Perez #1 Discussion

[brettc1]

No, it really isn't "both people's responsibility." Hippolyta is not responsible for Hercules' choices. Yes, I know, the author makes the choices. But, since you keep talking about this as if they are real, then how is Hercules not responsible for what he chooses to do? Do you let your school kids punch each other based on "he made me do it, because he said something mean"? Or, do you teach them it may be hurtful for Child A to say something mean, but that doesn't mean Child B gets to attack Child A?

And, Hercules is no child. He just acts like one sometimes.

No, but she and the Amazons are responsible for their own mistakes. Perez effectively says so, via the Goddesses.

In your example, the child who threw the punish suffers a consequence. There is no need to apply a consequence to the verbal bully, because they've already had one.

Of course this doesn't really apply to Perez #1, because in your analogy Child A is acting with intent. Hippolyta seems to genuinely want to make friends with Heracles, so I think we can chalk her dialogue up to a poor choice of words rather than deliberate malice.

It probably also has something to do with the Amazons latent superiority complex.

So, now she's wrong for treating him like he can be reasonable?

It's actually a no-win either way. If she assumes he can be reasonable, there is no point to belittling him. And if she assumes he cannot be reasonable, then insulting him will only push his buttons.

I never said I was happy with the words nor that it matched my perception. What I'm unhappy with is you ascribing the blame to her. She did not set the stage for violent conflict. He did. He brought the army. He chose to attack. He is capable of intelligent thought and made his own choices. Any "fault" in her words are just words. Words from others do not control us unless we give up our control of self - which is really just an excuse. "She made me do it" is not a valid defense.

I never actually said blame, though in fact the Goddesses disagree. They are VERY clear on the fact that the tragedy goes all the way back to the Amazons allowing themselves to cowed by the threat of others and isolating themselves. You might not agree with that and I might find that a bit harsh, but that's what Perez writes.

Yes, I know where you are going with this, because my country could be smack dab in the middle of a literal World War 3 thanks to two idtiots that should be banned from Twitter.

If it's any comfort we'd all be in the same boat. But it's an excellent example of how fear and ignorance can lead to poor choices.

And she extends her hand in friendship even after, he not only uses bad words, but attacks her.

Yes, after she challenges him by telling him she's better than he is. Don't try to tell me that is not a challenge to a warrior. It most certainly is. "Brute" strength is a belittling term. Vanguard would no doubt say that he was insulting first [and he was] but if your own argument that responding with violence to verbal taunts is to be accepted you must also accept that responding to verbal jabs in kind is also counter productive to peace.

Again, we may assign this faux pas on Hippolyta's part to an honest mistake and a certain lack of humility.

And her challenge is based, by the way, on no actual evidence. Hippolyta merely assumes that she smarter and the better warrior.

You've been telling me this for years, and I still consider you a friend.

I have NEVER said that.

Out loud...

Yes, Heracles has the CHOICE to not attack. It's his CHOICE. Her words are her words. His actions are his actions. She didn't make him do anything. He CHOSE violence.

Yes. Everyone makes choices.

Again, we don't all respond to the same words. There is no perfect thing to say that's going to reduce the chances of confrontation. If you don't believe me, then why has Child A in Asia never really "reduced the chance for conflict" no matter what anyone from any country has said to him?

If I had to make a guess, I would say because he lives in paranoid fear. Nevertheless, I trust that we both agree that Child B in Washington tweeting "I double dog dare you to fire a nuke," would be an unfortunate choice.

I mean, if words weren't important, why are there very clear rules about the words you can use on CBR?

[Awonder]

No, but she and the Amazons are responsible for their own mistakes. Perez effectively says so, via the Goddesses.

In your example, the child who threw the punish suffers a consequence. There is no need to apply a consequence to the verbal bully, because they've already had one.

Of course this doesn't really apply to Perez #1, because in your analogy Child A is acting with intent. Hippolyta seems to genuinely want to make friends with Heracles, so I think we can chalk her dialogue up to a poor choice of words rather than deliberate malice.

Words =/= physical violence. Whatever responsibility you want to give Hippolyta for her "poor choice of words," words do not start violent conflicts. The choice to inflict violent conflict starts the violence.

It probably also has something to do with the Amazons latent superiority complex.

And Hercules doesn't have a superiority complex? It's not as if he was known for valuing diplomacy. As Vangaurd mentioned earlier, perhaps she's speaking to Hercules in his language, since strength is what he knows and values. How does he first respond when knocked down by Hippolyta? "HA! By Zeus, girl -- Heracles is impressed! Men! Lay back! The Amazons are worthy allies indeed!"

The story could have ended it at that, right? It's really not that hard to imagine a warrior earning the respect of another warrior through a fight. He chose the violence, not her.

It's actually a no-win either way. If she assumes he can be reasonable, there is no point to belittling him. And if she assumes he cannot be reasonable, then insulting him will only push his buttons.

So, you're critical of her for not winning a no-win?

