Batman to fight Batman. . .maybe

I'll move into deeper topics later, but for now, the end of the movie scenario.

The Train was rendered useless, a la the people of gotham saved.

Neeson was not in the act of killing batman, batman had already beaten Neeson and rendered him useless.

How simple can this get.

Batman was NOT under attack at the time he exited the train.

This means that batman did not have to kill to save himself.

Now, not taking revenge is not killing for justice.

Batman had the choice of saving a villain who could not defeat him, batman decided to let that man die.

Now, revenge is not limited to killing, but when it turns to killing, the justification becomes clear "Did you have to kill to stop the act" or "was killing the only way to get things done."

The first answer is clearly no, Neeson was defeated. I find it hard to believe that Neeson would fight someone who was saving him, and if he did, batboy would just drop him down gotham city.

The only valid point you made was an insight into the evidence behind the conviction of Ra's Al Ghul. This would be a plausible argument if it weren't for this one line, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."

That one line only proves my point that the script was hypocritical. You see, batman wasn't killing Al Ghul because he lacked evidence, he wasn't killing him because he had too.

Batman was killing Rha's Al Ghul because he thought Neeson should wallow in his mess. This can be thought of as good or bad, but unimportant as it contradicts batman's adherence to not committing revenge.

Now, possible procedure, "You argue what revenge means, and we go into another lenghty debate", or "conversation over."

But Batman's statement and control of his life only mean that batman was letting Neeson wallow in his mess. Something that contradicts not taking revenge.

Other topics will come, but only after this one finishes.

__________________

sorry to disturb you guys

__________________
We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Cillian auditioned for the role of BATMAN and did an amazing job, but lost it to Bale, obviously, and Nolan liked Cillian so much, he had to have him in the movie, hence the scarecrow, and he did an amazing job. He was casted for his talent, not STAR POWER.

Batman saved Neeson from the fire in the first time....then Neeson tried to kill every single person in GOTHAM....Batman did not put a knife into NEESON, he simply did not do anything, he didn't make the train go, he didn't steal the high-tech weapon, he simply left the train. BESIDES, do we actually see him die....in the series he is constantly coming back from death....could be in the movies.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

You are among the many who misunderstand completely.

You are trying to insert your point of view in contradiction to the story. It doesn't matter what YOU think, it matters what the script says, so statements like the one above simply do not make sense.

Also, it doens't matter if he is alive or dead, because batman thought he killed him.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the script, not what is right and wrong, not what is expected, and certainly not about Liam Neeson turning down Drunekn Irishman 3 for batman begins again.

Jeeze, I could be explaining myself over and over again and it would still hold not clout.

And have you considered the possibility that maybe you have misunderstood? You say the script was hypocritical, but you are taking two pieces of it from the collective whole, and applying them to your own simplified interpretation to make the entire script seem flawed. You've stated your claims over and over, but you haven't responded to or refuted any of the arguments that counter your own. Have you even considered these arguments, or have you passed them off because they don't agree with you?

That is exactly what you are doing, and it's going nowhere. My explanation makes sense, and proves that the script was not hypocritical, but in fact, very tactfully written. Of course, you can interpret the end however you like, but you are oversimplifying a complex scenario, and generalizing ethical behavior.

?!

Yes, you've said that before. Now, give us some reasons why that might be the case. Give us a definition of "useless," and how that applies.

Again, he didn't kill. I've explained why he didn't kill. If you disagree, then don't simply state this again. You have an obligation to prove me wrong. And have you even considered that maybe Ra's just decided NOT to fight? Batman had foiled his plan, and had pinned Ra's for a killing stroke. But Batman isn't going to kill him, and because Ra's PUT HIMSELF on the train, Batman isn't going to save him either. Ra's, being a man of honor and justice (no matter how warped it might be) probably decided to die because he had been bested, and because - in his mind - he deserved it. Ra's, in all aspects, killed himself.

And who's fault was it that Ra's could not defeat Batman, there in those last few seconds? Ra's Al Ghul, of course. He put himself on that train, and he put Gotham City in danger. That obligated Batman to stop him, and Batman's actions did just that. At no point was Batman obligated to "save" Ra's.

