Batman and Joshua Graham Debate The Kill Rule (AI)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- In a land where stories are written with bullets and blood, the tale of Batman and Joshua Graham stood apart-a debate of life and death, righteousness and necessity.
These videos are written by me, and many of them are part of an ongoing, multiversal narrative. If you would like any characters to be added to the cast, particularly from gaming, let me know in the comments and I will try to work it into the story.
ElevenLabs AI Voice: elevenlabs.io/...
Discord: / discord
EDIT: Wow this has started to blow up! Hello and huge thank you to all of the new viewers and subscribers!❤️ If you liked the video, here’s a follow up between Joshua and Bats:
th-cam.com/video/K9L-Fv-eUT0/w-d-xo.html
------
First video with one of my favorite characters 🦇 Let me know if you'd like to see more Batman content!
If you enjoyed this video, please consider leaving a like and subscribing! Every bit of support helps this channel grow, and enables me to continue making videos like this one.
All I'm going to say is that Joker has escaped hundreds of times and has killed tens of thousands (Millions in Injustice) people, tortured many people, and has caused just as much or more suffering than Darkseid (The Batman who laughs) and the worst thing Batman can do is just beat him up and hope Joker doesn't escape and create more suffering.
Childhood is loving Batman
Teenagers are edgy and love Joker
Adulthood is realizing Batman perpetuates evil by not killing monsters like Joker.
I'm giving this debate to Joshua.
I can actually see this conversation happening you're amazing
It's up to the courts. Batman holds life as sacred. Gotham keeps the monsters alive for tourism & other vapid reasons. Many could be redeemed, Bruce has helped some break out of their dark path such as Plastic Man. Gotham is a perpetual city of sin. Batman does what he can as a man. The system needs lifetimes of work to salvage it before it destroys herself. In the end, Bruce Wayne is not the savior he is only a righteous man doing what he can to be a beacon of hope to his beloved gothic city.
Graham but luck survived and execution. He was not given a chance by the people to rehabilitate, he decided his luck was Devine intervention. If captured by the NCR, no chance would he have chosen to defect from the Legion.
Graham's situation only leads to the theory that Batman needs to torture criminals into rehabilitation.
Incredible voices, no glitches. If you told me this was all recorded dialogue, I'd believe you. Props for actually doing a quality-control pass.
Batman: “I have no enemies.”
Joshua: “I have no enemies….left.”
Should go like this;
Batman: I spare my enemies
Joshua: I have nothing left to spare
Gunfighter Arithmetic
Joshua: then kill two killers bruce. Then the number goes down.
Batman: 👁️👄👁️
Joshua: and how many of gotham's criminals have you rehabilitated?
Batman: 👁️👄👁️ 👁️👄👁️
Joshua: I believe in forgiveness and redemption, bruce. But how many of your enemies don't change because they know you'll go easy on them?
Batman 👁️👄👁️ 👁️👄👁️ 👁️👄👁️
Joshua: at this point, any innocent life taken by them will be your responsibility because you, at least, should know better. "Fool me once", bruce. If they don't change after the first warning, set a message for future criminals that you've softballed them for too long. My methods are brutal, but they get results quickly
Batman: 👁️👄👁️ 👁️👄👁️ 👁️👄👁️ 👁️👄👁️
Batman:"If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world stay the same."
Joshua Graham: "That's why one must vanquish all evil, we cannot expect God to do all the work"
What if I kill two ?
you motivate more to come out to come out@@Silver_Prussian
you realize that's not an actual batman quote lol
Well, look what happened to Light Yagami.
@@gustavoperez-jn1mk only if the evil was of questionable guilt or redemption.
but how meny would i save if i killed say joker or raz. hundreds? thousands?..... no Millions
not all lives are equal and not all evil fallow the same code as you. if it can be controlled to begin with. some are just demons pretending to be mortal and by not stopping it when you can. your costing more lives and that includes your family and loved one to. a dogmatic code for the sake of a dogmatic code is just another form of evil just less open
“I respect your principles...but our worlds are different.”
It sounded he realized that he’s arguing with someone in a different version of Earth, and it left Joshua with such greater understanding and sympathy for Batman’s motivation and deeds.
I believe his viewpoint would change. He would learn from Batman & realize he is akin to plastic man. A former criminal who sought redemption, he was given the chance by Bruce, I love this. Both characters are great.
@@RaptinDinon-mn4ps
Batman's no kill rule only works in the comic book world. Where reality bends to fit his ideals.
I'm with you guys Joshua is from a post apocalyptic world where everybody kills no bars held and batman is in a world where nuclear war never happened and didn't ravage the planet
The no kill rule is so fucking dumb, "hey, he commited genocide against a whole city? Meh, let me just put him in a prison that is like cardboard waiting for him to redeem himself, surely he wouldnt just.... not care, right? Right....?"
@@IslamHany-dg6xi It's not like Batman is the sole authority of Gotham. Hes essentially making citizens arrest, and works with the police. Like hows commissioner Gordon going to cover for Batman if he's dropping his rouge's gallery like flies because they are dangerous criminals.
Also it's not like hes morally obligated to act as judge jury and executioner in those instances.
This is how smart people debate.
Not slinging meaningless insults at each other despite disagreeing with the other's philosophy, they still remain cordial and respectful.
While also looking at the other party reasoning and not denying it, but also pointing out how it have flaws and why it should be question.
Smart people are still *human* though, and as such are completely justified in having an emotional reaction and insulting someone by calling them "stupid" or "an asshole" to something like the person they are debating saying that "it's morally acceptable to murder people you don't like as long as you get away with it."
It's frankly insane to try to hold a standard in which it *isn't* acceptable to insult someone during a disagreement. What matters is the context in which the insult is made, which includes the severity of the insult itself.
Most people would freak out and cry "Ad Hominem" if you aggressively claimed they were ignorant or "stupid" for not taking important information into account, but those same people will happily continue chatting with you if you calmly and politely express that you believe they lack any integrity whatsoever, which is a *significantly* worse insult.
Most people are hypocritical and, well frankly, stupid, and get upset about insults that are made void by simply completing the discussion, such as calling someone "stupid" for believing something, only for that label of "stupid" to be automatically removed the second they have been convinced that their original position was incorrect... but they are so lacking in principles that they genuinely don't recognize the severity of being accused of lacking integrity, as long as it's said with a nice tone of voice.
Slinging *"MEANINGLESS"* insults, however, you are absolutely correct about that, at least in a sense.
I consider calling someone stupid when they *say* something stupid to be "meaningless" in a long-term sense, since it nullifies itself as soon as they or myself have been convinced the other was correct, but I would *ALSO* call *actual* Ad Hominems "meaningless" since they are purely a cowardly attempt to dismiss, distract, and deflect a conversation so they don't have to engage with the thought that they might be wrong on something they strongly believe in. And I'm sure *these* are the kind of insults you are actually referring to.
But, at the same time... frustratingly enough, can we *really* call the Ad Hominems "meaningless" (despite how much we *want* to) if they *can* and *do* still give us meaningful insight as to the disposition or emotional maturity of the individual we are speaking to? It's hard to say they are *truly* meaningless when information can be gained to form a better understanding of someone while talking to them...
And the same goes for my previous example of "insults that nullify themselves." If I call someone "stupid" for *saying* something stupid, and me *doing* that causes a neuron to fire just right in their head and they think "wow, this guy REALLY thinks I'm out of line for saying that, *what if* I AM?"... then I would reluctantly have to admit that it's not all that "meaningless."
Regardless of that, all of my arguments here are under the assumption that, aside from the Ad Hominems, any insults being made are also being included with more than enough *valid evidence and counter-arguments* to justify the insult in the first place.
I can't call you stupid for saying something stupid, unless I *prove* that what you said *was* stupid. Otherwise, I'm inclined to categorize the insult as an "Ad Hominem," and thus, invalid.
Emotional reactions in the heat of the moment are perfectly fine, but they need to be directly in front of or directly behind any necessary counter-evidence to make the point valid.
