasive a-hole, Nate.
I don't even like Russell's character. Nate is what made me slightly enjoy Russell's story. Without Nate, I wouldn't have liked any part of it. (Aside from the sexy Carley appearance).
I totally agree. I don't get the fanfare for that guy. He really irritated me. I, like you, could not get into Russell's storyline because of that abrasive a-hole, Nate.
I would feel the character would be wasted, i want a anti-hero like Joel from TLoU. I want someone who is than two dimensional, like Larry. He was a asshole, but there were good parts about Larry as well. I think if they write a good story, and people give him a chance he could be a awesome protagonist. He isn't perfect, that why he would need Clementine to keep him from going "crazy."
Russell is a college kid. The picture you see of him is of his graduation so at the very youngest he'd be 17 - but most people assume he's about 19 or 20. Where you got 15-17 from is a mystery to me considering the first image you get of him is in a graduation cap and gown. Where did Becca or Sarah come from? He was asking Russell to describe the bust size of a girl Russell himself had a crush on. Since both Nate and Russell are both "of age" then if you were to assume Nate was a pedophile you'd just as quickly have to assume the same of Russell.
The age of consent being 16 is not exclusive to Las Vegas. 31 of the US states have an age of consent of 16, 8 have an age of consent of 17 and 12 states have an age of consent of 18. With most states there are age gap provisions to assure that you don't have a 40 year old hooking up with a 16 year old, but the fact remains that yes, the majority of the states consider you sexually mature at 16. The laws are there to protect those who are not emotionally mature or to lessen the chance of blatantly exploitative relationships.
Nobody knows the age of Nate, Russell or the girl for sure. The fact that Nate clearly believed her to be a teenager with defined sexual characteristics blows the pedophilia argument out of the water. I mean, if we're being honest, Becca and Sarah are about as flat as Clem; so to the arguments of not wanting him around them just for being one of the few characters who is still sexually active is ridiculous.
Though that may be the law in some states, like in Las Vegas Nevada for example, that does not make it right.
Just because the law says something is ok, doesn't always make it morally right.
Nate, to me looks like he's in his late 30's to early 40's.
You can definitely tell he's lived some life.
Russel, to me looks like he's in his late teens to early 20's.
Even if he is older, he has a youthful appearance, so determining his age is quite difficult.
If Russell is around 19 or 20, and if he were interested in a 17 year old girl for example, it wouldn't be as inappropriate, as their ages are more closely related.
Russell is a college kid. The picture you see of him is of his graduation so at the very youngest he'd be 17 - but most people assume he's a… morebout 19 or 20. Where you got 15-17 from is a mystery to me considering the first image you get of him is in a graduation cap and gown. Where did Becca or Sarah come from? He was asking Russell to describe the bust size of a girl Russell himself had a crush on. Since both Nate and Russell are both "of age" then if you were to assume Nate was a pedophile you'd just as quickly have to assume the same of Russell.
Like it or not, viewing someone as a sexual object is a very male-centric way of thinking. Whether it’s two guys talking in a truck or 800 people in a room objectifying a woman does not make it okay. It signifies a lack of respect and an inability to view someone as a human being rather than an object for you to do what you will. 98% of rapes are committed by men. And before you say “Well, there’s still 2% of women that are rapists and are raping men then!”, while there are women who have committed sexual assault against men, the majority of that 2% is female rapists assaulting other females. My main point is that a lack of respect and inability to view someone sexually attractive as a human being can be factors that lead to rape being committed. Harvard did a study on a group of heterosexual males where they showed them images of women in bikinis and found that the part of their brain that is associated with handling tools became active, meaning they saw a picture of a woman and the brain registered her as something to use or an object. They also found that men who were seen as hostilely sexist viewed women as inhuman, the part of the brain that analyzes a person’s feelings, thoughts, etc. was inactive. So all in all, the study found that some men view women as "THINGS" not people.
While it has not been stated that Nate is a rapist, his sexist attitude does not inspire confidence. What makes you think that Nate would respect a woman’s “no” to having sex when he doesn’t even respect them as a person? And Nate’s sexualization of a teenage girl, a girl that is probably young enough to be his DAUGHTER, is extremely gross. To clarify what someone said earlier, it would not be pedophilia but it would be ephebophilia (attraction to adolescents aged around 15-19).
I have no doubt he was being a jackass to Wyatt and Eddie, but the fact remains that Eddie killed Nate's friend because he was scared and di… moredn't want Nate in his life. I don't think that justifies Eddie's murder anymore than Nate's can be justified.
