Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

[TGLS]

NsW visits Ocampa often enough for them to breed.

NsW?

Negative space Wedgie from Parturition made Kes achieve sexual maturity. Maybe there are enough so Ocampans can breed.

That is not born out by the story; if it happened often enough to maintain a stable population (so at least once every generation, or in Ocampans case less than a decade), why wouldn't Kes know about it?

[Madner Kami]

NsW visits Ocampa often enough for them to breed.

NsW?

Negative space Wedgie from Parturition made Kes achieve sexual maturity. Maybe there are enough so Ocampans can breed.

Thanks for the clearification!

[Artabax]

NsW visits Ocampa often enough for them to breed.

NsW?

Negative space Wedgie from Parturition made Kes achieve sexual maturity. Maybe there are enough so Ocampans can breed.

That is not born out by the story; if it happened often enough to maintain a stable population (so at least once every generation, or in Ocampans case less than a decade), why wouldn't Kes know about it?

The Official Story makes no sense. The Official Story = Ocampans go extinct.

Therefore Unreliable Narrator. Kes was too young to have TEH TALK.
She is Jon Snow, she knows nothing.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

just watched Chuck's Superman vs The Elite review, at least up to the part I was expecting and wanted to respond to. his words are true for real life but people who agree with these kinds of stories seem to forget that comic book universes' situations have different contexts. that's why(at least for this particular issue) I think it is dumb to apply anything a superhero story says to real life.

I'm sure the average citizen does want the Joker dead but the government is either to corrupt or incompetent to execute him, it is not, as Chuck says, on society. and his words can also be true for a one shot story or an alternate continuity that has a definitive end where there is no Status Quo but in the normal comics universes, it is clear that normal humans really can't take care of themselves and really do need superheroes to run the world for them because supervillains that are a danger to society just by exixting keep getting out and the shit legal system they have wil never ever, ever, ever change. the writers of superhero stories are contradicting their own message constantly by being to afraid to permenently get rid of their most popular villains, who are also the most dangerous and psychopathic.

and that leads to another point. Chuck says after we get rid of desperation, are more empathetic and rational sides can guide our decition making but what about people who don't have those aspects to their nature? some people are just psycopaths who do horrible things for shits and giggles. even if everyone else in the world became more compassionate and reasonable, there are still gonna be serial killers who were just born wrong.

and besides jokingly, Chuck never addressed the "Why not, your government does it all the time" bit. yes, legally there would be a difference but what is the difference morally?

and as I said before, one alternate Earth in DC Comics became a utopia BECAUSE the no killing rule was thown out. and it wasn't a Big Brother type false utopia Like the Justice Lords' Earth either. which makes me wonder why the Justice Lords universe or the Injustice Universe turned out bad because of the same nessesary mesure.

and it's hypocritical. Superman killed Doomsday and never angsted about it. but all other times in comics, the storry acts as if even killing in self defence makes you just as bad as Hitler. it's the absolutism of the no killing rule I hate, not the general concept.

also, how come no one complains about heroes killing in the MCU or when Superman killed Zod in Superman 2?

[Thebestoftherest]

just watched Chuck's Superman vs The Elite review, at least up to the part I was expecting and wanted to respond to. his words are true for real life but people who agree with these kinds of stories seem to forget that comic book universes' situations have different contexts. that's why(at least for this particular issue) I think it is dumb to apply anything a superhero story says to real life.

I'm sure the average citizen does want the Joker dead but the government is either to corrupt or incompetent to execute him, it is not, as Chuck says, on society. and his words can also be true for a one shot story or an alternate continuity that has a definitive end where there is no Status Quo but in the normal comics universes, it is clear that normal humans really can't take care of themselves and really do need superheroes to run the world for them because supervillains that are a danger to society just by exixting keep getting out and the shit legal system they have wil never ever, ever, ever change. the writers of superhero stories are contradicting their own message constantly by being to afraid to permenently get rid of their most popular villains, who are also the most dangerous and psychopathic.

