History Headscratchers / Batman

17th Mar '17 7:45:25 PM Vir
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** To paraphrase {{Megamind}} the difference between a villain and a supervillain isn't powers...it's presentation! And if there's one thing Bat-villains know how to do, it's present.

to:

** To paraphrase {{Megamind}} WesternAnimation/{{Megamind}}, the difference between a villain and a supervillain isn't powers...it's presentation! And if there's one thing Bat-villains know how to do, it's present.
11th Mar '17 4:41:03 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Fair enough, but when you're aiming to wipe out even 'just' an entire city (and a city apparently comparable to New York in size and population, no less) then even if your actions don't technically fall into the part of the definition about targeting specific racial, ethnic etc. groups then IMO 'genocide' still does inch a bit closer towards being an appropriate term to use to describe your intentions, informally if not legally. And that Poison Ivy is insane is pretty much undeniable, but that doesn't mean that her delusions aren't still genocidal in nature or aren't driving her to try and commit acts that could result in genocide.
10th Mar '17 11:17:22 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

***My problem was more with the incorrect usage of genocide as destruction of a city or killing of lots of unrelated people. Obviously destroying humanity will qualify as genocide. But on the other hand, Ivy is considered offically insane, and insane people is normally not considered responsible for their actions nor even "evil" by the moral definition as you need to be in full control of your mental faculties and decisions in order to choose to do harm (this is kind of philosophical though). That's why she's send to Arkham. Her attempts to erase humanity might be mostly delusional ideas from a sick mind.
10th Mar '17 5:57:01 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** There's another possible reason. One of the frequent (meta-)comments about Batman is how no one figures out that he's Bruce Wayne, because only Bruce Wayne could afford to fund the Batman's operations. Perhaps one of the reasons why Batman tries to keep as low-tech and minimalist approach as possible is to keep doubt that Bruce Wayne and Batman are connected; the more overt and obvious tech he uses (particularly if said tech is something completely obviously massively expensive like a mech-suit), the more it becomes likely that he's a guy who is at the least funded by a billionaire as opposed to a guy who maybe just decided to throw on a bat costume and fight crime one day. Granted, this doesn't explain how people don't join the dots from all the other completely obviously massively expensive stuff he uses, but I suppose WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief has to kick in at some point.
10th Mar '17 4:37:25 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Very well, I will rephrase. Despite her many massacres Poison Ivy has not, to date, successfully managed to specifically commit an act of genocide, especially not as defined by the UN Convention on Human Rights. However, what this debate does seem to be getting a bit side-tracked from is the fact that Poison Ivy ''has'' at several points expressed an interest and desire to eradicate the entirety of humanity and has ''attempted'' to do on numerous occasions (even if she has not succeeded). In which case, unless you have a better word to describe it, I think it is reasonably fair to describe her intentions (if not necessarily her specific actions in practice) as 'genocidal' even if it does not strictly adhere to the UN definition or is not a strictly judicial use of the term (especially since, come on, we're not in a courtroom here), since 'humanity' as a whole can arguably described as the specific group that Poison Ivy wants and intends to destroy and commits acts designed to do so against. While my use of the term might not be correct in a strictly legalistic sense, frankly it does seem a little bit like quibbling to argue over whether the actions and/or motivations of someone who has specifically expressed a desire and intention to wipe out ''all of humanity'' at several points can be called 'genocide' simply because she is not targeting a specific national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Because frankly, when you get to the point where someone is ultimately targeting ''every'' national, ethnic, racial or religious group simply because they are part of the same species, 'massacre' doesn't seem like a strong enough word.

to:

