***Spoiler Thread*** Avengers: Infinity Wars

[Broncofan]

1 minute ago, Manny/Patrick said:

I feel part 2 will be released earlier, Disney did not want that ending.

They've got 1+ billion  reasons to soothe that impulse now.

[THE DUKE]

8 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

They've got 1+ billion  reasons to soothe that impulse now.

1,190,607,350 reasons.....and counting

[dtait93]

27 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Lol i dont know how you can actually think like this. A doctor tells you that the mother of your child is about to die as is the child and you have to choose to get rid of one to save the other or they both die and you consider it evil to make that choice? Maybe both should die?

 

It's pretty simple how I can actually.

The doctor can tell me whatever he wants, there are plenty of cases where a doctor tells somebody one thing and the opposite happens. But sure doc, "get rid of one"...oops I mean yes, go ahead doc, murder my child.

It seems your standard is that murder is justified when it is seemingly inevitable and it is going to cause harm to another. If you remain consistent then we really should pull a Thanos and start killing the world's population by the millions so we save our finite resources that we will inevitably run out of with the population growing by the millions each year - leading us to self extinction.

[ET80]

8 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

They've got 1+ billion  reasons to soothe that impulse now.

Yup. Disney (or any movie studio) doesn't care about the story in just about every instance. If money comes in, they'll keep the course.

We have 13 Fast and Furious movies and six Transformers movies to attest to this.

[Manny/Patrick]

15 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

They've got 1+ billion  reasons to soothe that impulse now.

Where’s my Frozen 2? ?

[Calvert28]

8 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

It's pretty simple how I can actually.

The doctor can tell me whatever he wants, there are plenty of cases where a doctor tells somebody one thing and the opposite happens. But sure doc, "get rid of one"...oops I mean yes, go ahead doc, murder my child.

It seems your standard is that murder is justified when it is seemingly inevitable and it is going to cause harm to another. If you remain consistent then we really should pull a Thanos and start killing the world's population by the millions so we save our finite resources that we will inevitably run out of with the population growing by the millions each year - leading us to self extinction.

I don't think you understand the concept of murder.

[Mox]

5 minutes ago, Manny/Patrick said:

Where’s my Frozen 2? ?

2019

[dtait93]

1 minute ago, Calvert28 said:

I don't think you understand the concept of murder.

"The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" would be the exact definition. Which would be exactly what you would be doing in both examples that were talked about. Not a hard concept to grasp my friend.

[Calvert28]

7 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

"The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" would be the exact definition. Which would be exactly what you would be doing in both examples that were talked about. Not a hard concept to grasp my friend.

Murder is a selfish act. By your rational people should just rely on blind faith? Have the doctor wait it out leading to the death of your wife and child? You in a sense murdered them by "choosing" and deciding which would be considered premeditation no action is the best course.

There is nothing premeditated about having to save the life of another person and you are left with a ultimatum.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Calvert28

[diamondbull424]

3 hours ago, EliteTexan80 said:

So, I did something in preparation for this response - I actually watched Doctor Strange again last night (part because my son loves the movie, part because it's a great movie, part because this conversation).

I think the crux of this argument comes down to Strange and his ability to reside in the Astral space. 

As we saw in the movie, Strange is flung there unknowingly by The Ancient One, but eventually develops the ability to go there at will - we see him project himself into the realm while he's sleeping to read more books and (most importantly to this discussion) we see him there after he takes a dark dimension knife to the chest. In the "real" world, Strange is near death - he tells Dr. Christine Palmer the extent of his injury prior to passing out. Meanwhile, his astral form is pretty much intact - he even advises Palmer in her efforts to keep him going. During surgery, he had to fight against disciples of Dormammu/Kacillius, and during that fight, his body flat out dies - Palmer had to hit him with the crash cart to get a heartbeat going.

This demonstrates a different paradigm to our TV analogy - in the astral form, he's not the guy with the remote, he's a completely different entity sitting across the room, not only able to watch the TV, but can watch the room and anything in it (bag of chips on the couch, drink on a coaster on the coffee table, fridge in the kitchen).

So, pairing that ability to witness surroundings in a separate plane of existence with the time stone's ability to traverse through various timeline of events allow him to witness the 14,000,605 possibilities from a position to where he's not impacted by decisions made inside or outside of the possibilities.

Now - key thing here is that through the events of Doctor Strange, he's repeatedly warned to NOT do this. At that moment, he was doing exactly what Wong told him not to do - which was mess with the natural order. But, this is expected from Strange - he's not a stranger (no pun intended) to breaking a few rules for the greater good, which is what ultimately drives the wedge between him and Baron Mordo.

Ultimately, he took multiple natural orders, collated the data from worst possible outcome to best possible outcome, and found the one that yielded the best results. He couldn't come out and say "OK, here's the game plan" because that in itself would alter the actions of Stark, Parker, Quill etc. He had to let their actions stay the course.

Great minds. I didn’t have time to watch the movie last night like I wanted to for purposes of research, but I will watch it tonight. I have a few ideas already as to my rebuttal, but I would rather not speak “blindly” on the subject. But I just wanted to let you know that I have read this and very much value the insightful rebuttal. I will try and respond back to this by the end of the day.

[Calvert28]

38 minutes ago, Manny/Patrick said:

I feel part 2 will be released earlier, Disney did not want that ending.

Right, right. The woman didn't win with ease.

[dtait93]

1 minute ago, Calvert28 said:

Murder is a selfish act. By your rational people should just rely on blind faith?

There is nothing premeditated about having to save the life of another person and you are left with a ultimatum.

Indeed it is. You are murdering the baby to save the life of the mother, which if you stay consistent, is selfish. Blind faith is not my rationale, that's a far conclusion to jump to.

You talk about saving one life, yet you fail to recognize the life that was taken. Choosing one life over the other premeditates which life will cease.

[Manny/Patrick]

12 minutes ago, Calvert28 said:

Right, right. The woman didn't win with ease.

#MeToo

[Calvert28]

Quote

Indeed it is. You are murdering the baby to save the life of the mother, which if you stay consistent, is selfish. Blind faith is not my rationale, that's a far conclusion to jump to.

It is your rationale.

Quote

The doctor can tell me whatever he wants, there are plenty of cases where a doctor tells somebody one thing and the opposite happens. But sure doc, "get rid of one"...oops I mean yes, go ahead doc, murder my child.

If you are waiting out for the part in bold that is blind faith. And you have to choose in the situation. Whether it's one or the other, or take the small chance you "might" be able to save both. The 3rd way is gambling, and because you have weighed the risks and rewards you could be essentially murdering two people.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Calvert28

[dtait93]

1 minute ago, Calvert28 said:

It is your rationale.

If you are waiting out for the part in bold that is blind faith. And you have to choose in the situation. Whether it's one or the other, or take the small chance you "might" be able to save both. The 3rd way is gambling, and because you have weighed the risks and rewards you could be essentially murdering two people.

It's not at all. I'm choosing not to take either life because 1) murder is wrong, and 2) the countless examples of doctors incorrect/false declarations of outcomes. You are choosing to take a life based on the doctors word and what he believes will happen based on experience.

If you think the 3rd way is murder, then it is you who does not grasp the concept of murder.