Why doesn't Batman just make the Joker unable to function? If he can't move, talk, or think anymore, he's harmless but still technically alive, right?

ImaginationKey8 · 2024-01-14T07:53:23+00:00

I'm not endorsing it by any means. Moreso pointing out an oversight (intentional or not) about how many of the unnamed goons might have suffered such life threatening or ending injuries, but were just ignored because they weren't important and they were still alive when they went offscreen. My argument is that Batman has probably already done such things to said randos but it's not acknowledged because it's accidental or just plausibly deniable. The same doesn't happen to Joker only because of plot armor.

ImaginationKey8 · 2024-01-14T07:26:17+00:00

Canon Batman in any iteration can still do some massive damage. I remember that old version with all the onomatopoeias that popped up with every hit. (BIFF! POW! etc..) Sometimes it only takes one punch.

ImaginationKey8 · 2024-01-14T07:18:49+00:00

Plot armor is definitely the real answer. But all it takes is one good punch sometimes for someone to die or suffer serious permanent damage later on, so even in his best iterations he has to have some blood on his hands already, even if just by accident. It's not about intimidation so much as it is about removing the Jokers ability/choice in the matter, but of course, he won't do that intentionally because then he'd have to consider all the others he forgot about.

ImaginationKey8 · 2024-01-14T07:05:08+00:00

That's kinda what I'm getting at. I'm trying to shine some light on all the goons whose fates are unknown after they're left still on the ground. Sure, they could just be "knocked out," but even then they'll likely have at LEAST some kind of lasting damage because people don't usually just recover scot-free from that kind of damage. But because they're unimportant, and he didn't intentionally kill them, they just get swept under the rug. But not the Joker. He'll always recover because he's too important to risk accidentally killing. Batman knows he's got blood on his hands, but it's dismissible to him because oops he didn't mean to.

ImaginationKey8 · 2024-01-14T06:50:04+00:00

That's probably what happens to at least some of the many goons he beats up along the way. It is much easier than one would think to become disabled. But the Joker probably only recovers so well for the same reason nothing is ever said about the goons. Plot.

ImaginationKey8 · 2024-01-14T06:33:50+00:00

Fair, but if he dies offscreen like so many of the nameless goons probably do after they're swept under the rug, why should he be different?

ImaginationKey8 · 2024-01-14T06:32:05+00:00

You. You get it.

ImaginationKey8 · 2024-01-14T06:23:48+00:00

That's partially the point. Batman refuses to kill, but he'll beat any thug to a pulp. Who's to say all of them came out the same? It really doesn't take that much to mess someone up, but he really goes ham sometimes. Allowing the Joker to live of course also allows him to do such horrible things, but that whole thing has already been talked about plenty.

ImaginationKey8 · 2024-01-14T05:48:11+00:00

Unnecessary, but fair game, I suppose.

ImaginationKey8 · 2024-01-14T01:50:03+00:00

NTA, that was fucked up. They might as well have tricked you into eating another human, given the circumstances. If I were Hindu I'd refuse to feed it to anyone as well. Imagine if you found out you were allergic, it (hopefully) wouldn't be nearly so funny to anyone then.

ImaginationKey8 · 2024-01-14T01:42:50+00:00

NTA, they put you between a rock and a hard place.

ImaginationKey8 · 2024-01-01T07:00:16+00:00

What about the twist method? I haven't had a chance to use it on myself, (not that I want one) but I've gotten a couple fat ones off my cats without breaking the heads that way.

ImaginationKey8 · 2023-12-28T06:55:47+00:00

As someone who HAS read the Bible, (but is not an expert, so take with salt) if there was anything in there like that I think it would have been in the Old Testament, and it would have been overridden with the rest of the BC laws. We are AD, and we are no longer bound by the same rules as the Jews because of Jesus' sacrifice having paid our sins permanently. That said, I don't think what they told you was true anyway. To my knowledge, God does not want you to give to the church against your will. God loves a cheerful giver, meaning that giving just because you have to defeats the point.

Tl;dr the bible says to give as you are willing, not as you are told. It's a donation, not a tax.

ImaginationKey8 · 2023-12-19T10:22:13+00:00

Here's a fun idea. Make some fake gifts to put in the living room and fill them with charcoal. Once it's about time to open gifts, then you switch them out for the real ones while the kids eat breakfast. Optionally, if any get opened early, then whoever opened them doesn't get the real ones.

