The Amazing Spider-Man The Amazing Spider-Man General Discussion - - Part 21

[Troy_Parker]

EDIT:

Screw it. Not risking an infraction.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

This is not really convincing. Indirectly is the same as nothing, because I can point anything as indirectly responsible. I can point the police as indirectly responsible for not doing a better job at keeping the security, or the thief's mom for not giving a better education to him, or the worker at the store for being so bad mannered that the burglar probably would feel that he deserved to be robbed, for Uncle Ben to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, for the manufacturer of the gun and the list goes on. What I saw Peter responsible for is for taking the decision to not run after the bandit. But for Ben's death? The burglar killed him. He is the responsible. Of that I am convinced.

I get where you are coming from in your view on the issue however I don't feel that you are taking the meaning of 'indirectly' the same as me. I mean, by your logic we should eventually blame God or whatever process that you believe created the Earth and life as we know it to be held responsible for Ben's death. After all, that's the ultimate beginning of the chain of events that lead to his death isn't it? lol. Debate over...God's fault or Big bang's fault.

Peter's lack of action indirectly resulted in Ben's death. Why should he feel responsible? Because he didn't follow his Uncle's message. He let a robber steal money from a store. He himself stole milk from a store because he thought their policy was ridiculous and was angry at the cashier. That is going completely against what his Uncle told him. Peter had the ability to act, the super powers he needed to succeed and he failed to do so. Uncle Ben made a poor choice by reaching for the gun but he was following his own theory and unfortunately it ended with him being shot and dying. Peter didn't pull the trigger but the events that followed his own selfish attitude caused his Uncle's death.

He feels responsible for it and he should feel that way. Tell me that the same events happened to you and you wouldn't feel responsible. Really? You'd just brush off his death as some unfortunate thing and not feel any amount of guilt about what happened? Running the scenario over in your brain and knowing that had you stopped the thief none of this would have happened. Sorry, but you can argue this all you want, Peter was indirectly responsible for what happened. You can make assumptions about the thief's mom and the gunmaker and whatever else you wanna throw in there but Peter had the chance to act and failed. That's how I see it.

Here's another example. You're at a party and a friend has been drinking heavily. You allow him to drive home when you could have stopped him. Took his keys or made him spend the night at the house he's at...but no, you let him go. He runs a stop sign and kill a family of 4. You don't feel responsible for that? You should because you had the power to prevent that from happening. You didn't directly kill the people but indirectly those actions were a result of your failure to act. You won't be tried by a jury for the incident but laws and such are different. Actually, if it was your house that the party was taking place...you would have been charged with some kind of crime under the Dram Shop Law.

That's terrible. Good thing that the crook was stopped. But supposing he didn't, and the crook killed some civilians, would the guy who saved everyone be responsible for their deaths too? Because, like you said, he had the power to do so, and he was an ordinary guy.

To answer your question and based upon the info I already gave, yes, he would be indirectly responsible because he had the power to do something about it and failed to act.

 

[C. Lee]

I didn't ask you to comment. It's not my fault we have to break every single ****ing thing down because some people are to ******ed to read into themes and read between the lines, is it?

I know you're having fun, don't try this passive-aggressive ********.

Keep racking up those infractions with your flaming and name calling.....

 

[Jick]

Here's the simple answer for you (and it would be personal for each person - everyone wouldn't necessarily respond the same way): if you were in that situation, saw someone stealing, did nothing, and then seconds later heard a gunshot and realized that one of the people you cared most for got killed by that person, would you feel any responsibility. If you could go back, knowing what you know, would you do anything differently?

Your answer is the right answer for you. I can understand if you say you would feel no responsibility. For myself, I could not live with myself if I saw a person breaking the law and did nothing and then realized that that person had killed my wife or kids. I would be ridden with guilt for the rest of my life and would give anything if I could go back and prevent it.

That's an interesting question. There was even a show with something similar some years ago. True Calling. The woman, unwillingly, would go back in time when she saw a dead body of a person who wasn't supposed to die yet, so she had the opportunity to save the person and get the bad guy.

But how much I'd go back in time? Would there be time enough to send my family to another place so I could save them? Or to call the police? Because I would certainly do that. I think I'd try anything to save the people I love. I'd certainly feel guilty for the rest of my life if they died. I feel guilt for smaller things that I'd change if I could go back. But now, calling myself responsible for someone's death, like Troy_Parker was saying of Peter? That's another case.

