Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yukino Makoto-kun's avatar

Sparkly Darling

6,700 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Love Machine 150
  • Partygoer 500
Lord_Sloth

Violent animals get put down by the more violent animals in that kind of world. Like it or not the choices they're making in the show are about protecting the group and need to be made. The morally right choice is the 1 for the good of the group. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Threats do indeed get put down and Dale didn't have what it took to put any threats down. He wouldn't have been able to adapt as the show depicted the character.

Living like an animal? No. If Shane were living like an animal he would have followed through with Rick's murder, he would have raped Lori regardless of her actions and he wouldn't bat an eye at it.

The decisions are harsh and vicious but it's what needs to be done and if you can't make them, your entire crew is dead. That's the point of this show. The moral ambiguity of the world they live in. If you have read the book than you know that Rick has done much more brutal actions in the comics to keep his child safe. Some of which were needlessly painful and time consuming.

***COMIC SPOILERS***

Like when they burned the cannibals to death 1 at a time instead of putting them down fast and at the same time. Wouldn't that have been the humane thing? And don't try making excuses for Rick because he was angry. The same could be said of Shane.


I'm spoiled for the comics and caught up with them so don't worry about spoiling me for anything.

That being said, I know that the comics gets heinously more brutal that the TV show currently is. Of course, that's because of the format. They just can't show all of the stuff that happens in the comics on the show because of ratings issues/budgets/censors/S&P practices, etc. I know Rick makes hard decisions and does horrific things, but he feels they're necessary. I won't debate whether they are or not (though they usually are because Rick has terrible luck in attracting the most horrific psychopaths ever).

As for morality, I agree that things have changed and that change is the main "theme" of the show. It's about how everyone changes according to the new world they have to live in. However, I disagree with you that the "best choice" for the group is always the most brutal/harshest one. Plus the whole "needs of the many" idea is also the same sort of "morality" they use to justify communism in China and North Korea and keep a great majority of the population on the edges of poverty. Once you start saying "we can sacrifice one person", it eventually leads to "we can sacrifice five people" or "we can sacrifice ten people". It's a slippery slope, because in this new world there is no one to stop you from doing whatever the hell you want.

There has to be some sort of law or order to keep people from dissolving into chaos. Because if everyone in the group was like Shane, everyone would have killed everyone else and they'd all be dead. Shane (since that's who this thread is about) has proven time and time again that Shane will do What's Best For Shane, no matter the consequences. And if you're trying to survive in a functional group, you simply cannot have someone with that mindset around. They're the dangerous ones.

So, killing zombies who want to eat you? Kill them all. That's no problem.

Rapist cannibal gangs? Better protect yourself.

Psychotic dictators who rape, decapitate and mutilate? Better take care of that.

But after all the "outside" threats are taken care of, how do you really expect to control your group? Through fear and torment like the Governor? Do you shoot the one person who argues against you, because they're "disturbing" the others?

And what happens when "the good of the group" comes into conflict with "your own survival"? That's the point that I'm trying to make. Shane will do What's Best for Shane, which means everyone else in the group is walker bait.
Yukino Makoto-kun
Old Blue Collar Joe

Shane didn't go out of his way to beat the hell out of Ed. He gave Ed a long overdue a** whipping, and my only regret was he stopped too soon.
New world, new rules. One doesn't have the same amount of people.
Personally, Lori is more of a poison. She's always getting her nose in everyone's s**t and then bitches to Rick, who just nods and obeys most times.
Shane will be missed when his time comes, unlike the death of Dale, which made the group stronger.


I agree that Ed deserved the beating, since he was an abusive a*****e to Carol. HOWEVER, you're missing the point that Shane beat Ed NOT BECAUSE he hit Carol. Shane beat on Ed because he needed someone to release his frustrations on, and Ed was the easiest target. NO ONE in the group would blame him for hitting Ed, so Ed becomes the "acceptable victim".

