|
Discussing the show and past episodes is fine. Do not put things that have happened in the TV series in spoilers. However, don't spoil things from the books that may happen in future episodes. Put book spoilers in spoiler tags with a CLEAR WARNING that it is from the book. |
On November 30 2011 11:28 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 11:15 VediVeci wrote:On November 30 2011 09:58 Mordiford wrote:On November 30 2011 09:46 VediVeci wrote:
The point isn't whether Shane's actions at the barn endangered anyone. Go back to when the group gets to Hershel's farm.
Carl is hurt in a hunting accident. Hershel takes him in and saves his life. Otis volunteers to go get supplies for Carl from the school, (he had a moral obligation to do this yes, but do you think Shane would have done the same if the situations were reversed?). Hershel then provides food, water, and safety to the travelers. He unhappily tolerates Daryl taking his horse and then helps to heal him when Daryl stumbles back to the farm injured. This is all happening, I want to emphasis, on his land, at his home, where he has given the travelers safe haven with no request for compensation. Yes he keeps walkers in his barn, but it's his god damn barn. Would you shoot your wife, parent, sibling, or child or hold them in the barn (which appears to be 100% effective) hoping for a cure? I don't think I could look my parents in the eye and kill them if I had any alternative.
To repay all this, Shane comes to Hershel's land and kills a member of Hershel's family. He defies the Hershel's request that gun's not be carried on the farm and then proceeds to slaughter the man's family and friends, taunting Hershel and humiliating him by rendering him powerless on his own farm, in front of his family. The horrible hypocrisy of it of course, is that when Shane is confronted by Sophia, he cannot shoot her. He still apparently sees in her some of the very humanity he denied in the other walkers.
To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show? Mixed in with a couple of good points are some unbelievably massive stretches and just down-right dickish statements. First off, I've already offered an alternate account of what would have happened had Shane not intervened the way he did, though this would not necessarily have happened in the show, the comic clearly outlines why the barn was such a stupid and dangerous thing to have right next to you. Shane didn't kill Hershel's family, they were already dead. Plain and simple. His home means nothing, there are no property laws in a zombie apocalypse, you find a safe-ish place, you want to stay there, someone wants to make you leave, you're left with a couple of options. Leave, or make it clear that you're ready to stay there by force. If you would just walk off back onto that death-trap of a highway, that's your call. He has threatened to kill Dale after Dale has been a colossal ass after all the positive things that Shane has done for the group. Dale also pulled his gun on Shane, and furthermore was about to do something so fucking stupid(hiding the guns)which had the comic incident occurred, would have potentially wiped out half the main cast. Abandoned Rick to die while he ran off with his wife? Are you serious, you mean attempted to get Rick out of a massive hellhole despite no evidence that he would ever wake up, after finding that it would be impossible, locking him in to make sure he wouldn't get eaten. Then saving his wife and child? Quite a slant view you have of Shane's actions here. Hershel has definitely done some great things for the group but ultimately his views are dangerous and his course of action in dealing with zombies is fucking retarded. I can defend Shane's character and actions because despite anything negative he has done, his overall contribution to the group has been a massive positive. In addition, there are situations where his survival instinct has saved lives other than his own, he is also probably the only reason Rick wasn't eaten in that hospital. Alright I acknowledge that the walkers in the barn were not the people that they once were. However, Hershel and his folk's considered them to still be people, so from Hershel's point of view killing his family is exactly what Shane did. And if Shane truly believed deep-down that they were already dead, why wasn't he prepared to shoot Sophia when she appeared? The abandoning Rick thing isn't really fair on my part I suppose, it would not probably not have been possible to get Rick out. However, Shane concealed it from Lori which was pretty damn dishonest as far as I'm concerned. There is a big difference between, "sleep with me, your husband is dead" and "sleep with me, I'm pretty sure your husband is dead but last time I saw him he was alive." And I only use the term sleep with me for lack of a better one, I'm not denying that he had legitimate feelings for her or Carl or they for him. Shane could have let Otis get away with the supplies, they were moving at the same speed so Otis would probably have had the same chance to get out. Whether or not that's the case, what I find objectionable is him deciding unilaterally to kill Otis, even if the net outcome was one life saved, which is not certain. You are working off of the assumption that Shane's actions saved two lives while costing one, but even if that's true in the immediate future, discussions like that should take into account the future actions of the people. Since no one can know that, it seems horribly arbitrary to just let one person kill another whenever they judge it's beneficial. If you want more evidence, even the others in the group would find Shane's actions objectionable. That's why he lies about it, because it's sure as hell not something that he wants to advertise. Whether he feels that his actions were wrong or not, he certainly understands that other people would find them objectionable. I think we disagree pretty strongly on the underlying things in the Dale-Shane thing, but I just want to point out Shane threatened Dale before Dale took the guns, so that's not really relevant in assessing the morality of Shane's position imo. And of course property laws don't exist where they are. Does that give one group of people the right to come to the home of another and tell them how to manage it, or set up camp there by threat of force? I'd say no. Maybe I am biased against Shane, but I think we're just coming from fundamentally different places. I think that even in the state their world's in, you should still respect the right's of the individual. I don't think that the ends automatically justify the means, and I maintain the sanctity of a man's (or woman's) home. And I'm pretty sure its bad to allow one person to kill another just because they see an immediate benefit. Two closing things. First, I understand that Shane has helped the group survive and has contributed significantly in this regard, I don't think that makes him moral though. Even if his overall contribution is positive, it doesn't necessarily make him less of an inconsiderate asshole in my book, and I think that's a major place where we disagree. Second, I know that my position with all these idealistic attitudes and such is easy to take sitting here at my computer in no danger, and its certainly possible that I would change my mind if it happened to me, or just be downright unable to live up to these ideals. That being said, I still think I'm right  I feel like we have fundamentally different views on what we'd do to survive, I honestly think you're more in Dale's boat and biased against Shane. As for the Shane/Otis thing once again, what matters it the outcome of the situation, not everything that follows because that's a massive unknown. It's already been clearly established that Shane was ready to take the fall, Otis didn't have it in him to carry on and leave a man behind, he was too prohibited by his own morality. Shane ultimately saw that there was no way to get all three of them out of that situation alive and chose what would assuredly save himself and Carl, because taking the fall and letting Otis go on wouldn't have worked, Otis would have fucked up and tried to go back for him, Shane already tried that. As for the Rick thing. I'm pretty sure this was already touched on within the show, Shane had to say what he said to Lori to get her and Carl out of the city. Had she been adamant about going back for her husband, she would have gotten all of them killed. I doubt he got them out of the city and then said, "By the way your husband is dead, let's fuck". Dale has been up Shane's ass for a while, Shane's threat was in response to Dale's accusations and based upon Dale's own perception. I believe the quote was roughly, "If you think I could kill my best friend, what would I do to someone I don't even like". As for whether I would set up camp by force? Fuck yes, I would. If the owner of the property I was on was being an unreasonable ass and giving me a deadline to leave to go back into a shit-hole zombie-fest I would absolutely stay there by force. Ultimately, I think we just have different views on survival.
Yep it looks like that's more or less what it comes down to. To be clear though, I think Shane is an pretty good survivor. I'm just not ready to throw thousands of years of human progress in the trash, in terms of morality, values, etc., unless all the other options are exhausted, and I don't feel they were.
The Shane-Otis thing I still don't think it was morally defensible to shoot Otis and let him be eaten without offering himself or something like that, but what Shane did was damn effective in terms of survival.
Threatening Dale and pointing the gun at Rick show how out of control he is. He fires from the proverbial hip, without much thought or regard. Aiming at Rick also shows how selfish he is. Killing an able bodied man is not the best course of action for the group, Shane considers it because Rick's return upset what he had going. That's not good survival, it's quite the opposite.
The barn thing though was handled horribly imo. Talking to Hershel wasn't completely exhausted I didn't feel. Even Hershel insisted the walkers be kept alive, they could have worked to improve security in the barn (or move to another more secure location). Maybe this wouldn't work, but it out to have been explored, and it's clear that they had time to explore these options. One watchman could have pretty effectively ensured that the group had enough time to get their guns if the walkers broke out, and as we saw, the walkers were no match for the humans.
And ultimately, humanities success is not based on the ability of the individual to survive or prosper. All animals and even plants have that ability, or they'd be extinct. The amazing increases in life span, standard of living, infant survival, science, and more is due to our ability to unite together and work under a common and understood set of guidelines towards a higher purpose than simply not dying. This more than anything is what I feel Shane's approach lacks. If he's tempted to shoot his best friend for personal gain, how could you ever really trust him? When you can't solve disputes without violence, and if people don't agree on a groundwork of rules (morals and/or laws), then they can't work together which hurts everyone. So yes, Shane may be doing a commendable job of surviving day to day, and of protecting and helping others, but in the long run I don't think his approach is correct from a moral or survivalist standpoint.
|
On November 30 2011 11:48 Setev wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2011 10:26 Mordiford wrote:On November 29 2011 10:06 Setev wrote:On November 29 2011 09:37 UglyBastard wrote:On November 29 2011 09:24 Scarecrow wrote:
Yes, if you were a psycopath that's probably the best course of action. How the hell is killing herschel and anyone who refuses a 'necessary act'? Interesting how so many people are siding with shane whilst all I see is a guy slowly losing it (I agree with Dale). It is necessary to secure the survival of the group. It's them or you, that simple. The farm is obviously the most safe haven available, so if Hershel refuses to provide, he has to be dealt with. I agree that killing him and his family is quite harsh, but it's not a happy world out there and hitting the road again is certainly not an option. Shane is a man that sees this clearly and is able to carry out extreme measures to protect the group (as we saw in this episode), while Rick can't get things done. I mean look at him, while Shane was trying to ACCOMPLISH something Rick was out with Hershel to catch zombies and bring them to the group. Seriously, Rick? Of course it does not have to go that far if Hershel simply surrenders the farm, so it would basically be his own choice. Not even talking about Hershel insanity and that killing him would basically put him out of his misery (he is not made for the world as it is now) and maybe free his family from his grasp, so they would possibly prefer joining the group (most intelligent choice) instead of being shot for the greater good. Meh, still not agree with killing H and family just to stay at the farm. I'd prefer to talk him out of it, convince him by hook or by crook, and if he won't budge, settle down anyways. And if H decides to shoot at us, THEN we kill him claiming self defense. Heck, his family might even side with us on this one. Either way, even in an apocalypse, we must still try to uphold virtues, which is essential for rebuilding of civilization. Being savage and psychopathic by killing everyone who doesn't agree sounds too Nazi for me. Just my 2 cents. You way has the potential of getting your own people killed. So you try to talk him out of it, he doesn't budge, you decide to keep your camp. One day, you're all just chilling and then half of Glen's head flies off, "Oh, I guess they're trying to get us off their land now". I'd be pretty uncomfortable next to someone who was armed and didn't want me there. Negotiations are all well and good, but sticking to the, "I'd wait so I could claim self defense" would certainly get people in your group killed. So killing H does not or have a lesser chance of keeping everyone alive? Killing H will turn H's people against my people, and a shooting match/all out war will happen. Furthermore, H don't want to get into armed confrontation with my group. We got 1 Sheriff, 1 Deputy Sheriff, and 1 badass crazy motherfucking hillbilly. On top of all the other people with knowledge about guns and shooting. Among H's people, Otis is the only one familiar with guns. Thank god Rick hasn't descended to Shane's level. And about the argument about my way not suitable to the post apocalyptic world? I agree I won't last until a grand old age, but I don't need to. I only need to last till I get a decent society with adequate defenses built up. To quote Dale, + Show Spoiler +the world may have gone to shit, but I won't let it drag me down with it. . And also, I am optimistic if I surround myself with people with high ethics and sense of teamwork, we can make a better world than a morally bankrupt post apocalyptic society. Rebuilding civilization. That's my ultimate goal. I want to LIVE, not just SURVIVE like a coward by shooting anyone who looks at you funny and be unwilling to negotiate.
