The Walking Dead S6 (no comic spoilers)

[Dr. Pepper]

4 hours ago, dbunting said:

I think we are just missing each others points. You seem to forget that the group that attacked Darryl and Co. was the same group, even said so, said Neegan was in charge both times. I'd say that is more than being antagonistic, more like unprovoked patterned murderous aggression.

And I believe it is a huge leap to compare Alexandria to the Wolves, almost laughable. The wolves wanted everyone to die, just because they think everyone should be dead in this new world. That is a big difference from a group planning an attack on a group that has already attacked their members and that of a neighboring group.

Now, all this said, you have the right to your opinion, just as I do and it can be peaceful!

No, we aren't missing each other's point.  I get yours just fine.  Nor am I offering an opinion but rather discussing actual fact.  The actual fact is that Rick and co murdered a bunch of people in their sleep without gathering more intelligence.  They entered a compound with the sole intent to murder, which is exactly what the Wolves did.  Whether or not the reasons are different is irrelevant to the dead people.

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Interesting episode, which leaves me with a few thoughts to ruminate on.

First, Abraham. What a dick. He doesn't deserve Lara Croft whose in-show name I can't remember right now. Lolita or Rosita. Let her shack up with Darryl, or better yet, Rick. They will go nicely together. Abe can die now. He is starting to irritate the viewer.

It's been well established that Rick and Michonne are in a relationship.  I don't think Rick and Rosita have even had a private on screen conversation.  

Quote

Now on to those who complain about the morality of our group's assault on Negan's compound. How is that different to a Navy Seal team taking out an enemy outpost at night. Or a drone strike that kills a hundred enemy men without giving them any chance to fight back

I'm not sure why you'd think that all viewers are in support of these things in real life. This viewer would certainly point out the immorality in these actions.

But really, it's not complaining about morality.  I certainly don't have a problem with the main characters engaging in deeply immoral actions.  It's the nature of the show and the plot.  I've specifically pointed out that this show is better when it's honest, and an honest thing is acknowledging that the group has done something that is, without question, wrong.  The group knows they've done something wrong.  They also realize that their failure to gather adequate intelligence has resulted in not even knowing if they accomplished their goal as well as two of their own being taken hostage.  

In case you are confused, this doesn't suggest the group should have stood around starving and waiting to be attacked.  They needed food, they needed safety, and they need to be able to start connecting with these other communities Jesus mentioned.  But needing these things doesn't mean that their actions to secure food, safety and community are somehow objectively right and moral.  If that's the case, then you might as well just agree that the Saviors are right and good because they likely need those things as well and are securing them with actions they find necessary.  

[JoeyBanana]

16 hours ago, S John said:

I think it was a pretty major cop out to show the gruesome photos of mutilated corpses over the bed of one of the Saviors that Glen killed.  Sort of immediatly clearing beloved Glen from wrongdoing.  Any way you slice it, stabbing people in the head in their sleep is murder.  

I guess. I personally thought it was just a reminder of what the saviors are and it fits pretty well with the 'joke' the one guy does with the decapitated head. It would've been fairly awful writing if we didn't get to see more evidence of their terribleness considering how much they've been biult up as baddies. It doesn't absolve Glenn of anything.

 

 

[dbunting]

12 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No, we aren't missing each other's point.  I get yours just fine.  Nor am I offering an opinion but rather discussing actual fact.  The actual fact is that Rick and co murdered a bunch of people in their sleep without gathering more intelligence.  They entered a compound with the sole intent to murder, which is exactly what the Wolves did.  Whether or not the reasons are different is irrelevant to the dead people.

The problem is you are applying real world logic to a make believe world where zombies exist, the Govenor, Terminus, Rick, all of this exists. In this world this isn't murder in the sense it would be in real life. In this world people have changed and some groups are willing to trick you into coming to their compound and then literally eat you. You simply can't think of their actions like you would in real life, that is illogical. It would be like watching Aliens and saying that when they burned all of the Alien eggs before they hatched is murder. No, they knew that if they all hatched they would be killed period. So they did what they needed to do, they went to the nest, found the eggs and destroyed them. Preemptive strike in a make believe world that wouldn't be considered murder in that world.

