What is "insane to think" is that I compared Walt's poisoning Brock with a previous act and judged it worse. What was said was that people view an act perpetrated against a wholly innocent child in the context of the protagonist's history of depravities.
What was said in my original post is that it's ridiculous people are/were so upset about that specific action. That was the most justifiable and least upsetting of all the actions Walt took after season 2...at least until he killed Uncle Jack and co., anyway.
The reason that point was made is because it goes to your complaint that people leave out the context that the child was poisoned, not killed. But as mentioned, people do acknowledge that context. They also include context you leave out, namely that poisoning an innocent child was part of a stream of depravities caused in major part by warped pride, not merely a desire to protect his family.
It has nothing to do with a "stream of depravities." No one gives a damn about Gale. They instead focus on justifiable acts like making a kid temporarily sick and letting a heroin addict who was dragging his partner down with him and blackmailing him die when he could have saved her.
That's why it's ridiculous. Gilligan and co. loved using children to try to evoke cheap sympathy from the masses, and it worked. First the junkies' kid in season 2, then Brock and his off-screen berries, and then Drew Sharpe meeting Todd.
Not to mention poor murdering Thomas, which justified Jesse's angry attempt at murderous revenge.
Everything is about Walt and his justifiable actions. And Jesse, even at 20+ years old, was apparently a victim, and not equally responsible for murdering Gale. He doesn't draw 1% of the moral outrage Walt does for making a kid temporarily sick to save his family's lives.
Your pronouncement that there were no other options doesn't mean there weren't any. Walt formed this relatively inventive plan, thus he had the capacity to imagine another. He happened to hit upon this particular option and settled on it. Poisoning an innocent child was an immoral decision, but not out of character given Walt's history.
Oh, shame on Walt for not thinking of another option. He was probably busy worrying about the fact that time was running out for him to take out Gus before Gus killed his family.
Desperate times and measures and stuff.
Poisoning Brock was the moral decision. It was the right thing to do. It is better to make a kid sick than to let someone murder your family members.
The unlikelihood of death is a generality, but this poisoning involves several variables that make it specific. Walt wasn't trained in medical chemistry, he knew nothing about the child's individual condition, and he couldn't know when the child would receive the proper medical treatment. He played roulette with someone else's child, just as he did with his own.
What do you mean, "Walt wasn't trained in medical chemistry?" He absolutely was, idiot. Walt is a world class chemist who knows chemistry, period.
There's no freak'n roulette with poisonous berries that are almost never life-threatening when ingested. You're closer to "playing roulette" with someone else's child when you drive him and your kid to soccer practice.
The point that "everything in life involves some degree of risk" should be dismissed out of hand for drawing a false equivalence between a specific act and a generality. That's your stock-in-trade.
What's hilarious is how you're as dumb as they come yet write with the pretense of intelligence.
There is no false equivalency here. This is not difficult to understand, yet you're being deliberately obtuse.
People make decisions every day that are every bit as "risky" to others as the one Walt made, and you would never think to criticize them for it (because that would be asinine). Walt doesn't know if Brock has some rare condition that would make him more vulnerable to the substance he gave him. So what? John Doe didn't know that little Charlie was allergic to bees when he had him help him in the garden. Little Charlie never gardened, nor breathed, again. How
DEPRAVED.
Again, it was either a 0.001% chance of death of a kid who is not part of his family, or a 100% chance of death of a family member (Hank, should he do as Gus demanded and "not interfere"), or 3 family members (Skyler, Walt Jr, Holly). The choice was obvious.
So you are walking back from your tough talk. You are now saying that you would give a damn if you murdered an innocent child, that you would care, that you would be affected. If that is so, then it is also unlikely that you "wouldn't hesitate." You'd like to think that most people wouldn't hesitate, because that thought helps you talk tough.
If you did not have an equivalent history of depravity as Walt, yet you didn't give a damn or hesitate, then you would be a psychopath. Walt needed all that history to not give a damn, to not hesitate. You have accidentally reinforced this point by mentioning his reaction to killing Crazy 8. When he started out, he did not do such things without feeling tormented. By the time of Brock's poisoning he'd come a very long way since Crazy 8. One of the obvious themes of BB winging its way over your head is that Walt's corruption only begetted more, rather than doing anything positive for anyone. He was the cancer.
How do you know he didn't hesitate? They jumped past everything after he saw the gun land on the Lily of the Valley plant.