I made it clear that violence would only be used once all negotiations were exhausted, Hershel made no impression of changing his mind. I also never said anything about just killing Hershel outright unless he remained adamant about getting you off his property and attempted to utilize force to do so, or threatened force, which would be stupid on his part.
Shane's flip-out was because he saw Rick herding fucking zombies, he figured it was time to remind everyone that the world wasn't the way it was before. I'm not saying I'd do exactly what Shane did, I think he jumped the gun a bit but knowing the comic alternative I'm pretty glad that Shane decided to stop Dale from hiding the guns and stopped Hershel's ill-fated herding attempt.
At no point do I suggest it would be a good idea to just run and gun everything that looks at me funny. It's well and good to think that your morals would carry you towards rebuilding civilization, but what if you were put into the Shane/Otis situation? Would have you tried to get out with Otis, dooming both of you to certain death and dooming a child as well? It all seems good until you run into a situation which isn't black and white. What if you ran into people who had ransacked every nearby store to stock up and your group needed medical supplies? Your group is better armed and better trained but the only way to get what you need is to take lives. Or you can be moral and move along, maybe your optimism will lead you to some more supplies.
I don't think it's as black as white as some of you see it. I don't think Shane was 100% right in his actions, but I still agree with the overall idea of removing threats and being ready to use force to sustain yourself. I would have attempted further negotiations with Hershel, but that was what Rick was assigned. Shane freaked out when it seemed like Rick was going down Hershel's path of idiotically trying to herd up the walking dead.
On November 30 2011 11:55 VediVeci wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 11:28 Mordiford wrote:On November 30 2011 11:15 VediVeci wrote:On November 30 2011 09:58 Mordiford wrote:On November 30 2011 09:46 VediVeci wrote:
The point isn't whether Shane's actions at the barn endangered anyone. Go back to when the group gets to Hershel's farm.
Carl is hurt in a hunting accident. Hershel takes him in and saves his life. Otis volunteers to go get supplies for Carl from the school, (he had a moral obligation to do this yes, but do you think Shane would have done the same if the situations were reversed?). Hershel then provides food, water, and safety to the travelers. He unhappily tolerates Daryl taking his horse and then helps to heal him when Daryl stumbles back to the farm injured. This is all happening, I want to emphasis, on his land, at his home, where he has given the travelers safe haven with no request for compensation. Yes he keeps walkers in his barn, but it's his god damn barn. Would you shoot your wife, parent, sibling, or child or hold them in the barn (which appears to be 100% effective) hoping for a cure? I don't think I could look my parents in the eye and kill them if I had any alternative.
To repay all this, Shane comes to Hershel's land and kills a member of Hershel's family. He defies the Hershel's request that gun's not be carried on the farm and then proceeds to slaughter the man's family and friends, taunting Hershel and humiliating him by rendering him powerless on his own farm, in front of his family. The horrible hypocrisy of it of course, is that when Shane is confronted by Sophia, he cannot shoot her. He still apparently sees in her some of the very humanity he denied in the other walkers.
To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show? Mixed in with a couple of good points are some unbelievably massive stretches and just down-right dickish statements. First off, I've already offered an alternate account of what would have happened had Shane not intervened the way he did, though this would not necessarily have happened in the show, the comic clearly outlines why the barn was such a stupid and dangerous thing to have right next to you. Shane didn't kill Hershel's family, they were already dead. Plain and simple. His home means nothing, there are no property laws in a zombie apocalypse, you find a safe-ish place, you want to stay there, someone wants to make you leave, you're left with a couple of options. Leave, or make it clear that you're ready to stay there by force. If you would just walk off back onto that death-trap of a highway, that's your call. He has threatened to kill Dale after Dale has been a colossal ass after all the positive things that Shane has done for the group. Dale also pulled his gun on Shane, and furthermore was about to do something so fucking stupid(hiding the guns)which had the comic incident occurred, would have potentially wiped out half the main cast. Abandoned Rick to die while he ran off with his wife? Are you serious, you mean attempted to get Rick out of a massive hellhole despite no evidence that he would ever wake up, after finding that it would be impossible, locking him in to make sure he wouldn't get eaten. Then saving his wife and child? Quite a slant view you have of Shane's actions here. Hershel has definitely done some great things for the group but ultimately his views are dangerous and his course of action in dealing with zombies is fucking retarded. I can defend Shane's character and actions because despite anything negative he has done, his overall contribution to the group has been a massive positive. In addition, there are situations where his survival instinct has saved lives other than his own, he is also probably the only reason Rick wasn't eaten in that hospital. Alright I acknowledge that the walkers in the barn were not the people that they once were. However, Hershel and his folk's considered them to still be people, so from Hershel's point of view killing his family is exactly what Shane did. And if Shane truly believed deep-down that they were already dead, why wasn't he prepared to shoot Sophia when she appeared? The abandoning Rick thing isn't really fair on my part I suppose, it would not probably not have been possible to get Rick out. However, Shane concealed it from Lori which was pretty damn dishonest as far as I'm concerned. There is a big difference between, "sleep with me, your husband is dead" and "sleep with me, I'm pretty sure your husband is dead but last time I saw him he was alive." And I only use the term sleep with me for lack of a better one, I'm not denying that he had legitimate feelings for her or Carl or they for him. Shane could have let Otis get away with the supplies, they were moving at the same speed so Otis would probably have had the same chance to get out. Whether or not that's the case, what I find objectionable is him deciding unilaterally to kill Otis, even if the net outcome was one life saved, which is not certain. You are working off of the assumption that Shane's actions saved two lives while costing one, but even if that's true in the immediate future, discussions like that should take into account the future actions of the people. Since no one can know that, it seems horribly arbitrary to just let one person kill another whenever they judge it's beneficial. If you want more evidence, even the others in the group would find Shane's actions objectionable. That's why he lies about it, because it's sure as hell not something that he wants to advertise. Whether he feels that his actions were wrong or not, he certainly understands that other people would find them objectionable. I think we disagree pretty strongly on the underlying things in the Dale-Shane thing, but I just want to point out Shane threatened Dale before Dale took the guns, so that's not really relevant in assessing the morality of Shane's position imo. And of course property laws don't exist where they are. Does that give one group of people the right to come to the home of another and tell them how to manage it, or set up camp there by threat of force? I'd say no. Maybe I am biased against Shane, but I think we're just coming from fundamentally different places. I think that even in the state their world's in, you should still respect the right's of the individual. I don't think that the ends automatically justify the means, and I maintain the sanctity of a man's (or woman's) home. And I'm pretty sure its bad to allow one person to kill another just because they see an immediate benefit. Two closing things. First, I understand that Shane has helped the group survive and has contributed significantly in this regard, I don't think that makes him moral though. Even if his overall contribution is positive, it doesn't necessarily make him less of an inconsiderate asshole in my book, and I think that's a major place where we disagree. Second, I know that my position with all these idealistic attitudes and such is easy to take sitting here at my computer in no danger, and its certainly possible that I would change my mind if it happened to me, or just be downright unable to live up to these ideals. That being said, I still think I'm right I feel like we have fundamentally different views on what we'd do to survive, I honestly think you're more in Dale's boat and biased against Shane. As for the Shane/Otis thing once again, what matters it the outcome of the situation, not everything that follows because that's a massive unknown. It's already been clearly established that Shane was ready to take the fall, Otis didn't have it in him to carry on and leave a man behind, he was too prohibited by his own morality. Shane ultimately saw that there was no way to get all three of them out of that situation alive and chose what would assuredly save himself and Carl, because taking the fall and letting Otis go on wouldn't have worked, Otis would have fucked up and tried to go back for him, Shane already tried that. As for the Rick thing. I'm pretty sure this was already touched on within the show, Shane had to say what he said to Lori to get her and Carl out of the city. Had she been adamant about going back for her husband, she would have gotten all of them killed. I doubt he got them out of the city and then said, "By the way your husband is dead, let's fuck". Dale has been up Shane's ass for a while, Shane's threat was in response to Dale's accusations and based upon Dale's own perception. I believe the quote was roughly, "If you think I could kill my best friend, what would I do to someone I don't even like". As for whether I would set up camp by force? Fuck yes, I would. If the owner of the property I was on was being an unreasonable ass and giving me a deadline to leave to go back into a shit-hole zombie-fest I would absolutely stay there by force. Ultimately, I think we just have different views on survival. Yep it looks like that's more or less what it comes down to. To be clear though, I think Shane is an pretty good survivor. I'm just not ready to throw thousands of years of human progress in the trash, in terms of morality, values, etc., unless all the other options are exhausted, and I don't feel they were. The Shane-Otis thing I still don't think it was morally defensible to shoot Otis and let him be eaten without offering himself or something like that, but what Shane did was damn effective in terms of survival. Threatening Dale and pointing the gun at Rick show how out of control he is. He fires from the proverbial hip, without much thought or regard. Aiming at Rick also shows how selfish he is. Killing an able bodied man is not the best course of action for the group, Shane considers it because Rick's return upset what he had going. That's not good survival, it's quite the opposite. The barn thing though was handled horribly imo. Talking to Hershel wasn't completely exhausted I didn't feel. Even Hershel insisted the walkers be kept alive, they could have worked to improve security in the barn (or move to another more secure location). Maybe this wouldn't work, but it out to have been explored, and it's clear that they had time to explore these options. One watchman could have pretty effectively ensured that the group had enough time to get their guns if the walkers broke out, and as we saw, the walkers were no match for the humans. And ultimately, humanities success is not based on the ability of the individual to survive or prosper. All animals and even plants have that ability, or they'd be extinct. The amazing increases in life span, standard of living, infant survival, science, and more is due to our ability to unite together and work under a common and understood set of guidelines towards a higher purpose than simply not dying. This more than anything is what I feel Shane's approach lacks. If he's tempted to shoot his best friend for personal gain, how could you ever really trust him? When you can't solve disputes without violence, and if people don't agree on a groundwork of rules (morals and/or laws), then they can't work together which hurts everyone. So yes, Shane may be doing a commendable job of surviving day to day, and of protecting and helping others, but in the long run I don't think his approach is correct from a moral or survivalist standpoint.