And (sorry to make this continue even further) I can still be respectful when insulting someone, as well as the point of view that my goal *IS* to attack the argument, NOT the person, and if the argument is immoral or extremely poor quality, then I have absolutely NO obligation *to* "respect" it.
I'm not debating someone to vilify them. I'm debating someone to stigmatize their argumentation if I believe it to be invalid.
If I "respect" them for saying something horrendously immoral or poor of quality, then I am effectively committing an inverted Ad Hominem, by focusing on the *person* rather than the *argument.* And that would, by definition, be an invalid approach to proper argumentation.
This shit is all kinds of complicated, and English as a language isn't exactly helping us here, but I *get* what you *meant,* and I'm trying to offer a slightly more "nitty-gritty" perspective than the one you expressed, though, I'm sure that you would have had just as much to say on the topic if prompted, so I do not intend to imply your *active* perspective on the subject is "shallow."
I agree with the sentiment of your comment, and I assume you agree with the technicalities of mine. Cheers.
No screeching, foot stomping and no "Burnt man bad"
@@eidolon1426now I am going to reply to this well-intentioned comment that explored the issue in many different avenues and offered perspectives for us to add our own beliefs onto:
i aint readin allat
@@we-must-live
I'm glad you felt insecure enough to dedicate the time to type that hoping someone would validate you...
And if that's *not* the case, then I have to wonder why you felt *important* enough to warrant telling this public forum that *you,* specifically, were not interested in having an intellectually honest discussion about this topic... and doing so in a discussion in which no one up until this point deigned to *include* you...
Either way, unfortunately for you, you look, *non-negotiably,* like an asshole, and you just made *me* look *better* by comparison. So good job. Maybe you can sit at the grown-up table *next* year.
It's baffling how some random video on the internet can understand the point of batman's code better than the very own DC writers.
Heck, This vídeo manages to describe Batman’s lore better than those writers. lol
It's written by AI
Arkham games followed his code really well and the writers understood him will
Proof AI can replace 90% of these modern comic book activists... I mean authors.
@@tony_dogsI thought only the voices were AI, not the dialogue.
There's a saying when it comes to killing:
Mercy for the enemy should not come at the cost of his victims.
I’ll do you one better: Mercy for the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
@@nicholascauton9648 Yours sounds like the more extreme version.
Almost Like Captain America and Punisher.
One is about a last resort, The other is just the default.
It sound more cool though.
There is no such thing as innocence. Only degrees of guilt.
@@taramaforhaikido7272
You have become far too entrenched in your deluded worldview Pin.
@@پوریاصحبتزاده-ب3ب Funny you mentioned The Punisher because he is my favorite fictional character of all time followed by Conan The Barbarian. Both characters are strong influences to two books I’m writing. One is a sci-fi, the other is a fantasy.
Honestly Joshua is the proof of both arguments:
Batman believes that killing is never justified, even when the most evil person ever is the one being targeted, because there is always a chance at redemption, Joshua being proof of this idea.
Meanwhile, Joshua believes that some people are beyond redemption and/or that redemption does not matter as that person may commit so many evils that they cannot be redeemed even when it is genuine.
Joshua is also proof of this, while Joshua may be genuine in his desire to achieve redemption, by his own ideas he too should be killed because his actions of being Caesars legate are too great, and too many people have died and suffered by his hand for his redemption to mean anything.
I think overall Batman has the strongest argument, however I think joshua is correct in that sparing everyone is a luxury exclusive to a more stable world and the world of fallout simply has no place for Batman and his ideology.
Long comment but this is just my opinion.
You beat me to my own comment by 17 hours
I agree. If Batman was stuck in the Fallout universe for 1 year. I bet his code would change drastically.
It happens in the comics, not the Fallout one, but a very rough one, I don't know what happened, but I think his code didnt change at all@@avian68tb
Yet he still had his redemption. What means nothing, though, is the idealism of not killing, even though others will suffer. That is gambling with other people's lives, just for the sake of one person's ideals.
@@Briselance Batman doesn't kill, in part, because then he would end being a psycopath killer with no limits, and he could kill more people than the killers he is trying to stop. I read a comic about that.
I love how accurate the Batman AI is, I just wish it went a little lower to what he sounds like in Arkham Knight
Thank you for the feedback! This was my first time using the voice and I agree that it should be lower. I’ll look into making it sound more like Arkham Knight!
It sounds like the voice of Batman in BMtAS and the Justice league cartoons.
@fryeamlegend did you write the script btw? Omg... his vocabulary is beautiful... both really. RIP Kevin Conroy.
It kinds of suits this particular scenario. He's arguing as himself, Bruce Wayne, and not The Batman
@@TheCouriersGambit personally, and I'm just saying my opinion, I think the voice fits with the image of BAC batman quite nicely
"No Bruce. Letting dangerous criminals alive kills more people"
Batman: "There's always a non-lethal solution".
Also Batman: Electrifies Batmobile and rams criminals at 100mph.
@@PlebNC
Batman: "There's always a non-lethal solution."
SWAT teams and LEOs and militaries around the world: "Son, you just don't know anything."
Exactly
Based
@@Briselance”There’s always a non-lethal solution”.
Me: Do you say that because you truly believe that, or because you never want to be tempted by the your own urges to kill?
This can be summed up with
"You are just as bad as those you kill, and others will follow your footsteps of evil"
followed by
"You dont know shit about the wasteland batman"
Quite ironic, because Robin is literally stepping in Batman's footsteps. He's complaining about a vicious cycle. But batman literally creates his own vicious cycle and he don't make hope
@@brandonfitzgerald-eo3tk You don't know shit about the wasteland Brandon Fitzgerald
@@KWCHope It's a Harsh environment will only the strong survive and the weak are trembled like insects.
... the multibillionaire saying "If you kill, you become like those you kill"
With no self-awareness, Batman says a preaching man fighting to protect his flock is the same thing as rabid slavers.
It's a damned falsehood.
@@hallowedbeyourdays like Joshua said they're from different worlds
batman is a mastered tactician and know all forms of martial arts and know every single way to kill someone to stop himself from doing to others and has access to advanced technology the moral code he instilled himself is for the batman as he doesnt follow any laws or rules in his vigilantism
The irony of this conversation is that Joshua Graham’s existence proves Bruce right. Joshua wasn’t beyond redemption despite being one of the most evil/ruthless figures in the canon.
I wanna argue, but you’re right. Vigilantic murder rarely ends well. The Klan and Black Israelites thought their killings were justified, but without due process and evidence they’re both just groups of wanton killers.
But Joshua Graham had to go through a literal miraculous event to realise that he was wrong.
@@lachlanbold8319If the joker got set on fire and thrown down the grand canyon, and survived he’d go back to the same shit anyway. The reason Joshua was redeemed is cuz if his past as a new canaanite
@@ethankaryadi37”Evil? No.”
>literally enslaved tribals with his best bro Caesar who’s men regularly crucify enemies.
Bro was definitely pretty evil back in the day.
All it proves is there are exceptions to the rule, Batman is willing to sacrifice all of Gotham for his counterintuitive code of exceptions. It's not justice and is objectively bad.
In the world of Fallout I guess the “No Kill” rule could be essential into rebuilding society. But in Gotham, the “kill rule” is ever tempting, in a attempt to preserve life.
In a world like Fallout you don't exactly have a choice, you can be merciful to an extent, you can attempt to shelter others, indoctrinate them into your way of thinking, bring a community together, but unless your willing to take up arms and fight for that community then you won't last long, if other humans don't get to you the mutants surely will.
@@owlofdreams8091If you want peace prepare for war
@@owlofdreams8091: In the wasteland. Using the “No Killing Code” against other Humans is essential, but against actual Men Eating Monsters, that’s where even Batman is willing to use Lethal Force. In case someone is wondering Batman’s “Code” is similar to that of a Witcher, “Non-Lethalness” is for our fellow Mortal Men, and “Lethalness” is for Monsters. 😉
@@thedarkknight727 the difference is batman stands as a titan among men with the resources to spend, people of the wasteland don't have that luxury, and when they do acquire power and resources there will always inevitably be those who'll use it for evil, and it's up to the good ones to fight for peace, which may sound contradictory but at the end of the day would you rather sleep peacefully one day knowing your future generations are free of struggle with a little blood on your hands, or sleep forever where your enemy put you down, rotting with any hope of a better life, killing is sometimes just a necessity, as cruel as it sounds, and to be honest batman would be better off adopting that philosophy, think of all the suffering he could have spared people if he put joker down, or any other villain for that matter.