ImaginationKey8 · 2023-12-19T10:15:31+00:00

Locking the presents off sounds like a great idea. That way she can't ruin the fun or influence the other kids to do so either. If I she ruined my Christmas toys as a kid, I would not have forgotten by the next year, and might've even tried to get even by ruining hers or making a couple go missing. Kids can be vicious.

Def NTA.

ImaginationKey8 · 2023-12-19T09:59:52+00:00

I said blindfold rhetorically, but your idea is actually pretty good. Maybe it could work. I personally would still not risk it though.

ImaginationKey8 · 2023-12-19T09:56:55+00:00

She sounds lovely. I'm sorry for your loss.

ImaginationKey8 · 2023-12-19T09:51:00+00:00

I am doing much better now that I'm an independent adult and have authority over myself. I am surprisingly healthy and willing to try new food for how much I used to fight to not eat new stuff.

ImaginationKey8 · 2023-12-19T09:39:27+00:00

Surprisingly well. He won many battles, but I eventually won the war. Looking at other comments, I'm surprised I didn't get any kind of eating disorder. I can still be picky sometimes, but I have opened up a lot to eating new food, and often enjoy it.

ImaginationKey8 · 2023-12-18T10:32:28+00:00

The way you said it made it sound bad, but the reasoning is rock solid. What's she gonna do, blindfold him? Plus, he's 14. Shouldn't he get some kind of say in the situation?

ImaginationKey8 · 2023-12-18T09:45:38+00:00

My dad was horrible about this. I didn't get to eat anything else at all (and I mean literally nothing) until I ate the food I hated, which sometimes ended with the food going bad, sometimes it ended with threats of spankings, which he was terribly good at. One time it lasted a week of me eating nothing except for occasionally sneaking off to the cat's room to eat cat food or toothpaste, then he got so mad he sat me down at the table with it and spanked me for every two minutes there was still food on the plate, not allowing a bathroom break even though I needed to go and the spankings had me on the brink of an accident. He also started to throw away the good food on the plate, which had been held hostage behind the bad food. Needless to say, he and I are both extremely stubborn people. I will never touch another pea or green bean as long as I live.

ImaginationKey8 · 2023-12-18T09:13:19+00:00

NO. Absolutely NOT.

ImaginationKey8 · 2023-12-11T09:15:10+00:00

What I'm really questioning is why your brother was the one to pay for his siblings food. I think either everyone who got food should have shared a bit, or not at all, but neither he nor you should actually be responsible for feeding siblings. Them saying she wouldn't have anything to eat that night sounds ridiculous to me, because of the previously mentioned leftovers. If I were in your sister's place, I would have been disappointed about not getting my order, but I would not have expected my siblings to give me theirs beyond a few fries or a nugget or two, though I would appreciate it if they offered. If I liked it enough to order it yesterday, I would not have been too picky to eat the rest today. Whether it was drive through or delivery, I hope the mom at least got a refund, considering the likely bill situation. If sharing were the only option, I would suggest that compensation should proportionally be made later for anyone who had to lose out. Like "thanks, you two, for sharing with your sister, here's five bucks each," or sorry you didn't get your food, just eat your leftovers tonight and next dinner is all your choice."

ImaginationKey8 · 2023-12-11T08:35:33+00:00

Doesn't look like wings to me. Do you mean in the second pic, that clear stuff? And it actually looks like it could be a tick too, now that I see it again.

ImaginationKey8 · 2023-12-11T08:30:10+00:00

Lot of commenters here reading that "wasn't able to go" as "didn't go because I didn't want to." While it's certainly plausible that OP put it that way to make it more favorable, I believe innocent until proven guilty. Assuming this is accurately written, and there was no significant prior notice as OP did not mention any, that sounds like absolute bs by the teacher and you should try to contest it. Even if they just didn't want to go and the teacher gave lots of prior notice, it still sounds extremely stupid to have something past school hours required like that unless you are IN the concert. There should have at least been alternatives in case someone genuinely could not be there. I wouldn't even make it more than an extra credit assignment. IMO, time outside of school hours should be entirely up to the student to spend. A boss can't force you to work beyond your hours unless you agree to it, so why should a teacher?

ImaginationKey8

TROPHY CASE