Of course, it is easy to say what we'd feel or think, but when something like that actually happens (which I hope to god never happens to me or you), then the situation might be completely different and what we thought we would do, say or how we thought we'd react may be totally different.

 

[Troy_Parker]

Keep racking up those infractions with your flaming and name calling.....

Will do.

 

[Jick]

I get where you are coming from in your view on the issue however I don't feel that you are taking the meaning of 'indirectly' the same as me. I mean, by your logic we should eventually blame God or whatever process that you believe created the Earth and life as we know it to be held responsible for Ben's death. After all, that's the ultimate beginning of the chain of events that lead to his death isn't it? lol. Debate over...God's fault or Big bang's fault.

lol
That's why I said indirectly is the same as nothing, because, indirectly, we can blame anything, really. Just point your finger and shoot the blame

Peter's lack of action indirectly resulted in Ben's death. Why should he feel responsible? Because he didn't follow his Uncle's message. He let a robber steal money from a store. He himself stole milk from a store because he thought their policy was ridiculous and was angry at the cashier. That is going completely against what his Uncle told him. Peter had the ability to act, the super powers he needed to succeed and he failed to do so. Uncle Ben made a poor choice by reaching for the gun but he was following his own theory and unfortunately it ended with him being shot and dying. Peter didn't pull the trigger but the events that followed his own selfish attitude caused his Uncle's death. Sorry, but you can argue this all you want, Peter was indirectly responsible for what happened. You can make assumptions about the thief's mom and the gunmaker and whatever else you wanna throw in there but Peter had the chance to act and failed. That's how I see it.

I understand how you see it.

If you said, for example, that Peter was responsible for stealing milk, then it is easy to agree with you. If you said that the crook was also responsible in that action, then I'll easily agree once again. They stole it together after all.

My doubts were with Peter being responsible for Ben's death, as was being said, whereas he didn't participate in the murder. The closest answer I got so far was that he indirectly participated in the murder. Once again, it is easy to blame anything indirectly responsible to that occasion, that's why it is hard to stress the question or consider it as grave as directly being part of the case. Understand that I'm not saying I can't blame him for being indirectly responsible, but if I blame Peter for being part of it, then I can blame many, many other things that led to that kind of situation as well. It's just as easy as. I didn't blame the manufacturer of pills and other medicines when Heath Ledger died of overdose nor thought they were responsible.

He feels responsible for it and he should feel that way. Tell me that the same events happened to you and you wouldn't feel responsible. Really? You'd just brush off his death as some unfortunate thing and not feel any amount of guilt about what happened? Running the scenario over in your brain and knowing that had you stopped the thief none of this would have happened.

The same way, I can also run the scenario over my brain and know that the thief could kill me. Knowing that the thief could kill some one nearby me. Maybe everyone. Knowing that he could remember my face and take it personally, going after my friends, my family. The people I care the most only to see me suffer all because I wanted to play the hero.
Dude, don't take the responsibility for someone else's actions. It can ruin you.

Here's another example. You're at a party and a friend has been drinking heavily. You allow him to drive home when you could have stopped him. Took his keys or made him spend the night at the house he's at...but no, you let him go. He runs a stop sign and kill a family of 4. You don't feel responsible for that? You should because you had the power to prevent that from happening. You didn't directly kill the people but indirectly those actions were a result of your failure to act. You won't be tried by a jury for the incident but laws and such are different. Actually, if it was your house that the party was taking place...you would have been charged with some kind of crime under the Dram Shop Law.

I won't comment on the indirectly participating once again, because anything can be part of that.
If I'm giving him the keys and asking him to go, then I can feel responsible. If I'm incentivating him to go and I'm beside him, then I am part of it. If I tell him not to go, that he can do something stupid and try to stop him but he finds a way around and goes anyway, I can't blame myself for the misfortunes that he causes.