Works for both. But Tenpenny Tower in Fallout 3 is a good exercise in learning discernment and being judicious with how and what you get involved in.
If a fight comes to you, then you do what it takes to live. Survivors can debate the morality of their actions and the price of repentance and atonement
I miss Kenvin Conroy. Man... he was my childhood.
While Kevin was a iconic portrayal of Batman's voice we have to welcome the new voices that bring their unique flair to the character
now its time for another person to pickup the mantle and become another great version and memorable version of batman along side kevin. I personally enjoyed the performance of Troy Baker on the telltale games both as bruce and batman@@ChubiceOfChunckle20(and on a side note as much as i love to hear kevins voice more but i think we have to respect the passed ones. like i mean a youtube video like this is fine but if companies or other people try to use his voice for their own benefit its just morally wrong. imagine if linkinpark starts using AI to bring chesters voice back and start releasing new songs with it)
Same. . . Same. He’ll always be Batman AND Bruce Wayne. The man created with the death of his parents, and the mask he wears to keep his real identity hidden.
Me too, Arleen Sorkin and Richard Moll too.
This is genuinely one of the most beautiful debates i've ever witnessed.
modern hollywood writers cant write anything better than this
Yeah- this wasn't mindlessly bashing the “no-kill” philosophy.
people kept forgetting that like all philosophies and ideals had depths and complexities in them that shouldn't viewed through a thin layer.
Yes
Batman is an idealist, and Graham a realist. Obviously the best path is somewhere in the middle, where rehabilitation is offered to the many, but the most eggregious cases are dealt with severely.
Well i think it's opinion is mostly close to what its right. Why kill EVERYONE ? But save the life of child killer or rapist or maniac will be stupid (there are cannibals , rapists , child murderers and other screwed serial maniacs between batman enemies , but he's just catching them and sending to arkham and soon they're escaping , killing and cycle repeats itself ,what the hell)
Both have good points, but to be perfectly honest, I agree more with Joshua. Their differing moral codes just only really hold up in their own worlds. Joshua would be at the very least an anti-hero, in the batman comics, and in the Fallout games, batman would be considering a joke at best.
But there is one point that Batman made that I do have to disagree with. There isn't always a non-lethal option. There are times when you absolutely have to take a life. Batman even said it himself to Joker in one of the animated movies. "All the people I've murdered by letting you live".
And Joshua is aware that mercy is an option. In one of the Honest Hearts and you convince Joshua to be more merciful. And in turn it leads to the Sorrows becoming caple fighters that are still capable of showing mercy and compassion.
Yep. "You know I won't kill you, but we're running out of options."
I think that Batman's line about "today the murderer, tomorrow the thief" is reminiscent of the conversations between The Flash and Superman in the Injustice comics, where Flash takes a closer perspective to Batman here (but not entirely). Both are debating how to bring justice to the world while playing a game of speed chess. Superman offers up ideas, and Flash eventually brings up how severe a punishment has to be, and whether small crimes are also punishable by death and such.
Faced with the power to technically do anything, and with the choice to kill, how do we decide to kill or not kill? Does every criminal die, no matter the circumstance? Or do some criminals who have committed terrible acts get rehabilitation? Should a child diagnosed with ASPD be killed immediately, due to the fact that they MIGHT cause harm to people?
I think that in Batman's rogue's gallery specifically, there are always complicated reasons behind the actions of villains, so it is a difficult question whether they should die or not. At the same time, a prominent issue with Batman's code is perfectly exemplified in a line by Jason Todd in 'Under the Red Hood'. In this scene Batman wants to stop Jason from killing The Joker, who he is holding at gunpoint. Jason says "I'm not talking about Penguin, or Two-face, or The Riddler. I'm talking about killing HIM!", as it is true that Joker is beyond rehabilitation, and Batman's code becomes a prison against Joker, as he knows it makes him untouchable, in a manner of speaking.
Jason's point is also personified in an alternate timeline comicbook of the Injustice timeline, where instead of Superman catching Joker, then killing him, Bruce manages to convince Superman to let him take care of Joker, convincing him by saying he wouldn't let him hurt anyone ever again. As Batman drives off with Joker, he then turns to Joker and snaps his neck, killing him, after which Bruce turns himself in to the police, and decides to serve his sentence. Superman never becomes evil, and the Regime never happens, all because Batman killed The Joker.
@@maxm.m.7219
Flash suggesting that even minor crimes should be punished by death is simply appalling.
Batman's perspective is in part held up by competence. His resources, gadgets, & his extreme accuracy with strikes, throws, projectiles... He's skilled enough to clear a room full of armed men without killing any of them. Would he have even developed his principles as such if he weren't such a master?
@@bobjenkins4925Or the writers making him op.
I love how Graham is able to accept batman's ways as applicable to certain scenarios, while still holding true to his own values
It's cool that their ideas work perfectly in their universe and horribly in the other's
Idk bout that. If Joker was dead, a whole lot more people would be alive.
@@ExistentiallyDreading I mean from what I know, Batman is on the brink of being the psychopath Joker is so it's best he doesn't start resorting to vigilante justice that far
@@ExistentiallyDreading personally i prefer the theory that the joker is less a person and more some elderitch spirit of chaos and malice that posesses people. this would explain why gotham hasn't just executed the joker as simply killing him doesn't solve the problem when the spirit can just possess another wayward soul to cause its chaos
@@sovietunion7643pretty sure Spawn revealed that a powerful demonic entity has latched itself onto the land that would become the building grounds for Gotham and thus it has a constant influence on the behaviour of the people’s actions and behaviours so your theory is plausible
Literally no character in fallout has a no kill rule so we don’t actually know how that would go
It’s weird that Batman’s own writers rarely bring up what would be his best argument for not killing. Batman is a lone agent authorized by no one, literally no checks and balances. If he killed based on his definition of right and wrong, he is in a way saying might makes right. I believe Batman is right to turn his criminals into the state, but I also believe all consequences of them not giving the death penalty to people like the joker is on them.
Also Batman is absolutely bat-shit insane. Well, he would be if he didn’t have so many rules for himself. If he lets go he knows that the killing wouldn’t stop, and that he would lose himself the more he kills until he becomes one of the maniacs he has sworn to protect the people of Gotham from.
It’s mostly just bad writers that make him edgy
Honestly i agree why everyone always pissed at batman not killing why not the court or police do it. Also its always batman noone gets upset spiderman doesn't kill the goblin.
People also always want Batman to kill. Why not one of the every day cops? Why does it have to be him? Any cop could put a bullet in the Joker head the moment he is in chains. It never has to be Batman. It just people wanting to drag him down to the level that fits them. Instead of being inspired or attempting to stand at the level Bruce is at
@@Awakened_Mucacha that's what I thought, but the only answer I can say to this question are the writers, they can't seem to get rid of their villains to introduce new ones and it's honestly getting boring and annoying not gonna lie
0:49 My argument for this would be: “And yet most do not seek it. Or at the very least, most who are given the chance for redemption do not take it. You can only save those who want to be saved.”
This video has better writing than 95% of comics written these days.
You don't read
@@Courier_333 Yeah sure, neither do you. Batman 2016 nor the new detective comics runs have anything on this.
@huleyn135 chip dzarky's current run is cool.
Yall weird for praising AI plagiarism
@huleyn135 What's comic book writers' oppression with making nearly every superhero into a loser. Batman is a loser who got cucked on his supposed wedding night. Spiderman lost the love of his life to a freaking NPC. Superman can't see that his son has authoritarian tendencies and is dating a possible terrorist. Captain America no longer believes in the American dream. Tony Stark changed his to Frost because some A$$holes stole his company and started doing some bad things. Let's not talk about the Punisher. The things Marvel did to Frank as a character was worse than whatever war he fought in did to his psyche. A scaling timeline and retcons make it hard to track.