And I would hesitate to kill someone. I wouldn't hesitate much to make a kid sick in that situation.
reply
share
Whatlarks
10 years ago
I don’t think people express outrage because they have ranked this action as having the worst outcome, but because they have recognized that the victim is entirely innocent and Walt is doing this to him for the same reasons he’s done so many other horrors: “For family.” Over the seasons, for many viewers this reason gradually comes to hold less and less weight, so that, even if for the sake of argument in the narrowly technical sense he may be “justified” poisoning a child, that sense no longer dominates their judgment.
I think it’s reasonable to say that over time people decreasingly identify with Walt and his actions. Walt's sincerity about the value of "doing it for family" is itself put in doubt, since he is responsible for putting his family in jeopardy in the first place - and keeping them there. His own life no longer seems so vital to preserve. By the time he poisons Brock, many, such as myself, are no longer as willing to cut him so much slack for his choices. This accounts for why people don’t necessarily believe poisoning the child was Walt’s only option. In the early-going, it was easier to overlook the possibility of other options.
What is “ridiculous” is embracing Walt’s perspective so thoroughly that you’re unable to see how narrow it is.
The writers didn’t use children to try to evoke cheap sympathy, but to evoke the negative consequences of indulging in the meth trade. It would have been irresponsible to do otherwise. It is cynical to describe that as cheap sympathy. Perhaps you feel that way because your own currency is so devalued you lack the inner resources to feel sympathy like “the masses” as you snobbishly call ordinary human beings.
Walt didn’t let Jane die, he determined her death.
I hold Jesse 100% responsible for his actions, and Walt 100% responsible for exploiting Jesse’s weakness.
Oh, shame on Walt for not thinking of another option.
That’s right. Because for Walt, there were always “desperate times and measures and stuff,” and he was instrumental in creating those conditions.
It is better to make a kid sick than to let someone murder your family members.
False dichotomy.
It is clearly news to you that chemistry has specialties. Walt’s was not in medicine.
The garden/bee analogy is obviously inapt, since John Doe didn’t deliberately arrange for little Charlie to be stung. You should avoid analogies; you’re not very good at them.
it was either a 0.001% chance of death of a kid who is not part of his family, or a 100% chance of death of a family member
False dichotomy again, since you’re assuming that Walt could not have seized on another option.
I can safely assume that Walt didn’t hesitate because of the context you would like to leave out. For by this point the show had been gradually making clear that he was becoming inured to depravities. Rationalizing, compartmentalizing, stifling conscience.
I am glad to know that you would hesitate to kill a child. I don't think that’s asking too much of a human being, which is why I thought you must only be talking tough. It’s easy to strike bold poses when you’re comfy-cozy in front of a keyboard.
reply
share
DomIsAMoron
10 years ago
I don’t think people express outrage because they have ranked this action as having the worst outcome, but because they have recognized that the victim is entirely innocent and Walt is doing this to him for the same reasons he’s done so many other horrors: “For family.” Over the seasons, for many viewers this reason gradually comes to hold less and less weight, so that, even if for the sake of argument in the narrowly technical sense he may be “justified” poisoning a child, that sense no longer dominates their judgment.
No, it's because they buy into the kitschy "innocent child" phenomenon. Never mind that intentionally making a kid temporarily sick to save other people's lives is far less egregious than murdering an adult who wouldn't hurt a fly to save your own life.
I think it’s reasonable to say that over time people decreasingly identify with Walt and his actions. Walt's sincerity about the value of "doing it for family" is itself put in doubt, since he is responsible for putting his family in jeopardy in the first place - and keeping them there. His own life no longer seems so vital to preserve. By the time he poisons Brock, many, such as myself, are no longer as willing to cut him so much slack for his choices. This accounts for why people don’t necessarily believe poisoning the child was Walt’s only option. In the early-going, it was easier to overlook the possibility of other options.
What is “ridiculous” is embracing Walt’s perspective so thoroughly that you’re unable to see how narrow it is.
When Walt had Jesse kill Gale, he was preserving his own life, as well as Jesse's (and Jesse is not a family member, even though he thought of him as such). The options were exactly the same in that situation.
People only care because Brock's a child, and people fall for the "poor, sweet, innocent child. Anything bad happening to a child is an outrage" routine. Much the way a woman getting the crap beaten out of her is cried over while a man getting the crap kicked out of him "needs to hit the gym, brah."
The writers didn’t use children to try to evoke cheap sympathy, but to evoke the negative consequences of indulging in the meth trade. It would have been irresponsible to do otherwise. It is cynical to describe that as cheap sympathy. Perhaps you feel that way because your own currency is so devalued you lack the inner resources to feel sympathy like “the masses” as you snobbishly call ordinary human beings.
Yeah, because the way kids are usually affected in the drug trade is by one drug dealer becoming attached to a kid and a guy the drug dealer works with poisoning him to manipulate him into being loyal to him.