As for him being a rapist, I'd need more evidence than him talking the way he did with Russel. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm not making that my label of him without more evidence.
Nate talks about wanting a woman, but Eddie talks about paying for sex. Did that set off any red flags for you about him? Also, talking about people as sexual objects isn't a male only phenomenon. If you don't believe me you can check Norman Reedus's Facebook page and see for yourself first hand. If the genders of Russel's story had been reversed, and Nate had been a woman speaking the exact same way, but about men, would that have angered you? I'm curious.
Killing random passerbys and killing… [view original content]
I'd like to see the flip side of the Harvard studies where similar tests are run on females just for comparison. I also wouldn't have said “Well, there’s still 2% of women that are rapists and are raping men then!”
I'm not 100% confident Nate wouldn't be a rapist, and I never said I was. I specifically said, "As for him being a rapist, I'd need more evidence than him talking the way he did with Russel. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm not making that my label of him without more evidence."
Since you took the time to reply I'd like you to answer a few questions I had strewn about my post which I will repost here for your convenience.
Nate talks about wanting a woman, but Eddie talks about paying for sex. Did that set off any red flags for you about him?
If the genders of Russel's story had been reversed, and Nate had been a woman speaking the exact same way, but about men, would that have angered you? I'm curious.
This wasn't posed as a question originally, but I'm simply curious. Did you accept Nick's apology?
Like it or not, viewing someone as a sexual object is a very male-centric way of thinking. Whether it’s two guys talking in a truck or 800 p… moreeople in a room objectifying a woman does not make it okay. It signifies a lack of respect and an inability to view someone as a human being rather than an object for you to do what you will. 98% of rapes are committed by men. And before you say “Well, there’s still 2% of women that are rapists and are raping men then!”, while there are women who have committed sexual assault against men, the majority of that 2% is female rapists assaulting other females. My main point is that a lack of respect and inability to view someone sexually attractive as a human being can be factors that lead to rape being committed. Harvard did a study on a group of heterosexual males where they showed them images of women in bikinis and found that the part of their brain that is associated with handling tools became active, mea… [view original content]
I would feel the character would be wasted, i want a anti-hero like Joel from TLoU. I want someone who is than two dimensional, like Larry… more. He was a asshole, but there were good parts about Larry as well. I think if they write a good story, and people give him a chance he could be a awesome protagonist. He isn't perfect, that why he would need Clementine to keep him from going "crazy."
My post was not only addressing you but others within the thread, I just didn't want to reply to everyone. So my "Well, there's still 2% of women..." statement was addressing the forum as a whole. And that is the response I'm met with most when I bring up the statistic so I thought I'd throw that in there just to nip it in the bud. That wasn't meant to be an attack on you, sorry if you thought it was.
As for your actual response:
I believe that the Harvard researches planned to do a female subject comparison, but I have yet to see if they've actually gone through with it.
Again, I was being lazy and trying to kill two birds with one stone by addressing the entire forum's argument on Nate as a potential rapist while also bringing up your point of men objectifying women in a reply to your post.
Was Eddie's reply a random dialog response? I can't remember getting it but I'll try to address it as best I can. If a woman has willingly become employed in sex work and consents to have sex with someone, then there is no red flag for me. Prostitution/sex work/pole dancing is a tricky subject as there are people that willingly go into that occupation and enjoy it, but if someone says to them "you're exploiting yourself/selling yourself" then you take away their agency. But there are also people who are forced into it against their will, or sold into it, etc. and it is an absolutely horrible thing because it is without their consent and their agency has been stripped away. Whew sorry that got away from me, but all in all if Eddie did pay for sex and it was consensual then that is not a glaring red flag for me.
Objectification of any kind is not okay, so yes I wouldn't be comfortable with a female dehumanizing a male character. It's disrespectful and by doing it you are reducing a human being into a "thing" instead of a "somebody". I'm not going to say that women never objectify men, but more often than not, men are idealized in magazines/tv/games/etc. for men and thus are not usually objectified for/by women.
I'd like to see the flip side of the Harvard studies where similar tests are run on females just for comparison. I also wouldn't have said “… moreWell, there’s still 2% of women that are rapists and are raping men then!”
I'm not 100% confident Nate wouldn't be a rapist, and I never said I was. I specifically said, "As for him being a rapist, I'd need more evidence than him talking the way he did with Russel. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm not making that my label of him without more evidence."
Since you took the time to reply I'd like you to answer a few questions I had strewn about my post which I will repost here for your convenience.