@@MrH103*obsession
Batman's no kill rule could be written incredibly if his villains were allowed to reach definitive ends.
Joker gets justly executed,Penguin and various other rogues like him get reformed,others only escape confinement maybe once or twice in their lifetimes,others never escape,etc.
The comic book format is the biggest writing flaw of the no kill rule,because the rule itself is feasible in real life,where even the most ingenious of maniacs can only escape so much.
Batman kinda got wrapped into the silver age of superhero tropes. Bad guy shows up, Batman and Robin show up save the day, send baddie to jail. Rinse repeat for tomorrow. Getting rid of Joker would be a historic moment in comics IF it stuck.
If there was a more limited style of stories like most Alt world stories do where there’s a beginning middle and end, like you said having definitive ends for characters would be fantastic.
Joker can't be justly executed in any way, he's insane, therefore not in complete control of his actions and nature,
neither he can be cured i would say, so he should be in the madhouse for the rest of his days and by applying the reaching of a definitive end, unable to escape ever again
Batman has a few enemies that are mentally sane (like the Penguin), but they tend to come out due to corruption, Batman started working along with Commisioner Gordon to clean the GCPD department from it, thing that has seem certain progress but of course will never reach a conclusion due to the perpetuation of the franchise
This is why the comics should be given beginnings and endings, and all be part of a continuous timeline, with characters like Superman, Batman and the Shadow living in the first half of the 20th century, and other characters following in their footsteps in later eras.
Batman would be an amazing character for a manga
@@NickCTorres Joker is not insane,he's just evil,and the people have the final say on those laws.
After a certain amount of uproar,the laws would be changed to not indefinitely tolerate threats like Joker,insanity or not.
They both have phenomenal arguments.
Joshua is a perfect example of Bruce’s arguments. Joshua is also a good example of his own.
Joshua has had his redemption. He has become a greater person than he was before, a guardian and a protector, no longer a slaver and warlord.
He is also a perfect example of his own. Joshua has killed hundreds potentially thousands while also condemning even more to cruel horrific violence. He has led army’s to conquer and kill.
How many life’s could have been spared of unjust death and unspeakable cruelty by his demise? Are the countless dead and enumerable women lashed in binds, violated and used as tools worth his redemption? Are the thousands of children raised to kill and fight as just mere pawns for a tyrant worth his life? Is the unknown amount of men brainwashed and convinced that the only way to live is to inflict this cruelty on others to repeat the cycle worth Joshua’s future?
Joshua has seen the most horrific violence and cruelty man can do and has done so himself.
He is the antithesis to both arguments. He is the proof of both ideologies.
Joshua is but a man.
Damn this is good
People are complicated
Ideals are never black and white. Even some of the more cruel ones like slavery and might-makes-right attitudes are founded in the pursuit of greatness. People have very complex minds and thoughts and they derive different conclusions when they think on how to achieve a perfect society. The truth is perfection can never be achieved. The universe cannot produce a perfect thing, as far as we know currently anyway. But we still try.
The environment matters a lot in the shaping of a human's ideals. Although they both live in dark, inhospitable environments, Bruce lives in a world that is somewhat more amicable compared to the unruly wasteland Joshua lives in. When times are tough, people tend to distance themselves from their compassion and mercy. When it comes to delivering justice there is almost no right or wrong. It is one of the more subjective topics. But both sides have reasons to believe in their own justice, and that commitment should be respected.
@@masterblaster2678 exactly. It’s an incredibly thought provoking discussion, and I love how well both characters represent one another.
Grey Morality is a fancy manner of saying "compromise". It is not nearly as difficult as most make it out to be. The innocent are not punished. The guilty are not rewarded.
As much as I agree with what Joshua is saying...I feel like I have to point out that every point Bruce makes is 120% correct. In Honest Hearts, if you let Joshua execute Salt-Upon-Wounds then he gets a FAR more bleak outcome than if SUW is spared (or at least allowed to die in open combat).
Killing in self defense is justifiable, but seek to end life is murder. If war breaks out it is justifiable to kill, but ultimately it is best to seek a different path the non lethal way. Both, Kent & Wayne would point this out. They've always been my favourite superheros they hold life sacred, these two go above & beyond in helping others.
@@RaptinDinon-mn4ps I mean, yeah. That's a big part of what gets Joshua his ending. If you convince him to let SUW go (after he surrendered and thus, wasn't a threat) he gets a far better ending than if you allow him to murder the terrified, surrendering man in cold blood. Even convincing him to give SUW a weapon and fight him fair is happier (even if it does leave Joshua with some issues).
Yeah because we trust obsidian to account for every consequence accurately. You guys are taking game devs and comic writers at their word on things they often have z e r o experience with.
Graham’s intended arc is to spare salt upon wounds, this is why “depth of choice” is meaningless and not why new Vegas is good, you’re simply choosing whether you want a complete or incomplete character arc
One example, and where it's clear that Graham sparing him is what goes along with Graham's teachings, does not make Bruce right.
Bruce lives in a world where he can apprehend the men (again and again, because they keep escaping) and bring them to a legal system and a prison. Where they can afford to keep such people alive with food and medicine.
Joshua is correct here. Bruce is living in a land of luxury and comfort. Society isn't a hungry pack of wolves where he comes from. If Bruce tried this in the Wasteland... it wouldn't work.
All games and fun until you realize there are no healthcare in the wasteland when Batman leaves you stranded in the desert with broken back to get eaten by wild life.
There is, just drag broken ass to the followers of the apocalypse.
There are still some doctors and clinics still up and running in the Wasteland, Courier 6 literally survived two gunshots to the head.
@@Asturian-vm3sk Our body got picked up by securitron. If he wasn't there we would've been dead. I doubt raiders have the privilege to be taken to a hospital before they die.
@@Asturian-vm3sk Yeah but the Courier was fixed up by Doc Mitchell, and there aren't many doctors of his caliber in the wasteland.
Courier would've died if the Securitron hadn't found him.@@Asturian-vm3sk
The problem with Batmans position is that, setting aside the moral angle for a moment, practicality is heavily weighted against non lethal force.
It is only possible when you have an unambiguous advantage over your opponent and you can leverage that to ensure non lethal force is used.
If you are evenly matched, or worse your enemy is stronger than you the absurdity of Batmans princibles become obvious, as you are simply going to loose the fight and become subject to your enemys princibles.
I'm not sure Batman's point is that society should not kill necessary. It's more that he, or he and Joshua, should not kill as someone who declares himself a champion for the innocent, operates outside of the law, and serves as a moral exemplar for his people. For Batman especially, there isn't that much differentiates him from the criminals he pursues aside from his general goals and his personal moral code. Same for Joshua and the wasteland's raiders really. Granted Joshua doesn't go out looking for trouble of course.
Problem is, no villain for Gotham has ever been successfully rehabilitated. The cycle always continues meaning Batman truly is a half measure who can’t finish the job. If Gotham was in Texas the problem would be solved.
There's an issue with that point: The only reason the villains haven't been reformed, is solely because they need to exist for the writers to play around with. Each and every villain, and yes that includes the Joker, has been reformed in some way in various stories and the only reason they cycle back is because the writers need them to.
@@ronburgundy244that just shows the writers' incompetence...
@@GrimTheDestroyer
*Yeah.* The OP is making a claim as to the efficacy of Batman's principles by trying to entangle the *writer's incompetence* within the argument.
That's invalid. And possibly intentionally disingenuous. OP can't win the argument with that line of logic.
Now, I may have misread your comment, as *I* thought as though you were *disagreeing* with what the previous commentor said, but if that *isn't* the case, then consider my comment as more of a "general follow-up" to why the OP's argument is flawed.
@@GrimTheDestroyer How the hell is that incompetence? Batman's a superhero! He needs villains, otherwise there's literally no story left.