and that leads to another point. Chuck says after we get rid of desperation, are more empathetic and rational sides can guide our decition making but what about people who don't have those aspects to their nature? some people are just psycopaths who do horrible things for shits and giggles. even if everyone else in the world became more compassionate and reasonable, there are still gonna be serial killers who were just born wrong.

and besides jokingly, Chuck never addressed the "Why not, your government does it all the time" bit. yes, legally there would be a difference but what is the difference morally?

and as I said before, one alternate Earth in DC Comics became a utopia BECAUSE the no killing rule was thown out. and it wasn't a Big Brother type false utopia Like the Justice Lords' Earth either. which makes me wonder why the Justice Lords universe or the Injustice Universe turned out bad because of the same nessesary mesure.

and it's hypocritical. Superman killed Doomsday and never angsted about it. but all other times in comics, the storry acts as if even killing in self defence makes you just as bad as Hitler. it's the absolutism of the no killing rule I hate, not the general concept.

also, how come no one complains about heroes killing in the MCU or when Superman killed Zod in Superman 2?

Doomsday is a mad dog, can't be reasom with and had the power. The problem is that once you have all the power and decide who lives and who does that is horrible. Remember a tyrant is someone ALLOWED to abuse you.

[Beastro]

Doomsday is a mad dog, can't be reasom with and had the power. The problem is that once you have all the power and decide who lives and who does that is horrible. Remember a tyrant is someone ALLOWED to abuse you.

And someone like the Joker isn't all those things?

An issue here with superheroes is that, societally, they are effectively a caste. One unto their own far above other people, and instead of acting as people higher up in the social hierarchy act, they're constrained by the demands of creators and their audience into being idealizations of such a caste.

[s955120]

and it's hypocritical. Superman killed Doomsday and never angsted about it.

Wait...

Corrrect me if I'm wrong, but did Superman actually killed Doomsday (in the prime timeline)? Yes, he defeat Doomsday several times, but KILLED him? Wasn't the whole point of Doomsday is that he was so invulnerable that almost unkillable?

[Mecha82]

and it's hypocritical. Superman killed Doomsday and never angsted about it.

Wait...

Corrrect me if I'm wrong, but did Superman actually killed Doomsday (in the prime timeline)? Yes, he defeat Doomsday several times, but KILLED him? Wasn't the whole point of Doomsday is that he was so invulnerable that almost unkillable?

Thing about Doomsday is that he can be killed but he keeps coming back to life better resisting what killed him last time so when first time he was killed with brute force by Superman after that it was no longer option. Also Doomsday is pretty much mindless killing machine driven by his anger and rage because of how he was created so only other way to get rid of him is to throw him to Phantom Zone.

[s955120]

and it's hypocritical. Superman killed Doomsday and never angsted about it.

Wait...

Corrrect me if I'm wrong, but did Superman actually killed Doomsday (in the prime timeline)? Yes, he defeat Doomsday several times, but KILLED him? Wasn't the whole point of Doomsday is that he was so invulnerable that almost unkillable?

Thing about Doomsday is that he can be killed but he keeps coming back to life better resisting what killed him last time so when first time he was killed with brute force by Superman after that it was no longer option. Also Doomsday is pretty much mindless killing machine driven by his anger and rage because of how he was created so only other way to get rid of him is to throw him to Phantom Zone.

Yeah, so do Superman need to feel bad if he "killed" Doomsday, knowing full well he will just comeback to life later? Did killing something that can't actually die can be count as killing any more?

My point is, "killing" Doomsday and killing some ordinare villain can not be view as the same thing. Because when you killed the latter, he/she is dead, never going to comeback unless you bring out some time machine. On the other hand, when you killed Doomsday, all you actualy did was force him go to sleep it off for a while.

[Dragon Ball Fan]

My point is, "killing" Doomsday and killing some ordinare villain can not be view as the same thing. Because when you killed the latter, he/she is dead, never going to comeback unless you bring out some time machine. On the other hand, when you killed Doomsday, all you actualy did was force him go to sleep it off for a while.

regular supervillains like the Joker tend to come back to life all the time too. also, Superman didn't know Doomsday would come back the first time.