Why is everyone saying that killing **** is good?

13

Comments

  • This.

    BewareofYou posted: »

    Dogs have a complex social structure, just like humans. I am not saying dogs are stupid creatures, because they aren't, but instincts override

  • edited December 2013

    Please im just discussing my view on life. at least consider what other people say one day..

    my point in comparison was that you should try to consider all life as equal, but if you think animals are just toys or robots, then just say so, id appreciate your honesty at least.

    i have a friend whos dad made him put down a dog before, he says it most definitely DID change him

    Toitle_John posted: »

    First, I don't watch the series so I have no idea what you're talking about. But animals are not humans, which is why when an animal is very s

  • it was a mercy kill, leaving it to die in pain was the cruel cold option

  • edited December 2013

    I understand you dont like seeing things in pain, im not trying to change that about you, i want you to think about the receiving of natural justice.

    In my simplified view- the dog commited a crime against clem, crime is just a word, but the action definitely happened.. i just dont want my clem taking the life of something that isnt in her obligation to do so.

    lets say the dog didnt land on those spikes, then clem would be FORCED to kill it, but when you have a choice- that makes all the difference

    i really DO care about your opinions

    Toitle_John posted: »

    First, I don't watch the series so I have no idea what you're talking about. But animals are not humans, which is why when an animal is very s

  • edited December 2013

    i agree with you mostly, but i dont think sam was feral. it had a family who died recently, it played catch, it begged for food, it had thoughts(barked for clem).

    but somewhere along the line I think it went too far, noone expected this random death attack

    now if anything is completely feral, its the zombies. even i agree that you should take out any you see, especially if its not dangerous (theres nothing inside a zombie, no playing catch )

    BewareofYou posted: »

    Dogs have a complex social structure, just like humans. I am not saying dogs are stupid creatures, because they aren't, but instincts override

  • edited December 2013

    I apologize, perhaps I came off unclear in my last statement. I was not implying that you in particular had 'stupid' reasoning, but rather that anyone can have 'stupid' reasoning, but that doesn't mean they're incorrect. I'll edit that out now.

    I do consider all life as equal, but when it comes to a human being impaled on a few spikes and a dog, the human has increased chances of survival. (Unless you're Ben, then you're screwed.) If it was under the exact same circumstances as that dog but a human was impaled instead, I would do the same thing I did to the dog. Clem is in a ZA and has no medial supplies, and the dog had internal bleeding judging from the blood coming out of it's mouth.

    I do consider what other people say, however I don't when that persons opinions change depending on whose post your replying too. You ignored the fact that I mentioned you saying the dog deserved to suffer due to the attack, yet when you speak to me, your all about equal rights for all living organisms. If you made up your mind on how you feel about the situation, maybe I would be more inclined to listen to what you have to say. :)

    leon3 posted: »

    Please im just discussing my view on life. at least consider what other people say one day.. my point in comparison was that you should try

  • .... But isn't that what a feral animal is? A domesticated animal (often one that's lived a life of captivity) living in a wild setting?

    leon3 posted: »

    i agree with you mostly, but i dont think sam was feral. it had a family who died recently, it played catch, it begged for food, it had though

  • i didnt mean to ignore that, i thought it was implied that i wanted the dog to suffer because of the fact that i would also let a human suffer through incarceration rather than death penalty

    Toitle_John posted: »

    I apologize, perhaps I came off unclear in my last statement. I was not implying that you in particular had 'stupid' reasoning, but rather tha

  • Sorry, seems like you posted this when I was writing my last post. My point still stays the same though. That dog DID land on the spikes, and there WAS a choice. I picked the one I thought was right, as you did the same. We all have our reasoning's behind the choices we make in life, let's leave it at that.

    leon3 posted: »

    I understand you dont like seeing things in pain, im not trying to change that about you, i want you to think about the receiving of natural j

  • agreed

    Toitle_John posted: »

    Sorry, seems like you posted this when I was writing my last post. My point still stays the same though. That dog DID land on the spikes, and

  • edited December 2013

    i mean that i dont think it turned completely feral; my point being i believe the dog still showed a few scraps of decency

    BewareofYou posted: »

    .... But isn't that what a feral animal is? A domesticated animal (often one that's lived a life of captivity) living in a wild setting?

