Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Trope was cut/disambiguated due to cleanup
Changed line(s) 128 (click to see context) from:
* In ''[[Literature/HumanxCommonwealth The Tar-Aiym Krang]]'', Tru and Bran spend an inordinate amount of exposition debating whether the titular legendary artifact for which they are searching is a musical instrument, as per one version of the myth, or a powerful weapon, as per a different version. Naturally, the actual Krang turns out to be a [[MakeMeWannaShout sonic weapon]] of unprecedented power.
to:
* In ''[[Literature/HumanxCommonwealth The Tar-Aiym Krang]]'', Tru and Bran spend an inordinate amount of exposition debating whether the titular legendary artifact for which they are searching is a musical instrument, as per one version of the myth, or a powerful weapon, as per a different version. Naturally, the actual Krang turns out to be a [[MakeMeWannaShout sonic weapon]] weapon of unprecedented power.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* DisabledMeansHelpless: If you're disabled in any way, you're disabled in every way.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* SecondPlaceIsForLosers: You're either a winner or a loser.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 66 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Anime]]
to:
Deleted line(s) 69 (click to see context) :
* At the end of ''Anime/JinRohTheWolfBrigade'', Fuse is given a choice between [[spoiler:killing Kei or sparing her]]... but the second he [[spoiler:shoots her]], a squadmate with him is shown unloading his own pistol, making it clear the "choice" was no choice at all, [[IfYoureSoEvilEatThisKitten merely a test of his loyalty]]. If Fuse had refused, [[spoiler:his squad would've just shot him and killed Kei themselves.]]
Changed line(s) 84,87 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Film]]
* Part of the choice between factions in ''Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar''. Would you rather have superheroes who are so overly regulated they can never be effective at all, or no authority/oversight so superheroes can do whatever they want without repercussions? This may be [[JustifiedTrope justified]] because they are being told that the current arrangement ''is'' the compromise by Thaddeus Ross, who is using the Accords as a power play to control the Avengers who support him and round up the ones who don't. After seeing his severity later in the film and his unreasonable pettiness in [[Film/AvengersInfinityWar the next]], the remaining "Pro-Accords" Avengers quit.
* This pops up in ''WesternAnimation/BatmanUnderTheRedHood'' when Batman's [[ThouShaltNotKill one rule]] is directly challenged by Red Hood, [[spoiler:actually the resurrected Robin who was murdered by Joker. Batman states that he can never kill because it would be JumpingOffTheSlipperySlope, while Robin criticizes his logic and points out there is a third option: ''just kill The Joker and nobody else''. Batman still balks at this, fearing he [[HeWhoFightsMonsters lacks the self-control to just stop after getting a taste for it]].]]
--> [[spoiler:'''Robin:''' ''[[ArmorPiercingQuestion Why?!]]'' I'm not talking about killing Penguin or Scarecrow or Dent. I'm talking about him. Just him. And doing it because... because he took me away from you.\\
* Part of the choice between factions in ''Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar''. Would you rather have superheroes who are so overly regulated they can never be effective at all, or no authority/oversight so superheroes can do whatever they want without repercussions? This may be [[JustifiedTrope justified]] because they are being told that the current arrangement ''is'' the compromise by Thaddeus Ross, who is using the Accords as a power play to control the Avengers who support him and round up the ones who don't. After seeing his severity later in the film and his unreasonable pettiness in [[Film/AvengersInfinityWar the next]], the remaining "Pro-Accords" Avengers quit.
* This pops up in ''WesternAnimation/BatmanUnderTheRedHood'' when Batman's [[ThouShaltNotKill one rule]] is directly challenged by Red Hood, [[spoiler:actually the resurrected Robin who was murdered by Joker. Batman states that he can never kill because it would be JumpingOffTheSlipperySlope, while Robin criticizes his logic and points out there is a third option: ''just kill The Joker and nobody else''. Batman still balks at this, fearing he [[HeWhoFightsMonsters lacks the self-control to just stop after getting a taste for it]].]]
--> [[spoiler:'''Robin:''' ''[[ArmorPiercingQuestion Why?!]]'' I'm not talking about killing Penguin or Scarecrow or Dent. I'm talking about him. Just him. And doing it because... because he took me away from you.\\
to:
* Part of the choice between factions in ''Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar''. Would you rather have superheroes who are so overly regulated they can never be effective at all, or no authority/oversight so superheroes can do whatever they want without repercussions? This may be [[JustifiedTrope justified]] because they are being told that the current arrangement ''is'' the compromise by Thaddeus Ross, who is using the Accords as a power play to control the Avengers who support him and round up the ones who don't. After seeing his severity later in the film and his unreasonable pettiness in [[Film/AvengersInfinityWar the next]], the remaining "Pro-Accords" Avengers quit.