*** Very well, I will rephrase. Despite her many massacres Poison Ivy has not, to date, successfully managed to specifically commit an act of genocide, especially not as defined by the UN Convention on Human Rights. However, what this debate does seem to be getting a bit side-tracked from is the fact that Poison Ivy ''has'' at several points expressed an interest and desire to eradicate the entirety of humanity and has ''attempted'' to do on numerous occasions (even if she has not succeeded). In which case, unless you have a better word to describe it, I think it is reasonably fair to describe her intentions (if not necessarily her specific actions in practice) as 'genocidal' even if it does not strictly adhere to the UN definition or is not a strictly judicial use of the term (especially since, come on, we're not in a courtroom here), since 'humanity' as here). While she might not be targeting a whole can arguably described as the specific ethnic, religious, national, racial etc. group, she nevertheless does target her actions against a specific group that -- humanity itself. Poison Ivy wants has expressed a desire to eradicate humanity as a whole on numerous occasions and intends to destroy has planned and commits committed several acts designed which have been intended to do so against. further that goal. While my use of the term might not be correct in a strictly legalistic sense, frankly it does seem a little bit like quibbling to argue over whether the actions and/or motivations of someone who has specifically expressed a desire and intention to wipe out ''all of humanity'' at several points can be called 'genocide' simply because she is not targeting a specific national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Because frankly, when you get to the point where someone is ultimately targeting ''every'' national, ethnic, racial or religious group simply because they are part of the same species, 'massacre' doesn't seem like a strong enough word.
10th Mar '17 4:34:37 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Very well, I will rephrase. Despite her many massacres Poison Ivy has not, to date, successfully managed to specifically commit an act of genocide, especially not as defined by the UN Convention on Human Rights. However, what this debate does seem to be getting a bit side-tracked from is the fact that Poison Ivy ''has'' at several points expressed an interest and desire to eradicate the entirety of humanity and has ''attempted'' to do on numerous occasions (even if she has not succeeded). In which case, unless you have a better word to describe it, I think it is reasonably fair to describe her intentions (if not necessarily her specific actions in practice) as 'genocidal' even if it does not strictly adhere to the UN definition or is not a strictly judicial use of the term (especially since, come on, we're not in a courtroom here), since 'humanity' as a whole can arguably described as the specific group that Poison Ivy wants and intends to destroy and commits acts designed to do so against. While my use of the term might not be correct in a strictly legalistic sense, frankly it does seem a little bit like quibbling to argue over whether the actions and/or motivations of someone who has specifically expressed a desire and intention to wipe out ''all of humanity'' at several points can be called 'genocide' simply because she is not targeting a specific national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Because frankly, when you get to the point where someone is ultimately targeting ''every'' national, ethnic, racial or religious group simply because they are part of the same species, 'massacre' doesn't seem like a strong enough word.
1st Mar '17 7:45:02 PM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** The definition of genocide is, according to the United Nations and the Geneva Convention, and I quote: "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" not "kill large numbers of people" (that's the definition of massacre), again, killing large numbers of people is bad, but is not genocide. Genocide is the intend of elimination of an specific ethnic group. Just because someone uses a juridic term correctl doesn't mean is overlooking anything.
1st Mar '17 7:11:39 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* DavidHayter asked this one. Is Poison Ivy a vegetarian, or is that hypocrisy to her, since she's have to hurt plants to eat them? Or if she is, does that make her a cannibal? But then, if she eats only meat, that can't be healthy.

to:

* DavidHayter Creator/DavidHayter asked this one. Is Poison Ivy a vegetarian, or is that hypocrisy to her, since she's have to hurt plants to eat them? Or if she is, does that make her a cannibal? But then, if she eats only meat, that can't be healthy.
21st Feb '17 4:32:56 PM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Oh come on; not only did you appear to overlook the "kill large numbers of people" bit (which ''is'' part of the definition of 'genocide', city or no), but we're starting to quibble a bit here. Ivy means to ''start'' with Gotham City, but she's never been shy about admitting that she's perfectly content and willing to wipe out all of humanity if it fulfils her goals of protecting plant-life. The fact is Poison Ivy's schemes have never extended beyond wiping out large numbers of Gothamites (largely due to the intervention of Batman) doesn't change the fact that she's clearly been demonstrated on numerous occasions to have more enthusiasm for the idea of committing actual genocide on humanity than a sane person should, and frankly suggesting otherwise on the grounds that she's only managed to kill the inhabitants of one city so far is bordering on the pedantic.

to:

*** Oh come on; not only did you appear to overlook the "kill large numbers of people" bit (which ''is'' part of the definition of 'genocide', city or no), but we're starting to quibble a bit here. Ivy means to ''start'' with Gotham City, but she's never been shy about admitting that she's perfectly content and willing to wipe out all of humanity if it fulfils her goals of protecting plant-life. The fact is Poison Ivy's schemes have never extended managed to get beyond wiping out large numbers of Gothamites (largely (though not through lack of trying and largely due to the intervention of Batman) doesn't change the fact that she's clearly been demonstrated on numerous occasions to have more enthusiasm for the idea of committing actual genocide on humanity than a sane person should, and frankly suggesting otherwise on the grounds that she's only managed to kill the inhabitants of one city so far is bordering on the getting a bit pedantic.
21st Feb '17 4:27:35 PM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Oh come on; not only did you appear to overlook the "kill large numbers of people" bit (which ''is'' part of the definition of 'genocide', city or no), but we're starting to quibble a bit here. Ivy means to ''start'' with Gotham City, but she's never been shy about admitting that she's perfectly content and willing to wipe out all of humanity if it fulfils her goals of protecting plant-life. The fact is Poison Ivy's schemes have never extended beyond wiping out large numbers of Gothamites (largely due to the intervention of Batman) doesn't change the fact that she's clearly been demonstrated on numerous occasions to have more enthusiasm for the idea of committing actual genocide on humanity than a sane person should, and frankly suggesting otherwise on the grounds that she's only managed to kill the inhabitants of one city so far is bordering on the pedantic.
This list shows the last 10 events of 786. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.Batman