Nate talks about wanting a woman, but Eddie talks about paying for sex. Did that set off any red flags for you about him?
If the genders of Russel's story had been reversed, and Nate had been a woman speaking the exact same way, but about men, would that have angered you? I'm curious.
This wa… [view original content]
You do realize , Russel isn't Clementine. You don't know how he would react to her. People like i have said, aren't black in white. "Bad" people can still care about other people, they can still do good things.
Comments
The place where they are most different, is Kenny has a wholesome interest in kids.
He cares about them and doesn't want to see them hurt.
And as far as Clementine, Kenny has a fatherly view of her, and is fiercely protective of her.
And that is quite something!
Nate, I wouldn't trust around kids.
The reasons I wouldn't should be obvious.
And aside from that, Kenny is loyal, kind, brave, resourceful and a devoted father.
Nate is none of those things.
As for killing the old people I look at that as a morally grey action, even if that's not why he did it. The old woman was shot and dying. The old man obviously didn't have the heart to put her out of her misery, and when she turned she would have torn him to shreds. He might have been out for murder, but he did spare her anymore suffering, and he spared her husband from being brutally and horrifically torn to shreds by her corpse. Plus they did shoot at him and trash his truck, not that that justifies him killing them, but it's not like they were innocent passerbys. We never saw Nate act violently against anyone that didn't act violently against him first. Also, a lot of people were pissed and refused to accept Nick's apology/wanted him dead because he almost shot Clem, well the old guy fired way more than one bullet, so I assume those people must have felt the same about the old couple.
Overall I though he was an interesting character, and a believable one. All of the characters felt believable, don't get me wrong, but I just found Nate to be the most interesting. He got the most reaction out of me, from my initial fear of him killing me, to the humorous truck drive, to the gun fight, and then the final decision. Best written character in the dlc in my opinion, and I sure hope to see him again.
Everything comes at a price.
Such actions as those, will cost you your soul.
Any of us would, sure. However, it's pretty damn clear those guys were screwed up and weren't innocent. Nate wasn't being noble. He was no doubt a jackass at the gas station and was a jackass on the chase seeking revenge for the death of another jackass.
As for him being a rapist or not, it's entirely possible given his "hunger for a woman" speech which pretty definitively paints him as a misogynistic piece of shit who views women as just sexual objects for men because that's all men have now, on top of the derisive way he says "Women?!" when Russell calls him on his shit. I don't know if it was intentional that he be painted as a rapist, but it certainly wouldn't be a surprise. Not sure where people are getting that he's a pedophile, though.
> even if that's not why he did it
Then it's not a morally grey action. It's an act of evil that may have spared them future pain, but considering that a painful death awaits most people in this world, you can easily use this logic to say that you should just shoot anyone in the head on sight because, "hey, at least it's not getting eaten alive!" If the *intent* to lessen suffering is not there, then there is no grey area.
And if the argument is then that they had it coming or that it's not *that* bad because they were shooting at them, well then, fuck, I guess Lee's teachings weren't all that important after all. "I do it because I have to..." "Naaah! Everyone who crosses us should die, boy howdy! Even if they're completely defenseless, at your mercy, were fighting in their own self-defense, and you could literally take about ten different routes with your life in that moment other than killing them."
I know it's kept somewhat ambiguous, but the fact that he clearly doesn't want to broach the subject with Russell sets off major red lights. "Have you been here before?" "Russell... not now." Why wouldn't he just say "No"? My personal view? Because the fucker *was* there before and the gang that Eddie and Wyatt got mixed up with are the same dudes that messed with the old couple. But that is, like I said, a personal view.
The fact that there are people that actually defend and glorify Nate for this (not you, other folks in this thread) is both sad, and yet, not too surprising. I guess TellTale should be commended for creating a character that accurately reflects the sociopathic tendencies in a lot of people out there in the world.
Viewing him as an interesting character is fine by me. No arguments there. Praising and glorifying him like on this thread and saying he should come back as a hero or that he already *was* an anti-hero seriously makes me sick to my stomach. Pretty par for the course for this fandom, though, so I'm not sure why it gets a reaction out of me at this point.
He was interested in the girl Russel mentioned who was around 15 or 16.
What is perfectly legal in other countries, but then there is this magical country called the "USA" in which having consent sex with a 17 year old is considered child absuse, but if you have sex with a 18 year old it's perfectly legal and no one will give a shit.
So you can hardly blame me, or anyone else for thinking that.
