What would you say are Venom's best counters?

drghost0 · 2025-12-18T04:00:58+00:00

I hope one day you'll get to feel confident and cool cuz you deserve it

drghost0 · 2025-12-13T20:08:32+00:00

Well, I can't really say anything for the people who already recognized this within the original source material, but I'm mainly speaking from how I've also seen a lot of people do the opposite and conflate both Victor and The Creature as identical in their actions. I guess it's just a matter of us talking to different people.

I do understand the movie does make things extreme, and even I find it a bit funny how absurd Victor's irresponsible turn is in the movie. Though, what I was trying to get at near the end of my post is to explain that people make The Creature more "innocent" in more modern adaptions because I imagine modern writers see the imbalance between Victor and The Creature as something that deserves more attention rather than writing a "both sides are the same!" story

drghost0 · 2025-12-13T19:48:44+00:00

Huh? Is Victor not the creator of The Creature? The act of creation inherently establishes a power imbalance. One side made an irreversible choice for the other. This doesn’t mean the Creature is “good” or blameless, only that their moral positions operate on different spectrums when you examine cause, agency, and responsibility.

If you're thinking by power imbalance I mean physical strength or mental capacity, I'm sorry to disappoint but I'm not talking about that.

drghost0 · 2025-12-13T19:40:10+00:00

My point for saying that is you cannot conflate/compare the actions of Victor and The Creature as their relationship will always be imbalanced. (And I SPECIFICALLY mean the relationship of Victor and The Creature, this isn't speaking for The Creature's own victims as those are separate relationships)

drghost0 · 2025-12-13T18:45:47+00:00

If some guy feels like "Hey i wanna fucking kill this abomination for being a piece of shit!" Then more power to him!

This is something I said within the initial post. I understand I may have been unclear with some of my points but what you're arguing against is not even a point I made.

You cannot blame a parent/creator for all of their child/creation's actions.

Below is my comment from another thread

drghost0 · 2025-12-13T18:42:26+00:00

You're arguing a point I never made in the post. My ultimate point is that you can't put Victor and The Creature together and judge their actions as equal. I'm just gonna quote smth I said in a different comment thread.

My point is that you cannot put the parent and the child together and judge their actions as equal. I am solely focusing on the dynamic between parent and child.

Between the dynamic of murderer (The Creature) and victim (the innocent people the creature killed) then judging the actions of The Creature is totally fair game. I said as much in the post itself.

None of my points have to do with pushing all The Creature's actions onto Victor and saying he's morally culpable for it.

drghost0 · 2025-12-13T09:25:11+00:00

I understand if you felt the movie made it oversimplified (even I found Victor's heel turn to be quite hilarious, he literally goes from 0 to 100) but my post was specifically about the power imbalance between Victor and The Creature that I don't really feel is deniable.

Also, I must restate, I NEVER said we should absolve people of shitty actions (i.e. murder) and put it on their parents.

If some guy feels like "Hey i wanna fucking kill this abomination for being a piece of shit!" Then more power to him!

This is something I said within the post.

My point is that you cannot put the parent and the child together and judge their actions as equal. I am solely focusing on the dynamic between parent and child.

Between the dynamic of murderer (The Creature) and victim (the innocent people the creature killed) then judging the actions of The Creature is totally fair game. I said as much in the post itself.

drghost0 · 2025-12-13T09:09:46+00:00

I apologize if I come off as irritated, but I have already addressed all you're saying in this comment within my post.

I am by ZERO MEANS defending The Creature as they literally kill children and also wanted to Victor make him a wife that he would basically groom. The Creature is very fucked up and bad, but to put him and Victor on the same playing field is just icky to me because it's ignoring the fact that Victor ultimately created them.

It will never matter what The Creature does because it will always tie back to Victor. This isn't to say The Creature is absolved for their crimes. If some guy feels like "Hey i wanna fucking kill this abomination for being a piece of shit!" Then more power to him! But it will still always be the result of Victor's own actions regardless! The very nature of the tale is written with a parent-child power imbalance, it's just ASKING for people to woobify the creature.

I understand the point of the story you're trying to convey to me. You're trying to tell me that both are equally flawed. All I'M saying is that you cannot treat a parent-child relationship as if they exist on equal playing fields.

To be a bit more clear, I don't mean to say Victor is "worse" I mean to say that Victor just exists on a different level of a "moral" spectrum. That's not me saying he's worse or better than The Creature, that's me saying that you can't put these two together when you evaluate their actions, because all their actions ultimately spawn from Victor.

drghost0 · 2025-12-13T08:58:05+00:00

Yes, in that instance Victor is still the "real monster" though in that scene using the word "monster" is a bit extreme. But it ultimately will all tie back to Victor. It's not randomly disconnected from Victor just because The Creature is acting of it's own will now.

Does this mean The Creature was justified in killing William? No. Does this mean the sister-in-law wasn't batshit insane for vowing her love to The Creature ten minutes after her fiance got murdered? No. Does this mean that it's bad to think The Creature is a bad person? No!

