Exactly
One day you're going to do that to one of my posts and I'll be happy ")
No you can't. Your analogy is very flawed. For a start why are you giving someone a gun? Is it someone you trust? Is it someone capable of handling a firearm responsibly?
If you're just handing a lethal weapon to some random Joe then yeah you're responsible because you've no idea who you're giving it to. Could be a psycho or a serial killer. If you give the gun to someone you know to be trustworthy and capable of safely and sensibly handling a gun, then that's ok.
If said person chooses to use it in a wrong way, that's their fault. Not yours.
It's flawed in the same way the supermarket analogy is flawed. Maybe the supermarket person is suicidal? Maybe they enjoy taking on robbers?
Its situational, and a poor example to apply. Just in a philosophical sense of imparting blame I'd say examples like these are innefficient to specific examples, they only gain logical value when used to argue an ethical statement in general.
In other words, I accept the analogy is a bad one (smile)
That's because it is an absolute truth. Only Gwen is responsible for her own freewill choices.
She is responsible for her own choice.
But by your logic, Gwen's choice only consisted of "going to the powerplant", not "going to die". That was Harry's choice.
You can't say "oh she should have expected that" as that links the two together, and from that logic, Peter should have expected danger in the future, he explicitely states so in the "Million reasons to be together" line.
There is no grey area there. You can't blame others for decisions you make on your own.
What if the decision even occuring is based entirely on someone else putting you there, knowingly?
Her decision had a consequence of getting her killed by someone elses decision.
Peter's decision had a consequence of getting her in a position to be killed by someone else's decision.
It's a logical chain mate (not the Australian hatey mate, the actual mate mate), if they're not linked, then it is soley Harry's fault, and if there's a link between Gwen's choice and her death, it logically follows there's a link between Peter's choice and Gwen's. You cannot have one without the other, to do so is special pleading, which, by the way, would consitute a logical fallacy. Also, using a logical fallacy in a debate is a fallacy fallacy, fun fact. It's paradoxally improper to use a logical fallacy as a debating point, so I'm just classifying it. No need to feel like that forms part of my arguement.
No it didn't. Only one thing made the action occur. Gwen's choice. No pressure or persuasion from anyone else led to her doing this.
That's simply not true, if she wasn't in the area she couldn't make the choice.
Do we agree with that? That she couldn't make her choice if she was on a plane to oxford?
Peter stopped her going to Oxford? Do you agree with that?
Can you know see how he's tangentally responsible for Gwen's actions? Remember, he explicitely says he didn't care about the consequences.
No it didn't. Only one thing led to her death and that was the choice she made. People are responsible for the choices they make. Nobody else. Common sense and fact.
Stating something as fact doesn't make it so, but I believe what you said to be fact so in our reality we've created I'll accept that into the arguement as fact
She is responsible for he choice, which was, simply, to enter the powerplant and help peter. She did not choose to die, Harry chose that. People are responsible for the choices they make, that includes Harry, and that includes Peter.
Peter started the chain of events that put her in a position to be stubborn enough to allow harry to make the decision to kill her.
I'm not really seeing the problem with this reasoning
specifically. Could you point out, if you disagree, the specific point in which the reasoning falls down for you? Cheers!
Because Gwen and only Gwen is responsible for her own choices. Any consequences of her own decisions are hers and hers alone.
Again, see above at this point? This is very similar to your last response, right?
If you feel I ignored this point I'm very happy to go back to it!
No, she didn't. She did not have to make that choice at all. That's where your logic is all wrong here. She never had to make that choice. It was not forced on her.
She could have done what was sensible and stayed out of it just like Peter told her to do.
Peter also told her not to go to london.
Gwen didn't choose to die. Harry chose that fate for her.
IF we do NOT link ethical decisions people make consequentially then it logically follows that the last decision leading to the event MUST be blamed. It's simple philosophy/ethics/logic. Does that make sense? It might not, I might be going a little out there. I'm happy to explain the ethical reasoning behind it further if its a bit out there.
What's stopping her from running straight back there? You can't keep placing the onus of blame on Peter for not doing X, Y, and Z to stop Gwen from doing something she wanted to do, when he already tried to verbally and physically stop her anyway.
I said put her on top of a building. He is she going to get of a building?
In the blame for an event, we CAN take into account omission of action if that action is deemed to be reasonable. At least in Aus law, not sure it applies in the US. You CAN be blamed for inaction legally in Aus.