Utterly ridiculous. Give me a break.
The kid in season 2 was the actual worst case scenario as far as the effects drugs have on kids. The Brock and Drew Sharpe plot points were basically absurd, and clearly used to evoke cheap sympathy.
Walt didn’t let Jane die, he determined her death.
No, he let her die. She created the majority of the crucial conditions necessary to put her life at risk.
That’s right. Because for Walt, there were always “desperate times and measures and stuff,” and he was instrumental in creating those conditions.
Doesn't matter. He deserves to be condemned for the choices he made before. He doesn't deserve to be condemned for trying to make the best choices to reduce the suffering involved that would result from his prior poor choices.
It is better to make a kid sick than to let someone murder your family members.
False dichotomy.
No, it was clearly the only dichotomy.
It is clearly news to you that chemistry has specialties. Walt’s was not in medicine.
What was Walt's in? I must have missed the part where they showed what Walt studied and his specific degree (s).
Walt was a world class general chemist. He understood how to create poisons and their effects. He's as qualified as anyone.
The garden/bee analogy is obviously inapt, since John Doe didn’t deliberately arrange for little Charlie to be stung. You should avoid analogies; you’re not very good at them.
Utterly irrelevant. He knew there was a risk of being stung, and along with that risk, a risk of the kid being allergic to bee stings. And every time you hop behind the wheel of a car, you know there's a risk of there being an accident. Hence, it's taking a miniscule chance that the kid will die when you deliberately take a kid gardening or drive him in your car, just as it's taking a miniscule chance feeding him poisonous berries.
Walt took a chance. A very small one, but he knew there was a tiny risk associated with it. No larger than the aforementioned risks.
False dichotomy again, since you’re assuming that Walt could not have seized on another option.
There were no other options. Walt can't magically change the rules of logic. He couldn't harness the power of brain control and command Gus not to kill his family. Hence, based on the conditions, he had only two choices.
I can safely assume that Walt didn’t hesitate because of the context you would like to leave out. For by this point the show had been gradually making clear that he was becoming inured to depravities. Rationalizing, compartmentalizing, stifling conscience.
Rationalization doesn't mean a lack of hesitation.
reply
share
Whatlarks
10 years ago
Kids die or are hurt in BB because of their unwilling contact directly or indirectly with the meth trade. It is that way for Brock, who is poisoned and then loses his mother, as it is for Walt Jr. People with at least basic capacity recognize this blatant connection and can empathize with the victims.
You're either talking tough to maintain an internet persona, or you genuinely lack the basic equipment, so to defend yourself against feelings of alienation from other human beings you employ cynicism. Because to any healthy heart and mind it's not "kitschy" to show children being harmed by adults' involvement in the meth trade, nor is it "cheap sympathy" to feel for them.
Your unnecessary explanation for why Walt had Jesse kill Gale is due to misreading the context of the paragraph you quoted.
She created the majority of the crucial conditions necessary to put her life at risk.
You've confused putting at risk of death with determining death. She walked to the edge of a cliff, but took the precaution to hold onto a tree branch. Walt accidentally knocked into her, releasing her grip. As she began to fall, he chose to step back to ensure she fell to her death. That's both immoral and illegal.
But Walt didn't try "to make the best choices to reduce the suffering involved that would result from his prior poor choices." Again, you're clinging to the assumption that there were no other choices. This just happened to be a choice he hit upon.
He couldn't harness the power of brain control and command Gus not to kill his family. Hence, based on the conditions, he had only two choices.
Speaking of children, even they could see the flaw in that logic. Explain how the fact that he can't command Gus not to kill his family determines that he has only two choices.
I must have missed the part where they showed what Walt studied and his specific degree (s).
The implication was industrial. Grey Matter's research specialty was in electronics applications.
A general chemist, whatever that is, is not a medical chemist.
He knew there was a risk of being stung, and along with that risk, a risk of the kid being allergic to bee stings.
You're struggling, but the analogy is still inapt because unlike Walt, John Doe does not intentionally cause little Charlie to be stung. Again, you should avoid analogies; you're not very good at them.
I feel safe to assume that Walt didn't hesitate by this point for two reasons. Rationalization that has become ingrained, as in Walt's case, short-circuits conscience and empathy; and Walt was arrogant, both assuming he had justification to play with someone else's life, and that he could ensure nothing would go wrong.
reply
share
DomIsAMoron
10 years ago
Kids die or are hurt in BB because of their unwilling contact directly or indirectly with the meth trade. It is that way for Brock, who is poisoned and then loses his mother, as it is for Walt Jr. People with at least basic capacity recognize this blatant connection and can empathize with the victims.