@@ronburgundy244 write new villains that are better than the past ones.
I seriously love how both characters are right in their convictions. Brace's way may work in Gotham city, but it can never work in the wasteland.
good ol' Brace Wuyne
"Brace" 💀
sometimes you have to take a life to prevent further loses, its inevitable
Batman: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! THAT NOT HOW JUSSISS WORK!
Batman when he encounters Hitler: ........
Debatable, especially since Gotham and Fallout are vastly different
@jeremyallen5974 Batman is right, that is how it doesn't work
@@Dickinthesenutzs27He'd probably capture Hitler and deliver as a prisoner to the allies
It kinda reminds me of Daredevil, Season 2. When Daredevil and Punisher were having that argument on the rooftop.
"You're only one bad day away from being me."
...And it's telling that Daredevil didn't have a counter to that.
@@matchesburn Yeah, especially during Season 3 when Wilson Fisk was fresh out of prison.
It's like Epic Rap Battles if it wasn't made for middle schoolers
Should probably check their modern ones before dissing them like that.
Hehehe, sure, this is fine, but it's a script performed by robots.
Some of the battles back in the day were a little ass, and some of the more modern ones (thanos's) second verse are not so cool, but why shit on them? Peter Lloyd and Zach have put more than a decade into their craft, grow up and appreciate things people made for you to watch *free*.
@PauloHernandezXDI mean, it still sounds like you and your friends enjoyed it, at least, maybe the one example you gave of a verse from Trump V Hillary. Cracking off topic jokes is kinda the point, for the comedic rap battles based on things we like?
@@OXGC413Something is not free from criticism just because it has no price.
I love these comments. "I don't like the humor so anyone who does is an immature loser. MOM! Look how cool I am for shitting on a group of people!"
Despite how they seem to disagree with each other there is a hint of understanding because they both know that in their own way the other is right but can't admit it.
Batman: "Taking a life is an irrevocable act."
Good. That's kinda the point. Problem stays solved. How many times has the Joker broken out of prison again, Bruce?
Thankyou finally someone said it! Good men get their hands dirty so the the innocent may sleep peacefully at night. Selfish pricks only care about whether they get to sleep at night. That's why I like characters like Luthen Real "I burn my decency for anothers future I burn my life to make a sunrise I know I will never see," That's a real hero. Superheroes risk their lives for others, real heroes risk their souls for others.
But Bruce is also right. If he does that, he never comes back and where does he draw the line after that? He sets an example, they know he could kill so many easily but he doesn’t….. that’s powerful. Batman’s actually trained in every way to kill a person so he can avoid doing so.
@@chaosflame7278
No, Bruce is not right.
"If he does that, he never comes back and where does he draw the line after that?"
If Batman is so weak as to not resist that when many others have, it showcases a problem with him. Not with the method.
"He sets an example, they know he could kill so many easily but he doesn’t….. that’s powerful."
So when he captures the Joker and the Joker breaks out... which he always does... and kills dozens of innocent people... How powerful is that of a statement to show that what Bruce/Batman is doing *_isn't working?_*
If I was a criminal in Gotham, I wouldn't be afraid. I'd simply get hit, go to prison and know that I can just escape again and continue on with my crimes.
...On the other hand, if I knew someone like Frank Castle was out there... I would immediately cease my actions and find a job.
What Batman is doing isn't working. And the fact that in-universe he keeps doing the same thing over and over again with the *_same people_* shows that. That's not something to celebrate. That's something to lament.
@@chaosflame7278 recidivism is the line if he captures a murderer once jail. If they get out and kill again dirt nap.
@@matchesburn Batman/Bruce makes damn sure on his part that another 8 year old boy doesn’t have to watch his parents gunned down but he doesn’t become like them. As he said “if I kill and go down that path then I’m just like them” he loses and becomes the killer like joe chilled. Do you think frank castle is a sane man? Frank is very much not someone I’d rather be. Batman or supes who think first instead of butchering anyone who does bad. Most biblical figures of the Bible weren’t perfect icons at first, Moses was a murderer and god still found redemption for him. Jokers just an insane prick who is the counter opposing to Batman’s rule. Most others are afraid of having their spines cracks in 3 places again.
The debate is really good Joshua and Bruce both stand on solid ground. While I would like to elaborate it would require me to write a massive essay that almost no one would ever read. Enjoyed the video thanks.
I think Joshua Graham is right in this.
Same. There would be fewer fatalities over all if batman killed his villains. The joker alone has probably killed hundreds of innocent people who would still be alive if batman had just put him down.
@@DaneelGiskard-f8dIn fact, a lot of people would agree with you, especially if they saw how batman admitted that the joker Causes nothing but chaos and still would have saved him
Why kill EVERYONE ? But save the life of child killer or rapist or maniac will be stupid (there are cannibals , rapists , child murderers and other screwed serial maniacs between batman enemies , but he's just catching them and sending to arkham and soon they're escaping , killing and cycle repeats itself ,what the hell)
@@DaneelGiskard-f8d I fault Gotham's justice system more than Batman
Bruce is basically a super cop. It shouldn't be his job to play Judge, Jury, and Executioner. He makes the arrests and gets the criminals behind bars.
There's also the fact that Batman knows he does not have to self-control to stop killing once he starts. Sure, he might have a good excuse for the 1st one, but once that restraint is gone he knows he's gonna let loose
He's not a normal guy, he's got some screws loose. He just happens to be in the good side.
As admirable as Batman is, he has one flaw: Faith. Bruce believes that killing even once will cause him, and anyone for that matter, to lose their morality. That's infuriating. So you're telling me that your sanity, morality, and impulse control is SO infinitesimally small that you'd fall after ONE time? That's a shame.
I mean, yeah. Batman is supposed to be someone dealing with a deep and painful trauma he is not a stable individual, in the red hood movie he briefly mentions this, how easy it would be and how good it would feel for him to break that rule, he says that their isn’t a day that one’s by where he doesn’t think about breaking that rule of his, but he knows that for him it has to be ironclad cause once he unleashes that demon he won’t be able to put it back in the box. This is why he usually isn’t to strict about other people taking the lethal shot, like Alfred packs a shotgun in some stories and Batman doesn’t mind. It’s more a rule for himself and those he trains, not for every single person
his morality and control is the strongest there is, he doesn't mean that once he kills once he'll kill anyone that gives him a bad look, but that once you cross the line, you're the one that gets to decide who lives and dies, and that's not a choice that must be up to any single individual
@@jeremygeller9145Exactly. I mean think about it, when his parents got killed, he genuinely thought of killing that person. This is something that is portrayed very well in Batman Begins, but he knows if he did it it would be blood for blood, it would be revenge and not justice. Because when u think about it, who is he, or anybody in any situation to judge someone's fate even if that someone committed the most heinous crime imaginable. It would ruin Batman, and he wouldnt be a beacon of hope but just another "freak in a costume" who goes around killing the people who "deserve it". I'm not saying that they wouldnt deserve it, but no one is above the law, not even Bruce Wayne, thats basically his philosophy, he has a lot of faith in order, in the judicial system
Trust me. As someone that has indirect blood on my hands I can assure you that it will break you.
Even a soldier is commiting murder if you think about it. Everyone's got an excuse.
I find it ironic how Batman considers it irreparable to kill someone and is something one cannot come back from, but then also consistently believes that even the worst, most murderous people can be redeemed. He allows murderers to survive to kill exponentially more people. There is a very distinct contradiction in his logic.
“The luxury of Gotham’s skyscrapers.” Trust me man, you ain’t living in a skyscraper in Gotham. And even if you did Joker would blow it up to get Batman’s attention or Riddler would turn it into a twisted game show or some shit 💀
The point still stands, though. Joshua isn't talking about regular people. He's saying that Bruce grew up privileged and that he has a choice to not commit dangerous acts.
better than the wasteland
@@Anunnaki_Gulawell I mean- to be fair….the ones who didn't live in the world of the aftermath of a mass destructive world war can be considered living a “luxurious life”.💀
Tbf, the average hobo in Gotham is living a much more comfortable life than the average Mojave townsman that has to look out for people trying to put him on a cross for not wanting to become a slave or cannibals trying to eat his ass because it looks juicy enough.