You are still arguing that Batman killed Ra's, and you haven't refuted my counter-argument that reasonably shows how he didn't kill Ra's. Your whole argument has stood on the assumption that Batman killed Ra's. You have to justify that standpoint. Perhaps it's just your interpretation of what it means to kill, but I think you are ignoring relevant contextual information. You only see Batman leaving Ra's to die. But what you don't see is everything else at work that actually explains WHY Batman leaves Ra's on that train.

That is your personal interpretation, and it's based on your personal interpretation of ONE line from the script. I have explained with evidence from the film and reasonable application the meaning of that ONE line, and why Batman didn't kill him. You have not even attempted to address that meaning. Simply restating yourself in a debate takes you nowhere, and stating your personal interpretation as fact makes your argument fall apart.

I say drop it. I'm tired of constantly restating valid claims only to have them ignored, and we're off-topic anyway.

Wow brother, you talk about ignoring your post yet you do exactly the same to mine.

To clarify things you have questioned: Batman was not in the act of fighting Ra's Al Ghul at the time of exit, Neeson was already defeated. They were NOT fighting at the time of batman's line.

I believe that NOT taking revenge means saving the person's life. Batman was obligated to do so under lawful and moral pretense. If one would want to let the villain wallow in their own mess then that is one thing, but it certainly is not not taking revenge, and this is accentuated by the quote "i don't have to kill you but I don't have to save you". Like YOU said it is batman telling the villain that he doesn't have to jack to this guy, yet that is not what not taking revenge is.

Unless that is the point you want to argue.

Your whole point is that Ra's needs to wallow in his mess or take his own course of noble action. Batman's course was not to take revenge. These two lines can be blurred but not on the basis of batman's quote "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you".

You see, you are absolutely 100% right, batman did let ra's wallow in his own mess. Batman did let things conspire that killed Neeson. But, is that not taking revenge?

Some might say no, that is not taking revenge, others may say yes. That is the topic of debate.

Ra's nobleness had nothing to do with it, evidence has nothing to do with it. But letting someone die that you can help without harming yourself must be called into question.

That is where this debate must go. If you proceed to take snippets of my argument NOT directed at your or the argument at hand or bring up evidence or any other such matter, we cannot continue. I'm not shifting the focus of the debate, merely nailing the question dead on.

Your reason for batman not saving Al-boy was that he lacked evidence and that it was Neeson's mess to begin with. I argue, that in all certainty, not only was Neeson defeated and able to be saved, hence the quote, but he was left there in a certain death situation, hence the quote, and he was left to wallow in his mess, hence the quote.

The quote IS what matters, it STATES batman's opinion.

Evidence is unimportant, Ra's acceptance of death or not acceptance of death is unimportant.

What IS important is the role of a HERO who does NOT want to take revenge and HIS actions on the train.

I tell you, it is in the quote that matters, if you do not base your argument around the quote and what the meaning of not taking revenge is, then we can no longer verb on this subject matter as I shall truly blow a lid .

I repeat, one more time for clarity. The focus is on the quote which suggests what YOU and TheUsualSuspect and Sedai have all said that Ra's was left to wallow in his mess.

I say that a true hero would've saved him and brought him to justice.

Evidence is moot, even the course of actions are moot.

Because the heart and soul of this debate was the simple fact that the script was hypocritical. Not taking revenge.

Batman said no to revenge, yet he could save a person's life, but instead he let the villain wallow in his mess. That may be justice, but I certainly as hell don't agree that it's not taking revenge.

That is the TOPIC of the debate, all points are moot, look at the quote, look at me acknowledging that neeson was left to wallow in his mess, look at what batman said.

NOW, do you truly believe that that is not taking revenge. A possible answer could be that revenge is something that must leave one's soul, you can kill someone, but not for vengeance's sake. That is an argument I will accept.

Not the MOOT point of lack of evidence.

In order to parrallel staying on topic with this debate I think I should restate my opinion that Jack Nicholson will never be upstaged and that Keaton would be a decent choice for the Joker although I heard that Steve Carrell was chosen as the role from some Tomatoemeterheads.

If you disagree to that above paragraph then reply in a different message than one pertaining to batman's actions on the end of the train.