The baby, am I the only one that..?

[Driryos]

Am I the only one that doesn't care about the baby at all?
Am i the only one that was actualy mad that the group's entire focus became the baby once he was born?
Am i the only one who would have just left the pregnant woman alone once the baby was born on an apocaliptic situation like "screw this i'm outta here, this is to much of a liabilty"

[Willie Jk]

Regergek a écrit :

Clem only cried when ♥♥♥♥ was already going down, a baby on the other hand will cause ♥♥♥♥ to go down in the first place.

I'm not denying that, you said Clem didn't cry. It seems when ever I retort you go onto a completely different point.

[Regergek]

Willie Jk a écrit :

Regergek a écrit :

Clem only cried when ♥♥♥♥ was already going down, a baby on the other hand will cause ♥♥♥♥ to go down in the first place.

I'm not denying that, you said Clem didn't cry. It seems when ever I retort you go onto a completely different point.

That's fair I just meant Clem doesn't cry the same way as a baby

[Dredgler]

The point i"m trying to make is, It's easy to say one would throw a baby away. It's entirely another thing to actually do it. Whether or not the child is yours, if the infant has no one else to care for it, instinctually one would feel an overwhelming and overpowering need to protect him/her. It wouldn't matter if, strategically, it is stupid and difficult to care for. Also, possibly, one could use the presence of a baby as a strategic advantage with other groups. Having a baby with you may make oneself appear more trustworthy, perhaps appeal to peoples waning charity. Will force one to think very carefully about ones actions. It really would be impossible for most people with any shred of decency to throw the baby to the dead. I agree the baby would most likely perish. But this event would almost surely be an accident, not a strategic use of cannon fodder or sacrifice.

[Regergek]

Dredgler a écrit :

The point i"m trying to make is, It's easy to say one would throw a baby away. It's entirely another thing to actually do it. Whether or not the child is yours, if the infant has no one else to care for it, instinctually one would feel an overwhelming and overpowering need to protect him/her. It wouldn't matter if, strategically, it is stupid and difficult to care for. Also, possibly, one could use the presence of a baby as a strategic advantage with other groups. Having a baby with you may make oneself appear more trustworthy, perhaps appeal to peoples waning charity. Will force one to think very carefully about ones actions. It really would be impossible for most people with any shred of decency to throw the baby to the dead. I agree the baby would most likely perish. But this event would almost surely be an accident, not a strategic use of cannon fodder or sacrifice.

I wouldn't throw it away, I would throw away the pregnant person or if that's not an option just leave myself.

[ShugoTheRipper]

I didn't care about the baby either.

[Peter Pan]

If YOU were the one who was a liability, do you want people to abandon you?

There is actually someone in the game like you that starts to think of people as objects, his name is Carver.

[Regergek]

Peter Pan a écrit :

If YOU were the one who was a liability, do you want people to abandon you?

There is actually someone in the game like you that starts to think of people as objects, his name is Carver.

Ofcourse I wouldn't, who would?But I would know that they were right to do so.And Carver was right, he just went too psycho.

[Peter Pan]

Regergek a écrit :

Peter Pan a écrit :

If YOU were the one who was a liability, do you want people to abandon you?

There is actually someone in the game like you that starts to think of people as objects, his name is Carver.

Ofcourse I wouldn't, who would?But I would know that they were right to do so.And Carver was right, he just went too psycho.

What do you think happens when you abandon people simply because they are deadweight, or you think feeding babies to zombies is considered sane? You become psycho, like Carver.

[Elensar]

Best thing to do would be to dispose of the people that want to dispose of weaker people because sooner or later they will become dangerous. People will always have a weak point and sooner of later it would be your turn when you twisted an ankle or something and I wouldn't want to be left to the dogs over somthing like that so yeah... Every life is valuble to me. lol

[Canvas]

and what if the baby grose up to be like clemintine then the human race might have a chance

just sayin

[Regergek]

Virgil a écrit :

Elensar a écrit :

Best thing to do would be to dispose of the people that want to dispose of weaker people because sooner or later they will become dangerous. People will always have a weak point and sooner of later it would be your turn when you twisted an ankle or something and I wouldn't want to be left to the dogs over somthing like that so yeah... Every life is valuble to me. lol

Peter Pan a écrit :

What do you think happens when you abandon people simply because they are deadweight, or you think feeding babies to zombies is considered sane? You become psycho, like Carver.

