I did justify my claims. You just either don't understand it or are choosing to ignore it. I've explained multiple times now what the difference is. All you are doing is simply saying I'm wrong.
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.
No, mate, you really haven't, and it is growing tiring.
You're becoming impossible to deal with, I know fully well what you're trying to do.I'm asking you to explain why something is worse, and you're bringing up PUNISHER. How does that explain a something?
You're not justifying your initial thesis that this adaptation is bad. You're bringing up
A.) Plants and death in punisher. (Inconsistent analogy)
B.) Nothing else.
That's it.
Basically, you're just making statements. It is
incredibly frustrating that you can post what you post and then claim you've backed it up.
Its actually rather frustrating because you're turning this back on me, I fully understand your posts, and they're logically insufficient to back up your initial claim. You're more than welcome to prove me wrong and actually show me where you've justified your posts, maybe I'm reading something different.
If you can't do that its actually really a case of MORE generic statements without justification to swing the arguement in your favour. Again, I feel that's very disingenuous of you.
Saying money is vague like saying murder for Kaharan's murder analogy between family and petunias. It's two different standards of murder and money. Peter was cheated out of several grand he earned in one film adaptation, and was denied like what a dollar's worth of chocolate milk because he didn't have enough to pay for it in the other lol.
One was letting a guy get robbed because he was just robbed by him of several grand he earned. The other is letting a guy get robbed over some chocolate milk he didn't have enough for. That is why TASM's is very bad I think. Peter looks so childish and petty. It's like the saying crying over spilt milk, only here it was over chocolate milk the mean storekeeper would let him have lol.
Vengeance is morally wrong because revenge is never right, even if you have a good reason to want it.
Just going to use your words here;
You are not Ocstat (Kahran Ramsus) so you don't have to reply to this discussion at all. In fact neither does he if he does not want to. So stop stirring.
Crossed out names to make the implications of that post in this context more clear. I thought you didn't like it when other people jumped into discussions they weren't a part of? Have your changed your mind?
Anyway, to your actual post;
No, the murder analogy is incorrect as it is quantifying two different acts. A better analogy would be murdering one person or 40 people. The act is still instrinsically immoral. That's why its hyperbole, its a logical fallacy to counter a point with an analogy that is inherently misleading, or not quantifiable to the situation. Plant squashing does not equal murder. The withholding of money, whether that is 2c or $2, is still intrinsically the same act.
Fact of the matter is, at that time, its not the dollar amount that matters but the attitude of the person and the intrinsic value of the item in quesiton in that situation. There's a do/don't between the two characters, and the material object is a manifestation of the disagreement between the two characters. Letting the robbers go was simply Peter's way at getting back at the person for disagreeing with him, its irrelevant to the magnitude of the money as long as its over money. This is because the magnitude is situational to the context of the situation. Some may even claim that the clerk was nastier than the wrestling guy, hence, a larger disargeement, and in the context of the interaction, higher stakes. This would theoretically balance out the two acts, but its irrelevant in the end.
Never argued that vengence wasn't morally wrong, it kinda proves my point that any act of vengence that would kill Ben is thematically sufficient enough to fit the origin story.