The thing is that Batman, and other heroes with the "no-kil" rule, really don't have a good argument against killing villains like Joker, who just murders and causes chaos and who has almost NEVER reformed in the comics. He's taken SO MANY lives. I get it's a slippery slope, but sometimes I think it's necessary to risk slipping at least once or so in order to do what's best for the greater good. Yes, sure, you're becoming the judge/jury/executioner, but at that point you're also the only person who even HAS the power to do so. It's your responsibility to do that at that point.
I've started to view it as part of Batmans character flaw. He may never give up but that means he won't give up on even the Joker. He can't accept that J's too far gone
@@getthegoons Everyone that joker kills is on Batman because he has the power to kill the Joker but doesn't
@apexsmokepacker the Joker would've done all that killing himself anyway.
@apexsmokepacker uh, yeah. That's kinda the point.
You see, you say he'll be avenged by his "allies" (lol, lmao even) but if you put someone else not as insane as Joker through the reforms Batman keeps trying to put him through, chances are that new person would give different results than Joker's repetitive criminality.
The thing is, the Joker can be reformed. He once thought Batman was dead, and immediately went sane, living under the assumed name of Joseph Kerr. He even almost got married.
This video looks like a meme at first but they get into an incredibly deep conversation that you would hear to philosophers have at a university presentation
"Mercy to an enemy cannot come at the cost of mercy for their victims." - Saladin Forge.
I feel like Joshua would have to acknowledge Bruce's point. After all, he was a monster, going by his own logic, he should have been killed after he found his way home after his fall. Yet he was redeemed.
Though Joshua was not redeemed & given a chance during an act of causing danger. He was redeemed at his lowest, when he was looking for redemption and was open to the idea of it. He let the redemption have a chance, and he let it work.
Compare to the Joker, who is always caught during the act, during his sprees, and is actively in the process of killing or threatening to kill during these acts. The Joker isn't looking for redemption; he is actively putting others in danger, and locking him in Arkham is only stalling him until he finds a way out again, when he begins the same acts again.
Joker murders he does not kill. Killing is an act for survival in battle, war or for food. Murder is a foul act of evil that seeks to end life for amusement, boredom, & etc. Joker could be redeemed, but it would need a miracle for that to happen. The orginal creator of the joker wanted him to die in the end of his first story's end. Frankly he is a fun villain to see Batman, fight, but he should be given the electric chair for all his crimes. I admire Bruce's love for life it is his best trait.
If Joshua Graham of today saw the Joshua Graham of the past, he would probably advocate justice at muzzle velocity.
There's also the issue that you have to look what it took for Joshua to become who he is. Ask Batman if he's willing to do that the villains he faces. The answer is clearly going to be "No."
You answered your own point😂
a 3 minute video made by a dude with AI is somehow more captivating than any Hollywood blockbuster released on 2023. What a time to be alive
Well to be fair to Joshua, he doesn’t really have prison or law enforcement in the Wasteland.
Actually at one point there was but it got overrun by those who were contained by it. That was the NCR Correctional Facility.
@@nicholascauton9648 Not in New Canaan he doesn’t. Yes, in Nevada there was the NCR law enforcement dealing with the Powder Gangers, but in Utah, or New Canaan, there really isn’t a police force with the tribal groups, it’s literally a case of trying to run away somewhere else like Daniel tried, or there’s Joshua Graham, which after being messed around with multiple times decides to kill Salt-Upon-Wounds, he’s done with backing down. Although you can choose how Salt-Upon Wounds dies. I normally choose not to straight up execute him and let him die fighting me.
I honestly can’t say either is right or wrong. This one is powerful
What an intelligent and respectful debate. They both have a valid point. Extremely interesting back and forth. So well written
Batman cares for his villains that's why he doesn't kill them he genuinely wants them to get better and live normal lives. People who say Batman isn't empathetic or compassionate and just beats up poor mentally ill people have clearly never read a Batman comic and know nothing about his character.
Frank miller definitely wrote him as that after his brain melted though
@@FloofMother Nah he was just hardened. He still wanted redemption for the villains
I think that sentiment for the most part shows his compassion sure, but also how flawed it is. For all the villains he has, how many have come bac k just as bad if not worse? All they are doing is racking up a killcount while honestly, at this point, Batman is enabling it. At what point do you prioritize the vulnerable from the monsters? Because as far as we've seen, how many of his mainline villains have ACTUALLY been redeemed despite Batman's efforts?
@@grizzlymelon8376A large number of them, arguably MOST of them, have been redeemed. Freeze, Ivy, Two-Face, Harley Quinn, Riddler, Killer Croc, Penguin, Scarface, at least one Clayface, have all been redeemed at some point in time or other. Hell even Joker once went sane. The only reason it never sticks is because of comic rules for ongoing series.
I never understand this logic of condemning solely Batman as if most other heroes don’t also avoid killing criminals who rack up body counts. It’s nonsense to say Batman is enabling their behavior as if they couldn’t easily just stop anytime. He has no responsibility for their actions nor could he kill them if he wanted to without losing his place in the community
Btw people forget about the Martha and Thomas Wayne foundations, they have the purpose of rehabilitating criminals as well as healing their injuries.
If i'm not mistaken, the Thomas Wayne foundation has a the only private hospital with free healthcare for all.
I love how they're being civil toward each other.
Batmans principles would be understandable if it wasn't all encompassing. I understand not killing the basic goon and thug. But someone who has killed hundrets if not thousands and escapes an Asylum only to do it again and again... There is no reason why Batman keeps giving him another chance. Especially when it comes to someone like the Joker.
This is why i loved Batman in the Dark Knight Returns when he said 'No more... "All the people I've murdered, by letting you live".
Batman has no moral obligation to execute the Joker. Because saying that means you're leaving one person to decide who lives and dies. In real life, we have multiple people decide if someone should get the chair or not.
Because if you think about it, you're basically placing judge, jury and executioner on one man. And that can't work for multiple reasons.
@apexsmokepacker Not right away but it’s a step in the right direction for the reasons you just stated after. (Harley, Scarecrow, Clayface, etc.)
@apexsmokepackerThen kill Harley? Let alone depends on which version since there are Harleys that could care less about Joker now.
2:02 this is why Batman not killing is important. There maybe dark and adult themes within Batman, but at the end of the day batman is for kids and it’s a good lesson to be taught.
A universe where Batman somehow ends up meeting Joshua Graham? I like that...
I never played any of the Fallout-games, but I find it interesting, that Joshua Grahams bandages make him look similar to Hush from Batmans rogue gallery.
His body is badly burned and must change them everyday
Batman's moral may sound just and optimistic, Joshua is right by pointing out how Bruce has lived a more privileged life having the luxury most people don't have, so obviously it's easier for Bruce to believe in an idea that's more naive than than grounded in reality. Just why do you think the crime and villainy is still rampant regardless if Batman is around to stop said crimes? Sure he'd be able to beat those villains and criminals and lock them up in prison, but Gotham City's crime rate is like a hydra, you take down one criminal, more will only take their place.
Batman believes that not killing criminals would set a good example for a better change, but it's highly unrealistic knowing that despite all the money and gadgets he has, he's no more human than everyone else, unless he enforces the power needed to make significant changes, the changes that requires sacrificing your own innocence
"Bruce lives a privileged life"
lost his parents as a kid and gave up a normal and actually privileged life to get driven to the edge of death after every encounter with a villain for the sake of Gotham
his life has been anything but easy
"why crime is still rampant?"
it has been stated several times how his presence has made the criminals think twice before going out on their deeds, is the Supercriminals the ones that he can't supress, and that's something that has little to do with his code, and more with the nature of comic books perpetuation not willing to give the villains a definitive end, they'll keep escaping as long as they keep producing entertaining stories
the alternative is The Punisher, he's been killing everyone from the very beginning, and Hell's kitchen doesn't look any better, its easier for the writters to dispose of the villains of the month for him since they're not meant to be iconic and profitable characters, that's all, but the crime rate remains the sane despite who's currently on the crime chair
“Your code is a luxury. Born from the comforts of Gotham’s skyscrapers”. Oh, l felt that. 🍿
This would be a sick scenario for Batman to go through. A fellow justice-bringer rationally debating with him the morality of taking life.
