fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4606 ]

[ SECRET POST #4606 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4606 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Kotomi Ichinose, CLANNAD]

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05. [SPOILERS for Endgame]

__________________________________________________

06. [SPOILERS for Endgame]

__________________________________________________

07. [SPOILERS for Jessica Jones season 3]
[WARNING for dubcon]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #659.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I thought he acted like a selfish coward who forgot he was supposed to sacrifice his child for other people

Fixed that for you, OP.

Could you expand on your point here?

???
Unless OP has wildly fucked up what they meant to communicate, they think that Tony was selfish because he didn't want to erase his daughter, the child in his arms right there in the picture, from reality. Because of course, as a hero, he should be willing and eager to allow all his friends, family, and other miscellaneous loved ones to be wiped from existence, for the greater good.

And I think that's fucked up, and OP is a sociopath.

Calling people a sociopath based on fandom secrets about a contrived moral dilemma is fucked up, don't do that. Fuck's wrong with you.

It wasn't just one kid. Hundreds of thousands of kids. To soothe the conscience of "I fucked up" others felt.

FICTIONAL kids.

Idk if it makes someone a sociopath if they think a fictional character should kill off their own kid for the greater good, but I can't say I think much of someone who thinks it's that easy of a decision and condemns anyone who doesn't automatically jump on it.

Ayrt - Good grief. I had a comment written out, had another look, and I deleted it. Let's try this:
1) "Sociopath", no matter what BBC Sherlock might try to tell you, is not a actual psychological diagnosis. All it means in common English parlance is "person whose moral fibre is distinctly lacking".
2) This is Fandom Secrets. Most of what is discussed here involves fictional characters and their actions. If we didn't treat these with some degree of seriousness, it would be pretty hard to ever have a conversation at all.
3) If someone takes the time to make a secret, it's not unreasonable to assume that they mean it. And if someone says that a parent is a selfish coward for not being keen to risk killing or erasing from existence his four-year-old daughter, I will assume that they are a terrible person who should probably not be allowed near children, small animals or the elderly.

There's a difference between debating fictional character motivations and devolving into ad hominem attacks just because you disagree about a fictional character's behavior in a fictional scenario.

Ayrt

In general, I think making direct ad hominem attacks based on abstruse and impossible comic book moral dilemmas is bad and like, really clearly and absurdly disproportionate. And I think "sociopath" is particularly bad because - while it is not actually a medical condition - the common usage of the term certainly envisions sociopath in pathological, psychological terms.

Ok, here I go:
1) NO 'sociopath' is not a psychological diagnosis but that's only because 'antisocial personality disorder' is a more accepted and broad term
2) You can have a conversation about fictional characters and not devolve into ad hominen attacks. Also, I think it's healthy to keep in mind that these are only movies, in the end, as much as we love them (or hate aspects of them) and don't actually make much impact in our own lives.
3) Is that what the secret is saying? Also, that is a very extreme thing for you to say about the original OP, particularly as they are talking about a fictional character.
I could argue that you are a terrible person who should probably not be allowed near children, small animals or the elderly, because you believe that it's NOT selfish to allow billions of life to continue to not exist when you have a chance to bring them back, all because you want to save one (even if it is your own child). See how this works? Does the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few?
I actually agree with OP. Tony was being selfish and I'm glad he turned around in the end. And yes, it was very IC for him.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-08-17 14:57 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-08-17 17:10 (UTC) - Expand

He was all gung-ho about sacrificing everyone's freedom for that one lady's kid, so...

Besides, one child <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< half of the universe

That's literally not a human way of thinking. If you were in the situation, where you had to make the choice to undo the existence of your child, who you spent years making and loving and raising, you wouldn't be like "welp, sucks, but gotta do what you gotta do." You would protect your child. Like, period. You would.

Any way that human beings think is a human way of thinking. I think it's hard to draw any absolute conclusions about how people would or would not act in an utterly contrived and impossible situation like this, and I'm also not sure I agree that it's clearly right to sacrifice millions of people for the life of one person if that one person happens to be related to you.

Who is saying it’s “right?” They’re saying it’s the human response to care about your own child more than people you don’t know. Especially when one scenario has your child alive and well with her parents, and the other is an infinitesimal chance of restoring the people lost.

Honestly real power move to just say that anyone who disagrees with you is insufficiently human

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-08-17 04:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-08-17 12:10 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-08-17 13:48 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-08-17 17:07 (UTC) - Expand

And what about all of the other kids? Fuck them?

Unironically yes, fuck them. Do you actually care about all the 6 billion people on this planet who you don't know? Or do you personally spend all your time in mourning because there's always someone dying somewhere in the world? Come on now. You say "fuck them."

Wow! You really are either a massive troll or have some sociopathic traits yourself OP. Most people do care about others. Sure it's difficult to care about 6 billion but we do have to live in a society and we are hardwired for empathy with others. If we see a terrible tragedy we are compelled to do something ie; 2004 Tsunami and the outpouring of help and money from around the world. Arguably, if half the population died and people had a chance to bring them back, of course they'd want to bring them back!

All the children born in those five years, really... but sure, you'd be totally chill with killing about 200,000,000 children.
Give or take.
And that definitely isn't super fucked up at all! :D

Don't you know that personal feelings only matter when they're Tony's feelings?

According to the United Nations, approximately 130 million babies are born worldwide a year. Tony is the face of all the parents who had children since the snap. He's a symbol. And OP thinks he, as representative of them, should just go, oh, hey, no big deal, let's just erase my beloved child.

This secret is stupid.

This statistic and Tony suddenly being a symbolic representative of parenting is also stupid.

Ha ha yeah. Bec it's not stupid for the Avengers to decide for ~325,000,000 parents to eliminate their children without their consent, or to decide for ~650,000,000 children their lives were meaningless.

I mean, the script was already remarkably bad, but yeah.

Re: 130 million babies are born worldwide every year

(Anonymous) - 2019-08-17 13:54 (UTC) - Expand

I seriously doubt this figure, did you pull it out your ass, OP? Considering half the population is dead, for one.
Also, did you even watch the film? The idea wasn't to erase the future but to just gather the stones to bring the people back who had died ie; not erase the children who had been born.
I do agree the film was pretty stupid.

Re: 130 million babies are born worldwide every year

(Anonymous) - 2019-08-17 17:12 (UTC) - Expand

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only