* This pops up in ''WesternAnimation/BatmanUnderTheRedHood'' when Batman's [[ThouShaltNotKill one rule]] is directly challenged by Red Hood, [[spoiler:actually the resurrected Robin who was murdered by the Joker. Batman states that he can never kill because it would be JumpingOffTheSlipperySlope, while Robin criticizes his logic and points out there is a third option: ''just kill
--> [[spoiler:'''Robin:'''
-->[[spoiler:'''Robin:''' ''[[ArmorPiercingQuestion Why?!]]'' I'm not talking about killing Penguin or Scarecrow or Dent. I'm talking about him. Just him. And doing it because... because he took me away from you.\\
Changed line(s) 89,103 (click to see context) from:
%%* {{Defied|Trope}} in ''Film/DonnieDarko'''s “Life Line” classroom scene:
%%-->'''Donnie''': Well, life isn't that simple. I mean, who cares if Ling Ling returns the wallet and keeps the money? It has nothing to do with either fear or love.
%%-->'''Kitty Farmer''': Fear and love are the deepest of human emotions.
%%-->'''Donnie''': Okay. But you're not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here, like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else.
* ''Film/{{Expelled}}'': The film presents the issue as wholly a matter of unguided and naturalistic evolution vs intelligent design (which has obvious religious implications, despite ID advocates claims otherwise). The fact that many churches support evolution is dismissed with the claim they simply do this in siding against conservative Christians (no mention of t how one such group is the Catholics, with a doctrine that's hardly liberal Christian). So all of the evolutionary biologists in the film are atheists, and this was surely no coincidence given how Stein frames things here (again, despite claiming that ID's not a religious movement).
* ''Film/AFewGoodMen'': Colonel Jessup, after having been accused of killing one of his own men (admittedly by accident): "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post." You are either at war or not a soldier, used against a military lawyer.
* ''Film/AMatterOfFaith'': The only options raised in the debate are naturalistic evolution versus creationism. In reality, many believers {{take a third option}} of theistic evolution, claiming God at least started it or perhaps guided the process. Of course, the film was backed by creationist groups which reject this, so naturally the idea isn't brought up at all.
* The "Battle of Wits" from ''Film/ThePrincessBride'' presents this. The Man in Black puts two goblets between them and asks, "Where is the poison?" Vizzini goes through dozens of justifications and possibilities for why one would poison either one, trying to stall for time. Either way, he never considers that [[spoiler:they were both poisoned. Vizzini pulled the fallacy on himself, since the Man in Black never said that only one of the goblets was poisoned.]]
* Layla from ''Film/SkyHigh2005'', asked to demonstrate her powers, claims that the hero/sidekick dichotomy is a false one, but is cut off by Boomer declaring her a sidekick.
* ''Franchise/StarWars'':
** ''Film/RevengeOfTheSith'': Two for one, but only one called out:
--->'''Anakin''': If you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy!
--->'''Obi-Wan''': Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
* ''Film/ThankYouForSmoking'': Nick Naylor's career as a tobacco lobbyist runs on this, using rapid attacks of ChewbaccaDefense, InsaneTrollLogic, and MovingTheGoalposts to discredit his opponents, thereby making himself looking like the smarter one by comparison. As he explains it to his son during a theoretical debate exercise, "I proved that you're wrong. And if you're wrong, I'm right."
* Fletcher's general view in ''Film/{{Whiplash}}'' boils down to a belief that praising people, whether they deserve it or not, makes them complacent and prevents them from going further, as evidenced in his "good job" monologue, but he goes the other extreme, offering up nothing but [[SadistTeacher horrific verbal abuse]]. The idea that a teacher can praise a student for doing well and also push them to do better is something that doesn't seem to occur to Fletcher and is a sign that [[NotSoWellIntentionedExtremist he just likes being awful to people because he's a bully]].
%%-->'''Donnie''': Well, life isn't that simple. I mean, who cares if Ling Ling returns the wallet and keeps the money? It has nothing to do with either fear or love.
%%-->'''Kitty Farmer''': Fear and love are the deepest of human emotions.
%%-->'''Donnie''': Okay. But you're not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here, like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else.
* ''Film/{{Expelled}}'': The film presents the issue as wholly a matter of unguided and naturalistic evolution vs intelligent design (which has obvious religious implications, despite ID advocates claims otherwise). The fact that many churches support evolution is dismissed with the claim they simply do this in siding against conservative Christians (no mention of t how one such group is the Catholics, with a doctrine that's hardly liberal Christian). So all of the evolutionary biologists in the film are atheists, and this was surely no coincidence given how Stein frames things here (again, despite claiming that ID's not a religious movement).
* ''Film/AFewGoodMen'': Colonel Jessup, after having been accused of killing one of his own men (admittedly by accident): "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post." You are either at war or not a soldier, used against a military lawyer.
