El Payaso said:
Why and how does this new exceptions Bat-rule work?
I've already explained it in detail in my earlier posts. Go fetch.
Yes. Because it is a human life. Any thing he does should be - according to Batman - be resolved by justice, not him or the villiain himself.
And where is the
justice in repeatedly saving a potential mass-murderer who plots the demise of millions of people and attempts to kill the very man who had already saved his life before?
And how did Ra's have this 'fair trial' and how leaving him in a train that is going to collapse is not 'cold blood', even if it's not directly a murder?
Actually Ra's already had his chance when Bruce saved him from the burning monastery.
Apathy is what - in part - let the crime and corruption to increase. Now you say Batman can show apathy for human life.
No, Batman can show apathy to
inhuman fanatics like Ra's, especially after risking his neck trying to save Ra's the first time.
He needs to reflect on that.
Nope. Because leaving Ra's to the fate he had doomed himself to was essentially the redemption for what Bruce's compassion for his former mentor had brought on him and his city. I'm not saying Bruce should not have saved Ra's at the monastery, but that Ra's actions later in the film proved that a twisted, radical madman like him didn't deserve to be saved in the first place.
Relevant in the sense that even a movie like Daredevil took the time for reflection over letting someone die (or kill someone in DD case).
Unless the one who got killed in DD was very much like Ra's and had been rescued from certain death by DD earlier in the film, the "relevance" of the example you posted is pretty much non-existent, because the circumstances as well as the reasons that led to the outcome of that situation are strikingly different.
On a side note, my memory about the events in Daredevil is a bit hazy, but can you please elaborate just when and whose death does Daredevil "reflect upon"?
Why didn't you start by saying you think the main source - Batman comics - are absurd and too naive? B Begins trying to be so close to the comics then is a problem for you.
I never said the entire Batman comics are absurd and too naive. I was talking only about that singular, particular element of Batman comics where he so foolishly cherishing the lives of the most despicable kind of scum that has ever walked the Earth.
All meaning of participating in a discussion with you is lost when you resort to dishonest tactics where you exaggerate words and put them in my mouth just so you can still save some face in this debate. Disgusting.
Bruce throws a gun to the sea, he will never take a human life.
And he didn't. At least not in Begins.
Then he finds a better way. To leave them to die. That gives him the perfect excuse and he's still "technically" keeping his word.
It's really appalling to you reach to the lengths where you equate the life of a megalomaniac like Ra's with a normal human life. I'm at a loss for words. So you're essentially willing to overlook all that Ra's has done and judging from what was shown in the film, very much continue to do just so Batman ideals in the film can remain identical to that of his comics counterpart?
"I asked what would you rather have Batman do." is very different from "Looking at those odds, tell me - which one would YOU risk? Possibility or certainty?" which was your original question. So the incompetence is entirely yours about elaborating the right question, that way you won't have to to change it later so it looks like I was mistaken.
The first time I asked you that, I meant it figuratively. But since you were apparently too dumb and spineless to give a simple, straightforward answer, I had to rephrase it to coax you into replying in a way where you'd have nowhere to run. This whole debacle wouldn't have even started if didn't try to be such a smartass.
I would have saved both Rachel and Ra's, so to keep a little consistency about human life and not choosing people according to my personal feelings about who should/shouldn't be saved.
See, that wasn't so hard now was it? Oh and my question was only concerning the case of Rachel and not Ra's.
No.
I stated clearly I was looking for the incoherence in the movie itself.
And it's clear that there is no incoherence, at least as far as what was shown in the movie itself. The only way you can validate this argument of yours is if you compare the film and the comics, which does not exactly equal "incoherence" in the film itself now, does it?
Burton provided no reason or hint about Batman being after a fair trial for villains or being worried about human life. In Burton's movies Batman was just about personal revenge and from that Pov it is always like that. Is that opposite to some points in the comic books? sure, but inside the fiction of those movies is not incoherent/out of character.
The same reasoning can be said used in the case of Begins as well. You say Ra's didn't get a fair trial, but stupendously overlook the fact that thanks to Bruce, he had gotten a far better deal - a graceful second chance at life without even a fair trial acquitting him for the crimes he had already committed before.