I've already touched on all your other points, fundamental difference in view. I do want to point out once more though that Shane did offer to stay behind and let Otis go on ahead with the supplies, Otis didn't listen, Otis's plan of action was doomed to get them both killed.
|
On November 30 2011 12:01 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 11:48 Setev wrote:On November 29 2011 10:26 Mordiford wrote:On November 29 2011 10:06 Setev wrote:On November 29 2011 09:37 UglyBastard wrote:On November 29 2011 09:24 Scarecrow wrote:
Yes, if you were a psycopath that's probably the best course of action. How the hell is killing herschel and anyone who refuses a 'necessary act'? Interesting how so many people are siding with shane whilst all I see is a guy slowly losing it (I agree with Dale). It is necessary to secure the survival of the group. It's them or you, that simple. The farm is obviously the most safe haven available, so if Hershel refuses to provide, he has to be dealt with. I agree that killing him and his family is quite harsh, but it's not a happy world out there and hitting the road again is certainly not an option. Shane is a man that sees this clearly and is able to carry out extreme measures to protect the group (as we saw in this episode), while Rick can't get things done. I mean look at him, while Shane was trying to ACCOMPLISH something Rick was out with Hershel to catch zombies and bring them to the group. Seriously, Rick? Of course it does not have to go that far if Hershel simply surrenders the farm, so it would basically be his own choice. Not even talking about Hershel insanity and that killing him would basically put him out of his misery (he is not made for the world as it is now) and maybe free his family from his grasp, so they would possibly prefer joining the group (most intelligent choice) instead of being shot for the greater good. Meh, still not agree with killing H and family just to stay at the farm. I'd prefer to talk him out of it, convince him by hook or by crook, and if he won't budge, settle down anyways. And if H decides to shoot at us, THEN we kill him claiming self defense. Heck, his family might even side with us on this one. Either way, even in an apocalypse, we must still try to uphold virtues, which is essential for rebuilding of civilization. Being savage and psychopathic by killing everyone who doesn't agree sounds too Nazi for me. Just my 2 cents. You way has the potential of getting your own people killed. So you try to talk him out of it, he doesn't budge, you decide to keep your camp. One day, you're all just chilling and then half of Glen's head flies off, "Oh, I guess they're trying to get us off their land now". I'd be pretty uncomfortable next to someone who was armed and didn't want me there. Negotiations are all well and good, but sticking to the, "I'd wait so I could claim self defense" would certainly get people in your group killed. So killing H does not or have a lesser chance of keeping everyone alive? Killing H will turn H's people against my people, and a shooting match/all out war will happen. Furthermore, H don't want to get into armed confrontation with my group. We got 1 Sheriff, 1 Deputy Sheriff, and 1 badass crazy motherfucking hillbilly. On top of all the other people with knowledge about guns and shooting. Among H's people, Otis is the only one familiar with guns. Thank god Rick hasn't descended to Shane's level. And about the argument about my way not suitable to the post apocalyptic world? I agree I won't last until a grand old age, but I don't need to. I only need to last till I get a decent society with adequate defenses built up. To quote Dale, + Show Spoiler +the world may have gone to shit, but I won't let it drag me down with it. . And also, I am optimistic if I surround myself with people with high ethics and sense of teamwork, we can make a better world than a morally bankrupt post apocalyptic society. Rebuilding civilization. That's my ultimate goal. I want to LIVE, not just SURVIVE like a coward by shooting anyone who looks at you funny and be unwilling to negotiate. I made it clear that violence would only be used once all negotiations were exhausted, Hershel made no impression of changing his mind. I also never said anything about just killing Hershel outright unless he remained adamant about getting you off his property and attempted to utilize force to do so, or threatened force, which would be stupid on his part. Shane's flip-out was because he saw Rick herding fucking zombies, he figured it was time to remind everyone that the world wasn't the way it was before. I'm not saying I'd do exactly what Shane did, I think he jumped the gun a bit but knowing the comic alternative I'm pretty glad that Shane decided to stop Dale from hiding the guns and stopped Hershel's ill-fated herding attempt. At no point do I suggest it would be a good idea to just run and gun everything that looks at me funny. It's well and good to think that your morals would carry you towards rebuilding civilization, but what if you were put into the Shane/Otis situation? Would have you tried to get out with Otis, dooming both of you to certain death and dooming a child as well? It all seems good until you run into a situation which isn't black and white. What if you ran into people who had ransacked every nearby store to stock up and your group needed medical supplies? Your group is better armed and better trained but the only way to get what you need is to take lives. Or you can be moral and move along, maybe your optimism will lead you to some more supplies. I don't think it's as black as white as some of you see it. I don't think Shane was 100% right in his actions, but I still agree with the overall idea of removing threats and being ready to use force to sustain yourself. I would have attempted further negotiations with Hershel, but that was what Rick was assigned. Shane freaked out when it seemed like Rick was going down Hershel's path of idiotically trying to herd up the walking dead. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 11:55 VediVeci wrote:On November 30 2011 11:28 Mordiford wrote:On November 30 2011 11:15 VediVeci wrote:On November 30 2011 09:58 Mordiford wrote:On November 30 2011 09:46 VediVeci wrote:
The point isn't whether Shane's actions at the barn endangered anyone. Go back to when the group gets to Hershel's farm.
Carl is hurt in a hunting accident. Hershel takes him in and saves his life. Otis volunteers to go get supplies for Carl from the school, (he had a moral obligation to do this yes, but do you think Shane would have done the same if the situations were reversed?). Hershel then provides food, water, and safety to the travelers. He unhappily tolerates Daryl taking his horse and then helps to heal him when Daryl stumbles back to the farm injured. This is all happening, I want to emphasis, on his land, at his home, where he has given the travelers safe haven with no request for compensation. Yes he keeps walkers in his barn, but it's his god damn barn. Would you shoot your wife, parent, sibling, or child or hold them in the barn (which appears to be 100% effective) hoping for a cure? I don't think I could look my parents in the eye and kill them if I had any alternative.
To repay all this, Shane comes to Hershel's land and kills a member of Hershel's family. He defies the Hershel's request that gun's not be carried on the farm and then proceeds to slaughter the man's family and friends, taunting Hershel and humiliating him by rendering him powerless on his own farm, in front of his family. The horrible hypocrisy of it of course, is that when Shane is confronted by Sophia, he cannot shoot her. He still apparently sees in her some of the very humanity he denied in the other walkers.
To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show? Mixed in with a couple of good points are some unbelievably massive stretches and just down-right dickish statements. First off, I've already offered an alternate account of what would have happened had Shane not intervened the way he did, though this would not necessarily have happened in the show, the comic clearly outlines why the barn was such a stupid and dangerous thing to have right next to you. Shane didn't kill Hershel's family, they were already dead. Plain and simple. His home means nothing, there are no property laws in a zombie apocalypse, you find a safe-ish place, you want to stay there, someone wants to make you leave, you're left with a couple of options. Leave, or make it clear that you're ready to stay there by force. If you would just walk off back onto that death-trap of a highway, that's your call. He has threatened to kill Dale after Dale has been a colossal ass after all the positive things that Shane has done for the group. Dale also pulled his gun on Shane, and furthermore was about to do something so fucking stupid(hiding the guns)which had the comic incident occurred, would have potentially wiped out half the main cast. Abandoned Rick to die while he ran off with his wife? Are you serious, you mean attempted to get Rick out of a massive hellhole despite no evidence that he would ever wake up, after finding that it would be impossible, locking him in to make sure he wouldn't get eaten. Then saving his wife and child? Quite a slant view you have of Shane's actions here. Hershel has definitely done some great things for the group but ultimately his views are dangerous and his course of action in dealing with zombies is fucking retarded. I can defend Shane's character and actions because despite anything negative he has done, his overall contribution to the group has been a massive positive. In addition, there are situations where his survival instinct has saved lives other than his own, he is also probably the only reason Rick wasn't eaten in that hospital. Alright I acknowledge that the walkers in the barn were not the people that they once were. However, Hershel and his folk's considered them to still be people, so from Hershel's point of view killing his family is exactly what Shane did. And if Shane truly believed deep-down that they were already dead, why wasn't he prepared to shoot Sophia when she appeared? The abandoning Rick thing isn't really fair on my part I suppose, it would not probably not have been possible to get Rick out. However, Shane concealed it from Lori which was pretty damn dishonest as far as I'm concerned. There is a big difference between, "sleep with me, your husband is dead" and "sleep with me, I'm pretty sure your husband is dead but last time I saw him he was alive." And I only use the term sleep with me for lack of a better one, I'm not denying that he had legitimate feelings for her or Carl or they for him. Shane could have let Otis get away with the supplies, they were moving at the same speed so Otis would probably have had the same chance to get out. Whether or not that's the case, what I find objectionable is him deciding unilaterally to kill Otis, even if the net outcome was one life saved, which is not certain. You are working off of the assumption that Shane's actions saved two lives while costing one, but even if that's true in the immediate future, discussions like that should take into account the future actions of the people. Since no one can know that, it seems horribly arbitrary to just let one person kill another whenever they judge it's beneficial. If you want more evidence, even the others in the group would find Shane's actions objectionable. That's why he lies about it, because it's sure as hell not something that he wants to advertise. Whether he feels that his actions were wrong or not, he certainly understands that other people would find them objectionable. I think we disagree pretty strongly on the underlying things in the Dale-Shane thing, but I just want to point out Shane threatened Dale before Dale took the guns, so that's not really relevant in assessing the morality of Shane's position imo. And of course property laws don't exist where they are. Does that give one group of people the right to come to the home of another and tell them how to manage it, or set up camp there by threat of force? I'd say no. Maybe I am biased against Shane, but I think we're just coming from fundamentally different places. I think that even in the state their world's in, you should still respect the right's of the individual. I don't think that the ends automatically justify the means, and I maintain the sanctity of a man's (or woman's) home. And I'm pretty sure its bad to allow one person to kill another just because they see an immediate benefit. Two closing things. First, I understand that Shane has helped the group survive and has contributed significantly in this regard, I don't think that makes him moral though. Even if his overall contribution is positive, it doesn't necessarily make him less of an inconsiderate asshole in my book, and I think that's a major place where we disagree. Second, I know that my position with all these idealistic attitudes and such is easy to take sitting here at my computer in no danger, and its certainly possible that I would change my mind if it happened to me, or just be downright unable to live up to these ideals. That being said, I still think I'm right I feel like we have fundamentally different views on what we'd do to survive, I honestly think you're more in Dale's boat and biased against Shane. As for the Shane/Otis thing once again, what matters it the outcome of the situation, not everything that follows because that's a massive unknown. It's already been clearly established that Shane was ready to take the fall, Otis didn't have it in him to carry on and leave a man behind, he was too prohibited by his own morality. Shane ultimately saw that there was no way to get all three of them out of that situation alive and chose what would assuredly save himself and Carl, because taking the fall and letting Otis go on wouldn't have worked, Otis would have fucked up and tried to go back for him, Shane already tried that. As for the Rick thing. I'm pretty sure this was already touched on within the show, Shane had to say what he said to Lori to get her and Carl out of the city. Had she been adamant about going back for her husband, she would have gotten all of them killed. I doubt he got them out of the city and then said, "By the way your husband is dead, let's fuck". Dale has been up Shane's ass for a while, Shane's threat was in response to Dale's accusations and based upon Dale's own perception. I believe the quote was roughly, "If you think I could kill my best friend, what would I do to someone I don't even like". As for whether I would set up camp by force? Fuck yes, I would. If the owner of the property I was on was being an unreasonable ass and giving me a deadline to leave to go back into a shit-hole zombie-fest I would absolutely stay there by force. Ultimately, I think we just have different views on survival. Yep it looks like that's more or less what it comes down to. To be clear though, I think Shane is an pretty good survivor. I'm just not ready to throw thousands of years of human progress in the trash, in terms of morality, values, etc., unless all the other options are exhausted, and I don't feel they were. The Shane-Otis thing I still don't think it was morally defensible to shoot Otis and let him be eaten without offering himself or something like that, but what Shane did was damn effective in terms of survival. Threatening Dale and pointing the gun at Rick show how out of control he is. He fires from the proverbial hip, without much thought or regard. Aiming at Rick also shows how selfish he is. Killing an able bodied man is not the best course of action for the group, Shane considers it because Rick's return upset what he had going. That's not good survival, it's quite the opposite. The barn thing though was handled horribly imo. Talking to Hershel wasn't completely exhausted I didn't feel. Even Hershel insisted the walkers be kept alive, they could have worked to improve security in the barn (or move to another more secure location). Maybe this wouldn't work, but it out to have been explored, and it's clear that they had time to explore these options. One watchman could have pretty effectively ensured that the group had enough time to get their guns if the walkers broke out, and as we saw, the walkers were no match for the humans. And ultimately, humanities success is not based on the ability of the individual to survive or prosper. All animals and even plants have that ability, or they'd be extinct. The amazing increases in life span, standard of living, infant survival, science, and more is due to our ability to unite together and work under a common and understood set of guidelines towards a higher purpose than simply not dying. This more than anything is what I feel Shane's approach lacks. If he's tempted to shoot his best friend for personal gain, how could you ever really trust him? When you can't solve disputes without violence, and if people don't agree on a groundwork of rules (morals and/or laws), then they can't work together which hurts everyone. So yes, Shane may be doing a commendable job of surviving day to day, and of protecting and helping others, but in the long run I don't think his approach is correct from a moral or survivalist standpoint. I've already touched on all your other points, fundamental difference in view. I do want to point out once more though that Shane did offer to stay behind and let Otis go on ahead with the supplies, Otis didn't listen, Otis's plan of action was doomed to get them both killed.