* ''Film/AMatterOfFaith'': The only options raised in the debate are naturalistic evolution versus creationism. In reality, many believers {{take a third option}} of theistic evolution, claiming God at least started it or perhaps guided the process. Of course, the film was backed by creationist groups which reject this, so naturally the idea isn't brought up at all.
* The "Battle of Wits" from ''Film/ThePrincessBride'' presents this. The Man in Black puts two goblets between them and asks, "Where is the poison?" Vizzini goes through dozens of justifications and possibilities for why one would poison either one, trying to stall for time. Either way, he never considers that [[spoiler:they were both poisoned. Vizzini pulled the fallacy on himself, since the Man in Black never said that only one of the goblets was poisoned.]]
* Layla from ''Film/SkyHigh2005'', asked to demonstrate her powers, claims that the hero/sidekick dichotomy is a false one, but is cut off by Boomer declaring her a sidekick.
* ''Franchise/StarWars'':
** ''Film/RevengeOfTheSith'': Two for one, but only one called out:
--->'''Anakin''': If you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy!
--->'''Obi-Wan''': Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
* ''Film/ThankYouForSmoking'': Nick Naylor's career as a tobacco lobbyist runs on this, using rapid attacks of ChewbaccaDefense, InsaneTrollLogic, and MovingTheGoalposts to discredit his opponents, thereby making himself looking like the smarter one by comparison. As he explains it to his son during a theoretical debate exercise, "I proved that you're wrong. And if you're wrong, I'm right."
* Fletcher's general view in ''Film/{{Whiplash}}'' boils down to a belief that praising people, whether they deserve it or not, makes them complacent and prevents them from going further, as evidenced in his "good job" monologue, but he goes the other extreme, offering up nothing but [[SadistTeacher horrific verbal abuse]]. The idea that a teacher can praise a student for doing well and also push them to do better is something that doesn't seem to occur to Fletcher and is a sign that [[NotSoWellIntentionedExtremist he just likes being awful to people because he's a bully]].
to:
%%-->'''Donnie''': Well, life isn't
%%-->'''Kitty Farmer''': Fear and love are the deepest of human emotions.
%%-->'''Donnie''': Okay. But you're not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here, like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else.
* ''Film/{{Expelled}}'': The film presents the issue as wholly a matter of unguided and naturalistic evolution vs intelligent design (which has obvious religious implications, despite ID advocates claims otherwise). The fact that many churches support evolution is dismissed with the claim they simply do this in siding against conservative Christians (no mention of t how one such group is the Catholics, with a doctrine that's hardly liberal Christian). So all of the evolutionary biologists in the film are atheists, and this was surely no coincidence given how Stein frames things here (again, despite claiming that ID's not a religious movement).
* ''Film/AFewGoodMen'': Colonel Jessup, after having been accused of killing one of his own men (admittedly by accident): "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post." You are either at war or not a soldier, used against a military lawyer.
* ''Film/AMatterOfFaith'': The only options raised in the debate are naturalistic evolution versus creationism. In reality, many believers {{take a third option}} of theistic evolution, claiming God at least started it or perhaps guided the process. Of course, the film was backed by creationist groups which reject this, so naturally the idea isn't brought up at all.
* The "Battle of Wits" from ''Film/ThePrincessBride'' presents this. The Man in Black puts two goblets between them and asks, "Where is the poison?" Vizzini goes through dozens of justifications and possibilities for why one would poison either one, trying to stall for time. Either way, he never considers that [[spoiler:they were both poisoned. Vizzini pulled the fallacy on himself, since the Man in Black never said that only one of the goblets was poisoned.]]
* Layla from ''Film/SkyHigh2005'', asked to demonstrate her powers, claims that the hero/sidekick dichotomy is a false one, but is cut off by Boomer declaring her a sidekick.
* ''Franchise/StarWars'':
** ''Film/RevengeOfTheSith'': Two for one, but only one called out:
--->'''Anakin''': If you’re not with me, then you’re my enemy!
--->'''Obi-Wan''': Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
* ''Film/ThankYouForSmoking'': Nick Naylor's career as a tobacco lobbyist runs on this, using rapid attacks of ChewbaccaDefense, InsaneTrollLogic, and MovingTheGoalposts to discredit his opponents, thereby making himself looking like the smarter one by comparison. As he explains it to his son during a theoretical debate exercise, "I proved that you're wrong. And if you're wrong, I'm right."