After that line I gave it to you. Pretending I didn't won't help you.
You mean the line about "personal translation"? That's not a reply, just a lame "it's only your opinion" copout without directly addressing what I had said earlier. Now try again, chump.
The same reading you did about Batman words I could state in another direction.
"I won't kill you but I don't have to save you": "Look, Ra's I tried the easy way but you not only fooled me but came back to destroy my house and my city so I had it. I won't kill you because I swore I won't kill, but - look at this - I'll let you die even when i could save you. See the irony? I keep my oath and you die. Beautiful. So long."
See how easy it is?
Yes, but apparently your amusing short-sightedness fail to consider the fact that your above statement is but an ideal example of selective reasoning, where you only pick the facts that support your argument and discard everything else. Besides, that incoherent babble is not even keeping in line with the dialogue and events in the movie.
"Look Ra's I tried the easy way..."? What was this "easy way"? Bruce risking being burn to shreds in an exploding monastery? Almost falling off a cliff trying to save Ra's? Yeah, it was a piece of cake, when apparently the
hard way for Bruce to do it was to just leave Ra's there to die and instead worry about getting his own ass out of danger.
Oh, oh and how about the part where Ra's destined himself to a suicide mission towards Wayne Tower on that doomtrain? Bah, silly stuff, you needn't bother about. It would only serve to weaken your argument and hence, not worth the effort of taking into account.
Sarcasm kills, doesn't it?
Maybe it was all the damage Ra's did to Bruce.
Oh, so now you're arguing with me on the basis of conjured
assumptions instead of certainties? All this debate over something you're not even completely sure of? Will someone hand over a debate rulebook to Mr. Payaso that would hopefully enlighten him about the fulity of debating without definite statements and concrete arguments.
Ra's provided the reasons for the wayne's murder, for Gotham City to be slowly corrupted and rot, he burned Wayne manor and all the precious memories in it, etc etc. Batman was plenty of reasons to let him die.
Actually, Bruce wasn't pissed at Ra's for burning down his parent's house after Alfred consoled him that it was Bruce and not just some brick house which was the true Wayne legacy.
And Gotham City became a hellhole primarily because of mob bosses like Falcone. Don't forget that Gotham was already a wasteland mired with corruption, things that invited Ra's and gave him a reason for attacking Gotham to begin with. Gotham was pretty much dead. Ra's was simply there to deliver the finishing blow by further worsening the disease that had infected the city which would bring about the events to trigger it's own self-destruction.
All your interpretations can and have been refuted with some POSSIBLE not absolut reply and argument.
Yes, my "interpretations" that are backed with completely with events and dialogue from the film without any selective dismissiveness have been "refuted" with "possible not absolute reply and argument" that are, bluntly speaking, only mere assumptions and not facts.
Oh you so got me there. 
Your interpretations are not wrong per se. Could be wrong.
Please tell me how exactly. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air where you discount my "interpretation" as only a possibility yet fail to elaborate on the thought process that brought you to that conclusion.
I didn't understand the part where you use that example in spite of being admittedly "in very loose and circumstancial terms."
I put if forward as being an appropriate example in highlighting on the way morality functions in stories and films keeping in mind the blatant similiarities between said events in the two films, yet also acknowledging the difference between them at the same time, hence the phrase "in very loose and circumstantial terms". It was simply to elaborate on what basis exactly am I correlating the situational likeness between the Opham/German scenes and that of Batman/Ra's.
But I guess all that was incomprehensibly too complex for you.
Your arguments are debatable and I'm doing that.
And your counter-arguments have very little to no merit or validity, as I've pointed out above. Sure my arguments are "debatable". Practically anything on this planet can be contested but that doesn't mean that such attempts are always successful and are impervious to failure. Your posts are a standing testament to that.
I won't shut up because you got angry.
Not angry, more like annoyed.
I always replied to your points directly.
With vague and meaningless statements.
aka: THE KID.
Let's do this.
The Dark Knight What 'departures from canon' are not acceptable to you?
DKDetectiveBoo Boo Bubbles (he/him)