Actually you avoided both of our points about rebuilding civilization, getting to the point where you can live, not just survive, as Setev wrote. Hell, at one point Lori wasn't sure whether it would be better for her son to be alive or dead given the situation that they're in, and she nearly aborted her unborn child because of it as well (there were other factors to here admittedly, but I'd contend this is an important one). You can't honestly tell me that you think this is an adequate existence? In general, conflict between survivors retards the realization of a better existence rather than furthering it, though I'd love to see a counter-point to this if you have one.
And yes, maybe it was better to leave Otis behind in that situation (I'm not conceding this), but even if it was, that's not a precedent you want to set. Every man for himself is a horrible way to ensure safety in the long run.
Edit: I am also very aware that things are not black and white. Things are messy in the world they live in. There are clearly worse ways for Shane to act, for example, and I've given him credit for helping ensure his survival as well as the survival of others. I don't think you can just say "It's not black and white" though and excuse away his indiscretions though (I know that probably wasn't what you meant), if anything it makes it more important to examine his actions.
|
On November 30 2011 12:14 VediVeci wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 12:01 Mordiford wrote:On November 30 2011 11:48 Setev wrote:On November 29 2011 10:26 Mordiford wrote:On November 29 2011 10:06 Setev wrote:On November 29 2011 09:37 UglyBastard wrote:On November 29 2011 09:24 Scarecrow wrote:
Yes, if you were a psycopath that's probably the best course of action. How the hell is killing herschel and anyone who refuses a 'necessary act'? Interesting how so many people are siding with shane whilst all I see is a guy slowly losing it (I agree with Dale). It is necessary to secure the survival of the group. It's them or you, that simple. The farm is obviously the most safe haven available, so if Hershel refuses to provide, he has to be dealt with. I agree that killing him and his family is quite harsh, but it's not a happy world out there and hitting the road again is certainly not an option. Shane is a man that sees this clearly and is able to carry out extreme measures to protect the group (as we saw in this episode), while Rick can't get things done. I mean look at him, while Shane was trying to ACCOMPLISH something Rick was out with Hershel to catch zombies and bring them to the group. Seriously, Rick? Of course it does not have to go that far if Hershel simply surrenders the farm, so it would basically be his own choice. Not even talking about Hershel insanity and that killing him would basically put him out of his misery (he is not made for the world as it is now) and maybe free his family from his grasp, so they would possibly prefer joining the group (most intelligent choice) instead of being shot for the greater good. Meh, still not agree with killing H and family just to stay at the farm. I'd prefer to talk him out of it, convince him by hook or by crook, and if he won't budge, settle down anyways. And if H decides to shoot at us, THEN we kill him claiming self defense. Heck, his family might even side with us on this one. Either way, even in an apocalypse, we must still try to uphold virtues, which is essential for rebuilding of civilization. Being savage and psychopathic by killing everyone who doesn't agree sounds too Nazi for me. Just my 2 cents. You way has the potential of getting your own people killed. So you try to talk him out of it, he doesn't budge, you decide to keep your camp. One day, you're all just chilling and then half of Glen's head flies off, "Oh, I guess they're trying to get us off their land now". I'd be pretty uncomfortable next to someone who was armed and didn't want me there. Negotiations are all well and good, but sticking to the, "I'd wait so I could claim self defense" would certainly get people in your group killed. So killing H does not or have a lesser chance of keeping everyone alive? Killing H will turn H's people against my people, and a shooting match/all out war will happen. Furthermore, H don't want to get into armed confrontation with my group. We got 1 Sheriff, 1 Deputy Sheriff, and 1 badass crazy motherfucking hillbilly. On top of all the other people with knowledge about guns and shooting. Among H's people, Otis is the only one familiar with guns. Thank god Rick hasn't descended to Shane's level. And about the argument about my way not suitable to the post apocalyptic world? I agree I won't last until a grand old age, but I don't need to. I only need to last till I get a decent society with adequate defenses built up. To quote Dale, + Show Spoiler +the world may have gone to shit, but I won't let it drag me down with it. . And also, I am optimistic if I surround myself with people with high ethics and sense of teamwork, we can make a better world than a morally bankrupt post apocalyptic society. Rebuilding civilization. That's my ultimate goal. I want to LIVE, not just SURVIVE like a coward by shooting anyone who looks at you funny and be unwilling to negotiate. I made it clear that violence would only be used once all negotiations were exhausted, Hershel made no impression of changing his mind. I also never said anything about just killing Hershel outright unless he remained adamant about getting you off his property and attempted to utilize force to do so, or threatened force, which would be stupid on his part. Shane's flip-out was because he saw Rick herding fucking zombies, he figured it was time to remind everyone that the world wasn't the way it was before. I'm not saying I'd do exactly what Shane did, I think he jumped the gun a bit but knowing the comic alternative I'm pretty glad that Shane decided to stop Dale from hiding the guns and stopped Hershel's ill-fated herding attempt. At no point do I suggest it would be a good idea to just run and gun everything that looks at me funny. It's well and good to think that your morals would carry you towards rebuilding civilization, but what if you were put into the Shane/Otis situation? Would have you tried to get out with Otis, dooming both of you to certain death and dooming a child as well? It all seems good until you run into a situation which isn't black and white. What if you ran into people who had ransacked every nearby store to stock up and your group needed medical supplies? Your group is better armed and better trained but the only way to get what you need is to take lives. Or you can be moral and move along, maybe your optimism will lead you to some more supplies. I don't think it's as black as white as some of you see it. I don't think Shane was 100% right in his actions, but I still agree with the overall idea of removing threats and being ready to use force to sustain yourself. I would have attempted further negotiations with Hershel, but that was what Rick was assigned. Shane freaked out when it seemed like Rick was going down Hershel's path of idiotically trying to herd up the walking dead. On November 30 2011 11:55 VediVeci wrote:On November 30 2011 11:28 Mordiford wrote:On November 30 2011 11:15 VediVeci wrote:On November 30 2011 09:58 Mordiford wrote:On November 30 2011 09:46 VediVeci wrote:
The point isn't whether Shane's actions at the barn endangered anyone. Go back to when the group gets to Hershel's farm.
Carl is hurt in a hunting accident. Hershel takes him in and saves his life. Otis volunteers to go get supplies for Carl from the school, (he had a moral obligation to do this yes, but do you think Shane would have done the same if the situations were reversed?). Hershel then provides food, water, and safety to the travelers. He unhappily tolerates Daryl taking his horse and then helps to heal him when Daryl stumbles back to the farm injured. This is all happening, I want to emphasis, on his land, at his home, where he has given the travelers safe haven with no request for compensation. Yes he keeps walkers in his barn, but it's his god damn barn. Would you shoot your wife, parent, sibling, or child or hold them in the barn (which appears to be 100% effective) hoping for a cure? I don't think I could look my parents in the eye and kill them if I had any alternative.
To repay all this, Shane comes to Hershel's land and kills a member of Hershel's family. He defies the Hershel's request that gun's not be carried on the farm and then proceeds to slaughter the man's family and friends, taunting Hershel and humiliating him by rendering him powerless on his own farm, in front of his family. The horrible hypocrisy of it of course, is that when Shane is confronted by Sophia, he cannot shoot her. He still apparently sees in her some of the very humanity he denied in the other walkers.
To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show? Mixed in with a couple of good points are some unbelievably massive stretches and just down-right dickish statements. First off, I've already offered an alternate account of what would have happened had Shane not intervened the way he did, though this would not necessarily have happened in the show, the comic clearly outlines why the barn was such a stupid and dangerous thing to have right next to you. Shane didn't kill Hershel's family, they were already dead. Plain and simple. His home means nothing, there are no property laws in a zombie apocalypse, you find a safe-ish place, you want to stay there, someone wants to make you leave, you're left with a couple of options. Leave, or make it clear that you're ready to stay there by force. If you would just walk off back onto that death-trap of a highway, that's your call. He has threatened to kill Dale after Dale has been a colossal ass after all the positive things that Shane has done for the group. Dale also pulled his gun on Shane, and furthermore was about to do something so fucking stupid(hiding the guns)which had the comic incident occurred, would have potentially wiped out half the main cast. Abandoned Rick to die while he ran off with his wife? Are you serious, you mean attempted to get Rick out of a massive hellhole despite no evidence that he would ever wake up, after finding that it would be impossible, locking him in to make sure he wouldn't get eaten. Then saving his wife and child? Quite a slant view you have of Shane's actions here. Hershel has definitely done some great things for the group but ultimately his views are dangerous and his course of action in dealing with zombies is fucking retarded. I can defend Shane's character and actions because despite anything negative he has done, his overall contribution to the group has been a massive positive. In addition, there are situations where his survival instinct has saved lives other than his own, he is also probably the only reason Rick wasn't eaten in that hospital. Alright I acknowledge that the walkers in the barn were not the people that they once were. However, Hershel and his folk's considered them to still be people, so from Hershel's point of view killing his family is exactly what Shane did. And if Shane truly believed deep-down that they were already dead, why wasn't he prepared to shoot Sophia when she appeared? The abandoning Rick thing isn't really fair on my part I suppose, it would not probably not have been possible to get Rick out. However, Shane concealed it from Lori which was pretty damn dishonest as far as I'm concerned. There is a big difference between, "sleep with me, your husband is dead" and "sleep with me, I'm pretty sure your husband is dead but last time I saw him he was alive." And I only use the term sleep with me for lack of a better one, I'm not denying that he had legitimate feelings for her or Carl or they for him. Shane could have let Otis get away with the supplies, they were moving at the same speed so Otis would probably have had the same chance to get out. Whether or not that's the case, what I find objectionable is him deciding unilaterally to kill Otis, even if the net outcome was one life saved, which is not certain. You are working off of the assumption that Shane's actions saved two lives while costing one, but even if that's true in the immediate future, discussions like that should take into account the future actions of the people. Since no one can know that, it seems horribly arbitrary to just let one person kill another whenever they judge it's beneficial. If you want more evidence, even the others in the group would find Shane's actions objectionable. That's why he lies about it, because it's sure as hell not something that he wants to advertise. Whether he feels that his actions were wrong or not, he certainly understands that other people would find them objectionable. I think we disagree pretty strongly on the underlying things in the Dale-Shane thing, but I just want to point out Shane threatened Dale before Dale took the guns, so that's not really relevant in assessing the morality of Shane's position imo. And of course property laws don't exist where they are. Does that give one group of people the right to come to the home of another and tell them how to manage it, or set up camp there by threat of force? I'd say no. Maybe I am biased against Shane, but I think we're just coming from fundamentally different places. I think that even in the state their world's in, you should still respect the right's of the individual. I don't think that the ends automatically justify the means, and I maintain the sanctity of a man's (or woman's) home. And I'm pretty sure its bad to allow one person to kill another just because they see an immediate benefit. Two closing things. First, I understand that Shane has helped the group survive and has contributed significantly in this regard, I don't think that makes him moral though. Even if his overall contribution is positive, it doesn't necessarily make him less of an inconsiderate asshole in my book, and I think that's a major place where we disagree. Second, I know that my position with all these idealistic attitudes and such is easy to take sitting here at my computer in no danger, and its certainly possible that I would change my mind if it happened to me, or just be downright unable to live up to these ideals. That being said, I still think I'm right I feel like we have fundamentally different views