* Fletcher's general view in ''Film/{{Whiplash}}'' boils down to a belief that praising people, whether they deserve it or not, makes them complacent and prevents them from going further, as evidenced in his "good job" monologue, but he goes the other extreme, offering up nothing but [[SadistTeacher horrific verbal abuse]]. The idea that a teacher can praise a student for doing well and also push them to do better is something that doesn't seem to occur to Fletcher and is a sign that [[NotSoWellIntentionedExtremist he just likes being awful to people because
* At the end of ''Anime/JinRohTheWolfBrigade'', Fuse is given a choice between [[spoiler:killing Kei or sparing her]]... but the second he [[spoiler:shoots her]], a squadmate with him is shown unloading his own pistol, making it clear the "choice" was no choice at all, [[IfYoureSoEvilEatThisKitten merely a test of his loyalty]]. If Fuse had refused, [[spoiler:his squad would've just shot him and killed Kei themselves]].
[[folder:Film -- Live-Action]]
* Part of the choice between factions in ''Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar''. Would you rather have superheroes who are so overly regulated they can never be effective at all, or no authority/oversight so superheroes can do whatever they want without repercussions? This may be [[JustifiedTrope justified]] because they are being told that the current arrangement ''is'' the compromise by Thaddeus Ross, who is using the Accords as a power play to control the Avengers who support him and round up the ones who don't. After seeing his severity later in the film and his unreasonable pettiness in [[Film/AvengersInfinityWar the next]], the remaining "Pro-Accords" Avengers quit.
%%* {{Defied|Trope}} in ''Film/DonnieDarko'''s "Life Line" classroom scene:
%%-->'''Donnie:''' Well, life isn't that simple. I mean, who cares if Ling Ling returns the wallet and keeps the money? It has nothing to do with either fear or love.\\
%%'''Kitty Farmer:''' Fear and love are the deepest of human emotions.\\
%%'''Donnie:''' Okay. But you're not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here, like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else.
* ''Film/{{Expelled}}'' presents its issue as wholly a matter of unguided and naturalistic evolution vs. intelligent design (which has obvious religious implications, despite ID advocates claiming otherwise). The fact that many churches support evolution is dismissed with the claim that they simply do this in siding against conservative Christians (no mention of how one such group is the Catholics, with a doctrine that's hardly liberal Christian). So all of the evolutionary biologists in the film are atheists, and this was surely no coincidence given how Stein frames things here (again, despite claiming that ID's not a religious movement).
* ''Film/AFewGoodMen'': Colonel Jessup, after having been accused of killing one of his own men (admittedly by accident): "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post." In other words, you are either at war or not a soldier -- and he uses this argument against a ''military lawyer''.
* ''Film/AMatterOfFaith'': The only options raised in the debate are naturalistic evolution versus creationism. In reality, many believers {{take a third option}} of theistic evolution, claiming that God at least started it or perhaps guided the process. Of course, the film was backed by creationist groups which reject this, so naturally, the idea isn't brought up at all.
* The "Battle of Wits" from ''Film/ThePrincessBride'' presents this. The Man in Black puts two goblets between them and asks, "Where is the poison?" Vizzini goes through dozens of justifications and possibilities for why one would poison either one, trying to stall for time. Either way, he never considers that [[spoiler:they were both poisoned. Vizzini pulled the fallacy on himself, since the Man in Black never said that only one of the goblets was poisoned]].
* ''Film/RevengeOfTheSith'' has two for one, but only one called out:
-->'''Anakin:''' If you're not with me, then you're my enemy!\\
'''Obi-Wan:''' Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
* Layla from ''Film/SkyHigh2005'', asked to demonstrate her powers, claims that the hero/sidekick dichotomy is a false one, but is cut off by Boomer declaring her a sidekick.
* ''Film/ThankYouForSmoking'': Nick Naylor's career as a tobacco lobbyist runs on this, using rapid attacks of ChewbaccaDefense, InsaneTrollLogic, and MovingTheGoalposts to discredit his opponents, thereby making himself looking like the smarter one by comparison. As he explains it to his son during a theoretical debate exercise, "I proved that you're wrong. And if you're wrong, I'm right."
* Fletcher's general view in ''Film/{{Whiplash}}'' boils down to a belief that praising people, whether they deserve it or not, makes them complacent and prevents them from going further, as evidenced in his "good job" monologue, but he goes the other extreme, offering up nothing but [[SadistTeacher horrific verbal abuse]]. The idea that a teacher can praise a student for doing well and also push them to do better is something that doesn't seem to occur to Fletcher and is a sign that [[NotSoWellIntentionedExtremist he just likes being awful to people because he's a bully]].
[[/folder]]
* Part of the choice between factions in ''Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar''. Would you rather have superheroes who are so overly regulated they can never be effective at all, or no authority/oversight so superheroes can do whatever they want without repercussions? This may be [[JustifiedTrope justified]] because they are being told that the current arrangement ''is'' the compromise by Thaddeus Ross, who is using the Accords as a power play to control the Avengers who support him and round up the ones who don't. After seeing his severity later in the film and his unreasonable pettiness in [[Film/AvengersInfinityWar the next]], the remaining "Pro-Accords" Avengers quit.