[red snow]

I'd have thought aliens vs Zombies would be more apt than aliens vs humans when it comes to killing them. I don't think anyone would have an issue with Rick and Co killing Zombies.

I don't fully buy your "this isn't our world so the rules are different". If that was the case why did Glen choose to kill another man in his sleep rather than let the other guy do it? He did that because he knew it was wrong and that the less Alexandrians who do such things the better their group will be.

[dbunting]

4 minutes ago, red snow said:

I'd have thought aliens vs Zombies would be more apt than aliens vs humans when it comes to killing them. I don't think anyone would have an issue with Rick and Co killing Zombies.

I don't fully buy your "this isn't our world so the rules are different". If that was the case why did Glen choose to kill another man in his sleep rather than let the other guy do it? He did that because he knew it was wrong and that the less Alexandrians who do such things the better their group will be.

This isn't our world, no one here knows what they would do in that world.

And on that comparison, why is it ok to kill the zombies? There are many zombies that are killed when they aren't attacking anyone, they are minding their own business just walking aimlessly. Or, are we saying that we know that they will kill you if given the chance and preemptively killing them is ok?

[Free Northman Reborn]

Well, go back 500 years to when Native Americans were the only inhabitants of North America. Consider how rival war bands treated each other. It was kill or be killed. Rick and his group's night time assault on an enemy compound would have been considered commonplace back then.

That is what America has become again, after the Zombie Apocalypse. The law of the jungle once more applies.

[Relic]

43 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, go back 500 years to when Native Americans were the only inhabitants of North America. The law of the jungle once more applies.

The fuck are you talking about?

 

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Great episode. I forsee Glen being killed by Neegan's group, in exchange for Maggie. I don't see a scenario where one or the other doesn't die. Just get on with introducing Neegan already. Its like their trying to turn him into the boogie man or something. I have to admit,  i loved the scene where the priest(forget his name) recites scripture then kills that guy.  I see him turning into a huge asset for the group. 

[MisterOJ]

How the hell has no one mentioned the best scene of the entire freaking season yet?

Eugene and his "Virginia is for Lovers" shirt!

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

17 minutes ago, MisterOJ said:

How the hell has no one mentioned the best scene of the entire freaking season yet?

Eugene and his "Virginia is for Lovers" shirt!

Haha, I pass those signs everyday I go to work. 

[Castel]

3 hours ago, red snow said:

I'd have thought aliens vs Zombies would be more apt than aliens vs humans when it comes to killing them. I don't think anyone would have an issue with Rick and Co killing Zombies.

I don't fully buy your "this isn't our world so the rules are different". If that was the case why did Glen choose to kill another man in his sleep rather than let the other guy do it? He did that because he knew it was wrong and that the less Alexandrians who do such things the better their group will be.

Or he did it because it was bad, not wrong.

 

I can't pursue, capture or execute convicts or butcher my own meat but that doesn't mean that I necessarily feel that it's either unnecessary or wrong so no one should do it.

 

Squeamishness doesn't reveal truth, it reveals squeamishness.

[Tears of Lys]

Regarding the ethics of killing the Saviors in cold blood. . .

If this act were such a "given" in TWD world, why do we feel so squicky when the sleeping people are silently given the knife?  It's NOT a given.  It's pretty obvious that there's a line being crossed here.  We empathize with the group we know merely because we know them. 

[Castel]

10 minutes ago, Tears of Lys said:

Regarding the ethics of killing the Saviors in cold blood. . .

If this act were such a "given" in TWD world, why do we feel so squicky when the sleeping people are silently given the knife?  It's NOT a given.  It's pretty obvious that there's a line being crossed here.  We empathize with the group we know merely because we know them. 

You're asking why the beliefs and instincts of a bunch of modern Westerners don't match up with the necessities of post-apocalyptic life? Especially when disconnected through fiction (that they expect to cater to them)? 

Um...