You're either talking tough to maintain an internet persona, or you genuinely lack the basic equipment, so to defend yourself against feelings of alienation from other human beings you employ cynicism. Because to any healthy heart and mind it's not "kitschy" to show children being harmed by adults' involvement in the meth trade, nor is it "cheap sympathy" to feel for them.
It's not realistic. Why should I feel sympathy because of contrived pathos based on an absurd premise?
It's exaggeration for the purpose of entertainment, just the same as the ridiculous plane crash at the end of season 2 that Gilligan wants people to blame on Walt as well.
You've confused putting at risk of death with determining death. She walked to the edge of a cliff, but took the precaution to hold onto a tree branch. Walt accidentally knocked into her, releasing her grip. As she began to fall, he chose to step back to ensure she fell to her death. That's both immoral and illegal.
No, it is not. And that's a terrible analogy. Her falling to her death in this case would need to also be a necessary requirement to save someone else's life. And her being present at the edge of the cliff would need to be illegal activity.
Moreover, Walt didn't knock her off the cliff, either. Knocking someone off a cliff ensures their death. Rolling them on their back, even unconscious on heroin, doesn't guarantee death. They might not vomit. They might vomit and regain consciousness.
But Walt didn't try "to make the best choices to reduce the suffering involved that would result from his prior poor choices." Again, you're clinging to the assumption that there were no other choices. This just happened to be a choice he hit upon.
If there were any better options that Walt could have thought of in time, he would have done them.
Speaking of children, even they could see the flaw in that logic. Explain how the fact that he can't command Gus not to kill his family determines that he has only two choices.
Because he only had two choices. There are no other options. Anything else he tried or didn't try was going to result in the death of someone in his family. There were only two possible outcomes, and the only one that was going to lead to the outcome where all his family members survived is getting Jesse over to his side. The only way to get Jesse to side with him was to turn him against Gus by using the "he hurts poor childwen" tactic. And he had to remind Jesse, clearly, as Jesse had apparently forgotten all about poor Thomas when he started becoming loyal to Gus/Mike.
The implication was industrial. Grey Matter's research specialty was in electronics applications.
A general chemist, whatever that is, is not a medical chemist.
He doesn't need to specialize in medical chemistry to know medical chemistry well enough to know what he's doing. That's like saying a dentist can't do a root canal because he's not an endodontist.
You're struggling, but the analogy is still inapt because unlike Walt, John Doe does not intentionally cause little Charlie to be stung. Again, you should avoid analogies; you're not very good at them.
Jesus Christ.
It doesn't matter, you moron. It's about
putting someone at risk. It's not about intentional vs. unintentional infliction of pain or sickness. He intentionally took him gardening, which was intentionally taking a risk. Walt intentionally made Brock sick, which in itself wasn't the risk he was taking - he was taking a risk that something with infinitesimal probability would occur that would lead to death, just as John Doe was.
If all goes according to plan, Brock will be sick for a few days and little Charlie will have fun in the garden.
I feel safe to assume that Walt didn't hesitate by this point for two reasons. Rationalization that has become ingrained, as in Walt's case, short-circuits conscience and empathy; and Walt was arrogant, both assuming he had justification to play with someone else's life, and that he could ensure nothing would go wrong.
Dime store pop psychology from a pretentious idiot.
reply
share
Whatlarks
10 years ago
Why should I feel sympathy for contrived pathos based on an absurd premise?
The premise isn't absurd, although it is contrived. That is the nature of fiction. To feel sympathy in such situations is a natural human capacity. You're trying to make a virtue out of a vice. Again, either you're affecting a tough internet persona or you lack the basic equipment.
The plane crash was problematic for me, but not for the reason you complain about. Walt was indirectly responsible for the plane crash. It is not new wisdom to appreciate that if we decide to "break bad," then there will arise a related string of unintended negative consequences.
Her falling to her death in this case would need to also be a necessary requirement to save someone else's life.
Yes, and it is a necessary requirement in both the analogy and in Jane's case. By accidentally knocking Jane onto her back, and being fully aware of the immediate threat to her life this caused, Walt created for himself a legal and moral duty to make a reasonable attempt to save her. That is in fact law in the U.S., and it undeniably applies to this case. It applies even more because of the significant relationship between victim and potential rescuer, which is another of a total of seven exceptions to the bystander rule.
If there were any better options that Walt could have thought of in time, he would have done them.