You should play a video game called DayZ to see how human nature truly would react in the Zombie Apocalypse. Your a little delusional if you think people would help each other just like that. I also think it is unfair of you to judge Nate on line he said, and label him a rapist/misogynistic person on one line of text.
The life in the ZA is hard.
The ZA is a hard place to live, and i'll kill anyone who tries to steal my can of beans!
As for him being a rapist, I'd need more evidence than him talking the way he did with Russel. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm not making that my label of him without more evidence.
Nate talks about wanting a woman, but Eddie talks about paying for sex. Did that set off any red flags for you about him? Also, talking about people as sexual objects isn't a male only phenomenon. If you don't believe me you can check Norman Reedus's Facebook page and see for yourself first hand. If the genders of Russel's story had been reversed, and Nate had been a woman speaking the exact same way, but about men, would that have angered you? I'm curious.
Killing random passerbys and killing someone who is about to die and eat their husband are very different things. I'm not sure how you or anyone else would get, "you can easily use this logic to say that you should just shoot anyone in the head on sight because, 'hey, at least it's not getting eaten alive,'" from this, "The old woman was shot and dying. The old man obviously didn't have the heart to put her out of her misery, and when she turned she would have torn him to shreds. He might have been out for murder, but he did spare her anymore suffering, and he spared her husband from being brutally and horrifically torn to shreds by her corpse." I wasn't trying to defend random murder, the point was that killing the old people is probably the merciful option considering what would have happened shortly thereafter, because he actually would have been eaten alive.
"Everyone who crosses us should die, boy howdy!" Consider for a moment how most people have felt about the St. Johns, Carver, and even Nick when he nearly shoots you. Then consider how many people killed both St. Johns, watched Carver die, and allowed Nick to be killed. This may not be you, but it certainly isn't a feeling limited to just Nate. I personally killed both St. Johns, watched Carver die, and saved Nick.
Again, it isn't an impossibility, but I don't believe he was the one who attacked the old people originally. Nate meets Russel 143 days after Wyatt's story, and he's coming from far down the road. At that point he wasn't with his gang anymore, and there's no way that old lady was shot 143 days prior.
I definitely don't think Nate was noble, or a hero by any means. He was just a very interesting and well written character; the only one I liked in 400 Days.
Just because the law says something is ok, doesn't always make it morally right.
Rusell is about 15-17, if he would make that comment to let's say Becca and Sarah, you all will think he's a pedophile.
Yes, Russel's story was not even about Russell but him.
That's like saying Little Red Riding Hood's story was about the Big Bad Wolf.
WE WANT NATE, WE WANT NATE!
hey guys, questions, what if nate comes back and turns out to bad a bad guy, like a really bad bad guy.
I don't even like Russell's character. Nate is what made me slightly enjoy Russell's story. Without Nate, I wouldn't have liked any part of it. (Aside from the sexy Carley appearance).
As long as he comes back then I'm happy.
I would feel the character would be wasted, i want a anti-hero like Joel from TLoU. I want someone who is than two dimensional, like Larry. He was a asshole, but there were good parts about Larry as well. I think if they write a good story, and people give him a chance he could be a awesome protagonist. He isn't perfect, that why he would need Clementine to keep him from going "crazy."
Russell is a college kid. The picture you see of him is of his graduation so at the very youngest he'd be 17 - but most people assume he's about 19 or 20. Where you got 15-17 from is a mystery to me considering the first image you get of him is in a graduation cap and gown. Where did Becca or Sarah come from? He was asking Russell to describe the bust size of a girl Russell himself had a crush on. Since both Nate and Russell are both "of age" then if you were to assume Nate was a pedophile you'd just as quickly have to assume the same of Russell.
Kenny vs Nate would be interesting,
The age of consent being 16 is not exclusive to Las Vegas. 31 of the US states have an age of consent of 16, 8 have an age of consent of 17 and 12 states have an age of consent of 18. With most states there are age gap provisions to assure that you don't have a 40 year old hooking up with a 16 year old, but the fact remains that yes, the majority of the states consider you sexually mature at 16. The laws are there to protect those who are not emotionally mature or to lessen the chance of blatantly exploitative relationships.
Nobody knows the age of Nate, Russell or the girl for sure. The fact that Nate clearly believed her to be a teenager with defined sexual characteristics blows the pedophilia argument out of the water. I mean, if we're being honest, Becca and Sarah are about as flat as Clem; so to the arguments of not wanting him around them just for being one of the few characters who is still sexually active is ridiculous.