  • Oh sorry, completely misunderstood what you were saying there. We as the player have no idea how long that dog has been alone for, or if his owners are actually dead so I guess you have a point there. Sam may not actually be all that feral. Sorry again for my lack of understanding haha :)

    leon3 posted: »

    i mean that i dont think it turned completely feral; my point being i believe the dog still showed a few scraps of decency

  • edited December 2013

    your right, we dont know much about the family, or how long sams been alone;

    so ill agree that theres a chance that when food comes into play for a starving dog whos always been fed - perhaps its instincts got the better of it; by that i mean a creature whos never had to feel immense hunger finally gets some food and it gets taken away- maybe sam was incredibly desperate and delusional.

    BewareofYou posted: »

    Oh sorry, completely misunderstood what you were saying there. We as the player have no idea how long that dog has been alone for, or if his o

  • I guess in TWDG we're so used to making tough decisions you felt like the dog was making one too?

    leon3 posted: »

    your right, we dont know much about the family, or how long sams been alone; so ill agree that theres a chance that when food comes into pl

  • But I think Lee was going to putting out the misery of the dog, I just thinked that wasn´t fair to let him die slowly, and have he chance of appeared a walker and only was going to get worse for him.
    you killed the dog?

    Kwoky91 posted: »

    Yeah lee said 'killing a person changes you' but Sams a dog; I.e An animal. It doesn't change a thing, seein how they have been living off of hunted animals for how long now

  • edited December 2013

    i honestly believe sam decided that it was going to kill this obstacle in its way to satisfy hunger, and i thought about the human equivalent of that

    BewareofYou posted: »

    I guess in TWDG we're so used to making tough decisions you felt like the dog was making one too?

  • edited December 2013

    and i feel by mecy killing the dog, you rob it of its chance to think about what its done; i cant outright disagree with people who say that this dog wouldnt have any thoughts of repentance and that even if it did, it wouldnt matter.

    something in me thinks that instinct isnt something that takes over any thought when your older.. but i wouldnt know from direct experience

    BewareofYou posted: »

    I guess in TWDG we're so used to making tough decisions you felt like the dog was making one too?

  • That's fine, we all think different things. The best part is, we won't ever know so it's always open for speculation and debate :)

    leon3 posted: »

    i honestly believe sam decided that it was going to kill this obstacle in its way to satisfy hunger, and i thought about the human equivalent of that

  • edited December 2013

    He left Carol behind because she murdered two people who could've been alright. Behind the group's backs too. She was becoming a threat to his family. It's completely different. Rick gave Carol enough supplies and a car

    leon3 posted: »

    in the tv series( spoiler----------->) rick leaves the woman behind that "mercy killed" fellow survivors.. this sam thing is no differen

  • In your opinion yes, but it's not a hard truth.

    it was a mercy kill, leaving it to die in pain was the cruel cold option

  • We can't ever be sure that an animal thinks back on what it has done in the way a human does and evaluate its decision, I guess this is a very open topic for discussion.

    I personally feel that the dog was acting upon instinct like I stated in my previous comment, but I'm taking into account others thoughts as well. Being narrow minded is boring and gets you nowhere.

    leon3 posted: »

    and i feel by mecy killing the dog, you rob it of its chance to think about what its done; i cant outright disagree with people who say that t

  • It is human though. Animals use instincts. We created morals that sometimes come after or before our instincts. It isn't any animal's fault that they rely more on their instincts. Being insane doesn't mean you have a choice at all. It'd depend what kind of disorder there was but it certainly doesn't mean it's something the person can control always

    leon3 posted: »

    thats where it gets interesting. murder isnt a human only thing. ||| If someone is insane, and they murder a bunch of people, they still willingly acted on their thoughts, regardless if they werent "normal"

  • but as we seen, theres really not much of a chance of coming back from that sickness, the only survivor that i remember is glenn. its pretty much an agonizing death as far as shes concerned

    Kryik posted: »

    He left Carol behind because she murdered two people who could've been alright. Behind the group's backs too. She was becoming a threat to his family. It's completely different. Rick gave Carol enough supplies and a car

  • Sam did nothing wrong. It's an animal, it acted out of instinct. If we were hungry enough, we would also bite.
    Not killing the dog would make you an awful person. It would be the same as leashing him onto a tree and leaving him to die, or putting him in a cage and tossing him in a river, claiming you didn't kill him. You did. You just made him suffer aswell.