on what we'd do to survive, I honestly think you're more in Dale's boat and biased against Shane. As for the Shane/Otis thing once again, what matters it the outcome of the situation, not everything that follows because that's a massive unknown. It's already been clearly established that Shane was ready to take the fall, Otis didn't have it in him to carry on and leave a man behind, he was too prohibited by his own morality. Shane ultimately saw that there was no way to get all three of them out of that situation alive and chose what would assuredly save himself and Carl, because taking the fall and letting Otis go on wouldn't have worked, Otis would have fucked up and tried to go back for him, Shane already tried that. As for the Rick thing. I'm pretty sure this was already touched on within the show, Shane had to say what he said to Lori to get her and Carl out of the city. Had she been adamant about going back for her husband, she would have gotten all of them killed. I doubt he got them out of the city and then said, "By the way your husband is dead, let's fuck". Dale has been up Shane's ass for a while, Shane's threat was in response to Dale's accusations and based upon Dale's own perception. I believe the quote was roughly, "If you think I could kill my best friend, what would I do to someone I don't even like". As for whether I would set up camp by force? Fuck yes, I would. If the owner of the property I was on was being an unreasonable ass and giving me a deadline to leave to go back into a shit-hole zombie-fest I would absolutely stay there by force. Ultimately, I think we just have different views on survival. Yep it looks like that's more or less what it comes down to. To be clear though, I think Shane is an pretty good survivor. I'm just not ready to throw thousands of years of human progress in the trash, in terms of morality, values, etc., unless all the other options are exhausted, and I don't feel they were. The Shane-Otis thing I still don't think it was morally defensible to shoot Otis and let him be eaten without offering himself or something like that, but what Shane did was damn effective in terms of survival. Threatening Dale and pointing the gun at Rick show how out of control he is. He fires from the proverbial hip, without much thought or regard. Aiming at Rick also shows how selfish he is. Killing an able bodied man is not the best course of action for the group, Shane considers it because Rick's return upset what he had going. That's not good survival, it's quite the opposite. The barn thing though was handled horribly imo. Talking to Hershel wasn't completely exhausted I didn't feel. Even Hershel insisted the walkers be kept alive, they could have worked to improve security in the barn (or move to another more secure location). Maybe this wouldn't work, but it out to have been explored, and it's clear that they had time to explore these options. One watchman could have pretty effectively ensured that the group had enough time to get their guns if the walkers broke out, and as we saw, the walkers were no match for the humans. And ultimately, humanities success is not based on the ability of the individual to survive or prosper. All animals and even plants have that ability, or they'd be extinct. The amazing increases in life span, standard of living, infant survival, science, and more is due to our ability to unite together and work under a common and understood set of guidelines towards a higher purpose than simply not dying. This more than anything is what I feel Shane's approach lacks. If he's tempted to shoot his best friend for personal gain, how could you ever really trust him? When you can't solve disputes without violence, and if people don't agree on a groundwork of rules (morals and/or laws), then they can't work together which hurts everyone. So yes, Shane may be doing a commendable job of surviving day to day, and of protecting and helping others, but in the long run I don't think his approach is correct from a moral or survivalist standpoint. I've already touched on all your other points, fundamental difference in view. I do want to point out once more though that Shane did offer to stay behind and let Otis go on ahead with the supplies, Otis didn't listen, Otis's plan of action was doomed to get them both killed. Actually you avoided both of our points about rebuilding civilization, getting to the point where you can live, not just survive, as Setev wrote. Hell, at one point Lori wasn't sure whether it would be better for her son to be alive or dead given the situation that they're in, and she nearly aborted her unborn child because of it as well (there were other factors to here admittedly, but I'd contend this is an important one). You can't honestly tell me that you think this is an adequate existence? In general, conflict between survivors retards the realization of a better existence rather than furthering it, though I'd love to see a counter-point to this if you have one. And yes, maybe it was better to leave Otis behind in that situation (I'm not conceding this), but even if it was, that's not a precedent you want to set. Every man for himself is a horrible way to ensure safety in the long run.
The point about rebuilding civilization is questionable either way. When asked what he would do in a zombie apocalypse, Robert Kirkman himself said, "I'd kill myself", pretty much summing up his own views on the possibility of success(at least his success) of achieving normality in a world such as that. I would have to say that I see clinging to old values and morals as a sure-fire way to get yourself killed so fast that you never have a chance to band enough people together to survive. Quite simply, I think that in order to achieve a foot-hold by which to rebuild society, you'd have to survive and make a place safe, I don't think that would be very possible unless you were very lucky and in a very good location from the get-go.
Hershel serves as a prime example of this in my opinion, because of location he managed to maintain his morality and values because he didn't face what the others face. In his position would you have allowed everyone who wondered onto your property to stay and tried to build a shelter with them? What about shortages of supplies, problematic situations crop up constantly in a world like this, old values run into a lot of snags where you would eventually shorten your life or get more people killed. Ultimately, I don't think rebuilding society would be possible if you don't live long enough to create a safe-haven, I don't think you can last very long without luck and location on your side if you stick to old rules and values.
There are so many situations where if anyone in the group was adamant about something, you'd have to conjure something which current societal values just cannot account for, they aren't applicable in my opinion.
|
On November 30 2011 12:25 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 12:14 VediVeci wrote:On November 30 2011 12:01 Mordiford wrote:On November 30 2011 11:48 Setev wrote:On November 29 2011 10:26 Mordiford wrote:On November 29 2011 10:06 Setev wrote:On November 29 2011 09:37 UglyBastard wrote:On November 29 2011 09:24 Scarecrow wrote:
Yes, if you were a psycopath that's probably the best course of action. How the hell is killing herschel and anyone who refuses a 'necessary act'? Interesting how so many people are siding with shane whilst all I see is a guy slowly losing it (I agree with Dale). It is necessary to secure the survival of the group. It's them or you, that simple. The farm is obviously the most safe haven available, so if Hershel refuses to provide, he has to be dealt with. I agree that killing him and his family is quite harsh, but it's not a happy world out there and hitting the road again is certainly not an option. Shane is a man that sees this clearly and is able to carry out extreme measures to protect the group (as we saw in this episode), while Rick can't get things done. I mean look at him, while Shane was trying to ACCOMPLISH something Rick was out with Hershel to catch zombies and bring them to the group. Seriously, Rick? Of course it does not have to go that far if Hershel simply surrenders the farm, so it would basically be his own choice. Not even talking about Hershel insanity and that killing him would basically put him out of his misery (he is not made for the world as it is now) and maybe free his family from his grasp, so they would possibly prefer joining the group (most intelligent choice) instead of being shot for the greater good. Meh, still not agree with killing H and family just to stay at the farm. I'd prefer to talk him out of it, convince him by hook or by crook, and if he won't budge, settle down anyways. And if H decides to shoot at us, THEN we kill him claiming self defense. Heck, his family might even side with us on this one. Either way, even in an apocalypse, we must still try to uphold virtues, which is essential for rebuilding of civilization. Being savage and psychopathic by killing everyone who doesn't agree sounds too Nazi for me. Just my 2 cents. You way has the potential of getting your own people killed. So you try to talk him out of it, he doesn't budge, you decide to keep your camp. One day, you're all just chilling and then half of Glen's head flies off, "Oh, I guess they're trying to get us off their land now". I'd be pretty uncomfortable next to someone who was armed and didn't want me there. Negotiations are all well and good, but sticking to the, "I'd wait so I could claim self defense" would certainly get people in your group killed. So killing H does not or have a lesser chance of keeping everyone alive? Killing H will turn H's people against my people, and a shooting match/all out war will happen. Furthermore, H don't want to get into armed confrontation with my group. We got 1 Sheriff, 1 Deputy Sheriff, and 1 badass crazy motherfucking hillbilly. On top of all the other people with knowledge about guns and shooting. Among H's people, Otis is the only one familiar with guns. Thank god Rick hasn't descended to Shane's level. And about the argument about my way not suitable to the post apocalyptic world? I agree I won't last until a grand old age, but I don't need to. I only need to last till I get a decent society with adequate defenses built up. To quote Dale, + Show Spoiler +the world may have gone to shit, but I won't let it drag me down with it. . And also, I am optimistic if I surround myself with people with high ethics and sense of teamwork, we can make a better world than a morally bankrupt post apocalyptic society. Rebuilding civilization. That's my ultimate goal. I want to LIVE, not just SURVIVE like a coward by shooting anyone who looks at you funny and be unwilling to negotiate. I made it clear that violence would only be used once all negotiations were exhausted, Hershel made no impression of changing his mind. I also never said anything about just killing Hershel outright unless he remained adamant about getting you off his property and attempted to utilize force to do so, or threatened force, which would be stupid on his part. Shane's flip-out was because he saw Rick herding fucking zombies, he figured it was time to remind everyone that the world wasn't the way it was before. I'm not saying I'd do exactly what Shane did, I think he jumped the gun a bit but knowing the comic alternative I'm pretty glad that Shane decided to stop Dale from hiding the guns and stopped Hershel's ill-fated herding attempt. At no point do I suggest it would be a good idea to just run and gun everything that looks at me funny. It's well and good to think that your morals would carry you towards rebuilding civilization, but what if you were put into the Shane/Otis situation? Would have you tried to get out with Otis, dooming both of you to certain death and dooming a child as well? It all seems good until you run into a situation which isn't black and white. What if you ran into people who had ransacked every nearby store to stock up and your group needed medical supplies? Your group is better armed and better trained but the only way to get what you need is to take lives. Or you can be moral and move along, maybe your optimism will lead you to some more supplies. I don't think it's as black as white as some of you see it. I don't think Shane was 100% right in his actions, but I still agree with the overall idea of removing threats and being ready to use force to sustain yourself. I would have attempted further negotiations with Hershel, but that was what Rick was assigned. Shane freaked out when it seemed like Rick was going down Hershel's path of idiotically trying to herd up the walking dead. On November 30 2011 11:55 VediVeci wrote:On November 30 2011 11:28 Mordiford wrote:On November 30 2011 11:15 VediVeci wrote:On November 30 2011 09:58 Mordiford wrote:On November 30 2011 09:46 VediVeci wrote:
The point isn't whether Shane's actions at the barn endangered anyone. Go back to when the group gets to Hershel's farm.
Carl is hurt in a hunting accident. Hershel takes him in and saves his life. Otis volunteers to go get supplies for Carl from the school, (he had a moral obligation to do this yes, but do you think Shane would have done the same if the situations were reversed?). Hershel then provides food, water, and safety to the travelers. He unhappily tolerates Daryl taking his horse and then helps to heal him when Daryl stumbles back to the farm injured. This is all happening, I want to emphasis, on his land, at his home, where he has given the travelers safe haven with no request for compensation. Yes he keeps walkers in his barn, but it's his god damn barn. Would you shoot your wife, parent, sibling, or child or hold them in the barn (which appears to be 100% effective) hoping for a cure? I don't think I could look my parents in the eye and kill them if I had any alternative.
To repay all this, Shane comes to Hershel's land and kills a member of Hershel's family. He defies the Hershel's request that gun's not be carried on the farm and then proceeds to slaughter the man's family and friends, taunting Hershel and humiliating him by rendering him powerless on his own farm, in front of his family. The horrible hypocrisy of it of course, is that when Shane is confronted by Sophia, he cannot shoot her. He still apparently sees in her some of the very humanity he denied in the other walkers.
