Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck

[Yukaphile]

I mean, it's a very collectivist mindset I disagree with. Not that I'm calling him a collectivist, mind you. But there are tons of people who'd love to kill the Joker. Problem is, society shields him in some ways, because he's a good chaotic element.

[Thebestoftherest]

Seriously disagree with Chuck in "Superman VS the Elite." I think it's reached the point Batman should kill the Joker. Of course, it doesn't help that he never dies in the comic because he's "too popular." Logically, he would be executed at some point.

I think your missing the point, why must Gotham cops be so incompetent that vigilantism is the only way. Why must it be some random person like Batman, why can't the law deal with him. If the Joker is to die it should not be by vigilantism but because the law decided he needed to be excuted. Joker is just a man, if he needs to die he can be executed properly.

[Yukaphile]

I could understand that mindset. I guess it's mostly my dislike for capitalism (marketing what sells) and that logically, somebody like that would be executed after a while. Because of the former, Joker can never die because they don't know what to do next, and he is popular, and because of the latter, well... it does paint him as something of a karma houdini, to cite TV Tropes. Gleefully prancing about inflicting God knows how many horrors on people over generations, almost a century, because the story won't end, and it hits the predictable beats of the well-worn and familiar. Even so, due process is a wonderful thing. But again, one of Batman's own stories that felt too damned trite dealt with a vigilante businessman wanting to execute Joker. He puts a bounty on his head. So Batman brings him to the Joker and decides to just let him execute him. But because he is Batman, the choice here is no choice at all, he already knew the man would not. So he's still shielding him, because Batman is part of that system, and because the rich guy then contributed money to an organization to help victims of violent criminals. But how does that help with what's going on? It doesn't stop Joker! HE WILL JUST ESCAPE! Why doesn't the federal government get involved? Or others? In some Elseworlds story, Lex Luthor was executed. So there is precedent. And when you're already flaunting the law, eventually you will need to kill somebody. Just to the point it will lead to a greater good. It's like donating to the 9/11 charity fund, but then we saw how effective that was. Bush just ignored Bin Laden even after he attacked us despite Clinton pursuing him to the ends of the world. There are certain systemic flaws that must be addressed here.

[Yukaphile]

DELETED BECAUSE I ADVANCED FAR ENOUGH TO SEE WHERE I WAS DISAGREEING HAD MORE LEGITIMATE BASIS ON HIS SIDE THAN I THOUGHT.

[Yukaphile]

DELETED BECAUSE I ADVANCED FAR ENOUGH TO SEE WHERE I WAS DISAGREEING HAD MORE LEGITIMATE BASIS ON HIS SIDE THAN I THOUGHT.

[Admiral X]

[TheStarWarsTrek]

The whole "Should Batman kill the Joker?" thing is such a false dichotomy. IIRC the Boston Marathon Bombing killed 6 people (though it injured many more). One of the bombers was shot by the police, and the other one might get the death penalty. Even if he dosn't, he's never getting out of jail. Yet the Joker and Scarecrow can repeatedly bomb and gas a city the size of New York and get sent to the worst asylum ever?

And that's not even getting into all the ways Batman could stop him without resorting to lethal force. The world's greatest detective who designed several different bat themed vehicles can't make a prison that will hold the Joker? Or launch him into space? Or get the Martian Manhunter to erase his mind? Or borrow Mr.Freeze's tech and keep him in a fridge in the Batcave? Or hell, he can't just sneak into the Joker's Arkham cell every 6 months and break his arms and legs?

[Yukaphile]

You know what? You have a point. It's just story contrivance. Have the Green Lanterns put him in a star prison. Like they did Superboy-Prime. Or break his legs. That's not lethal force. Exhaust all options. If at that point he still comes back, then there is a time when you must resort to lethal force, when it is the moral thing to do. Again, my disagreement was over the collectivist language.

Speaking of, I'll say it again. I disagree with his assertion that "he could understand how being trapped in Rodney's body could be traumatizing for Cadman." It implies, with its seeming absence in the final product, not that this was his intent, I don't think it was, that hurting somebody else is okay if you're "traumatized." Again, I don't think he meant that. But I've seen people borderline justify actions (not they were doing so openly, it was a subtle thing) based on that way of thinking. The criminal is traumatized, the victim is not, so we'll call 'em both victims. I really dislike that. Not that was his intent. My disagreement was over the language, even though he literally meant nothing by it. The fault lies with me, not him. And others who refuse to take the side of a victim over the victimizer.

[Mecha82]

And that's not even getting into all the ways Batman could stop him without resorting to lethal force. The world's greatest detective who designed several different bat themed vehicles can't make a prison that will hold the Joker?

This is something that current Robin Damien Wayne has been doing behind his father's back as well as behind backs of his team Teen Titans. All because Damien doesn't agree with his father's methods since he wewas raised in League of Assassins by his mother and his super villain grandfather.

[Yukaphile]

Personally, I'd be in favor of that star prison.