%%* {{Defied|Trope}} in ''Film/DonnieDarko'''s "Life Line" classroom scene:
%%-->'''Donnie:''' Well, life isn't that simple. I mean, who cares if Ling Ling returns the wallet and keeps the money? It has nothing to do with either fear or love.\\
%%'''Kitty Farmer:''' Fear and love are the deepest of human emotions.\\
%%'''Donnie:''' Okay. But you're not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here, like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else.
* ''Film/{{Expelled}}'' presents its issue as wholly a matter of unguided and naturalistic evolution vs. intelligent design (which has obvious religious implications, despite ID advocates claiming otherwise). The fact that many churches support evolution is dismissed with the claim that they simply do this in siding against conservative Christians (no mention of how one such group is the Catholics, with a doctrine that's hardly liberal Christian). So all of the evolutionary biologists in the film are atheists, and this was surely no coincidence given how Stein frames things here (again, despite claiming that ID's not a religious movement).
* ''Film/AFewGoodMen'': Colonel Jessup, after having been accused of killing one of his own men (admittedly by accident): "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post." In other words, you are either at war or not a soldier -- and he uses this argument against a ''military lawyer''.
* ''Film/AMatterOfFaith'': The only options raised in the debate are naturalistic evolution versus creationism. In reality, many believers {{take a third option}} of theistic evolution, claiming that God at least started it or perhaps guided the process. Of course, the film was backed by creationist groups which reject this, so naturally, the idea isn't brought up at all.
* The "Battle of Wits" from ''Film/ThePrincessBride'' presents this. The Man in Black puts two goblets between them and asks, "Where is the poison?" Vizzini goes through dozens of justifications and possibilities for why one would poison either one, trying to stall for time. Either way, he never considers that [[spoiler:they were both poisoned. Vizzini pulled the fallacy on himself, since the Man in Black never said that only one of the goblets was poisoned]].
* ''Film/RevengeOfTheSith'' has two for one, but only one called out:
-->'''Anakin:''' If you're not with me, then you're my enemy!\\
'''Obi-Wan:''' Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
* Layla from ''Film/SkyHigh2005'', asked to demonstrate her powers, claims that the hero/sidekick dichotomy is a false one, but is cut off by Boomer declaring her a sidekick.
* ''Film/ThankYouForSmoking'': Nick Naylor's career as a tobacco lobbyist runs on this, using rapid attacks of ChewbaccaDefense, InsaneTrollLogic, and MovingTheGoalposts to discredit his opponents, thereby making himself looking like the smarter one by comparison. As he explains it to his son during a theoretical debate exercise, "I proved that you're wrong. And if you're wrong, I'm right."
* Fletcher's general view in ''Film/{{Whiplash}}'' boils down to a belief that praising people, whether they deserve it or not, makes them complacent and prevents them from going further, as evidenced in his "good job" monologue, but he goes the other extreme, offering up nothing but [[SadistTeacher horrific verbal abuse]]. The idea that a teacher can praise a student for doing well and also push them to do better is something that doesn't seem to occur to Fletcher and is a sign that [[NotSoWellIntentionedExtremist he just likes being awful to people because he's a bully]].
[[/folder]]
Changed line(s) 178 (click to see context) from:
* In the ''WesternAnimation/AmericanDad'' episode "Son of Stan, pt. 2", Stan and Francine argue over whether the proper way to raise Steve is to be ''totally'' strict, or ''totally'' permissive. Stan settles the matter by cloning Steve and letting Francine raise Steve her way, while he raises Steve-arino (the clone) his way. It turns out that neither way is correct: Steve ends up becoming a disrespectful slob thanks to Francine's lack of disciplining him, while Steve-arino becomes a psychopathic killer thanks to Stan's oppressive parenting.
to:
* In the ''WesternAnimation/AmericanDad'' episode "Son "[[Recap/AmericanDadS7E2SonOfStan Son of Stan, pt. 2", Stan]]", Stan and Francine argue over whether the proper way to raise Steve is to be ''totally'' strict, or ''totally'' permissive. Stan settles the matter by cloning Steve and letting Francine raise Steve her way, while he raises Steve-arino (the clone) his way. It turns out that neither way is correct: Steve ends up becoming a disrespectful slob thanks to Francine's lack of disciplining him, while Steve-arino becomes a psychopathic killer thanks to Stan's oppressive parenting.
