trinityvixen (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
trinityvixen) wrote2008-08-06 01:04 pm
trinityvixen) wrote2008-08-06 01:04 pm
AWESOME TO INFINITY POWER
Sadly, No! asks commenters to prove that the plot of The Dark Knight encourages/approves of torture 'to save lives'.
And this person wins at life forever for this answer:
Zifnab said,
August 5, 2008 at 22:44
Let Batman be George Bush - B
Let Joker be Everyone George Bush Doesn’t Like - J
J - responsible for the deaths and threats on the lives of untold numbers of people
B - fabulously wealthy vigilante who operates outside the rule of law
We assume that B has a widely varying approval rating, but that consistently criminals don’t like B. B has a rather sensitive ego, and it appears that if criminals don’t like B, then criminals are a subset of the group J.
Torture is illegal and it is something that the United States doesn’t do. Fortunately, that allows B - who as we have stated operates outside the rule of law as a vigilante - is allowed to do it. Thus B is allowed to torture.
J is constantly plotting things against B, and it is impossible for B to be aware of all of them - J was one step ahead of B until the very end of the movie. As was seen in the movie, B gets information from criminals by dropping them off of buildings. But criminals don’t give up that information if a superior threat - another J - is present. So B must present the most serious threat in order to get information from J. That means B must use torture or death to secure information from J. Since you can’t get information from a dead guy, you must resort to torture.
Finally, J was responsible for the death of dozens of individuals and the potential death of hundreds more. Only people in the set J would be ok with this. Since you are not with J, we can assume you are with B. Therefore, we can assume you are not ok with all this killing, and you support killing J.
But because J consists of more than one person, it is necessary to torture elements within J to uncover other elements of J until such a time that all elements within J can be killed by B.
Ergo, if you wanted to see Joker get killed by Batman - and only someone who sympathized with Joker would feel otherwise, thus making that person just as bad as Joker - we can conclude that you are ok with torturing terrorism suspects for valuable information. Also, since Batman didn’t kill Joker, they are the same person. Hence we were dealing with one giant verbal BJ the whole time.
QED.
And this person wins at life forever for this answer:
Zifnab said,
August 5, 2008 at 22:44
Let Batman be George Bush - B
Let Joker be Everyone George Bush Doesn’t Like - J
J - responsible for the deaths and threats on the lives of untold numbers of people
B - fabulously wealthy vigilante who operates outside the rule of law
We assume that B has a widely varying approval rating, but that consistently criminals don’t like B. B has a rather sensitive ego, and it appears that if criminals don’t like B, then criminals are a subset of the group J.
Torture is illegal and it is something that the United States doesn’t do. Fortunately, that allows B - who as we have stated operates outside the rule of law as a vigilante - is allowed to do it. Thus B is allowed to torture.
J is constantly plotting things against B, and it is impossible for B to be aware of all of them - J was one step ahead of B until the very end of the movie. As was seen in the movie, B gets information from criminals by dropping them off of buildings. But criminals don’t give up that information if a superior threat - another J - is present. So B must present the most serious threat in order to get information from J. That means B must use torture or death to secure information from J. Since you can’t get information from a dead guy, you must resort to torture.
Finally, J was responsible for the death of dozens of individuals and the potential death of hundreds more. Only people in the set J would be ok with this. Since you are not with J, we can assume you are with B. Therefore, we can assume you are not ok with all this killing, and you support killing J.
But because J consists of more than one person, it is necessary to torture elements within J to uncover other elements of J until such a time that all elements within J can be killed by B.
Ergo, if you wanted to see Joker get killed by Batman - and only someone who sympathized with Joker would feel otherwise, thus making that person just as bad as Joker - we can conclude that you are ok with torturing terrorism suspects for valuable information. Also, since Batman didn’t kill Joker, they are the same person. Hence we were dealing with one giant verbal BJ the whole time.
QED.