Responses like yours that I keep seeing all over this forum actually make me kind of sick. Because YES, it is a new world and new rules for survival. But, like Dale said, it's our OWN CHOICES that determine our humanity. Without morals or integrity or just plain common decency, the survivors will become nothing more than the monsters they're trying to kill. They become the Philadelphia Crew, who murder, steal and rape any other group they come across.

Is that what it really comes down to? Living like an animal? You don't like it so you kill it?

Here's a tip then:

DANGEROUS ANIMALS GET PUT DOWN.


If Ed hadn't started beating on his wife there, Shane would have walked off and calmed down. Ed got exactly what was needed at that time.
And no one said they don't still have morals. The problem is, all the touchy feelies think you can have bake sales and hug out all the problems in that world. You have to take the hard line, or you wind up being meat in the grinder.
Yes, Shane crosses lines, but Dale flat out hid from everything. He really didn't do a damn thing but whine and b***h and stick his nose in everyone else business.
I actually commend Shane, because if he'd have stolen my groups guns and I'd have found him preparing to bury them? He'd have been dead on the spot, and I wouldn't have discussed it. Disarming everyone but himself because HE thought it was the 'right thing to do' was utter bullshit.
angelmonkey10
Lord_Sloth
Adorable_graceful_bunny
HE KILLED OTIS!!!!!! he's a d*ck thats all i can say.... evil


Yes. How dare he save that child at the cost of a stranger's life! He and Otis should have both died and then Carl should have died without the equipment he needed, am I right or what?

But he was a a*****e about it. Why did he shoot him in the leg? So he would be alive while the zombies ate him and turned him into a zombie? He could've shot him in the head so he didn't suffer or become a zombie.


Wrong. Zombies don't eat dead meat. They'd have ignored the happy meal laying on the ground and run Shane down, thus all three would have died anyway. Ugly choice, one that I wouldn't have made, but then again, I'd have been using the cars like a bumper car and smacking them down.
It was one person dies to save the rest, and to be blunt? Otis is the reason they were there. He's the one that didn't pay attention to what was behind his target, which is something every hunter worth half a good damn does.
Sorry, but I hate Shane; I can't wait tell he dies and I hope it's a painful death for him.
Yukino Makoto-kun's avatar

Sparkly Darling

6,700 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Love Machine 150
  • Partygoer 500
Old Blue Collar Joe


If Ed hadn't started beating on his wife there, Shane would have walked off and calmed down. Ed got exactly what was needed at that time.
And no one said they don't still have morals. The problem is, all the touchy feelies think you can have bake sales and hug out all the problems in that world. You have to take the hard line, or you wind up being meat in the grinder.
Yes, Shane crosses lines, but Dale flat out hid from everything. He really didn't do a damn thing but whine and b***h and stick his nose in everyone else business.
I actually commend Shane, because if he'd have stolen my groups guns and I'd have found him preparing to bury them? He'd have been dead on the spot, and I wouldn't have discussed it. Disarming everyone but himself because HE thought it was the 'right thing to do' was utter bullshit.


As I pointed out, I don't think Shane would have "walked off and cooled down". I very much believe he just would've waited for some other opportunity to lash out at someone else. And if he didn't have an "acceptable" target, then he just would've bottled his rage up until he just lashes out at anybody. That's what unstable people do.

And don't mouth off that "touchy-feely" bullshit. Just because some people prefer to think first and try to be merciful doesn't mean they can't make the hard and necessary decisions. A perfect example is with the walkers in the barn. Yes, they were dangerous. Shane had his nice little manly chest beating I Am Alpha Male Hear Me Roar moment. But when Sophia came out of the barn, he was as dumbstruck and unable to do anything as everyone else. It was Rick who was the one to pull the trigger. It's Rick who is always making the decisions that no one else wants to make. He's the leader because everyone trusts that he'll do what's best.