Now here's another example to you, more extreme: You're in front of a really tough guy and his bandit friends and he secretly says to you that he is going to kill many people because he feels the impulse to do it, and he secretly gives you a knife to kill him there right now, or he is going to do it. His friends aren't paying attention, so you can do it. Will you? Would you kill the guy to stop him from doing something outrageous? Even though his friends are there and can take revenge on your friends so you can feel their pain? If you don't, he gets away. If you do, more problem to you and possibly those around you. Are you responsible for the deaths this man will cause if he goes away, knowing that you had the power in your hands?

Like I said before, don't take the responsibility for someone else's actions. It can ruin you.

To answer your question and based upon the info I already gave, yes, he would be indirectly responsible because he had the power to do something about it and failed to act.

What happens if he fails and the crook, not only kills him but some other people at the store because of his act? What happens to his responsibility if he succeeds, but the crook kills his family at a later date because of that? Is he responsible for all of the other deaths too?

 

[JOE]

All I want is for Disney to buy out Spider-Man from Sony... They're buying everything else! Just buy Spider-Man while you're at it!

 

[AF3619]

All I want is for Disney to buy out Spider-Man from Sony... They're buying everything else! Just buy Spider-Man while you're at it!

they can´t

 

[Anno_Domini]

Troy got banned?

 

[UltimateWebhead]

lol
That's why I said indirectly is the same as nothing, because, indirectly, we can blame anything, really. Just point your finger and shoot the blame

That's why I gave the example that I gave about God or the Big Bang, because it's ridiculous to go to such extremes when talking about being indirect. In your definition of indirectly affecting something, there is no accountability because everyone and everything is at fault. So, whatever created the universe is now indirectly the cause of anything bad that happens. Sorry but I highly disagree with this philosophy.

My doubts were with Peter being responsible for Ben's death, as was being said, whereas he didn't participate in the murder. The closest answer I got so far was that he indirectly participated in the murder. Once again, it is easy to blame anything indirectly responsible to that occasion, that's why it is hard to stress the question or consider it as grave as directly being part of the case. Understand that I'm not saying I can't blame him for being indirectly responsible, but if I blame Peter for being part of it, then I can blame many, many other things that led to that kind of situation as well. It's just as easy as. I didn't blame the manufacturer of pills and other medicines when Heath Ledger died of overdose nor thought they were responsible.

I never said Peter 'participated' in the murder so on that much we do agree. He's definitely not a direct cause of the incident that occurred with Ben. However, in my view of indirect there is a catalyst, if you will, that starts the chain reaction of events that leads to a conclusion. IMO, Peter's selfish actions and ignoring his Uncle's message was the catalyst. Like I said before, Peter has the ability to act and the power to easily succeed and failed to do so. There's a big difference here between not having that ability.

And the death of Heath Ledger is not something I know a great deal about so I'm not sure what to say about that example. I do know, however, that all pills and medications come with strict instructions about dosages and cautions about the dangers of taking too much and that sort of thing. You can't blame the manufacturer of the pills in this case because they did everything in their power to make sure the meds are taken responsibly. Heath obviously failed to follow the proper instructions...I'm guessing he did cause I don't know much about it as I said. I'm sorry but you're 'everyone is indirectly at fault' motif, doesn't fit here.

The same way, I can also run the scenario over my brain and know that the thief could kill me. Knowing that the thief could kill some one nearby me. Maybe everyone. Knowing that he could remember my face and take it personally, going after my friends, my family. The people I care the most only to see me suffer all because I wanted to play the hero.
Dude, don't take the responsibility for someone else's actions. It can ruin you.

That's where having the ability to do something about it and not having the ability come into play. Someone who attempts to play 'the hero' is doing so because they want to be vigilant but lack the know how. The main point about Peter in the story of Spider-man is that he does have the ability to do something about the situation and fails to do anything. If you try to take on a gunman without any training you're taking a big risk and that's why as the average citizen you shouldn't put yourself in harm's way. If I remember correctly, the news story about that civilian that took down the crook had some military background or something like that. Not sure. I'll have to look it up.

And I happen to work in a field that is full of this kind of thing about taking responsibility for someone else's actions. Believe me, it's a tough deal because even though I didn't take part in the events that caused someone to be hurt or whatever, I play a role in the responsibility of caring for them and when I fail...it hits me hard. I've been dealing with it for quite sometime now so I've gotten used to resolving those feelings but it gets to you after awhile. The responsibility part is a very gray area that causes you to grow some serious calluses.

