Remark History - TV Tropes

[009] Jerkass

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I'll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don't really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

to:

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I\'ll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don\'t really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that's not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind is when someone is incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that's obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they're making unsound decisions based on emotion. That's a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the mother of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time,

to:

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that\'s not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind is when someone is incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that\'s obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they\'re making unsound decisions based on emotion. That\'s a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the mother of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time, \"We should be in check because it\'s on us if someone gets murdered\" is a really legitimate point regardless of his motivation for making it, and it\'s totally fair game to use the death of that kid to support it. That guilt helped him make that point is not an argument against it. Emotion can override reason in times of extreme anguish, but they are actually inseperable from each other. How you feel about something informs you of the logical course of attaining the correct state of being. The only time anyone is of unsound mind here is Tony at the very end, where emotional anguish finally breaks him, and that\'s only because he \"doesn\'t care\" about reason or circumstances. That\'s when things become irrational, not when you feel bad over having taken part in someone\'s death and decide to make a change in order to avoid that. I can\'t think of a more rational argument than \"This decision lead to unpleasant consequences, therefore, I should not make that that decision anymore.\"

And even if you don\'t buy that argument, again, characters who aren\'t carrying around baggage both make legitimate points in support and against the accords as well. Characters like Rhodey and Sam. You can\'t discount them if you\'re going to argue the irrationality angle is bringing down the titular heroes, because characters who are rational and impartial are still not seeing eye to eye. The simple fact is that there is no easy answer to the conflict here.

Lastly, the wording is \"Idiot plots can often be avoided with a simple wave of the hand.\" I don\'t know what you meant by forgiven, as that implies someone did something wrong they need to be excused for. \"Avoid\" however, just means not employing the trope. Whether you like CW or whether you liked the decisions being made within it\'s plot is up to you. But CW, by the definition given by the entry, is not what constitutes an Idiot Plot. The characters are not irrational, and until you can point out an easy resolution that all the characters inexplicably refused to employ, an idiot plot has been \'avoided\'.

[008] Jerkass

8th May '16 at 01:36:00 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I'll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don't really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

to:

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I\'ll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don\'t really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that's not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind is when someone is incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that's obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they're making unsound decisions based on emotion. That's a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the mother of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time,

to:

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that\'s not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind is when someone is incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that\'s obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they\'re making unsound decisions based on emotion. That\'s a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the mother of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time, \"We should be in check because it\'s on us if someone gets murdered\" is a really legitimate point regardless of his motivation for making it, and it\'s totally fair game to use the death of that kid to support it. That guilt helped him make that point is not an argument against it. Emotion can override reason in times of extreme anguish, but they are actually inseperable from each other. How you feel about something informs you of the logical course of attaining the correct state of being. The only time anyone is of unsound mind here is Tony at the very end, where emotional anguish finally breaks him, and that\'s only because he \"doesn\'t care\" about reason or circumstances. That\'s when things become irrational, not when you feel bad over having taken part in someone\'s death and decide to do what you can about it.

And even if you don\'t buy that argument, again, characters who aren\'t carrying around baggage both make legitimate points in support and against the accords as well. Characters like Rhodey and Sam. You can\'t discount them if you\'re going to argue the irrationality angle is bringing down the titular heroes, because characters who are rational and impartial are still not seeing eye to eye. The simple fact is that there is no easy answer to the conflict here.

Lastly, the wording is \"Idiot plots can often be avoided with a simple wave of the hand.\" I don\'t know what you meant by forgiven, as that implies someone did something wrong they need to be excused for. \"Avoid\" however, just means not employing the trope. Whether you like CW or whether you liked the decisions being made within it\'s plot is up to you. But CW, by the definition given by the entry, is not what constitutes an Idiot Plot. The characters are not irrational, and until you can point out an easy resolution that all the characters inexplicably refused to employ, an idiot plot has been \'avoided\'.