If every life in the game is valuable to you, then how do you justify setting the zombie horde on Howe's? Carver was a megalomaniac, to be sure, but what of the other people living there? By turning on that PA system, you have made Clem a mass murderer. Or you can understand that the rules and priotites of life have significantly changed with the collapse of society, and you will be forced to make difficult decisions in order to survive. This does not mean you have the delusions of godhood that Carver was guilty of. Also, don't forget that the primary motivation for Carver to murder Matthew, torture Carlos and Alvin (or murder Alvin in the lodge, depending on your choices), and imprision the rest of the group, was to protect the baby.

That is not to say that protecting the baby makes one crazy, just that the motive of protection can be claimed by the bad as well as the good as a justification for their actions, thus is is not a sufficent condition to label the one who made the claim as good or bad by default.

Fun fact: mine is the 27th post in this discussion, meanwhile, the discussion of if it was right to kill the dog has 109. So even in society, which do people seem to value more?

I'll value any random animal more than a human I don't know, an animal is innocent for sure, the human's probably not.

[Peter Pan]

Virgil a écrit :

Fun fact: mine is the 27th post in this discussion, meanwhile, the discussion of if it was right to kill the dog has 109. So even in society, which do people seem to value more?

You cannot judge what society wants based on the number of posts in threads.

And the dog thread has more posts because the dog was impaled by 2 sharp objects and suffering, while the baby didn't. Try having 2 sharp objects impale the baby and see the outrage on the forums at the depiction of babies being tortured.

[Regergek]

tldr

[Peter Pan]

Virgil a écrit :

I would be interested to hear your reasons why a survey, informal as it may be, of members of a society cannot be used to extrapolate, or at least speculate on, the values of that society (in this case, the community of Walking Dead players, since Steam is an international platform). Take the post above yours if you don't believe me, in which Regeric states very clearly, "I'll value any random animal more than a human I don't know, an animal is innocent for sure, the human's probably not."

Did you copy paste this from somewhere else hoping that it would still be relevant to the discussion?

You cannot judge what millions of people in the entire society want based on what a few posts in 2 threads are saying. Not to mention the dog thread probably had the same people arguing back and forth, so again the number of posts do not indicate that people value an animal's life more. Just that people are more argumentative.

You then try to draw your conclusion based on what one poster says. Why does what that poster say is more importance? He says he values the dog's life over a human, I would choose to save a human life over a dog. Where does that leave your argument now?

Society already has more laws to protect people than animals. That is proof that it values human lives more than an animal.

Second, the situations are similar enough to warrent comparision: both the dog and the baby are legitimate threats so survival as they are depicted in the game. Furthermore, torture is a deliberate act of inflicting pain toward some end, usually to extract information from the victim, therefore there was no torture in the case of the dog, though there was in the case of Carver breaking Carlos' fingers in order to discover the whereabouts of Rebecca and the baby.

Minor syntactical errors aside, the point is that the dog thread had more posts because the dog was SUFFERING while the baby is not. Seeing a depiction of a dog suffering invoked more emotions from posters, that's why the dog thread had more posts over a baby that was not harmed. That is why you cannot imply that because the dog thread had more posts, therefore society values animal lives more.

The definitions of what torture is or isn't are irrelevant. This is not even the main issue, but for you to conveniently dodge the main point and choose to filibuster with definitions of torture reveals that you are back-pedalling and are running out of things to say?

The question at the root of this discussion is one of objective value vs subjective value.

SNIP

You are WAY overthinking this, and are muddying the issue on what the value of human life is worth. Nobody thinks this way, if we did, we would start ending all disabled people because they are a liability and a waste of taxpayers money.
Or that if it takes too many soldiers to rescue hostages from terrorists, that means we shouldn't bother wasting so much money and people to save a few people. This way of thinking is dangerous and is basically what Carver is, so I find it hilarious that people are trying to justify their attempts to discard liabilities, and try to say that they are not Carver.

Every life is precious, and we should try our best to save as many as possible. It's what makes us human, and the moment we see people as just objects, we are in danger of becoming someone like Carver.

To answer the thread title without muddying it with irrelevant definitions, I care about the baby. Why? Maybe because it is instinct that we want to protect children and not feed them to the zombies to distract them and save yourself.

[Willie Jk]

It seems the baby's no longer the topic about a post about the baby, we've scewed into some kind of morality tangent about the concept of humanity. Let's all agree to disagree: some people would become evil ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ in this situation, but they think its the right thing to do fair enough, it may be utterly and completely the opposite of the right thing to do, but at least you're prepared to stand by and defend your pile of ♥♥♥♥♥ you call your reasoning. I, and some of you, will be functioning human beings that will find a solution to the percieved 'problem' of a baby rather than killing it soley for the reason that it requires attention and food, and will sometimes cry, just as any person would do in this hyperthetical situation.