That being said, if Shane was in my group, doing this same bullshit, I'd have knifed him in his sleep a long time ago. Because that's a hard decision that has to be made. Shane is unstable and dangerous.
SkyKing-Rayze's avatar

2,350 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Member 100
  • Gaian 50
Lol it seems a lot of girls like shane for his body haha (not all) although I do agree he acts the way we think most people would act like in a situation of his caliber so I guess people can relate to him I dont hate him or anything the things he's done were driven by fear and a will to survive. I respect him as a character. If i was in the same situation id LIKE to act like Rick so Team Rick all the way. P.S. Dale is too scared of Shane and should back off of him
Well, he makes for pretty awesome plot twists that's for sure. Killing him off would be killing off the sense of surprise.
Yukino Makoto-kun
Old Blue Collar Joe


If Ed hadn't started beating on his wife there, Shane would have walked off and calmed down. Ed got exactly what was needed at that time.
And no one said they don't still have morals. The problem is, all the touchy feelies think you can have bake sales and hug out all the problems in that world. You have to take the hard line, or you wind up being meat in the grinder.
Yes, Shane crosses lines, but Dale flat out hid from everything. He really didn't do a damn thing but whine and b***h and stick his nose in everyone else business.
I actually commend Shane, because if he'd have stolen my groups guns and I'd have found him preparing to bury them? He'd have been dead on the spot, and I wouldn't have discussed it. Disarming everyone but himself because HE thought it was the 'right thing to do' was utter bullshit.


As I pointed out, I don't think Shane would have "walked off and cooled down". I very much believe he just would've waited for some other opportunity to lash out at someone else. And if he didn't have an "acceptable" target, then he just would've bottled his rage up until he just lashes out at anybody. That's what unstable people do.

And don't mouth off that "touchy-feely" bullshit. Just because some people prefer to think first and try to be merciful doesn't mean they can't make the hard and necessary decisions. A perfect example is with the walkers in the barn. Yes, they were dangerous. Shane had his nice little manly chest beating I Am Alpha Male Hear Me Roar moment. But when Sophia came out of the barn, he was as dumbstruck and unable to do anything as everyone else. It was Rick who was the one to pull the trigger. It's Rick who is always making the decisions that no one else wants to make. He's the leader because everyone trusts that he'll do what's best.

That being said, if Shane was in my group, doing this same bullshit, I'd have knifed him in his sleep a long time ago. Because that's a hard decision that has to be made. Shane is unstable and dangerous.


See, I haven't said a word about Rick. Rick is walking on a fence, and he has issues at times. Does Shane go over the edge? Yep. But claiming he'd have waited to go after someone else? Let's go ahead and disprove that, since Dale, in spite of all his whining, didn't get his a** beat on any of the occasions that he actually deserved it.
Rick is a better leader. That isn't an issue. But as far as who is more useless? That was Dale. Well, between him and Lori.
Yukino Makoto-kun
I'm spoiled for the comics and caught up with them so don't worry about spoiling me for anything.


I'm always careful of spoilers regardless.

Quote:
That being said, I know that the comics gets heinously more brutal that the TV show currently is. Of course, that's because of the format. They just can't show all of the stuff that happens in the comics on the show because of ratings issues/budgets/censors/S&P practices, etc. I know Rick makes hard decisions and does horrific things, but he feels they're necessary. I won't debate whether they are or not (though they usually are because Rick has terrible luck in attracting the most horrific psychopaths ever).

As for morality, I agree that things have changed and that change is the main "theme" of the show. It's about how everyone changes according to the new world they have to live in. However, I disagree with you that the "best choice" for the group is always the most brutal/harshest one. Plus the whole "needs of the many" idea is also the same sort of "morality" they use to justify communism in China and North Korea and keep a great majority of the population on the edges of poverty. Once you start saying "we can sacrifice one person", it eventually leads to "we can sacrifice five people" or "we can sacrifice ten people". It's a slippery slope, because in this new world there is no one to stop you from doing whatever the hell you want.


Not when money isn't involved. ALL world systems are flawed due to greed which is why that saying doesn't work. This is also why you would vote on the outcome, that is an idea I agree with. I'm simply saying that I often agree with Shane's decisions on most of the matters they've come across in Season 2.