Deleted line(s) 181 (click to see context) :
* The 1967 cartoon ''WesternAnimation/TheBearThatWasnt'' (based on the book of the same name) has a bear told by factory managers that he's not a bear but a silly man in a fur coat that needs a shave. They tell him this over and over, but the clincher comes when the factory's president is brought in. The president takes the bear to the zoo and explains that bears belong in the zoo. Since the bear was not in the zoo, he could not be a bear. The bears in the zoo even agree, saying that a real bear would be in the zoo with them!
Changed line(s) 183,188 (click to see context) from:
* In the episode "Screwed the Pooch" from ''WesternAnimation/FamilyGuy'':
-->'''Lawyer:''' Mr. Griffin, which of the following two phrases best describes Brian Griffin: "problem drinker" or "African American haberdasher"?
-->'''Peter:''' Uh, do I-I guess problem drinker, but that's uh-
-->'''Lawyer:''' Thank you. Now: "sexual deviant" or "magic picture that if you stare at it long enough, you see something"?
-->'''Peter:''' Well, sexual deviant, but that other one's not even, eh-
-->'''Lawyer:''' Thank you.
-->'''Lawyer:''' Mr. Griffin, which of the following two phrases best describes Brian Griffin: "problem drinker" or "African American haberdasher"?
-->'''Peter:''' Uh, do I-I guess problem drinker, but that's uh-
-->'''Lawyer:''' Thank you. Now: "sexual deviant" or "magic picture that if you stare at it long enough, you see something"?
-->'''Peter:''' Well, sexual deviant, but that other one's not even, eh-
-->'''Lawyer:''' Thank you.
to:
* In the ''WesternAnimation/FamilyGuy'' episode "Screwed "[[Recap/FamilyGuyS3E13ScrewedThePooch Screwed the Pooch" from ''WesternAnimation/FamilyGuy'':
Pooch]]":
-->'''Lawyer:''' Mr. Griffin, which of the following two phrases best describes Brian Griffin: "problem drinker" or "African Americanhaberdasher"?
-->'''Peter:'''haberdasher"?\\
'''Peter:''' Uh, doI-I I -- I guess problem drinker, but that's uh-
-->'''Lawyer:'''that's, uh--\\
'''Lawyer:''' Thank you. Now: "sexual deviant" or "magic picture that if you stare at it long enough, you seesomething"?
-->'''Peter:'''something"?\\
'''Peter:''' Well, sexual deviant, but that other one's not even,eh-
-->'''Lawyer:'''eh--\\
'''Lawyer:''' Thank you.
-->'''Lawyer:''' Mr. Griffin, which of the following two phrases best describes Brian Griffin: "problem drinker" or "African American
-->'''Peter:'''
'''Peter:''' Uh, do
-->'''Lawyer:'''
'''Lawyer:''' Thank you. Now: "sexual deviant" or "magic picture that if you stare at it long enough, you see
-->'''Peter:'''
'''Peter:''' Well, sexual deviant, but that other one's not even,
-->'''Lawyer:'''
'''Lawyer:''' Thank you.
Changed line(s) 190,199 (click to see context) from:
--> '''Hank''': So are you Chinese or Japanese?
--> '''Khan''': No, we are Laotian.
--> '''Bill''': The ocean? What ocean?
--> '''Khan''': From Laos, stupid! It's a landlocked country in South-East Asia between Vietnam and Thailand, population approximately 4.7 million!
--> '''Hank''': ''(long pause)'' So are you Chinese or Japanese?
--> '''Khan''': D'oh!
** Even [[RacistGrandpa Cotton]] [[JerkassHasAPoint can get it right]].
---> '''Dale''' (whispering about Khan): He's Japanese.
---> '''Cotton''': No he ain't! ([[{{Beat}} inspects Khan]]) He's Laotian. Ain't you, Mr. Khan?
* In ''WesternAnimation/OverTheGardenWall'', [[spoiler: the DealWithTheDevil the Beast operates under is actually one of these. He told the Woodsman (and later Wirt) that their only choices were to keep their loved one's soul lit in the Dark Lantern or let them die. In reality no such choice exists, as the Dark Lantern doesn't actually contain the soul of the Woodsman's daughter; it contains ''[[SoulJar the Beast's soul]]'' and he tricks people into keeping it lit because if it goes out he'll die]]. Take a wild guess [[LaserGuidedKarma what happens]] when Wirt finally figures out the trick and gives the Woodsman the lantern...
--> '''Khan''': No, we are Laotian.
--> '''Bill''': The ocean? What ocean?
--> '''Khan''': From Laos, stupid! It's a landlocked country in South-East Asia between Vietnam and Thailand, population approximately 4.7 million!
--> '''Hank''': ''(long pause)'' So are you Chinese or Japanese?
--> '''Khan''': D'oh!
** Even [[RacistGrandpa Cotton]] [[JerkassHasAPoint can get it right]].
---> '''Dale''' (whispering about Khan): He's Japanese.