    Sam was impaled by spikes and would have died slowly, its without a doubt an act of mercy to kill him to prevent further suffering. Leaving him to die would just be cruel and sadistic.

  • Glenn, Sasha, many other randoms. They didn't know how bad it was when Carol killed them. She betrayed the group

    leon3 posted: »

    but as we seen, theres really not much of a chance of coming back from that sickness, the only survivor that i remember is glenn. its pretty much an agonizing death as far as shes concerned

  • People do things by instinct all the time

    leon3 posted: »

    and i feel by mecy killing the dog, you rob it of its chance to think about what its done; i cant outright disagree with people who say that t

  • It is

    Rizefall posted: »

    In your opinion yes, but it's not a hard truth.

  • I killed him because I just couldn't stand seeing the poor guy in pain. He attacked me, but that didn't change anything, the fact is that I don't believe in revenge, so leaving him to suffer just because he did harm to me just felt wrong in my opinion.

  • Well with me Clem was sitting down eating the dog looked hungry i tried to give him some but he wanted it all so Clem was like save me some and Sam was like NO MY FOOD and bite me so i was like angry and killed him

  • surely we dont take a life purely on instict, i would think that takes a certain determination

    Kryik posted: »

    People do things by instinct all the time

  • by that logic no murdering cannibal does a thing wrong, and shouldnt be punished because he\she was just really hungry

    Jere85 posted: »

    Sam did nothing wrong. It's an animal, it acted out of instinct. If we were hungry enough, we would also bite. Not killing the dog would make

  • i feel like leaving it to its own demise is mercy, not revenge.. im not getting back at sam by leaving it in the situation it put itself in

    OzzieMonkey posted: »

    I killed him because I just couldn't stand seeing the poor guy in pain. He attacked me, but that didn't change anything, the fact is that I do

  • i just cant agree with your opinion that if someone is insane, they cant control themselves.. if they were truly mindless husks, we would kill them like we would any zombie; there would be no asylum

    Kryik posted: »

    It is human though. Animals use instincts. We created morals that sometimes come after or before our instincts. It isn't any animal's fault th

  • It doesn't mean they're a mindless husk. It isn't opinion either. Someone can be completely "Normal" so much of the time and in a snap they can't control their actions if something sets them off. The reason insane people are in asylums is to protect them as much as it's to protect others

    leon3 posted: »

    i just cant agree with your opinion that if someone is insane, they cant control themselves.. if they were truly mindless husks, we would kill them like we would any zombie; there would be no asylum

  • Guy comes toward you with an axe. You're holding a knife. Never killed someone before and never would willingly. In a flash you'll probably act on your instincts without even realising what you're doing. Sorry if this example sucks, I'm not sure how to phrase it

    leon3 posted: »

    surely we dont take a life purely on instict, i would think that takes a certain determination

  • people in real situations that have the thought that an animal did nothing wrong after attacking/killing a human decide to put the thing down, to end its life like its a worthless mindless being that cant think for itself..

    i like to think that animals probably arent robots that follow a specific code, that perhaps the human(s) did something to provoke such behavior (im talking about domesticated animals- dog, bear, tiger)

    Jere85 posted: »

    Sam did nothing wrong. It's an animal, it acted out of instinct. If we were hungry enough, we would also bite. Not killing the dog would make

  • yes it is, leaving it to die was leaving it to suffer (as payback) killing it quickly was putting it out of it's misery

    Rizefall posted: »

    In your opinion yes, but it's not a hard truth.

  • Dogs don't kill and eat each other. Dogs react with instinct

    leon3 posted: »

    by that logic no murdering cannibal does a thing wrong, and shouldnt be punished because he\she was just really hungry

  • Pretty sure Clementine stabs upwards into his brain because he instantly goes still.

  • edited December 2013

    The cannibal thing doesn't really make sense, as our species of animals has set morals and laws to live by, dogs don't. So it wouldn't be a very nice thing to do, but yeah, toss 30 people onto an iceberg with no foodsources whatsoever, and theres no escaping from, you can just wait for people to start eating eachother.

    leon3 posted: »

    people in real situations that have the thought that an animal did nothing wrong after attacking/killing a human decide to put the thing down,

This discussion has been closed.