To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show? Mixed in with a couple of good points are some unbelievably massive stretches and just down-right dickish statements. First off, I've already offered an alternate account of what would have happened had Shane not intervened the way he did, though this would not necessarily have happened in the show, the comic clearly outlines why the barn was such a stupid and dangerous thing to have right next to you. Shane didn't kill Hershel's family, they were already dead. Plain and simple. His home means nothing, there are no property laws in a zombie apocalypse, you find a safe-ish place, you want to stay there, someone wants to make you leave, you're left with a couple of options. Leave, or make it clear that you're ready to stay there by force. If you would just walk off back onto that death-trap of a highway, that's your call. He has threatened to kill Dale after Dale has been a colossal ass after all the positive things that Shane has done for the group. Dale also pulled his gun on Shane, and furthermore was about to do something so fucking stupid(hiding the guns)which had the comic incident occurred, would have potentially wiped out half the main cast. Abandoned Rick to die while he ran off with his wife? Are you serious, you mean attempted to get Rick out of a massive hellhole despite no evidence that he would ever wake up, after finding that it would be impossible, locking him in to make sure he wouldn't get eaten. Then saving his wife and child? Quite a slant view you have of Shane's actions here. Hershel has definitely done some great things for the group but ultimately his views are dangerous and his course of action in dealing with zombies is fucking retarded. I can defend Shane's character and actions because despite anything negative he has done, his overall contribution to the group has been a massive positive. In addition, there are situations where his survival instinct has saved lives other than his own, he is also probably the only reason Rick wasn't eaten in that hospital. Alright I acknowledge that the walkers in the barn were not the people that they once were. However, Hershel and his folk's considered them to still be people, so from Hershel's point of view killing his family is exactly what Shane did. And if Shane truly believed deep-down that they were already dead, why wasn't he prepared to shoot Sophia when she appeared? The abandoning Rick thing isn't really fair on my part I suppose, it would not probably not have been possible to get Rick out. However, Shane concealed it from Lori which was pretty damn dishonest as far as I'm concerned. There is a big difference between, "sleep with me, your husband is dead" and "sleep with me, I'm pretty sure your husband is dead but last time I saw him he was alive." And I only use the term sleep with me for lack of a better one, I'm not denying that he had legitimate feelings for her or Carl or they for him. Shane could have let Otis get away with the supplies, they were moving at the same speed so Otis would probably have had the same chance to get out. Whether or not that's the case, what I find objectionable is him deciding unilaterally to kill Otis, even if the net outcome was one life saved, which is not certain. You are working off of the assumption that Shane's actions saved two lives while costing one, but even if that's true in the immediate future, discussions like that should take into account the future actions of the people. Since no one can know that, it seems horribly arbitrary to just let one person kill another whenever they judge it's beneficial. If you want more evidence, even the others in the group would find Shane's actions objectionable. That's why he lies about it, because it's sure as hell not something that he wants to advertise. Whether he feels that his actions were wrong or not, he certainly understands that other people would find them objectionable. I think we disagree pretty strongly on the underlying things in the Dale-Shane thing, but I just want to point out Shane threatened Dale before Dale took the guns, so that's not really relevant in assessing the morality of Shane's position imo. And of course property laws don't exist where they are. Does that give one group of people the right to come to the home of another and tell them how to manage it, or set up camp there by threat of force? I'd say no. Maybe I am biased against Shane, but I think we're just coming from fundamentally different places. I think that even in the state their world's in, you should still respect the right's of the individual. I don't think that the ends automatically justify the means, and I maintain the sanctity of a man's (or woman's) home. And I'm pretty sure its bad to allow one person to kill another just because they see an immediate benefit. Two closing things. First, I understand that Shane has helped the group survive and has contributed significantly in this regard, I don't think that makes him moral though. Even if his overall contribution is positive, it doesn't necessarily make him less of an inconsiderate asshole in my book, and I think that's a major place where we disagree. Second, I know that my position with all these idealistic attitudes and such is easy to take sitting here at my computer in no danger, and its certainly possible that I would change my mind if it happened to me, or just be downright unable to live up to these ideals. That being said, I still think I'm right I feel like we have fundamentally different views on what we'd do to survive, I honestly think you're more in Dale's boat and biased against Shane. As for the Shane/Otis thing once again, what matters it the outcome of the situation, not everything that follows because that's a massive unknown. It's already been clearly established that Shane was ready to take the fall, Otis didn't have it in him to carry on and leave a man behind, he was too prohibited by his own morality. Shane ultimately saw that there was no way to get all three of them out of that situation alive and chose what would assuredly save himself and Carl, because taking the fall and letting Otis go on wouldn't have worked, Otis would have fucked up and tried to go back for him, Shane already tried that. As for the Rick thing. I'm pretty sure this was already touched on within the show, Shane had to say what he said to Lori to get her and Carl out of the city. Had she been adamant about going back for her husband, she would have gotten all of them killed. I doubt he got them out of the city and then said, "By the way your husband is dead, let's fuck". Dale has been up Shane's ass for a while, Shane's threat was in response to Dale's accusations and based upon Dale's own perception. I believe the quote was roughly, "If you think I could kill my best friend, what would I do to someone I don't even like". As for whether I would set up camp by force? Fuck yes, I would. If the owner of the property I was on was being an unreasonable ass and giving me a deadline to leave to go back into a shit-hole zombie-fest I would absolutely stay there by force. Ultimately, I think we just have different views on survival. Yep it looks like that's more or less what it comes down to. To be clear though, I think Shane is an pretty good survivor. I'm just not ready to throw thousands of years of human progress in the trash, in terms of morality, values, etc., unless all the other options are exhausted, and I don't feel they were. The Shane-Otis thing I still don't think it was morally defensible to shoot Otis and let him be eaten without offering himself or something like that, but what Shane did was damn effective in terms of survival. Threatening Dale and pointing the gun at Rick show how out of control he is. He fires from the proverbial hip, without much thought or regard. Aiming at Rick also shows how selfish he is. Killing an able bodied man is not the best course of action for the group, Shane considers it because Rick's return upset what he had going. That's not good survival, it's quite the opposite. The barn thing though was handled horribly imo. Talking to Hershel wasn't completely exhausted I didn't feel. Even Hershel insisted the walkers be kept alive, they could have worked to improve security in the barn (or move to another more secure location). Maybe this wouldn't work, but it out to have been explored, and it's clear that they had time to explore these options. One watchman could have pretty effectively ensured that the group had enough time to get their guns if the walkers broke out, and as we saw, the walkers were no match for the humans. And ultimately, humanities success is not based on the ability of the individual to survive or prosper. All animals and even plants have that ability, or they'd be extinct. The amazing increases in life span, standard of living, infant survival, science, and more is due to our ability to unite together and work under a common and understood set of guidelines towards a higher purpose than simply not dying. This more than anything is what I feel Shane's approach lacks. If he's tempted to shoot his best friend for personal gain, how could you ever really trust him? When you can't solve disputes without violence, and if people don't agree on a groundwork of rules (morals and/or laws), then they can't work together which hurts everyone. So yes, Shane may be doing a commendable job of surviving day to day, and of protecting and helping others, but in the long run I don't think his approach is correct from a moral or survivalist standpoint. I've already touched on all your other points, fundamental difference in view. I do want to point out once more though that Shane did offer to stay behind and let Otis go on ahead with the supplies, Otis didn't listen, Otis's plan of action was doomed to get them both killed. Actually you avoided both of our points about rebuilding civilization, getting to the point where you can live, not just survive, as Setev wrote. Hell, at one point Lori wasn't sure whether it would be better for her son to be alive or dead given the situation that they're in, and she nearly aborted her unborn child because of it as well (there were other factors to here admittedly, but I'd contend this is an important one). You can't honestly tell me that you think this is an adequate existence? In general, conflict between survivors retards the realization of a better existence rather than furthering it, though I'd love to see a counter-point to this if you have one. And yes, maybe it was better to leave Otis behind in that situation (I'm not conceding this), but even if it was, that's not a precedent you want to set. Every man for himself is a horrible way to ensure safety in the long run. The point about rebuilding civilization is questionable either way. When asked what he would do in a zombie apocalypse, Robert Kirkman himself said, "I'd kill myself", pretty much summing up his own views on the possibility of success(at least his success) of achieving normality in a world such as that. I would have to say that I see clinging to old values and morals as a sure-fire way to get yourself killed so fast that you never have a chance to band enough people together to survive. Quite simply, I think that in order to achieve a foot-hold by which to rebuild society, you'd have to survive and make a place safe, I don't think that would be very possible unless you were very lucky and in a very good location from the get-go. Hershel serves as a prime example of this in my opinion, because of location he managed to maintain his morality and values because he didn't face what the others face. In his position would you have allowed everyone who wondered onto your property to stay and tried to build a shelter with them? What about shortages of supplies, problematic situations crop up constantly in a world like this, old values run into a lot of snags where you would eventually shorten your life or get more people killed. Ultimately, I don't think rebuilding society would be possible if you don't live long enough to create a safe-haven, I don't think you can last very long without luck and location on your side if you stick to old rules and values. . There are so many situations where if anyone in the group was adamant about something, you'd have to conjure something which current societal values just cannot account for, they aren't applicable in my opinion.
Ok fair enough. If Shane didn't have a history that suggested it wasn't just an isolated incident, I would let the Otis thing go. Tough calls have to be made when the shit hits the fan. He made a mistake, in my view, but that isn't enough to condemn him. It's Shane's repeated tendency towards recklessness, carelessness and disregard for others that leads me to judge him harshly in that instance, not the other way around. And yes, you do need to survive initially in order to prosper in the long term. I backed off on the point of abandoning Rick in the hospital for that reason, but when the opportunity arises (with the barn) Shane still shows himself to be uncivilized, uninterested in dialogue or understanding, uncaring about the feelings and emotions of others, unable to control his own emotions, and supremely unconcerned by any of these character flaws.