Quote:
There has to be some sort of law or order to keep people from dissolving into chaos. Because if everyone in the group was like Shane, everyone would have killed everyone else and they'd all be dead. Shane (since that's who this thread is about) has proven time and time again that Shane will do What's Best For Shane, no matter the consequences. And if you're trying to survive in a functional group, you simply cannot have someone with that mindset around. They're the dangerous ones.


You are correct in that a whole group of Shane types wouldn't work but to say a group doesn't need somebody with on his side of an argument is not technically accurate. He is right on executing their prisoner, he was right about the Barn, and I personally think he was right about Otis. Again, the difference is his approach. Shane has absolutely no sense of diplomacy but Hershel had to be shown that the Walkers weren't sick people. They were dead and dangerous.

Now I know that the method in which this was brought to Hershel's attention was wrong, but the deed itself needed to be done.


Quote:
So, killing zombies who want to eat you? Kill them all. That's no problem.

Rapist cannibal gangs? Better protect yourself.

Psychotic dictators who rape, decapitate and mutilate? Better take care of that.

But after all the "outside" threats are taken care of, how do you really expect to control your group? Through fear and torment like the Governor? Do you shoot the one person who argues against you, because they're "disturbing" the others?

And what happens when "the good of the group" comes into conflict with "your own survival"? That's the point that I'm trying to make. Shane will do What's Best for Shane, which means everyone else in the group is walker bait.


You don't just kill people for arguing with you, nor has Shane done that so I fail to see where that comes into this argument at this point of the TV Series.

And personally, I would stay behind while the group fled. That's what it would mean to undertake the role of protector and leader in that world and I would be fully willing to do so for the sake of my loved ones.

We'll just have to wait and see if Shane is willing to go that far as well.
InsanePerson Fell's avatar

O.G. Noob

7,000 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Signature Look 250
Shane is going to die people, its evident in the contextual telling of the series. Also, the actor signed a contract pinning him to the walking dead, yet he is to be the main protagonist in a new series, ere go voiding his contract with the walking dead and requiring his character to be dealt with in any way the writers feel fit. That is all. Oh, and did I mention there may be spoilers here?
YotaLife93's avatar

Conservative Smoker

I can't stand him. He's smart, and I certainly agree with his opinion that they should kill Randall, but I don't like him at all. My favorite is Daryl.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Vitalli

I like Shane.
I think he can be a bit extreme, but he has best the interest & safety of the group in mind.
Or at least Lori and Carl's safety in mind.





No, no he does not.

He does everything for himself.


He even said it, "I didn't keep them alive, they kept me alive."

To him they're just more objects to say is his.


He's a weak man who's got a messed up sense of reality and doesn't really know how to do anything.

And without the mere presence of another human his self worth goes to s**t so that's why he keeps them around- just a ******** leech, a parasite, who attempts to live off of other human beings.


Like, if he really was trying to survive, why wouldn't he just go off on his own, if he thought he was so amazing- one becuase he isn't, and two becuase he is insecure.

Just like a rapist or an abuser or any other piece of s**t- and now obviously he's a murderer. Weak, does things for his own self benefit. Even protecting Carl and Lori is just for himself- he finds another group to protect, to make himself feel strong or give himself self worth, he'd go with them instead- no real love for Carl or Lori, just a selfish weak man. Only keeps them around to make himself feel good, only does it for himself.
Adorable_graceful_bunny's avatar

4,100 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Treasure Hunter 100
Lord_Sloth
Adorable_graceful_bunny
HE KILLED OTIS!!!!!! he's a d*ck thats all i can say.... evil


Yes. How dare he save that child at the cost of a stranger's life! He and Otis should have both died and then Carl should have died without the equipment he needed, am I right or what?

I think they would have made it, It looked like they would have. and it would have been the more manly thing to do emo
i tend to like shane alot , i mean , though he is kinda going bonkers and he is KINDA an a*****e , hes a good character and like , hes just doing what he thinks is right , and i mean , hes gotten the most action out of the guys we've seen yet , hahaha .
DepthOfAffliction's avatar

O.G. Fatcat

If he turns his a** around and doesn't put his group at risk, then he's going to be a decent character. hilarious that you said "haters" about a TV show.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games