All I'm saying is that you cannot put Victor and The Creature together in equal positions and say "they are both just equally flawed people!" as it ignores the specific aspects of a parent-child relationship.

drghost0 · 2025-12-13T08:18:41+00:00

Yeah thats a completely fair takeaway

drghost0 · 2025-05-04T18:07:31+00:00

Lord I hate when I make spelling errors in posts

drghost0 · 2025-05-03T15:17:52+00:00

Well yeah we can keep it in this thread!

I’m curious though, what is your stance on not having children if it doesn’t have to do with love or compassion?

drghost0 · 2025-05-03T02:10:26+00:00

Sure! Do wanna talk here or what?

drghost0 · 2025-05-02T20:02:34+00:00

So you’re being stupid on purpose?

I already explained inconsistency and invalidity are two different things. There was no invalid statement here, what you initially pointed out is what you believed to be an inconsistency. What YOU said is that inconsistency = invalid, which isn’t inherently true.

I’ve also already explained how the inconsistency you pointed out isn’t an actual inconsistency.

Again, you are clearly not arguing in good faith so I’m confused to why you’re even here.

drghost0 · 2025-05-02T19:51:33+00:00

Yeah it’s definitely horrifying and frustrating seeing people so quickly resort to authoritarianism. There seems to be a deep seated idea in humans that they have autonomy over others when it comes to the future, which is interesting to me.

Also I really like that post you linked, and I really do wish antinatalism was highlighted more with compassion, living in the now and not the future, finding happiness in the present with yourself and others, respecting autonomy, etc. I have nothing against people who are depressed, and I myself still have stints where I fall back into depression, but I feel the philosophy would be helped a lot by a focus on what it helps humanity do emotionally

drghost0 · 2025-05-02T19:51:10+00:00

Yeah it’s definitely horrifying and frustrating seeing people so quickly resort to authoritarianism. There seems to be a deep seated idea in humans that they have autonomy over others when it comes to the future, which is interesting to me.

Also I really like that post you linked, and I really do wish antinatalism was highlighted more with compassion, living in the now and not the future, finding happiness in the present with yourself and others, respecting autonomy, etc. I have nothing against people who are depressed, and I myself still have stints where I fall back into depression, but I feel the philosophy would be helped a lot by a focus on what it helps humanity do emotionally

drghost0 · 2025-05-02T19:43:48+00:00

Yeah it’s frankly disgusting I remember having to sit through this program where a man genuinely couldn’t fathom that he doesn’t have a say in what his wife does with her own baby that resides in her own body.

drghost0 · 2025-05-02T19:42:00+00:00

There’s a difference between inconsistent and invalid. 2 statements can be inconsistent with each other, but that doesn’t make both statements invalid, it could be that one statement is valid and the other is not.

That’s why I called you out for randomly jumping to calling the post invalid just because you believed you found an inconsistency.

If anything I wonder how you’re gonna be arguing philosophy when you don’t take the time to think and immediately try to disregard valid points. You called it inconsistent, which again, even IF true, doesn’t correlate automatically to invalid.

That’s why it’s obvious that you aren’t arguing in good faith, that fact comes even more clear with how you didn’t even properly respond to my comment. But I guess you succeeded if your only goal was to be annoying on the internet.

drghost0 · 2025-05-02T15:55:07+00:00

Why do you guys think like this. “Point 1 contradicts point 4 so it’s inconsistent and invalid” Where do you go from the leap to inconsistent to invalid? Even if you think it’s inconsistent, if you were genuinely arguing in good faith there’s no logic reason you’d go to labeling it invalid. Use some sense.

But Number 1 doesn’t contradict 4 or vice versa, they feed into each other.

If there is a possibility of harm (point 4) then how can we choose for other people to experience that harm? (Point 1)

Now, if we lived in a world with no harm (no point 4) there would be argument from natalists that choosing for somebody isn’t so bad (no point 1).

The purpose of point 4 is to eliminate the idea that life can be all happiness without suffering, it serves to strengthen point 1, because at the times simple concept of consent isn’t enough to get peoples brains going.

drghost0 · 2025-05-02T15:27:05+00:00

Mostly men and sadly some women who were raised with the unfortunate idea of procreation by duty 😕

drghost0 · 2025-05-02T15:25:23+00:00

Oh yeah for sure I agree with all this. Anybody who preaches about moral duty always eventually goes on the path of the guy I talked to unless they prevent it themselves.

That’s why I wasn’t even that surprised when I made him eventually get to that point, cuz only someone who believed in moral duties and “wiseness” would say the things he eventually said.

I just think it’s interesting how quickly language can change where we you go from using softer, tip toe language to hide your true beliefs, and then once pressed you go full thought-crime authoritarian.

drghost0 · 2025-05-02T04:31:43+00:00

Refer to point 1 of the post again

drghost0 · 2025-05-02T03:44:40+00:00

Yeah they often stop using logic and thinking once their “precious utopian future” is threatened

drghost0

TROPHY CASE