I won't comment on the indirectly participating once again, because anything can be part of that.
If I'm giving him the keys and asking him to go, then I can feel responsible. If I'm incentivating him to go and I'm beside him, then I am part of it. If I tell him not to go, that he can do something stupid and try to stop him but he finds a way around and goes anyway, I can't blame myself for the misfortunes that he causes.

You're missing the point here I think. The problem is, that you had the ability to act on this manner and failed to do so. You had the ability to stop him from leaving the house and driving drunk. Even if you tried to stop him from doing it and you fail, there may not be as much or any guilt on your part but you still indirectly caused the events. That's what I am trying to say. If you actually gave him the keys and told him to leave, well then, you are directly responsible for what happens.

I guess we are just butting heads on this issue. I'm fine with you saying that being indirect is nothing but I can't agree with that. I'm not sure what else to say lol.

Now here's another example to you, more extreme: You're in front of a really tough guy and his bandit friends and he secretly says to you that he is going to kill many people because he feels the impulse to do it, and he secretly gives you a knife to kill him there right now, or he is going to do it. His friends aren't paying attention, so you can do it. Will you? Would you kill the guy to stop him from doing something outrageous? Even though his friends are there and can take revenge on your friends so you can feel their pain? If you don't, he gets away. If you do, more problem to you and possibly those around you. Are you responsible for the deaths this man will cause if he goes away, knowing that you had the power in your hands?

I wouldn't kill him. I'd subdue him and notify the proper authorities. Then again, I'm a trained fighter and I would feel very sorry for anyone that attempted to pull a knife on me lol.

 

[Ramsay Snow]

Troy got banned?

Yeah, he made good points with this Uncle Ben's death and responsibility but I wish the language was toned down. Dammit, Troy

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Troy got banned?

Oh my goodness. I just noticed that.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Yah, I saw how he incorporated cruel language with his replies. That sucks. I guess he kept receiving infraction after infraction until he got banned. I know I've gotten infractions with my language at moments.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

I guess that's what probably happened. It sucks cause he was a supporter of ASM. I feel so alone lol

 

[Infinity9999x]

It's all right. ASM is still easily my favorite Spider-man film. It's not perfect by any means, but definitely more of what I wanted from the character of Spider-man and Peter then the Raimi films.

 

[Jick]

And the death of Heath Ledger is not something I know a great deal about so I'm not sure what to say about that example. I do know, however, that all pills and medications come with strict instructions about dosages and cautions about the dangers of taking too much and that sort of thing. You can't blame the manufacturer of the pills in this case because they did everything in their power to make sure the meds are taken responsibly. Heath obviously failed to follow the proper instructions...I'm guessing he did cause I don't know much about it as I said. I'm sorry but you're 'everyone is indirectly at fault' motif, doesn't fit here.

Just a little example. Warning isn't doing everything in their power to avoid a situation, or just warning a friend not to drive drunk would be enough. I'm sure manufacturers of guns wouldn't recommend its use in innocent people either, but what the others cause with what you create is under their responsibility.

I never said Peter 'participated' in the murder so on that much we do agree. He's definitely not a direct cause of the incident that occurred with Ben. However, in my view of indirect there is a catalyst, if you will, that starts the chain reaction of events that leads to a conclusion. IMO, Peter's selfish actions and ignoring his Uncle's message was the catalyst. Like I said before, Peter has the ability to act and the power to easily succeed and failed to do so. There's a big difference here between not having that ability.
That's where having the ability to do something about it and not having the ability come into play. Someone who attempts to play 'the hero' is doing so because they want to be vigilant but lack the know how. The main point about Peter in the story of Spider-man is that he does have the ability to do something about the situation and fails to do anything. If you try to take on a gunman without any training you're taking a big risk and that's why as the average citizen you shouldn't put yourself in harm's way. If I remember correctly, the news story about that civilian that took down the crook had some military background or something like that. Not sure. I'll have to look it up.

Then let's say Peter decides to run after the criminal. He crosses the street and starts his purchase. The criminal, who is stumbling on many people in this scene, takes his gun. Then he sees Peter chasing him. What could he do? Shoot. Shoot backwards trying to hit Peter, but most probably hitting other people. Maybe he wouldn't kill Uncle Ben anymore, but other people could have been killed. How the responsibility factor plays in this scenario? Maybe now Peter would be responsible for taking part in all of the other deaths. What if his power fails, like it did in SM2? He almost couldn't save Aunt May. What if Doc Ock killed her? Would you blame him responsible for her death?