---> '''Cotton''': No he ain't! ([[{{Beat}} inspects Khan]]) He's Laotian. Ain't you, Mr. Khan?
* In ''WesternAnimation/OverTheGardenWall'', [[spoiler: the DealWithTheDevil the Beast operates under is actually one of these. He told the Woodsman (and later Wirt) that their only choices were to keep their loved one's soul lit in the Dark Lantern or let them die. In reality no such choice exists, as the Dark Lantern doesn't actually contain the soul of the Woodsman's daughter; it contains ''[[SoulJar the Beast's soul]]'' and he tricks people into keeping it lit because if it goes out he'll die]]. Take a wild guess [[LaserGuidedKarma what happens]] when Wirt finally figures out the trick and gives the Woodsman the lantern...
to:
--> '''Khan''':
'''Khan:''' No, we are
--> '''Bill''':
'''Bill:''' [[MondegreenGag The ocean? What
--> '''Khan''':
'''Khan:''' From Laos, stupid! It's a landlocked country in South-East Asia between Vietnam and Thailand, population approximately 4.7
--> '''Hank''': ''(long pause)''
'''Hank:''' ''[long pause]'' So are you Chinese or
--> '''Khan''':
'''Khan:''' D'oh!
** Even [[RacistGrandpa Cotton]] can [[JerkassHasAPoint
---> '''Cotton''':
'''Cotton:''' No he ain't!
* In ''WesternAnimation/OverTheGardenWall'',
Changed line(s) 201,205 (click to see context) from:
** "Gnomes" is about [[BlandNameProduct Harbucks Coffee]] threatening the existence of Tweek Bros. Coffeehouse. Mr. Tweek gets the public on his side to oppose the larger corporation and a proposition is soon presented that would determine whether or not Harbucks would be allowed to stay. An ad is soon presented by "Citizens for a Fair and Equal way to get Harbucks Coffee kicked out of Town Forever".
--->It's time to stop large corporations. Prop. 10 is about children. Vote yes on Prop. 10, or else, you hate children. You don't hate… children… do you?
** Spoofed in "The Death of Eric Cartman":
--->'''Mrs. Stotch''': I don't know whether to [[YouAreGrounded ground him]] or call a doctor.
--->'''Mr. Stotch''': I think you should call a doctor. I'll ground him.
--->It's time to stop large corporations. Prop. 10 is about children. Vote yes on Prop. 10, or else, you hate children. You don't hate… children… do you?
** Spoofed in "The Death of Eric Cartman":
--->'''Mrs. Stotch''': I don't know whether to [[YouAreGrounded ground him]] or call a doctor.
--->'''Mr. Stotch''': I think you should call a doctor. I'll ground him.
to:
** "Gnomes" "[[Recap/SouthParkS2E17Gnomes Gnomes]]" is about [[BlandNameProduct Harbucks Coffee]] threatening the existence of Tweek Bros. Coffeehouse. Mr. Tweek gets the public on his side to oppose the larger corporation and a proposition is soon presented that would determine whether or not Harbucks would be allowed to stay. An ad is soon presented by "Citizens for a Fair and Equal way to get Harbucks Coffee kicked out of Town Forever".
--->It's time to stop large corporations. Prop. 10 is about children. Vote yes on Prop. 10, or else, you hate children. You don'thate… children… hate... children... do you?
** Spoofed in"The "[[Recap/SouthParkS9E6TheDeathOfEricCartman The Death of Eric Cartman":
Cartman]]":
--->'''Mrs.Stotch''': Stotch:''' I don't know whether to [[YouAreGrounded ground him]] or call a doctor.
--->'''Mr. Stotch''':doctor.\\
'''Mr. Stotch:''' I think you should call a doctor. I'll ground him.
--->It's time to stop large corporations. Prop. 10 is about children. Vote yes on Prop. 10, or else, you hate children. You don't
** Spoofed in
--->'''Mrs.
--->'''Mr. Stotch''':
'''Mr. Stotch:''' I think you should call a doctor. I'll ground him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* ToBeLawfulOrGood: Can run into this if a choice that's both lawful AND good isn't on the table.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 131 (click to see context) from:
* ''Series/GameOfThrones'': In season 7 the campaign of the exiled queen Daenerys to retake her ancestral throne inexplicably grinds to a halt despite her overwhelmingly superior forces that includes [[FantasticNuke three dragons]]. The use of dragons is suddenly out of the question because, presumably, they would inevitably cause massive civilian casualties. The idea of using them for intimidation is never even entertained, despite the historical precedent (one of Daenerys' ancestresses had conquered an obstinate kingdom by flying her dragon to the queen's castle and... offering her son a ride on the dragon's back. [[SarcasmMode Somehow]] the queen had no further questions and bent the knee immediately) and the previously demonstrated perfect level of control Daenerys had over her dragons.