|
On November 30 2011 12:01 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 11:48 Setev wrote:On November 29 2011 10:26 Mordiford wrote:On November 29 2011 10:06 Setev wrote:On November 29 2011 09:37 UglyBastard wrote:On November 29 2011 09:24 Scarecrow wrote:
Yes, if you were a psycopath that's probably the best course of action. How the hell is killing herschel and anyone who refuses a 'necessary act'? Interesting how so many people are siding with shane whilst all I see is a guy slowly losing it (I agree with Dale). It is necessary to secure the survival of the group. It's them or you, that simple. The farm is obviously the most safe haven available, so if Hershel refuses to provide, he has to be dealt with. I agree that killing him and his family is quite harsh, but it's not a happy world out there and hitting the road again is certainly not an option. Shane is a man that sees this clearly and is able to carry out extreme measures to protect the group (as we saw in this episode), while Rick can't get things done. I mean look at him, while Shane was trying to ACCOMPLISH something Rick was out with Hershel to catch zombies and bring them to the group. Seriously, Rick? Of course it does not have to go that far if Hershel simply surrenders the farm, so it would basically be his own choice. Not even talking about Hershel insanity and that killing him would basically put him out of his misery (he is not made for the world as it is now) and maybe free his family from his grasp, so they would possibly prefer joining the group (most intelligent choice) instead of being shot for the greater good. Meh, still not agree with killing H and family just to stay at the farm. I'd prefer to talk him out of it, convince him by hook or by crook, and if he won't budge, settle down anyways. And if H decides to shoot at us, THEN we kill him claiming self defense. Heck, his family might even side with us on this one. Either way, even in an apocalypse, we must still try to uphold virtues, which is essential for rebuilding of civilization. Being savage and psychopathic by killing everyone who doesn't agree sounds too Nazi for me. Just my 2 cents. You way has the potential of getting your own people killed. So you try to talk him out of it, he doesn't budge, you decide to keep your camp. One day, you're all just chilling and then half of Glen's head flies off, "Oh, I guess they're trying to get us off their land now". I'd be pretty uncomfortable next to someone who was armed and didn't want me there. Negotiations are all well and good, but sticking to the, "I'd wait so I could claim self defense" would certainly get people in your group killed. So killing H does not or have a lesser chance of keeping everyone alive? Killing H will turn H's people against my people, and a shooting match/all out war will happen. Furthermore, H don't want to get into armed confrontation with my group. We got 1 Sheriff, 1 Deputy Sheriff, and 1 badass crazy motherfucking hillbilly. On top of all the other people with knowledge about guns and shooting. Among H's people, Otis is the only one familiar with guns. Thank god Rick hasn't descended to Shane's level. And about the argument about my way not suitable to the post apocalyptic world? I agree I won't last until a grand old age, but I don't need to. I only need to last till I get a decent society with adequate defenses built up. To quote Dale, + Show Spoiler +the world may have gone to shit, but I won't let it drag me down with it. . And also, I am optimistic if I surround myself with people with high ethics and sense of teamwork, we can make a better world than a morally bankrupt post apocalyptic society. Rebuilding civilization. That's my ultimate goal. I want to LIVE, not just SURVIVE like a coward by shooting anyone who looks at you funny and be unwilling to negotiate. I made it clear that violence would only be used once all negotiations were exhausted, Hershel made no impression of changing his mind. I also never said anything about just killing Hershel outright unless he remained adamant about getting you off his property and attempted to utilize force to do so, or threatened force, which would be stupid on his part. Shane's flip-out was because he saw Rick herding fucking zombies, he figured it was time to remind everyone that the world wasn't the way it was before. I'm not saying I'd do exactly what Shane did, I think he jumped the gun a bit but knowing the comic alternative I'm pretty glad that Shane decided to stop Dale from hiding the guns and stopped Hershel's ill-fated herding attempt. At no point do I suggest it would be a good idea to just run and gun everything that looks at me funny. It's well and good to think that your morals would carry you towards rebuilding civilization, but what if you were put into the Shane/Otis situation? Would have you tried to get out with Otis, dooming both of you to certain death and dooming a child as well? It all seems good until you run into a situation which isn't black and white. What if you ran into people who had ransacked every nearby store to stock up and your group needed medical supplies? Your group is better armed and better trained but the only way to get what you need is to take lives. Or you can be moral and move along, maybe your optimism will lead you to some more supplies. I don't think it's as black as white as some of you see it. I don't think Shane was 100% right in his actions, but I still agree with the overall idea of removing threats and being ready to use force to sustain yourself. I would have attempted further negotiations with Hershel, but that was what Rick was assigned. Shane freaked out when it seemed like Rick was going down Hershel's path of idiotically trying to herd up the walking dead.
Sorry, I mistyped. I didn't mean to write "shooting at anyone that looks at you funny", I should have written "shooting someone so that you raise your chances of survival from 50% to 99%". I'm referring to the Otis situation.
Yeah, I agree that the Otis/Shane situation is tricky. But if I am Shane I will try my best to work with Otis to clear a path. Sitting in front of the monitor and watching the scene, it seems that the escape is quite do-able without sacrificing Otis, because the zombies are not crazy fast like in 28 Days Later or I Am Legend. I won't say I'd doom myself to death if I didn't shoot Otis, just that my chances of survival will be 50% instead of 99%. With that in mind, I'll definitely choose to keep Otis alive and we fight for survival together.
In a nutshell, I still think Shane didn't try hard enough to save the both of them.
Anyway, about the looters analogy, I won't shoot them first. Take the police approach - "stand down or we shoot! There is no hope for victory for you! We are better armed! But if you do as I say and surrender, we'll let you go and maybe share some of those medicine with you..." I'll pray they stand down and bloodshed will be unnecessary. What if they decided to sabotage the supplies to get at me? Well then this means they are asking to get killed, and THEN I will shoot them.
Anyway, I still think H can be reasoned with to let us stay. He's a doctor, using Lori's pregnancy against him may work. Send us out there? Fine, then give Lori some abortion pills and kill her baby. Then we go. If that didn't work, then tell him the benefit of having people with guns and lots of walker killing experience around when you are in a walker-infested world, instead of antagonizing such people. I'm sure H will understand.
Even if H still wants us to go, we make it clear to him that we will not go. What is H gonna do? Shoot at us? I've already said previously that we are more well armed than H's group. Its like Israel threatening to nuke both the US and China at the same time. I don't think H is that stupid to make a move on us, just as its unlikely that Israel will ever declare nuclear war on BOTH China and the US at the same time. Its just.....stupidly suicidal. The most H can do is sulk and bitch.
Anyway, intriguing perspectives are being discussed here. Very interesting.
|
On November 30 2011 13:06 Setev wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 12:01 Mordiford wrote:On November 30 2011 11:48 Setev wrote:On November 29 2011 10:26 Mordiford wrote:On November 29 2011 10:06 Setev wrote:On November 29 2011 09:37 UglyBastard wrote:On November 29 2011 09:24 Scarecrow wrote:
Yes, if you were a psycopath that's probably the best course of action. How the hell is killing herschel and anyone who refuses a 'necessary act'? Interesting how so many people are siding with shane whilst all I see is a guy slowly losing it (I agree with Dale). It is necessary to secure the survival of the group. It's them or you, that simple. The farm is obviously the most safe haven available, so if Hershel refuses to provide, he has to be dealt with. I agree that killing him and his family is quite harsh, but it's not a happy world out there and hitting the road again is certainly not an option. Shane is a man that sees this clearly and is able to carry out extreme measures to protect the group (as we saw in this episode), while Rick can't get things done. I mean look at him, while Shane was trying to ACCOMPLISH something Rick was out with Hershel to catch zombies and bring them to the group. Seriously, Rick? Of course it does not have to go that far if Hershel simply surrenders the farm, so it would basically be his own choice. Not even talking about Hershel insanity and that killing him would basically put him out of his misery (he is not made for the world as it is now) and maybe free his family from his grasp, so they would possibly prefer joining the group (most intelligent choice) instead of being shot for the greater good. Meh, still not agree with killing H and family just to stay at the farm. I'd prefer to talk him out of it, convince him by hook or by crook, and if he won't budge, settle down anyways. And if H decides to shoot at us, THEN we kill him claiming self defense. Heck, his family might even side with us on this one. Either way, even in an apocalypse, we must still try to uphold virtues, which is essential for rebuilding of civilization. Being savage and psychopathic by killing everyone who doesn't agree sounds too Nazi for me. Just my 2 cents. You way has the potential of getting your own people killed. So you try to talk him out of it, he doesn't budge, you decide to keep your camp. One day, you're all just chilling and then half of Glen's head flies off, "Oh, I guess they're trying to get us off their land now". I'd be pretty uncomfortable next to someone who was armed and didn't want me there. Negotiations are all well and good, but sticking to the, "I'd wait so I could claim self defense" would certainly get people in your group killed. So killing H does not or have a lesser chance of keeping everyone alive? Killing H will turn H's people against my people, and a shooting match/all out war will happen. Furthermore, H don't want to get into armed confrontation with my group. We got 1 Sheriff, 1 Deputy Sheriff, and 1 badass crazy motherfucking hillbilly. On top of all the other people with knowledge about guns and shooting. Among H's people, Otis is the only one familiar with guns. Thank god Rick hasn't descended to Shane's level. And about the argument about my way not suitable to the post apocalyptic world? I agree I won't last until a grand old age, but I don't need to. I only need to last till I get a decent society with adequate defenses built up. To quote Dale, + Show Spoiler +the world may have gone to shit, but I won't let it drag me down with it. . And also, I am optimistic if I surround myself with people with high ethics and sense of teamwork, we can make a better world than a morally bankrupt post apocalyptic society. Rebuilding civilization. That's my ultimate goal. I want to LIVE, not just SURVIVE like a coward by shooting anyone who looks at you funny and be unwilling to negotiate. I made it clear that violence would only be used once all negotiations were exhausted, Hershel made no impression of changing his mind. I also never said anything about just killing Hershel outright unless he remained adamant about getting you off his property and attempted to utilize force to do so, or threatened force, which would be stupid on his part. Shane's flip-out was because he saw Rick herding fucking zombies, he figured it was time to remind everyone that the world wasn't the way it was before. I'm not saying I'd do exactly what Shane did, I think he jumped the gun a bit but knowing the comic alternative I'm pretty glad that Shane decided to stop Dale from hiding the guns and stopped Hershel's ill-fated herding attempt. At no point do I suggest it would be a good idea to just run and gun everything that looks at me funny. It's well and good to think that your morals would carry you towards rebuilding civilization, but what if you were put into the Shane/Otis situation? Would have you tried to get out with Otis, dooming both of you to certain death and dooming a child as well? It all seems good until you run into a situation which isn't black and white. What if you ran into people who had ransacked every nearby store to stock up and your group needed medical supplies? Your group is better armed and better trained but the only way to get what you need is to take lives. Or you can be moral and move along, maybe your optimism will lead you to some more supplies. I don't think it's as black as white as some of you see it. I don't think Shane was 100% right in his actions, but I still agree with the overall idea of removing threats and being ready to use force to sustain yourself. I would have attempted further negotiations with Hershel, but that was what Rick was assigned. Shane freaked out when it seemed like Rick was going down Hershel's path of idiotically trying to herd up the walking dead. Sorry, I mistyped. I didn't mean to write "shooting at anyone that looks at you funny", I should have written "shooting someone so that you raise your chances of survival from 50% to 99%". I'm referring to the Otis situation. Yeah, I agree that the Otis/Shane situation is tricky. But if I am Shane I will try my best to work with Otis to clear a path. Sitting in front of the monitor and watching the scene, it seems that the escape is quite do-able without sacrificing Otis, because the zombies are not crazy fast like in 28 Days Later or I Am Legend. I won't say I'd doom myself to death if I didn't shoot Otis, just that my chances of survival will be 50% instead of 99%. With that in mind, I'll definitely choose to keep Otis alive and we fight for survival together. In a nutshell, I still think Shane didn't try hard enough to save the both of them. Anyway, about the looters analogy, I won't shoot them first. Take the police approach - "stand down or we shoot! There is no hope for victory for you! We are better armed! But if you do as I say and surrender, we'll let you go and maybe share some of those medicine with you..." I'll pray they stand down and bloodshed will be unnecessary. What if they decided to sabotage the supplies to get at me? Well then this means they are asking to get killed, and THEN I will shoot them. Anyway, I still think H can be reasoned with to let us stay. He's a doctor, using Lori's pregnancy against him may work. Send us out there? Fine, then give Lori some abortion pills and kill her baby. Then we go. If that didn't work, then tell him the benefit of having people with guns and lots of walker killing experience around when you are in a walker-infested world, instead of antagonizing such people. I'm sure H will understand. Even if H still wants us to go, we make it clear to him that we will not go. What is H gonna do? Shoot at us? I've already said previously that we are more well armed than H's group. Its like Israel threatening to nuke both the US and China at the same time. I don't think H is that stupid to make a move on us, just as its unlikely that Israel will ever declare nuclear war on BOTH China and the US at the same time. Its just.....stupidly suicidal. The most H can do is sulk and bitch. Anyway, intriguing perspectives are being discussed here. Very interesting.
In your stock up exchange you state, "We'll let you go and maybe share some of those medical supplies with you". LMAO. In the scenario presented, they're holding all the supplies and that's your response? That doesn't seem amoral at all to you? Would you take only what you immediately needed and move along? Or force them to give you half of their supplies? OR all of their supplies as you seem to imply, with the possibility of sharing some with them. Honestly, if that's how you'd choose to negotiate you're pretty much asking for them to say, "Fuck off" just so you can go in guns blazing and take what you want.