"It's not about righteousness, it's about necessity."
FAAAAAACTS.
Batman: "I don't kill"
Fallout: "ok here's a Deathclaw"
2:09
Batman: I don’t kill, because I’m trying set an example for the younger generation. It’s our job to look out for them.
Me: Jason? Barbara? Like how you “looked out” FOR THEM?!?! You need to ensure the safety of the younger generation first, THEN you can worry about teaching them. But you can’t do that if they end up dead at the hands of the same evil you keep trying to spare and forgive.
Joshua is the physical embodiment of the quote "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future"
This is a good topic for debate. As both sides have their codes when dealing with their respective worlds. Josh is a leader who looks to defend his people by any mean necessary, Batman is an agent of justice looking to preserves life even though the easy way is always a viable option.
Batman may be unwell, but he is focusing his trauma to make a more proactive change in the world. This code may be seen as a means that get others killed but this is more of a symptom of the city/state of sometimes New. Jersey. This led to batman overcomeing his trauma and letting more people in to his life that love and respect him and his mission.
The late great Kevin Conroy would have been tickled to death that someone came close to sounding so much like him in his iconic role
I think that the most important point to take from this great arguement is that every situation is unique, and that one method of solving a crisis should not be used as the default way to solve EVERY crisis. I think that Batman's point of view is the one we should follow for most of the time...but I also acknowledge that we also need to know when is the right time to solve a problem by using Joshua's point of view. It's important to show mercy in life, but sometimes, your mercy will end up being wasted, so the only thing you can do to achieve peace is to cull off the wolves.
I think that android 16 had a perfect asnwer:
Gohan, let it go. It is not a sin to fight for the right cause. There are those who words alone will not reach. Cell is such a being. You are gentle. You do not like to hurt. I know because I too have learned these feelings. But it is because you cherish life that you must protect it. Please drop your restraints. Protect the life I loved. You have the strength, my scanners sensed it. Just... let it go
The reason Batman is so adamant on his no-kill rule, is because of bats' insanely huge plot armor. Joshua and all of new Vegas settlers don't have that kind of luxury. It's kill or be killed.
Joshua is ultimately right in that killing the wolfs to protect the flock is more important then waiting for a wolf to turn good.
However, it doesn't mean to kill all wolfs in sight. Ultimately, God created them just as he did with everything else.
It's in a wolf's nature to kill, you don't have to hate them, but you can't let them kill indiscriminately either.
What a good and moral god /s
@@crypt5129Yes, because like you and me He grants us mercy and forgiveness if we would just take it and repent of our unrighteousness. He does not force Himself upon us, but would welcome us nonetheless as if we has never departed from Him.
Do not mistake the evil and cruelty of men for God’s will.
@@CHRISTOSANESTI2023 Even disregarding all the times he's overwritten the free will of others so that they will do evil (for instance, "hardening the pharaoh's heart") or all the times he's just straight up committed genocides in the bible, this is still bad.
Let's just go through this argument. God is infinitely good, infinitely powerful, and knows literally everything. This is the standard view of the christian God, I'm going to assume you agree.
We are made in God's image, and, because God is infinitely good, he does not want bad things to happen to us, nor does he want us to be bad. Since he has infinite knowledge, he knows the past, present, and future. This is the common view. I'm going to ignore the obvious contradictions (like "if he has infinite power can he create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it" or "a perfect god would have no desires" or shit like that) and just assume this premise is logically sound and that nearly everything said here is true, as the only thing I am challenging is the idea that he is infinitely moral given his power and knowledge.
He does not want us to burn in hell. He wants us not to sin. He has infinite power so as to stop us from sinning, but he does not do so. He created us in his image and then gave us the ability to sin, and since he can see the future, he knows we will sin, he knows every decision everyone will make, and yet he allows for these decisions to be made. He created Adam and Eve and gave them the ability to sin, told them "hey don't eat that fruit it's evil" (the fruit is called the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil implying they had no knowledge of good and evil when he gave them the ability to do evil as well as the means to do so), and this whole time he knew exactly what would happen.
He has infinite power, so he can stop all sin. He has infinite knowledge, so he knows all sin that has happened, is happening, or will happen. He is allegedly infinitely moral, so he should want no sin to happen. Let's say you have the power, the knowledge, and the ability to easily stop, let's say, a very specific event from WW2. You could do it just by snapping your fingers, no trouble whatsoever. If you made the conscious decision not to do so because, what, you want people to make their own decisions, would that not be monstrous? Especially if you had the ability to make this impossible from the beginning but gave this choice knowing the outcome. He effectively made a flock and added the wolf, then refused to stop the wolf from killing because the wolf can do whatever he wants, and then he had the wolf tortured for all eternity afterwards (very merciful)
There's no need for forgiveness if we just can't sin, and free will is not the answer to this (again, disregarding the times he has explicitly overrided the free will of others). It is commonly accepted that we cannot sin in heaven. Therefore, either we have free will there but cannot sin, or we have no free will as our ability to sin has been taken. Since sin is worth it for the price of free will on Earth, it follows that if there is no free will in heaven, Earth is better than heaven despite it being an eternal "paradise". God also has free will and is said to be unable to sin so there's that too
We cannot fly. It is not in our nature to do so. No matter how much we want to do so, we just can't fly. Thus, there are things we cannot do while allegedly having free will (going to refrain from arguing against the existence of free will here, as much as I may want to anyways). I'm autistic, my way of thinking is heavily influenced by this fact. There are some things I literally just cannot do that other people can, no way around it. However, those who believe in free will world say I still have free will. If he was so hellbent on giving this choice, he could at least make us not want to sin, take away that desire. Why is it that I have no desire for conforming to social rules because of how I was born and that's still free will, and yet me having no desire to sin because of how I'm born would be a lack of free will?
God in my view is an abusive narcissist, an inconsistently-written megalomaniac, a jealous manchild with way too much power (infinite) and, ironically enough, a god complex. Could talk for hours about these topics so I'm ending it here
@@crypt5129 I used to think as you do, I would suggest earnestly speaking with an Eastern Orthodox or Catholic priest on the matter of context surrounding your points of contention because what you take issue with problematic because of the lack of context.
Your view of God is simply childish, and as someone who used to be a militant atheist, I pity your way of thinking.
"In the wasteland, there is no luxury for such idealism"
...Except that in one iteration, Gotham went through an apocalypse. People went on. Batman went on. And because everyone had the ultimate bad day but still retained their humanity, Joker broke and turned face.
What the fuck why is this so good
It's like Batman arguing with a slightly less angry version of Red Hood.
Anyone else feel like the joker problem would be solved in the 2 minutes if Joshua wound up in Gotham.
Joker I have the mayor hostage
Joshua: I know, I have a gun.
2:06 “You’re teaching the next generation that might makes right…” that is some of the best AI writing I’ve ever heard even if it turns out to be a plagiarized line it’s well used.
I actually wrote this myself! Thank you for the compliment :)
Batmans only right to a certain extent. After seeing joker kill millions of times, even being a threat to other superheros he still puts him in the same cell to get out again and kill even more people for the 5000000th time. I think his biggest flaw is the no kill rule.
his rule has little to no flaw in the real life world, you can only escape from reclusion 1 or maybe 2 times, the jails or asylums here aren't made of cardboard
but its condition as a comic book franchise will prevent any iconic or profitable characters to reach a conclusion, so yes, Gotham will always flooded with crime,
just like Hell's Kitchen mind you, The Punisher's domains hasn't gotten any better since well... never, just put the next guy to kill on the criminal seat
at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter if they're killed or not as long as you don't plan your story to reach an actual end
I'm havin an eargasm right now.