to:
* ''Series/GameOfThrones'': In season 7 the campaign of the exiled queen Daenerys to retake her ancestral throne inexplicably grinds to a halt despite her overwhelmingly superior forces that includes [[FantasticNuke three dragons]]. The use of dragons is suddenly out of the question because, presumably, they would inevitably cause massive civilian casualties. The idea of using them for intimidation is never even entertained, despite the historical precedent (one of Daenerys' ancestresses had conquered an obstinate kingdom by flying her dragon to the queen's castle and... offering her the queen's young son a ride on the dragon's back. [[SarcasmMode Somehow]] the queen had no further questions and bent the knee immediately) and the previously demonstrated perfect level of control Daenerys had over her dragons.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 131 (click to see context) from:
* ''Series/GameOfThrones'': In season 7 the campaign of the exiled queen Daenerys to retake her ancestral throne inexplicably grinds to a halt despite her overwhelmingly superior forces that includes [[FantasticNuke three dragons]]. The use of dragons is suddenly out of the question because, presumably, they would inevitably cause massive civilian casualties. The idea of using them for intimidation is never even entertained, despite the historical precedent (one of Daenerys' ancestors had conquered an obstinate kingdom by flying to the queen's castle and... offering her son a ride on the dragon's back. [[SarcasmMode Somehow]] the queen had no further questions and bent the knee immediately) and the previously demonstrated perfect level of control Daenerys had over her dragons.
to:
* ''Series/GameOfThrones'': In season 7 the campaign of the exiled queen Daenerys to retake her ancestral throne inexplicably grinds to a halt despite her overwhelmingly superior forces that includes [[FantasticNuke three dragons]]. The use of dragons is suddenly out of the question because, presumably, they would inevitably cause massive civilian casualties. The idea of using them for intimidation is never even entertained, despite the historical precedent (one of Daenerys' ancestors ancestresses had conquered an obstinate kingdom by flying her dragon to the queen's castle and... offering her son a ride on the dragon's back. [[SarcasmMode Somehow]] the queen had no further questions and bent the knee immediately) and the previously demonstrated perfect level of control Daenerys had over her dragons.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 131 (click to see context) from:
* ''Series/GameOfThrones'': In season 7 the campaign of the exiled queen Daenerys to retake her ancestral throne inexplicably grinds to a halt despite her overwhelmingly superior forces that includes [[FantasticNuke three dragons]]. The use of dragons is suddenly out of the question because, presumably, they would inevitably cause massive civilian casualties. The idea of using them for intimidation is never even entertained, despite the historical precedent (One of Daenerys' ancestor had conquered an obstinate kingdom by flying to the queen's castle and... offering her son a ride on the dragon's back. [[SarcasmMode Somehow]] the queen had no further questions and bent the knee immediately) and the previously demonstrated perfect level of control Daenerys had over her dragons.
to:
* ''Series/GameOfThrones'': In season 7 the campaign of the exiled queen Daenerys to retake her ancestral throne inexplicably grinds to a halt despite her overwhelmingly superior forces that includes [[FantasticNuke three dragons]]. The use of dragons is suddenly out of the question because, presumably, they would inevitably cause massive civilian casualties. The idea of using them for intimidation is never even entertained, despite the historical precedent (One (one of Daenerys' ancestor ancestors had conquered an obstinate kingdom by flying to the queen's castle and... offering her son a ride on the dragon's back. [[SarcasmMode Somehow]] the queen had no further questions and bent the knee immediately) and the previously demonstrated perfect level of control Daenerys had over her dragons.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 122 (click to see context) from:
* In ''Literature/{{Twilight}}'', Bella believes she must either be with Edward or with Jacob. She also believes she must either become a vampire or grow old. Later, she believes that [[spoiler: she must either wait until her belly is full-sized to deliver, or abort it, because no life-threatening pregnancy was ever solved by putting the babies on life-support to save the life of the mother]]. Bella thinks only in absolutes throughout the series. Another example would be when Edward leaves her in the second book. To her, her only options are being happy with Edward, or being miserable without him. Being happy without Edward never once occurs to her, no matter how often it's suggested to her.
to:
* In ''Literature/{{Twilight}}'', ''Literature/TheTwilightSaga'', Bella believes she must either be with Edward or with Jacob. She also believes she must either become a vampire or grow old. Later, she believes that [[spoiler: she must either wait until her belly is full-sized to deliver, or abort it, because no life-threatening pregnancy was ever solved by putting the babies on life-support to save the life of the mother]]. Bella thinks only in absolutes throughout the series. Another example would be when Edward leaves her in the second book. To her, her only options are being happy with Edward, or being miserable without him. Being happy without Edward never once occurs to her, no matter how often it's suggested to her.