Ultimately, you'd have to get your hands dirty to live long enough to establish civilization and society. You'd have to give up some humanity to stay alive, this is touched on quite often in the comics and the show is just beginning to scratch the surface in that regard. They're doing it fairly well and I'm sure we'll see more of this as the show goes on.
Good discussions.
|
Ok I just watched the episode and since I'm a huge pussy idk if I'll be able to sleep tonight t_t
1) So they found sophia and brought her to the zombie barn before the group showed up? I was kind of confused about this cause I am dumb lol
2) where the fuck were they trying to go pre-farm, i don't remmeber anymore, i don't even remember if they were trying to go somewhere
3) shane is insane
4) Andrea is fucking annoying LOL holy shit, so is that dumb kid
5) I'm scared 
|
On November 30 2011 14:48 unichan wrote:
Ok I just watched the episode and since I'm a huge pussy idk if I'll be able to sleep tonight t_t
1) So they found sophia and brought her to the zombie barn before the group showed up? I was kind of confused about this cause I am dumb lol
2) where the fuck were they trying to go pre-farm, i don't remmeber anymore, i don't even remember if they were trying to go somewhere
1. Pretty much, yeah.
2. Fort Benning
|
On November 30 2011 07:19 Shaman.us wrote:
Everyone just remember that before Shane shot Otis, he offered to stay behind and "hold them off" (die valiantly) while Otis escaped, so that Carl could get the medicine. Unfortunately for Otis, he was too noble, and refused to leave Shane behind. If they had stuck together, three people would have died. Shane offered to stay, be the one the got killed, but then he knew he would have to shoot Otis, so that at least two people would live. Shane is a fucking boss, and easily the best character in the show (despite his sometimes insane "LETS GO GIT 'EM" persona)
A few people have said this. That if Shane hadn't of shot Otis, all 3 people die. I think it's more likely that only one of them dies. Along the lines of, one of them eventually gets caught by walkers because they slow down too much, then the other one gets to safety. It's essentially the same situation as Shane manufactures by shooting Otis, except it's random who it is. There's a small chance that both get caught, but no greater than both survive. So all of this "he killed the few to save the many" talk is sophistry in my opinion.
|
On November 30 2011 16:16 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 07:19 Shaman.us wrote:
Everyone just remember that before Shane shot Otis, he offered to stay behind and "hold them off" (die valiantly) while Otis escaped, so that Carl could get the medicine. Unfortunately for Otis, he was too noble, and refused to leave Shane behind. If they had stuck together, three people would have died. Shane offered to stay, be the one the got killed, but then he knew he would have to shoot Otis, so that at least two people would live. Shane is a fucking boss, and easily the best character in the show (despite his sometimes insane "LETS GO GIT 'EM" persona) A few people have said this. That if Shane hadn't of shot Otis, all 3 people die. I think it's more likely that only one of them dies. Along the lines of, one of them eventually gets caught by walkers because they slow down too much, then the other one gets to safety. It's essentially the same situation as Shane manufactures by shooting Otis, except it's random who it is. There's a small chance that both get caught, but no greater than both survive. So all of this "he killed the few to save the many" talk is sophistry in my opinion.
Except for the fact that they each had 1/2 the equipment needed to save Carl. So if either of them had simply been caught, that equipment would have stayed with them. So if regardless which one got caught, Carl would still have died.
So yes, Shane did save both himself and Carl by shooting Otis. I think by offering to stay behind he proved that what he really wanted was to make sure that Carl survived. Had no one stayed behind, that would not have been possible.
|
Good point. Except that Shane then carried all the equipment himself. So if one looked like they couldn't go on then they could have passed along the stuff. But it's a salient point you bring up.
|
[B]Ultimately, you'd have to get your hands dirty to live long enough to establish civilization and society. You'd have to give up some humanity to stay alive, this is touched on quite often in the comics and the show is just beginning to scratch the surface in that regard. They're doing it fairly well and I'm sure we'll see more of this as the show goes on.
Good discussions.
It's just a matter of how far you're willing to go and how you balance the potential risk of more moral action against the potential adverse affects on your survival chances, and vica versa.
It's a damn shame that the shows off-air till February, this discussion was getting really interesting. Lots of excellent points, I've certainly found myself reevaluating my opinions, especially with regard to Shane, even though i still think he has the largest character defects of anyone on the show by far.
|
On November 30 2011 02:08 ffadicted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 01:32 CrimsonLotus wrote:On November 29 2011 16:48 Subversive wrote:Oh and as a last point, what he did to Otis was not correct. He could have gotten the same outcome by sacrificing himself. And he didn't do it for Carl either - he did it because he didn't want to die. He's a selfish, self-serving character. There isn't a lot to like about him. [On a personal level I mean. Liking him as character in the show is fine, I do]. So, if you were presented with the choice of suffering a horrible death or sacrificing a total stranger (which himself caused you two to be in such a position), you're telling me that you would prefer to sacrifice yourself? You really underestimate the power of the will to survive. Exactly. People can be so naive sometimes, it's so easy to say "I would've sacrificed myself" or "I would rather die than 'sacrifice my humanity' and kill him" in the comfort of their own living rooms sippin' OJ, but the reality is that EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE would've killed Otis if they had the chance to do so and it meant them and another loved one (Carl) surviving instead of getting eaten alive. Don't kid yourselves people, Shane is by far the most realistic and logical character in the show. He sometimes does reasonable things in unreasonable ways, but at least the reasoning makes sense. Shane is absolutely right when he said Rick and the rest that think like him are about as delusional as Hershel himself and just not built for that type of world.
Exactly. People can be so naive sometimes, it's so easy to say "I would've killed Otis" or "I would rather kill Otis than think of any alternative" in the comfort of their own living rooms sippin' OJ, but the reality is that EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE has probably never killed a person before.
I'm sure you have quite the K/D ratio on MW3, but you can't call people out on their decision making from their living room while you're doing the exact same thing. None of us know what we would actually do in this situation. The logical choice would be to kill Otis, yes. Emotions aren't logical though, and sometimes that's a good thing.
Regardless, this episode was the best so far (rivaled only by the first in season one). Didn't see that ending happening. Still no replacement for Breaking Bad, nor as good as a bunch of other dramas out there, but at least I didn't watch the show while browsing TL this time. Also, I think this needs to be quoted again so people don't miss it:
On November 28 2011 14:14 Scribble wrote:
I actually liked the twist. The whole point of this slow-burn was to contrast the survivors and Hershel's people by showing that Hershel's group still saw humanity in the walkers. When Shane is finally fed up, he can brashly put both groups into a situation where they have to choose between killing the walkers or dying...until the roles are reversed and HE has to humanize one of them.
That last scene revealed a lot about who Shane and Rick are. The whole time there's been this underlying question about who is actually making the hard calls, and when it came down to it in this episode, it was Rick. To force the issue and kill a bunch of people he didn't know and couldn't relate to was the easy call, and it was a short-sighted decision at that. Finally, when he was confronted with somebody he had to humanize, he couldn't do the hard thing anymore. After leading the charge against Hershel's zombies, he can't bring himself to kill a zombified Sophia, and worse yet he forced somebody else to clean up his mess.
Imo, this payoff was worth the whole season of melodrama. It turned a pretty average half-season into a really worth while one.
Also, just to clarify, I'm not saying that Shane was entirely wrong; they've been out in a changed world for too long and he is just acting in the interest of survival under radically different circumstances than any of them have ever encountered pre-apocalypse. He is operating under the new rules of the world where society has broken down and conventional morality is out the window, and he made a command decision. It's not that the command decision is evidence of a character flaw, it's that the result of that decision highlighted one; he can lead the charge and take credit for being the strong leader until he has to face consequences and make hard choices.
Excellent analysis and I agree 100%.
On a more writer-analysis note, I have to agree with what p4NDemik said about the lack of emotional ties to a character dying, especially when compared to other shows (thank you for linking that clip p4NDemik; such a good show). In fact, the Wire is a perfect example because a lot of characters die in that show and I actually felt something for damn near each one (even a character that had one line. ONE LINE, and I felt bad when he got killed). + Show Spoiler [The Wire s4 and 5 spoilers] +I'm talking about that security guard Marlo had killed for talking back to him. Beyond him though, watching Omar die was probably the most heartbreaking death I'm ever seen on television, with Bodie's being a close second
Like a lot of characters in this show, Sophia had like two lines in total. She might as well have been a walker for the entire show, because other than the fact that she was a child, I knew nothing about her and gave zero fucks about her. Now that she's dead, nothing has changed other than they can gtfo out of that farm and get back to some zombie highway fun-time action.
EDIT:
And oh yeah, why are they giving Andrea a gun? She shot Daryl like three seconds ago!
|
Well apparently shooting humans is a useful skill to have. I mean if she doesn't shoot Daryl and he was a walker look how many people could've died. It is just good survival.
|
I like more and more where the series is going, using the comic background and starting cast and then develop into another different story arc. The whole Sophia plot was unexpected, as the Andrea character developing and Shane fall into darkness is. I think they want Shane to cover the cold, robotic point Michonne gives to the comic cast.
Although I will love to see her in the series :D.
As most people here said, I think it was better to Hershel to learn zombies are not good the way Shane did, than the comic story arc did...
And finally, about the Shane/Otis incident, in a Zombie Apocalypse world, survival of your group is paramount. Sacrificing a total stranger to your own survival and the survival of your own people is justified. Better you than me Bro.
If I were on that kind of situation, I would have done the same to save my wife, or my best friend child. No regret, no remorse.
|
i am loving this show so much!
After being introduced to it by a friend I basically marathonned the entire series up to the most recent episode
This is already right up there in my top shows with Dexter, Entourage, Breaking Bad and Mad Men (another AMAZING series by AMC)
|
Having now read about half of the books after seeing this show and thinking to myself, "What are the original characters like?" I can honestly say that I now understand why book Andrea is loved by more people, Herschel's farm has an interesting twist at the Barn, and holy crap I hope that T-Dog lives up to Tyreese's character moving forward. If you haven't read the books, go take a look at them. They are fairly quick reads and give you an original outlook on the entire storyline.
|
In terms of what Shane did at the barn, I actually thought it was perfect, and only way to show Hershel that they are indeed not alive. I agree he took it WAY too far by endangering everyone in the group by opening the barn, but prior to that, shooting the zombie in the chest several times, and pointing out that that is where her lungs would be, her heart, is the only way to show that they aren't alive. Hershel is a medical man, a vet, so obviously he knows good and well that any living thing would not be able to take several bullets to vital organs, as would anybody with any common sense left.
|
Something about this series doesn't always do it for me.
I liked season 2 because it took on a more survival theme, almost. Not so much survival against walkers because their firearm accuracy trivializes most encounters. I mean survival in a world where there's no government infrastructure in place to provide resources, living stability and security. Humans backstabbing each other in hopes of having better survival chances. Vatos was a good episode for that theme too. Though our crew should not have walked out with the guns. Would have been more entertaining to see them have to be more resourceful when fighting instead of just headshooting like some counter-strike pro.
If the series was always like the first few episodes with hordes of zombies everywhere it would get kind of dull and cliche. You can just play a video game if you want to see zombies get shot over and over. meh Though to mix things up an episode like that here and there would be great. I think that because they were so prominent in season 1 people expected it to be the norm.
Also I was hoping that Otis would turn up as a mangled walker at some point. Not so much that people would realize Shane shot him, I doubt they could tell anyways. But just to put him on the spot and unnerve him even more.
Dale is a great character too even though he comes across as a creepy white knighting perv when he's all up in Andreas business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