Now, I know you said he isn't directly responsible, which is what matters, the way I see, but to sum up my thoughts, I'm trying to stress out the notion that he can't be responsible for the actions of the others, unless he influence the others to do that. Troy said before that Spidey can't be everywhere to save everyone. But he could be in many places while he takes time to go to job or to have a relationship or to sleep. He could. He has the ability to do so. But isn't and, meanwhile, people die, get robbed. He can't be responsible for what the others are doing at these moments and he probably knows that well. Whereas it's in front of him or not. He can feel guilty that he couldn't save everyone, but not responsible.

And I happen to work in a field that is full of this kind of thing about taking responsibility for someone else's actions. Believe me, it's a tough deal because even though I didn't take part in the events that caused someone to be hurt or whatever, I play a role in the responsibility of caring for them and when I fail...it hits me hard. I've been dealing with it for quite sometime now so I've gotten used to resolving those feelings but it gets to you after awhile. The responsibility part is a very gray area that causes you to grow some serious calluses.

I'm sorry to hear that. I'd tell you to not let this get the best of you, but you probably know that.
Just try to remember of the wonderfull things you have in your life and have them as your pillar that always holds you.

You're missing the point here I think. The problem is, that you had the ability to act on this manner and failed to do so. You had the ability to stop him from leaving the house and driving drunk. Even if you tried to stop him from doing it and you fail, there may not be as much or any guilt on your part but you still indirectly caused the events. That's what I am trying to say. If you actually gave him the keys and told him to leave, well then, you are directly responsible for what happens.

I guess we are just butting heads on this issue. I'm fine with you saying that being indirect is nothing but I can't agree with that. I'm not sure what else to say lol.

Then I guess that's where we disagree, cause, by this idea, even if he kills me, even dead, I'll have caused what he did. How could this even be fair? It's the same as paying for what the others do.
We're not responsible for someone's destiny, or his decisions or what he ends up doing with his life or the others. You pay for what you do, the others pay for what they do.
As for feeling guilty, when I hear of some accident caused by a drunken guy who ended up killing innocents, it fills me with rage, because he knows that he is going to mess something up, but he does it anyway. So it's really hard to express how I'd feel about this situation and what feeling would come first. Like I said before to someone else, we never truly know until it happens. I just hope it never does.

I wouldn't kill him. I'd subdue him and notify the proper authorities. Then again, I'm a trained fighter and I would feel very sorry for anyone that attempted to pull a knife on me lol.

But then he kills in the jail. He does what he told you he would do. Are you responsible for those deaths? And what if he's even more trained than you are? Would you be able to subdue all of his friends too? What if he escapes jail or is acquitted and do as he had told you and kill many? What if his friends take revenge on you and try to harm your family because you decided to act?
I really hope you wouldn't feel responsible for the deaths he causes. Even if indirectly. You're not deserving of that.

 

[AF3619]

I guess that's what probably happened. It sucks cause he was a supporter of ASM. I feel so alone lol

what about me?

 

[SpideyFan866]

edit

 

[SpideyFan866]

EDIT:

Screw it. Not risking an infraction.

[YT]nSz16ngdsG0[/YT]

 

[Anno_Domini]

I guess that's what probably happened. It sucks cause he was a supporter of ASM. I feel so alone lol

Alone in the TAS-M boards? Lol.

[YT]nSz16ngdsG0[/YT]

 

[TheWallCrawler]

He was banned?? Is that only temporary or is he gone forever?

 

[SpiderMarvelite]

A moment of silence for our fallen user.

 

[SpiderMarvelite]

He was banned?? Is that only temporary or is he gone forever?

Hahah I come and go, he'll be back.

 

[Jick]

Hahah I come and go, he'll be back.

lol

You're here since April and you come and go? Shame on you.

I'm here since 2007 and was never banned, even though I used to be a hot head back then.

 

[SpiderMarvelite]

Troy was correct, I see NO reason for him to get banned. So what if he uses adult words...