Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Caswin: I don't remember any hints that Harry Osborne knew that his father had killed himself fighting Spider-Man. In fact, that he only relented after his butler told him what happened seems to suggest otherwise. What's the entry talking about?

Earnest: At a guess, finding the Goblin Cave should have pretty clearly spelled out that his dad was the Green Goblin, same guy who terrorized New York, tried to kill, MJ, and (a bit fuzzy on this) didn't care if he lived or died by attacking near him. Yet he assumes that Spiderman murdered his dad rather than in deserved self defense.
Ninjacrat: Oh, Internet, where would we be without you:
  • The Bible. God sentences all of humanity to a miserable mortal existence because the first humans ate a piece of fruit when he told them not to. (Not to mention, you know, actual Hell.) Later, He goes on to do things like siccing a bear on some kids because they made fun of one of his prophets for being bald. And he's supposed to be the good guy!
    • C. S. Lewis would like a word with you.
    • Yeah, "kids"? From what I hear, these were more like gang members - and some 40 of them at that. Insults was probably just the start of what they planned to do to the guy.
      • It's at least 42 "young lads" calling him baldy. It would probably be humiliating, granted, but it definitely doesn't justify the bears.
      • The term "young lads"doesn't sound so threatening in English, but in Hebrew it meant "men of military age". And "baldy" meant somthing a lot worse, back then.
      • Oh come now, siccing a bear on people could easily count as a Crowning Moment of Awesome for God.
      • The original Hebrew text says "Ne'arim Ktanim" - which means "young/small lads". Basically Elisha killed 42 children because they laughed at his (lack of) hair, and the Bible is very clear about it. All the stuff about them being "men of military age" probably belong to a Midrash. There is also a Midrash saying those children had "a gentile hair", that their mothers got pregnant in Yom Kippur... the people who wrote the Midrash made up a bunch of stuff trying to justify Elisha's actions.
    • This troper could never quite understand the lesson the Tower of Babel story was supposed to teach. Humans from all different races and nationalities come together to build a magnificent monument as a testament to their ability to work together to achieve a common goal. So what does God do? He scatters them across the earth and distorts their language so that they could never truly work together again!! Broken Aesop doesn't even begin to cover this.
      • It's something to do with thinking they can be mightier than God. Or, according to this troper's scripture teacher, because Freud Was Right even about God. *Shudder*
      • Well, there is the fact that God told humanity to spread out to cover the whole earth, but instead they decided to hole up in one tiny place instead. Making them all speak different languages is one way to make them head off in different directions....
    • Job. Tortured horribly so God could win a bet with Satan, and the kicker is that all his friends, family and employees died in agony for just knowing the guy. Then in a "happy ending", he gets all new friends and family to replace them. Uh, hooray?
      • Somewhat subverted by the fact that it's highly unlikely that Job truly existed, the whole story is one big (and weird) parable.
      • And you think anything else in the bible actually happened?
      • Some historical events are actually describe in the Bible, though Job's story is probably isn't one of them.

That bit about Job doesn't even count to begin with.

Would the Weird Al song where he talks about suing people for dumb things like delivering his pizza late count as an example of this trope?

Zeke: Probably. So would "I Remember Larry".
Zeke: Cut:
  • Makoto did deserve that, Idiot Plot aside. Causality is fun; had he been willing to man up to the mess his womanizing has caused, let alone took the time to understand just what (and who) he really wants in the first place, everyone would have ended up considerably happier.

Yeah, try that one in court. The murder is cathartic after everything Makoto's done, but it's still murder — in cold blood, with a freaking butcher knife. A Complete Monster might deserve that, but Makoto is just a kid (he's what, 15?) who selfishly screwed around and tried to escape the consequences. You can tell by his reaction when Otome dumps him that he doesn't even fully understand what he's been doing wrong. He doesn't need to die — he needs to do some serious growing up.

Nor did Sekai deserve what she got. Her crime was worse than any of Makoto's, but she's clearly not quite right in the head. Her brutal execution by Kotonoha was beyond overkill (especially if she really was pregnant). And in turn, it would be unreasonable for, say, Setsuna to slaughter Kotonoha, who's even more messed up.
Zeke: I edited this to make it more accurate, but in doing so I realized it's really not a good example of the trope, so I'm taking it out.
  • In the Avengers, the dead Swordsman apparently returns, swearing revenge on the Avengers and attacking them for "leaving him to die". Neither the readers nor the Avengers know what he's talking about — Swordsman died heroically, and there wasn't much anyone could have done. It is later revealed the villain Proctor is controlling his mind so he can not differentiate between that time line's Avengers and the treacherous ones of his own Alternate Universe. The mind-control is none too stable, resulting in considerable hesitation on the Swordsman's part. Finally, the Swordsman revolts at Proctor's attempt to murder the Black Panther, and the Avengers are able to capture him and show him the differences between their timelines.

Laota: Removed the Lion King example, as Scar's little coup had nothing whatever to do with actual retribution, let alone Disproportionate Retribution. Scar just wanted to be king, just like Claudius in Hamlet.

  • Does Swordfish count? I got this quote from wikipedia.

Stanley: War? Who are we at war with? Gabriel: Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb ten. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourists, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans. Ahmed: Unfortunately, the only result you get by behaving this way instead of trying to see why people are sodesperte to resort to terrorism in the first place, is MORE hatred, MORE despair, therefore, MORE terrorism. It becomes {{Now It's Personal}} on the scale of NATIONS. On the other hand, if it's "gangster terrorism", "drug-dealing terrorism", in brief, terrorism for MONEY rather than REVENGE, well, it is a very good deterrent...
Crowley: I just have to say this: the page picture is Made of Win.

History Pedant: The Vietnam War example under Real Life is just plain wrong and I'm removing it. While the Gulf of Tonkin incident sparked direct US involvement in the war, it was never about retaliation as the US was trying to keep South Vietnam out of Communist hands.

Great Pikmin Fan: Cut:

  • Averted on The Simpsons: "I'll kill that Mr. Burns! And wound that Mr. Smithers!"

Look, not everyone saw that episode, saying that the show averts a trope and putting a quote is not good enough.
Lead Pal: Removed Taken—it's not really an example, as demonstrated by an excessively angry troper.

"Unfortunately very real in many wars. For example the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A hotter debate (and I mean, really hot, "Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment might be ignored" kind of hot) is the Arab Israeli Conflict. Some even theorize that Disproportionate Retribution is the only option besides losing, as brutality can be used to such an extreme that any aggressors would be too cowed and frightened to ever repeat the same action lest they subjected to the same terror. "

I think this whole thing should go, or at LEAST the Hiroshima/Nagasaki example. That wasn't really a retribution, but a military attack on a military target (both were heavy industrial cities), and just in terms of example quality, the firebombing of Tokyo would fit better, even if nukes are more of an emotional issue NOW (they weren't in 1945.).

Either way, there were much better reasons than retribution for the nuclear bombing, and the rest...even notes for itself Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement might be ignored. Not sure why whoever posted that thought it's okay to ignore the rule as long as you acknowledge you're ignoring it.
  • Oh The Humidity: Since no one objected to this opinion I deleted the paragraph. There are (sadly) enough fitting Real Life examples, so we don't need to be generous.

Neofcon: Bruce Almighty; Does it have to be equated to rape? The monkey came out of his butt and went back in. It's not necessarily "rape" unless a rod is being thrusted.