Nate, to me looks like he's in his late 30's to early 40's.
You can definitely tell he's lived some life.
Russel, to me looks like he's in his late teens to early 20's.
Even if he is older, he has a youthful appearance, so determining his age is quite difficult.
If Russell is around 19 or 20, and if he were interested in a 17 year old girl for example, it wouldn't be as inappropriate, as their ages are more closely related.
Like it or not, viewing someone as a sexual object is a very male-centric way of thinking. Whether it’s two guys talking in a truck or 800 people in a room objectifying a woman does not make it okay. It signifies a lack of respect and an inability to view someone as a human being rather than an object for you to do what you will. 98% of rapes are committed by men. And before you say “Well, there’s still 2% of women that are rapists and are raping men then!”, while there are women who have committed sexual assault against men, the majority of that 2% is female rapists assaulting other females. My main point is that a lack of respect and inability to view someone sexually attractive as a human being can be factors that lead to rape being committed. Harvard did a study on a group of heterosexual males where they showed them images of women in bikinis and found that the part of their brain that is associated with handling tools became active, meaning they saw a picture of a woman and the brain registered her as something to use or an object. They also found that men who were seen as hostilely sexist viewed women as inhuman, the part of the brain that analyzes a person’s feelings, thoughts, etc. was inactive. So all in all, the study found that some men view women as "THINGS" not people.
While it has not been stated that Nate is a rapist, his sexist attitude does not inspire confidence. What makes you think that Nate would respect a woman’s “no” to having sex when he doesn’t even respect them as a person? And Nate’s sexualization of a teenage girl, a girl that is probably young enough to be his DAUGHTER, is extremely gross. To clarify what someone said earlier, it would not be pedophilia but it would be ephebophilia (attraction to adolescents aged around 15-19).
I'd like to see the flip side of the Harvard studies where similar tests are run on females just for comparison. I also wouldn't have said “Well, there’s still 2% of women that are rapists and are raping men then!”
I'm not 100% confident Nate wouldn't be a rapist, and I never said I was. I specifically said, "As for him being a rapist, I'd need more evidence than him talking the way he did with Russel. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm not making that my label of him without more evidence."
Since you took the time to reply I'd like you to answer a few questions I had strewn about my post which I will repost here for your convenience.
Nate talks about wanting a woman, but Eddie talks about paying for sex. Did that set off any red flags for you about him?
If the genders of Russel's story had been reversed, and Nate had been a woman speaking the exact same way, but about men, would that have angered you? I'm curious.
This wasn't posed as a question originally, but I'm simply curious. Did you accept Nick's apology?
Yeah, and then he starts endangering Clem's life like he did with Russell, by then all of you will realize what a huge ass he is.
My post was not only addressing you but others within the thread, I just didn't want to reply to everyone. So my "Well, there's still 2% of women..." statement was addressing the forum as a whole. And that is the response I'm met with most when I bring up the statistic so I thought I'd throw that in there just to nip it in the bud. That wasn't meant to be an attack on you, sorry if you thought it was.
As for your actual response:
I believe that the Harvard researches planned to do a female subject comparison, but I have yet to see if they've actually gone through with it.
Again, I was being lazy and trying to kill two birds with one stone by addressing the entire forum's argument on Nate as a potential rapist while also bringing up your point of men objectifying women in a reply to your post.
Was Eddie's reply a random dialog response? I can't remember getting it but I'll try to address it as best I can. If a woman has willingly become employed in sex work and consents to have sex with someone, then there is no red flag for me. Prostitution/sex work/pole dancing is a tricky subject as there are people that willingly go into that occupation and enjoy it, but if someone says to them "you're exploiting yourself/selling yourself" then you take away their agency. But there are also people who are forced into it against their will, or sold into it, etc. and it is an absolutely horrible thing because it is without their consent and their agency has been stripped away. Whew sorry that got away from me, but all in all if Eddie did pay for sex and it was consensual then that is not a glaring red flag for me.
Objectification of any kind is not okay, so yes I wouldn't be comfortable with a female dehumanizing a male character. It's disrespectful and by doing it you are reducing a human being into a "thing" instead of a "somebody". I'm not going to say that women never objectify men, but more often than not, men are idealized in magazines/tv/games/etc. for men and thus are not usually objectified for/by women.
I did accept Nick's apology.
Because he's fuckin' GORKED.
You do realize , Russel isn't Clementine. You don't know how he would react to her. People like i have said, aren't black in white. "Bad" people can still care about other people, they can still do good things.