No one has yet to explain
Aside from cooking meth what Walt did that was so horrible? Hank, Skyler, Marie and Jesse were all far worse than Walt yet they seem to get a free pass.
shareHe cooked meth, a substance harmful to society. He killed a few people. He laundered money.
shareI agree, it’s not right to cook meth. He only killed people who were already criminals and deserved it, and the money was for his family, everything he did he did for his family, the people who would have been bankrupt without him.
shareHe nearly killed Brock, he let Jane suffocate after his action made her roll on her back. He had 10 guys killed because they were costing him money. One of those was burned alive. He shot Mike because he didn't give him an address he could have gotten from Lydia. He got Hank and Gomez killed because he was too greedy to keep working for Gus. He destroyed his family because he liked being a gangster. And Skyler found a job and Hank and Marie were eager to help so they would not likely have gone bankrupt had Walter just died and certainly not had Walter taken the Schwartz/Grey Matter offer. Walt was a hardened criminal with no regards for others.
shareHe didn’t nearly kill Brock, he knew Brock would be fine and if Jesse hadn’t palled up with Gus it never would have been necessary. And the alternative was allowing Hank, Skyler, junior , holly and Jesse die. Walt made the right decision and it’s Jesses fault for putting him in that position.
Those 10 guys were in the meth business, I don’t feel sorry for them
Mike was in the meth business and was a murderer, I don’t feel sorry for him
Hank got himself killed, he was out in the desert because he was trying to destroy the lives of two innocent children, he deserved to die and I’m glad he did. Gomie went along with it so I’m glad he died as well
Walt was the hero, he stood up for people who couldn’t fight for themselves
Homeschooled?
share??????
shareI'm starting to wonder if OP is a troll. Or does he just happen to take the most outlandish opinions without having the proper way to defend them.
shareYou can stop wondering.
shareI’m simply asking for you to explain to me what Walt did that was so terrible? Since you seem to instead try to focus on attacking me that’s proof enough that you can’t defend your position and that I’m right.
shareNice recap. Had me LMAO. Oh the memories especially the guy who was burned alive. I love Walt!
There is nothing in the way the show is written to justify what Walt does or to suggest he is not responsible for all he did. He truly broke bad.
He may have started doing it for his family, but you seem to miss the part near the end where he explains to Skylar he did it because he liked it and he was good at it.
shareHonest question: do you hold the manufacturers/distributors of tobacco and alcohol to the same moral standard? Both are substances MUCH more "harmful to society."
shareNo I do not blame the manufacturers of tobacco and alcohol.
shareWas asking redban, but feel free to expand on your thinking. It's a double standard that I've yet to hear anyone successfully justify.
shareOh
shareSo, I think that the reasoning follows two main threads. The first is that meth is far more self-destructive than alcohol or cigarettes, but I think a lot of it has to do with the individual industries' operational practices. Because alcohol and cigarettes are legal, nobody is getting into firefights over "tobacco turf".
Think of it this way: I doubt anybody would hold Budweiser or Jack Daniels responsible for ruining lives, but they would be dead-set against Al Capone.
Now, that opens up maybe some pertinent discussion points about legalization or decriminalization of substances to cut down on the crime empires that build up around such illegal areas, but pontificating about the philosophy of legalization doesn't change the current status or the fact that a drug-runner will be part of a machine that churns out human misery in ways that a legal operation won't.
Oh, I get the reasoning. It's just that the numbers don't support it.
As I explained in a response below, the human cost in alcohol-related crime, property loss and bodily harm FAR outstrips that of meth. Again, I could provide links but: we're on the internet. This info is readily available, and not in dispute.
Cigarettes are demonstrably horrific for people, and the trickle-down effects are a bit more subtle, but the damage is just as real, in terms of both societal and human cost.
The "pertinent discussion points" you allude to are exactly what I'm getting at. The ONLY reason some drugs are legal and others aren't is political. There is absolutely NO WAY to support the War On Some Drugs by citing societal impact/cost. Morally, it's a zero sum.
It's true that illegal drugs produce another layer of problems, due to the fact that a criminal enterprise Will attract immoral people. But that's not the question I was asking. Simply: there is absolutely No Way you can claim the "manufacturers" of alcohol and tobacco products hold any sort of moral high ground, given that they (EASILY) cause more pain, misery and financial cost to society than meth. The math on that is Simple.
I'd suggest that with booze, most people enjoy it in moderation and when they do overdo it are usually not overly aggressive. Yes there are exceptions, but I'm also sure there are Vegans who go off the charts as well.
Tobacco is another issue, but it is still legal and people don't go troppo having a puff.
As for people who use Ice, addiction to that turns them all into raging lunatics.
You're absolutely wrong on every point you asserted. I would provide links, but you're on the internet. . .hard numbers on this are easily available.
The bottom line: alcohol and tobacco cause FAR more damage than "ice." In healthcare, in productivity loss, in factoring into violence and crime. . .in just about every way. The "war on some drugs" is entirely manufactured with a willing knowledge of all this; the discussion I was looking for is how people justify it.
The facts are Not in dispute.
You don't think Ice users go feral? Seriously?
Alcohols and tobacco may have higher numbers in health care figures and perhaps that's because billions of humans use those products.
But most don't go nuts doing it.
No, "ice" users do not go "feral." No idea where you're getting that idea from, but you're wrong. Period.
Abusing ANY drug will lead to adverse effects, and sometimes that spills over to violence. But "ice" is no more inimical than alcohol, in this regard. Again, this is not a matter of opinion. . .it's readily verifiable fact.
You're parroting (easily disproven) false talking points, often used to prop up the War On Some Drugs.
ok, make ice legal then seeing you think it is so benign.
I don't think ANY drug is "benign." I gave up everything about 20 years ago; haven't even taken aspirin in all that time. The reasons are varied, but. . .and this may seem counterintuitive. . .I also think ALL drugs should be legal.
That, of course, is a Much longer conversation. But it's a fairly informed opinion; I've done a LOT of thinking/research about drugs and their effect on society. And for what it's worth, my first job out of my undergrad years was at a pharmaceutical company. So my stance is probably different from the average person's.
And I respect your opinion, but yes my experiences probably differ to yours having seen people under the influence of lab created cocktails in certain places in the city where I live.
Myself, apart from booze, I also gave everything else away about 20 years ago.
But for myself and a lot of my friends, we all drink responsibly most of the time.
But when we are 'irresponsible', we just tend to stagger rather than looking for someone to agitate.
I respect your opinion as well, but I'm gonna leave it at this: my stance towards Legalizing drugs is an "opinion." What I'm describing about the effect of various drugs on society is most definitely Not.
Everyone has anecdotal experiences when it comes to alcohol/tobacco/other drugs. Those personal touchpoints have Nothing to do w/the complete story. I repeat: these facts are not in dispute. Alcohol and tobacco have a FAR worse effect on society than meth ever has, or will.
They are not more harmful. More people use them.
You know better than that.
I *do* know better. Read more carefully. What I said was, and I quote:
"The bottom line: alcohol and tobacco cause FAR more damage than 'ice.'"
and
"Abusing ANY drug will lead to adverse effects, and sometimes that spills over to violence. But "ice" is no more inimical than alcohol, in this regard."
You're confused; somehow you've interpreted that as "drug A is worse than drug B." Simply, what I've said (repeatedly) is that the effect of alcohol and tobacco ON SOCIETY is much, Much worse. And yes, that's because they're Legal. . .and FAR more widely used. . .and other drugs are Not.
You've completely missed the point: the War On Some Drugs is completely political, and has NOTHING to do w/the fact that "drug A is worse than drug B." Period.