I will agree that we often empathize a lot with the group and they've kinda become dark in some ways: Rick's shenanigans at Alexandria or outright threatening to take food are taken for granted for example. But that's not really relevant to the argument for me. I'm just saying that arguments from guilt or inner feeling don't work, They're flawed

[Free Northman Reborn]

The point is that in a setting like this one, everything returns to a tribal level. Debates about the greater good disappear - at least, insofar as it extends beyond your own tribe. Inside the tribe morality needs to be debated and the greater good of the tribe needs to be sought. But only for the good of the tribe. The next tribe down the road - unless they are proven allies of your tribe - are considered enemies by default.

Else YOU will end up like the sleeping Saviours at the satelite compound.

 

[Nictarion]

Wrong thread 

 

[dbunting]

Well, for what it's worth I don't agree with the tribal level kill or be killed comments at all. I think all strangers in this world should be viewed as guilty until proven innocent, just because of what they have all experienced. Now, the saviors are guilty, so that has been determined and you have to deal with them how you as a group see fit.

Just for the sake of clarity, not all Native American Indian tribes killed each other. Rivals yes, the same as any other country or people in history.

[red snow]

4 hours ago, dbunting said:

This isn't our world, no one here knows what they would do in that world.

And on that comparison, why is it ok to kill the zombies? There are many zombies that are killed when they aren't attacking anyone, they are minding their own business just walking aimlessly. Or, are we saying that we know that they will kill you if given the chance and preemptively killing them is ok?

The zombies aren't people or capable of thought reasoning. I'd think the difference was obvious.

It's not our world but we can still make calls on whether their actions are reprehensible or not.

1 hour ago, Castel said:

Or he did it because it was bad, not wrong.

 

I can't pursue, capture or execute convicts or butcher my own meat but that doesn't mean that I necessarily feel that it's either unnecessary or wrong so no one should do it.

 

Squeamishness doesn't reveal truth, it reveals squeamishness.

I'm not going to argue the difference between bad and wrong but you are at least saying his actions were bad or wrong. I don't really mind which one as they are both negative.

 

 

[Castel]

Just now, red snow said:

I'm not going to argue the difference between bad and wrong but you are at least saying his actions were bad or wrong. I don't really mind which one as they are both negative.

If you want to...go ahead. But it'd be weird to read what I said in such a way. You can clearly see the disagreement in my example. . It's not a complex terminological argument, not all things that are bad are of the same type. 

I'm saying the opposite of what you want, so I'm not sure how you can take consensus or satisfaction from it.

[Consigliere]

I enjoyed the episode. For a while I thought that the episode will just be information gathering so it was good to have them actually attack the outpost. The attack itself was tense as I was sure that there will be casualties on the side of our group. Quite surprised that they came out of there unscathed, until the end that is. Rick and Co. dropping their weapons is certainly not an option - that would be as absurd as the midseason finale where Tara, Rosita and Eugene meekly put down their weapons or Daryl, Abe and Sasha just drive up to a bunch of bikers blocking the road and then proceed to walk up to them unarmed.

I agree that the show was a bit more honest especially the bit where that guy from Hilltop says that the Saviours are scary but got nothing on Rick. This tells me that our group, under Rick's leadership, are not far off from becoming like the Saviours. I don't think that the show will go all the way down that route though - they will go out of their way to make sure that our group remains sympathetic by portraying those that they come up against as being unequivocally the bad guys.

The last two episodes were good and I'm looking forward to the remainder of the season. Hopefully we finally meet Negan in the next episode. Haven't changed my mind about the big death this season being either Maggie or Glenn.

[red snow]

21 hours ago, Castel said:

If you want to...go ahead. But it'd be weird to read what I said in such a way. You can clearly see the disagreement in my example. . It's not a complex terminological argument, not all things that are bad are of the same type. 

I'm saying the opposite of what you want, so I'm not sure how you can take consensus or satisfaction from it.

I see what you mean now, I read it back (along with my quoted comment) and it makes more sense. You're saying he felt it was the right thing to do even if he knew it was a bad action. I can agree with that.

Sometimes I tend to read the comment and not the quote and context can be lost.

3 hours ago, Consigliere said:

The last two episodes were good and I'm looking forward to the remainder of the season. Hopefully we finally meet Negan in the next episode. Haven't changed my mind about the big death this season being either Maggie or Glenn.

Totally. The fact we're discussing the morality of characters' actions as opposed to shitting over the show's quality says a lot about the recent improvement in the show.