Ethically, inaction by some ethical theories can in some cases be just as erroneous as action.
As someone else already mentioned above Peter stops her physically with his webbing. Gwen freed herself and went to the power plant. Then after she rescues him with the car, he pleads with her to leave and we get the big speech. So outside of Peter risking the whole city to carry her out of there, he really didn't have a choice.
He still had a reasonable chance to remove her from a situation as his superhuman abilities extend his burden of responsiblities beyond a normal man to coincide with his extra superhuman abilities.
No he's not. Only Gwen is by choosing to be helpful.
No
(Got bored of saying the same thing)
Because it isn't logical or natural. These chain of events didn't all naturally climax in a situation where Gwen had no choice but to do what she did. She had a choice. Stay out of harm's way, or put herself in danger. She chose the dangerous choice, in spite of Peter trying to stop her. Ergo it's her fault for what happened to her.
That is a fact. Not an opinion.
It doesn't have to climax to a point where she had no choice though? No? Because this is a logical chain of blame.
The "promise" is this proviso for the blame. I'm wondering if you read the start of the TASM chain? That is perhaps where the confusion is coming from.
She chose the dangerous choice, she didn't choose to die.
That decision lies with harry.
If there's no link that is.
Because a multitude of factors did not lead to Gwen's death. Only one factor did. The choice she made. She could have chosen to stay out of it like Peter wanted and she would still be alive and Harry wouldn't know Peter is Spider-Man.
Again that's a fact not an opinion.
Really? That's a stretch.
How does Harry kill her if she's in England?
That seems like a factor to consider.
I'm not sure how that's a fact, you haven't convinced me
Yes she is because she went there when she KNEW it was dangerous. Any consequences of Gwen going into danger is her fault.
Obviously Harry is to blame for actually killing her, but it's her fault that she was there to give the bad guy the opportunity to do it. It was like sticking her head in a lion's mouth and not expecting him to bite it off. The villain acting villainous and dangerous is the reason why Peter tried to keep her away in the first place. It was too dangerous. She deliberately went there knowing it was going to be dangerous.
She didn't even know about Harry.
She thought all she had to do was rock up and help spidey face a villian that he'd literally taken out with a WATER HOSE.
She wasn't sticking her head in a lion's mouth. She was chilling inside the lions den with the zookeeper (peter) in control.
Harry still made the decision. If you try to push the blame on Gwen for that decision then you have to do the same for Peter's decision as well!! Otherwise, again, special pleading. Taking your cake and eating it, various other sayings.
The logic is sound. You're just skewing it into something it's not with strawman points. No offense to you, BRAB, I like you a lot and you're an excellent debater, but I've never seen anyone turn such a simple straight forward concept into something so unnecessarily complicated.
I like you too, and you're pretty fabulous at this whole debating thing yourself! Hug? (smile)
Strawman? How? I'm not arguing things you haven't said, I'm arguing basic philosophical principles?
Where specifically have I used strawman arguements? Out of interest.
Urgh, nothings simple
Nothing. Life is a complex chain of unfortunate events, nothing is singular.
Harry is a dangerous villain. Electro is a dangerous villain. That's what they do which is why they're dangerous. It's why Peter didn't want Gwen going there. DANGER. Gwen playing the hero and going into a dangerous situation she had no business to be in is her own fault. That's why she's to blame for what happened to her.
Nobody knew about harry. She couldn't have made the decision on a plane. We've been through the chain of blame so many times not really neccessary to do it again in the same post, correct?
Yes there is because Gwen deliberately chose to go into a very dangerous situation of her own free will with no pressure or persuasion from anyone else.
EXCEPT LOVE.
I'm not saying she did nothing wrong but her choice occured because of choice from peter, and she never explicetely chose to die, regardless, Harry killed her. Unless you're implying she commited suicide?
That'd be a fun arguement. Haha
That's what this all boils down to. Choices. Nobody made Gwen's choice for her. She did. Only her. And again the movie had her spell that out just in case there was any doubt.
Hell yeah! But Harry made a choice for her to die no? Nobody makes her choices for her?
That's fine, sometimes you don't have control of the events surrounding you.
Hence the neck snap.
If you blame Gwen for dying, you have to blame Peter for putting her in a position to die following the exact same logical premise. If not, we've got a huge inconsistency there that NEEDS to be addressed in the context of a debate (smile)
I hope that was easier to follow. Still a fun discussion, but if you're getting bored then just speak up (smile)