[007] Jerkass

8th May '16 at 01:35:39 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I'll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don't really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

to:

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I\'ll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don\'t really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that's not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind is when someone is incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that's obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they're making unsound decisions based on emotion. That's a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the mother of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time,

to:

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that\'s not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind is when someone is incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that\'s obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they\'re making unsound decisions based on emotion. That\'s a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the mother of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time, \"We should be in check because it\'s on us if someone gets murdered\" is a really legitimate point regardless of his motivation for making it, and it\'s totally fair game to use the death of that kid to support it. That guilt helped him make that point is not an argument against it. Emotion can override reason in times of extreme anguish, but they are actually inseperable from each other. How you feel about something informs you of the logical course of attaining the correct state of being. The only time anyone is of unsound mind here is Tony at the very end, where emotional anguish finally breaks him, and that\'s only because he \"doesn\'t care\" about reason or circumstances. That\'s when things become irrational, not when you feel bad over having taken part in someone\'s death.

And even if you don\'t buy that argument, again, characters who aren\'t carrying around baggage both make legitimate points in support and against the accords as well. Characters like Rhodey and Sam. You can\'t discount them if you\'re going to argue the irrationality angle is bringing down the titular heroes, because characters who are rational and impartial are still not seeing eye to eye. The simple fact is that there is no easy answer to the conflict here.

Lastly, the wording is \"Idiot plots can often be avoided with a simple wave of the hand.\" I don\'t know what you meant by forgiven, as that implies someone did something wrong they need to be excused for. \"Avoid\" however, just means not employing the trope. Whether you like CW or whether you liked the decisions being made within it\'s plot is up to you. But CW, by the definition given by the entry, is not what constitutes an Idiot Plot. The characters are not irrational, and until you can point out an easy resolution that all the characters inexplicably refused to employ, an idiot plot has been \'avoided\'.

[006] Jerkass

8th May '16 at 01:35:00 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I'll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don't really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

to:

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I\'ll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don\'t really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that's not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind is when someone is incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that's obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they're making unsound decisions based on emotion. That's a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the mother of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time,

to:

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that\'s not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind is when someone is incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that\'s obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they\'re making unsound decisions based on emotion. That\'s a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the mother of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time, \"We should be in check because it\'s on us if someone gets murdered\" is a really legitimate point regardless of his motivation for making it, and it\'s totally fair game to use the death of that kid to support it. That guilt helped him make that point is not an argument against it. Emotion can override reason in times of extreme anguish, but they are actually inseperable from each other. How you feel about something informs you of the logical course of attaining the correct state of being. The only time anyone is of unsound mind here is Tony at the very end, where emotional anguish finally breaks him, and that\'s only because, as he\'s said \"He doesn\'t care\" about reason or circumstances. That\'s when things become irrational, not when you feel bad over having taken part in someone\'s death.

And even if you don\'t buy that argument, again, characters who aren\'t carrying around baggage both make legitimate points in support and against the accords as well. Characters like Rhodey and Sam. You can\'t discount them if you\'re going to argue the irrationality angle is bringing down the titular heroes, because characters who are rational and impartial are still not seeing eye to eye. The simple fact is that there is no easy answer to the conflict here.

Lastly, the wording is \"Idiot plots can often be avoided with a simple wave of the hand.\" I don\'t know what you meant by forgiven, as that implies someone did something wrong they need to be excused for. \"Avoid\" however, just means not employing the trope. Whether you like CW or whether you liked the decisions being made within it\'s plot is up to you. But CW, by the definition given by the entry, is not what constitutes an Idiot Plot. The characters are not irrational, and until you can point out an easy resolution that all the characters inexplicably refused to employ, an idiot plot has been \'avoided\'.

[005] Jerkass

8th May '16 at 01:34:24 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I'll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don't really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

to:

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I\'ll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don\'t really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that's not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind is when someone is incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that's obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they're making unsound decisions based on emotion. That's a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the wife of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time,

to:

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that\'s not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind is when someone is incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that\'s obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they\'re making unsound decisions based on emotion. That\'s a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the mother of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time, \"We should be in check because it\'s on us if someone gets murdered\" is a really legitimate point regardless of his motivation for making it, and it\'s totally fair game to use the death of that kid to support it. Emotion can override reason in times of extreme anguish, but they are actually inseperable from each other. How you feel about something informs you of the logical course of attaining the correct state of being. The only time anyone is of unsound mind here is Tony at the very end, where emotional anguish finally breaks him, and that\'s only because, as he\'s said \"He doesn\'t care\" about reason or circumstances. That\'s when things become irrational, not when you feel bad over having taken part in someone\'s death.