I think Robot Chicken ironically had it right: Batman *shouldn't* have to kill anybody. It's not *his* job. It's the *people's*. It's up to Gotham to take out its own garbage. It isn't Batman's no-kill rule that's kept Joker alive-it's the city's. If the city condemned Joker to death, Batman would have taken the same stance that Superman did in All-Star Superman-the law must take its course. Letting someone die under color of law is not murder.
That the city hasn't killed the Joker yet is an indictment of its legal system, not Batman's mercy.
Exactly. It's not so much "to kill our not to kill", but whose job it is to actually do it.
Something i've always seen many different Batman stories unknowingly play with is whether or not he projects his no-kill rule on others, particularly where guns are involved. I've always preferred the stories where Bats understands other people aren't highly trained ninja commandos like he is and allows them some leeway in their methods of self-defense, instead of ones where he ends up ranting at ordinary people for defending themselves in the only way they reasonably can.
"your way teaches the next generation to act just the same"
"Bro, we don't have clean water"
Batman's code is one only he can live by.
He is the pinnacle of Man:
Peak athleticism;
Peak strength and endurance;
Peak intelligence and wisdom;
Infinite wealth.
Bruce is a God among mortal men and it is naive of him to think his example is one that anyone could ever hope to follow.
How do you expect Men to follow, Bruce, when you can quite literally fly?
His conviction is admirable; there can be no doubt.
But your world is not achievable. For that is why I follow the philosophy of Joshua Graham.
I agree with Joshua that such a code is a luxury.
He lives in a world where there is no support, everyone wants to get ahead and will fight for any reason.
In a civilised world like Batman’s, not unlike our own, taking a chance on good nature and people that will follow it is allowed.
In Joshua’s post apocalypse, it cannot be afforded. A good example will reach very few able to adopt it, and few will survive using it. If one is to survive, the choice must be made and weighed then and there.
It’s funny: I find myself nodding, agreeing with everything Batman is saying; then Graham speaks and I find myself nodding, agreeing with everything he’s saying.
This is awesome it’s like they both aren’t hearing each other probably because they’re from different universes
“No matter the cost” I know Bruce doesn’t want to go against what he stands for but that’s his biggest problem. How many bodies is he willing to let pile up? How much blood is he willing to let flow in the streets until his rigid no kill rule crumbles into bloodstained dust? I lean towards Joshua. He takes no pleasure in killing, but simply does what is necessary to protect those around him. Im certain if a peaceful solution was an option he’d take it but unfortunately that’s not always the case in a lot of situations and hesitancy to do what is necessary in those situations can lead to innocent deaths so he has to make a choice. Joshua has his eyes open and has simply made peace with the fact that peace isn’t always an option. Redemption for those so far gone they take joy in hurting and killing others isn’t an option.
"Men go to Jail. Dogs get put down." -Roshak
Someone needs to make an animation of this. It’s incredible.
Batman: "If you kill a killer, the number of killers remain the same"
Joshua: "The number of victims, though, decreases. I don't kill to punish the killer. I kill to protect the future victims."
Batman: "Where does it stop? When will you move from the killers to the thieves? When will you become what you were fighting?"
Joshua: "If i restrain myself, others will suffer - the very same i wish to protect. Your idealism is nice in theory, but the practical result is suffering among the innocents."
Batman: "No. By setting an example, i push people to avoid irredeemable violence. Your actions will just create more chaos."
Joshua: "Here, we can't afford such idealism. Too much suffering, too much violence already. Inaction is not the answer."
Batman: "I didn't say it was easy. But it can be done. You could, you don't want to."
Joushua: "I appreciate your conviction. But no, i genuinely think i couldn't even if i wanted to. Your method, no matter your good intentions, will only create more victims because the wicked won't stop. Violents must be stopped - with violence, if needed."
When one has destroyed all the monsters around them, they will still have one last monster to destroy. Batman is too selfish to accept that.
Then he has to give up his mantle that's it
What are you talking about, that's *literally Batman's* argument?
*HE* says that about why killing is a no-no.
If you're *going* to disagree with him, you have to actually, ya know, *disagree* with *him...*
He's saying killing is a no-no because you can't come back from it. I'm saying that for someone to fight evil the way Batman does they should accept that they will lose themselves in the process and eventually become what they hate.@@eidolon1426
"It's not about righteousness or who's in the right. It's about necessity, and survival."
Wow. That's actually something that I didn't think could be a justification against the no kill rule.
Though both are right, damn does batman make a good point.
Even in a mutated apocalypse, who will be the one to do what they always needed to do.
Sit down and talk, kill mutated bugs if you wish, but humans. When will they have a chance to heal.
In their world, they already started at bombing each other to hell.
They need a true leader to set an example
This is awesome! Their voices are spot on as well. None of those odd pronunciations or weird sounding voices.
Life was great when New vegas and arkham city came out, the good ole 360 days
The thing is that they're both right to an extent
If Joshua kills Salt-Upon-Wounds disorder follows in the wake of that but if he doesn't then everyone is better off
If Batman did kill it might bring some kind of peace as well
Now this is a goated vid
Thank you very much!
I love how Joshua Graham calls the Skyscrapers of Gotham a comfort. Just the idea of Gotham being the nicer of places to live compared to a nuclear waste land is hilarious.
Sadly, in the real world, Joshua would be the one who is more in the right.
I strongly agree here. While Batman means well, there are certainties where killing one life must be done to save others. How many times has The Joker broken out of prison only to continue mercilessly gunning down innocent people? At that point, there has to be a killing out of justification. While evil will always exist, we cannot allow it to flourish. By stopping it where it is, good can continue to thrive even if it is at least for a time.
precisely in the real world is where Batman's code is flawless, the criminals would stay in jail or asylum for good, maybe and just maybe some of them escaping once, but real life institutions aren't made of cardboard and corruption can only have your back out so long and so much
it is in the comic book format where the franchise won't allow the characters to reach conclusion, because they keep being able to deliver more fun stories, so they'll escape and continue killing over and over and over again until DC goes into bankrupcy or something
Batman "you kill a murderer the number of murderers in the world stays the same"
Joshua Graham "hear me out, kill a hundred murderers"
Batman mentions his code multiple times, and Joshua doesn't quote scripture even once 😖
Definitely an unfortunate oversight on my part. In general, I definitely need Graham to quote more scripture, I’m just not as familiar with scripture myself😅
@@mrunderst00dum what?
@@juliandesa7472People still believe that even after it was never brought up after Adam West era.
Actually Joshua did quote scripture once although some parts of it were missing which would likely put it out of context.
“By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea we wept when we remembered Zion. Remember O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem who said, ‘Raze it. Raze it even to the foundation.’ O daughter of Babylon who art to be destroyed, happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against against the stones.”
If you look at the full scripture in Psalms 137 which is where this quote originates from, there is more to tell from it especially where it says, “May my right hand forget its skill” which is a challenge achievement in the game.
i expected graham to have quite a bit to say on this topic, however, im glad you gave batman the final words
“Your code is a luxury, born from the comfort of Gotham skyscrapers.” Batman wouldn’t understand what the average Gotham citizen goes through day to day. Why should criminals who didn’t give their victims second chances be allowed one?
This conversation has to be had between Batman and The Punisher… this would hit closer to home
what I love about this is... is that it's hard to take one's side over the other. For me, I'm on Graham's side. Not just because I am myself a Mormon, not just because I happen to believe as Graham does. I believe as they both do.
But growing up, I've read how killing isn't always a sin. Better that the one die (in context, a corrupt and wicked king who would gladly put his own citizens to death so he can seize their stuff) so that the rest may not suffer. Protect your family, even unto the shedding of blood. And the like. War and strife were constants in those times. Still are, though some may not be willing to actually recognize such a fact. It's a difficult line to walk, but it may be a line we all must walk some day. And I hope we all choose well.
before i even let the first words come out i knew this was going to be interesting to listen to
This is so stupid but so good at the same time. These characters are actually a good pair to have a debate.