That is more than you know. Walt, you like to say, is a genius. The very fact that he thought up this idea implies that he has great capacity to innovate. Not that we needed more evidence. However, what we also know is that he is arrogant, willing to exploit others, and assumes he can control things. Why think of something else when you don't actually care? When you assume you're in control? This plan suited Walt's character, but it wasn't the limit of his capacity to find options.
You're simply insisting that he only had two options. But insistence is not an argument. It's just a measure of how passionate you feel about it. You provide no grounds to support your assertion.
That's like saying a dentist can't do a root canal because he's not an endodontist.
Boy, you really are bad with analogies. If the dentist had no training in root canal therapy then he'd be irresponsible and arrogant to presume he could do the procedure without complications. Being unfamiliar with medical applications, Walt was guessing.
He intentionally took him gardening, which was intentionally taking a risk.
To say that it's "about putting someone at risk" excludes context fundamental to ethical and legal reasoning. Namely, intention.
Your last complaint should be aimed at the show's creative team since over the previous 50 episodes they'd taken care to establish the psychology described. And of course Walt showed zero remorse for doing it, able to fully rationalize this depravity like all the rest.
reply
share
DomIsAMoron
10 years ago
The premise isn't absurd, although it is contrived. That is the nature of fiction. To feel sympathy in such situations is a natural human capacity. You're trying to make a virtue out of a vice. Again, either you're affecting a tough internet persona or you lack the basic equipment.
The premise is completely absurd. The situations are absurd. Kids don't get hurt in the drug business for the same reasons they get hurt in this show, save the kid in season 2 who had junkie parents.
The problem with the drug trade and how it affects kids has nothing to do with a kid of some business partner's girlfriend getting poisoned to manipulate him back to one side, or a kid overseeing a train heist.
The plane crash was problematic for me, but not for the reason you complain about. Walt was indirectly responsible for the plane crash. It is not new wisdom to appreciate that if we decide to "break bad," then there will arise a related string of unintended negative consequences.
The plane crash was another absurd premise. The father of someone he let die because she was a drug addict who was dragging his partner down with her just so happens to be an air traffic controller, and he just so happens to be allowed to go back to work too soon, and he just so happens to be using first names to refer to airplanes and accidentally say his daughter's name, leading to a plane crash.
Absurd. Not remotely applicable to real life.
Yes, and it is a necessary requirement in both the analogy and in Jane's case. By accidentally knocking Jane onto her back, and being fully aware of the immediate threat to her life this caused, Walt created for himself a legal and moral duty to make a reasonable attempt to save her. That is in fact law in the U.S., and it undeniably applies to this case. It applies even more because of the significant relationship between victim and potential rescuer, which is another of a total of seven exceptions to the bystander rule.
No, that is not the law in the United States. You are making that up, and it is simply not true. There is no statute anywhere saying any such thing. You are pulling this out of your ass.
Walt had no legal obligation to save the life of a person who had put her own life at risk because she engaged in illegal activity. Using your logic, if someone robs a bank and trips over your foot on the sidewalk while running away outside, accidentally falling on his gun and going into cardiac arrest, you are obligated to perform CPR or you're criminally responsible. What a laughable thought.
That is more than you know. Walt, you like to say, is a genius. The very fact that he thought up this idea implies that he has great capacity to innovate. Not that we needed more evidence. However, what we also know is that he is arrogant, willing to exploit others, and assumes he can control things. Why think of something else when you don't actually care? When you assume you're in control? This plan suited Walt's character, but it wasn't the limit of his capacity to find options.
You have provided no evidence whatsoever that there were other options. You have only argued that Walt could have thought of them. Well, he only could have thought of them if they existed. But in this case, "other options" are the equivalent to a "unicorn."
You're simply insisting that he only had two options. But insistence is not an argument. It's just a measure of how passionate you feel about it. You provide no grounds to support your assertion.
It is fallacious to ask someone to prove a negative. If there were other options, you should be able to prove that there were. But, alas, you can not.
Boy, you really are bad with analogies. If the dentist had no training in root canal therapy then he'd be irresponsible and arrogant to presume he could do the procedure without complications. Being unfamiliar with medical applications, Walt was guessing.
Except Walt was clearly not unfamiliar with medical applications. Walt showed throughout the series that he knew poisons like the back of his hand. Tons of things he did in the series pertaining to chemistry were based on how they interact with human biology. His meth product itself was based on as much. Isn't Gray Matter a
pharmaceutical company? Why was Walt working with people who started a pharmaceutical company if he didn't know
medical chemistry?
To say that it's "about putting someone at risk" excludes context fundamental to ethical and legal reasoning. Namely, intention.
Walt's intention was to make a kid temporarily sick to save people's lives. A perfectly moral intention.
reply
share