And even if you don\'t buy that argument, again, characters who aren\'t carrying around baggage both make legitimate points in support and against the accords as well. Characters like Rhodey and Sam. You can\'t discount them if you\'re going to argue the irrationality angle is bringing down the titular heroes, because characters who are rational and impartial are still not seeing eye to eye. The simple fact is that there is no easy answer to the conflict here.

Lastly, the wording is \"Idiot plots can often be avoided with a simple wave of the hand.\" I don\'t know what you meant by forgiven, as that implies someone did something wrong they need to be excused for. \"Avoid\" however, just means not employing the trope. Whether you like CW or whether you liked the decisions being made within it\'s plot is up to you. But CW, by the definition given by the entry, is not what constitutes an Idiot Plot. The characters are not irrational, and until you can point out an easy resolution that all the characters inexplicably refused to employ, an idiot plot has been \'avoided\'.

[004] Jerkass

8th May '16 at 01:33:32 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I'll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don't really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

to:

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I\'ll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don\'t really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that's not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind means people are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that's obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they're making unsound decisions based on emotion. That's a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the wife of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time,

to:

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that\'s not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind is when someone is incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that\'s obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they\'re making unsound decisions based on emotion. That\'s a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the wife of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time, \"We should be in check because it\'s on us if someone gets murdered\" is a really legitimate point regardless of his motivation for making it, and it\'s totally fair game to use the death of that kid to support it. Emotion can override reason in times of extreme anguish, but they are actually inseperable from each other. How you feel about something informs you of the logical course of attaining the correct state of being. The only time anyone is of unsound mind here is Tony at the very end, where emotional anguish finally breaks him, and that\'s only because, as he\'s said \"He doesn\'t care\" about reason or circumstances. That\'s when things become irrational, not when you feel bad over having taken part in someone\'s death.

And even if you don\'t buy that argument, again, characters who aren\'t carrying around baggage both make legitimate points in support and against the accords as well. Characters like Rhodey and Sam. You can\'t discount them if you\'re going to argue the irrationality angle is bringing down the titular heroes, because characters who are rational and impartial are still not seeing eye to eye. The simple fact is that there is no easy answer to the conflict here.

Lastly, the wording is \"Idiot plots can often be avoided with a simple wave of the hand.\" I don\'t know what you meant by forgiven, as that implies someone did something wrong they need to be excused for. \"Avoid\" however, just means not employing the trope. Whether you like CW or whether you liked the decisions being made within it\'s plot is up to you. But CW, by the definition given by the entry, is not what constitutes an Idiot Plot. The characters are not irrational, and until you can point out an easy resolution that all the characters inexplicably refused to employ, an idiot plot has been \'avoided\'.

[003] Jerkass

8th May '16 at 01:32:49 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I'll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don't really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

to:

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I\'ll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don\'t really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that's not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind means people are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that's obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they're making unsound decisions based on emotion. That's a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the wife of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time,

to:

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that\'s not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind means people are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that\'s obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they\'re making unsound decisions based on emotion. That\'s a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the wife of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time, \"We should be in check because it\'s on us if someone gets murdered\" is a really legitimate point regardless of his motivation for making it, and it\'s totally fair game to use the death of that kid to support it. Emotion can override reason in times of extreme anguish, but they are actually inseperable from each other. How you feel about something informs you of the logical course of attaining the correct state of being. The only time anyone is of unsound mind here is Tony at the very end, where emotional anguish finally breaks him, and that\'s only because, as he\'s said \"He doesn\'t care\" about reason or circumstances. That\'s when things become irrational, not when you feel bad over having taken part in someone\'s death.

And even if you don\'t buy that argument, again, characters who aren\'t carrying around baggage both make legitimate points in support and against the accords as well. Characters like Rhodey and Sam. You can\'t discount them if you\'re going to argue the irrationality angle is bringing down the titular heroes, because characters who are rational and impartial are still not seeing eye to eye. The simple fact is that there is no easy answer to the conflict here.

