The 'no kill' stuff just doesn't make sense...

>>>>>>As it happens, we're discussing mass murderers. Nazis fit the bill.

Nope, you're invoking an appeal to emotion, and it's cliché.

>>>>>>Again, Nazis fit this topic.

Americans are big enough bad guys, stick to them champ.

>>>>>>Zimmerman killed one guy. The Joker killed hundreds. Nazis are a closer and better analogy.

Not with the points I'm making. The fact that you don't get this, illustrates why you don't understand.

>>>>>>That's an OPINION that you keep expressing

NO IT IS NOT. IT'S A FACT. If you kill someone who is going to kill others, you are saving those people's lives. That is an indisputable fact.

>>>>>> I say not killing the psychopath is better for public morality in the long run, and saves more lives in the long run, because it a) demonstrates the sanctity of life in the society, which leads to much less killing down the road, ultimately saving way more lives;

Actually no, you are demonstrating that life is not sacred because you don't care about the lives you are saving by killing a person who is killing others. Way to refute your own position. You're also invoking a slippery slope fallacy. You are saying that by killing a serial murderer, it will inevitably lead to the public at large going around killing people. That's a completely idiotic, baseless, and fallacious conclusion.

>>>>>>b) prevents people from doing something they can't take back, i.e. killing a person, - the system punishes innocents sometimes, killing innocents would be much worse;

See above. You have already demonstrated that you don't care about the lives of all the innocent people a murderer kills. "You may save a few lives in the short term by murdering a criminal", you already denigrated the lives saved with this asinine remark.

>>>>>>c) prevents people from claiming to know something they can't objectively know, i.e. that he will definitely escape and kill more people.

This is utterly fatuous, and an argument from ignorance. There's ample evidence to know the joker is to dangerous to be left alive, given the fact that he killed over 700 people. Luckily the American government isn't quite as dim as you are, and don't apply the same logic when dealing with other mass killers such as Osama Bin Laden. But you are trying to use ignorance to give undue weight to the position that he WON'T kill. That's fallacious reasoning.

>>>>>>>I can change it, it won't affect the point I'm making:

YES IT WILL. Words mean things, and if you use a word with more than one meaning, you are inevitably going to invoke an equivocation fallacy. You do know that you have been using fallacies up the ass this entire time right? You should study them, because you are clearly ignorant of logic.

>>>>>>>You're sending the message that killing a person is OK when you're justified in doing it.

NO YOU AREN'T. You are invoking a slippery slope fallacy, see above.

>>>>>>>See, Batman's supreme rationality and logic are in that he demonstrates that for him, life is sacred.

If he chooses to let a mass murderer live, then no he doesn't respect life because he is implicitly responsible for all the people the murderer kills. And even Batman admitted it when he finally confronted the Joker. He was responsible for all those people Joker killed by letting him live. And yes, negligence does make you responsible, and he was negligent in not dealing with the Joker appropriately.

>>>>>>>>The criminals will be punished by the designated legal system. He can't undertake the responsibility to decide who should live or die. That makes him different from the people he catches.

According to that inane logic, you can't kill someone who is trying to kill you or someone else. This is clearly wrong, so your inane logic has been refuted.

>>>>>>>>You're going to jail when Batman catches you. Always going to jail. You may be the worst monster, but the law doesn't provide for killing the worst monsters, because once you start to decide who fits that definition, you start down a slippery slope. Batman realizes this.

Oh the irony. You have been invoking a slippery slope fallacy this entire time. You imply that society will run amok if you kill a mass murderer. You're the one invoking the slippery slope fallacy the sad thing is, you're not bright enough to even realize it.

>>>>>>>>Laws have everything to do with morality. Laws are based on morality.

NO THEY ARE NOT YOU STUPID FRIGGING IDIOT. Laws are INFLUENCED by morals, but they ARE NOT THE SAME AS MORALITY. The George Zimmerman case proved that conclusively but you completely ignored that point, and continued to spout this claptrap. What the hell is the matter with you?

>>>>>>>>You can't predict the future. What may seem obvious to you may turn out to be completelu wrong. Also, like I explained, maintaining the principle of the sanctity of life arguably saves more lives in the long run.

THAT IS AN ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE. You also can't predict the future, but you are using ignorance to give weight to the position that he won't kill, while ALL THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY INDICATES THE CONTRARY. You are such an idiot. There's no nice way to put it. You are an idiot.

>>>>>>>>That's not a platitude. It's an observation of the realities of the human psyche.

No it's not, you're rationalizing the platitude you made to give the impression that you're making a point when you're not.

>>>>>>>>I see that you're very attached to the word "platitude", you use it every post and apparently assume it has a sort of a magical power, almost...but it doesn't fit this case.

Clearly you don't even know what the word means even after you googled it. You were making platitudes, masquerading as points. That doesn't work on me child.

>>>>>>>>You're labeling the arguments you can't argue with, and pretending that sticking a label on them relieves you of the duty to actually overturn them. Weak and obvious. You can't argue this point because it's objectively true.

You're even dumber than I thought.

>>>>>>>>Infantile.

Irony.

>>>>>>>>Also, while you were "boiling it down", you omitted every reason I gave in support of my stance. I did give you reasons - your boildown makes no mention of those. That makes your boildown null and void.

Actually no, I refuted every argument you gave, because it was ridden with fallacies, and then I boiled down what you were saying. You profess an puerile position that "killing is bad", which is an oversimplification and incorrect assessment of reality.

>>>>>>>>>The relevance of idealism for this discussion is that Batman is an idealist. And idealism has far-reaching benefits.

He can also be a communist, but it has jack to do with this discussion. It was a complete non-sequitur as is the claptrap you're spouting now.

>>>>>>>>>You seem to think that this statement proves itself. I've shown how it does not

Actually no, you've demonstrated that you are a child who is out of touch with reality and uses fallacies as your arguments. The sad thing is, you're too dim to realize it.

What you were also too dim to realize was the reason for my criticism of Batman's no kill policy in this movie. I thought I made it abundantly clear that I was criticizing the movie rather than Batman's ideology. His ideology is fine as long as it's in a narrative that makes sense. The cartoons make sense, so not killing is fine in that. But it does not make sense in a narrative where villains actually do kill people, it just makes the flaws of a no-kill character all the more egregious.

But you're so blinded by puerile fanboyism of Batman, that you blindly come to his rescue and defend him at all costs even when it makes you look like an irrational idiot, which you have accomplished quite splendidly, all the while missing the point I was making the entire time. That the problem was with the MOVIE, not with Batman. Sadly I had to refute everyone of your idiotic points anyway simply because they were so illogical and nonsensical.

I'm assuming you're quite young and don't understand why everything you said is fallacious. I recommend you study the fallacies I mentioned, especially the slippery slope fallacy because you used it a lot. With that said, I'm ignoring you so don't bother to reply, because continuing a discussion with you is a useless exercise. The old saying is true, "Never argue with a fool, an outside observer may not be able to tell the difference". Good day to you child.