Lastly, the wording is \"Idiot plots can often be avoided with a simple wave of the hand.\" I don\'t know what you meant by forgiven, as that implies someone did something wrong they need to be excused for. \"Avoid\" however, just means not employing the trope. Whether you like CW or whether you liked the decisions being made within it\'s plot is up to you. But CW, by the definition given by the entry, is not what constitutes an Idiot Plot. The characters are not irrational, and until you can point out an easy resolution that all the characters inexplicably refused to employ, an idiot plot has been \'avoided\'.

[002] Jerkass

8th May '16 at 01:32:23 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I'll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don't really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

to:

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I\'ll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don\'t really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that's not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind means people are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that's obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they're making unsound decisions based on emotion. That's a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the wife of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time,

to:

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that\'s not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind means people are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that\'s obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they\'re making unsound decisions based on emotion. That\'s a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the wife of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time, \"We should be in check because it\'s on us if someone gets murdered\" is a really legitimate point regardless of his motivation for making it, and it\'s totally fair game to use the death of that kid to support it. Emotion can override reason in times of extreme anguish, but they are actually inseperable from each other. How you feel about something informs you of the logical course of attaining the correct state of being. The only time anyone is of unsound mind here is Tony at the very end, where emotional anguish finally breaks him, and that\'s only because, as he\'s said \"He doesn\'t care\" about reason or circumstances. That\'s when things become irrational, not when you feel bad over having taken part in someone\'s death.

And even if you don\'t buy that argument, again, characters who aren\'t carrying around baggage both make legitimate points in support and against the accords as well. Characters like Rhodey and Sam. You can\'t discount them if you\'re going to argue the irrationality angle is bringing down the titular heroes, because characters who are rational and impartial are still not seeing eye to eye. The simple fact is that there is no easy answer to the conflict here.

Lastly, the wording is \"Idiot plots can often be avoided with a simple wave of the hand.\" I don\'t know what you meant by forgiven, as that implies someone did something wrong they need to be excused for. \"Avoid\" however, just means not employing the trope. Whether you like CW or whether you liked the decisions being made within it\'s plot is up to you. But CW, by the definition given by the entry, is not what constitutes an Idiot Plot. The characters are not irrational, and until you can point out an easy resolution that all the characters inexplicably refused to employ, so an idiot plot has been \'avoided\'.

[001] Jerkass

8th May '16 at 01:30:46 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I'll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don't really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

to:

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I\'ll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don\'t really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that's not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind means people are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that's obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they're making unsound decisions based on emotion. That's a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the wife of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time,

to:

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that\'s not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind means people are incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that\'s obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they\'re making unsound decisions based on emotion. That\'s a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the wife of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time, \"We should be in check because it\'s on us if someone gets murdered\" is a really legitimate point regardless of his motivation for making it, and it\'s totally fair game to use the death of that kid to support it. Emotion can override reason in times of extreme anguish, but they are actually inseperable from each other. How you feel about something informs you of the logical course of attaining the correct state of being. The only time anyone is of unsound mind here is Tony at the very end, where emotional anguish finally breaks him, and that\'s only because, as he\'s said \"He doesn\'t care\" about reason or circumstances. That\'s when things become irrational, not when you feel bad over having taken part in someone\'s death.

And even if you don\'t buy that argument, again, characters who aren\'t carrying around baggage both make legitimate points in support and against the accords as well. Characters like Rhodey and Sam. You can\'t discount them if you\'re going to argue the irrationality angle is bringing down the titular heroes, because characters who are rational and impartial are still not seeing eye to eye. The simple fact is that there is no easy answer to the conflict here.

Lastly, the wording is \"Idiot plots can often be avoided with a simple wave of the hand.\" I don\'t know what you meant by forgiven, as that implies someone did something wrong they need to be excused for. \"Avoid\" however, just means not employing the trope. Whether you like CW or whether you liked the decisions being made within it\'s plot, this is, by the definition given by the entry, not what constitutes an Idiot Plot. The characters are not irrational, and until you can point out an easy resolution that all the characters inexplicably refused to employ, so an idiot plot has been \'avoided\'.

Discussion History Main / ScaledUp