I never actually said blame, though in fact the Goddesses disagree. They are VERY clear on the fact that the tragedy goes all the way back to the Amazons allowing themselves to cowed by the threat of others and isolating themselves. You might not agree with that and I might find that a bit harsh, but that's what Perez writes.

You just said it was "both people's responsibility." You started the thread saying she "could hardly have set the stage for violent conflict more successfully," right? How is that not blame?

If it's any comfort we'd all be in the same boat. But it's an excellent example of how fear and ignorance can lead to poor choices.

Other countries can choose to stay out of it. The U.S. doesn't get that option. And it's driven by ego more than anything.

Yes, after she challenges him by telling him she's better than he is. Don't try to tell me that is not a challenge to a warrior. It most certainly is. "Brute" strength is a belittling term. Vanguard would no doubt say that he was insulting first [and he was] but if your own argument that responding with violence to verbal taunts is to be accepted you must also accept that responding to verbal jabs in kind is also counter productive to peace.

Again, we may assign this faux pas on Hippolyta's part to an honest mistake and a certain lack of humility.

And her challenge is based, by the way, on no actual evidence. Hippolyta merely assumes that she smarter and the better warrior.

He wasn't going to respond to "evidence" unless he saw and experienced it himself - which she obliged only because he chose the physical conflict and rejected her plea of "why not join us instead, in peace?" (the part you edited out in your previous post ). Hercules chose to challenge her; she merely stood up to the challenge.

I have NEVER said that.

Out loud...

You, also, didn't answer your own question - so, how often do you physically attack others for their words?

If I had to make a guess, I would say because he lives in paranoid fear. Nevertheless, I trust that we both agree that Child B in Washington tweeting "I double dog dare you to fire a nuke," would be an unfortunate choice.

Ego. If it was just fear, the way out is easy. But, ego won't let them. Only an egotistical idiot would choose to start a violent conflict because of a "double dog dare." Still, twitter, Facebook, etc, need to ban Child B for the sake of all humanity.

I mean, if words weren't important, why are there very clear rules about the words you can use on CBR?

I didn't say words have no importance. I am saying they are words. Your words do not control my reactions nor do my words control yours, wouldn't you agree? Hercules chose to bring an army with the intent on forcing his will on others through "brute" strength. She did not set the stage for violence; the choice for violence is his.

He brought the violent intent to her before she ever said a word. That's what really sets the stage. She would have been justified for killing him, but she never even uses the sharp edges of her weapons.

[Vanguard-01]

Thank goodness for the Internet, where I can say this line without sounding so painfully white!

"Don't start none, there won't be none."

Had Heracles not come the Themiscyra, there would've been no rapes and no deaths. Had Heracles come to Themiscyra and chose to approach Hippolyta with respect, there would've been no rapes and no deaths. Had Heracles had the moral fortitude of even the AVERAGE human being, there would've been no rapes and no deaths.

Compare all of this to "If Hippolyta had spoken more respectfully to the raping mass-murderer at her door, there MAY have been no rapes and no deaths." Especially when taking into account the fact that we KNOW there still would've been rapes and deaths even if Hippolyta had thrown herself at Heracles' feet, begging for hid mercy?

Yep. The fault was Heracles'. ALL Heracles'. Hippolyta being a little snide doesn't even move the needle on the Blame-o-Meter.

[brettc1]

Words =/= physical violence. Whatever responsibility you want to give Hippolyta for her "poor choice of words," words do not start violent conflicts. The choice to inflict violent conflict starts the violence.

Cyber bullying has caused death, and that's just words. Emotional abuse is now a recognized form of domestic violence in some countries. Of course words can trigger violent conflicts. Any teacher who has spent time in the playground will tell you the same thing.

And Hercules doesn't have a superiority complex? It's not as if he was known for valuing diplomacy. As Vangaurd mentioned earlier, perhaps she's speaking to Hercules in his language, since strength is what he knows and values. How does he first respond when knocked down by Hippolyta? "HA! By Zeus, girl -- Heracles is impressed! Men! Lay back! The Amazons are worthy allies indeed!"

The story could have ended it at that, right? It's really not that hard to imagine a warrior earning the respect of another warrior through a fight. He chose the violence, not her.

Oh yes, he did. There is no question of that. But surpassing Heracles in emotional maturity is by your own admission not a particularly high bar to clear.

I am glad we agree about the Amazons superiority complex.

The choice she gives him, surrender or die, is also not a very good one. Gail Simone handled that much better, I think.

So, you're critical of her for not winning a no-win?

Of course not. I am critical or her creating one.

You just said it was "both people's responsibility." You started the thread saying she "could hardly have set the stage for violent conflict more successfully," right? How is that not blame?

I said she could hardly have done it more successfully if she were trying to, so you need to use the whole quote Awonder. Her choice of words doesn't seem to malicious. Just foolish.

He wasn't going to respond to "evidence" unless he saw and experienced it himself - which she obliged only because he chose the physical conflict and rejected her plea of "why not join us instead, in peace?" (the part you edited out in your previous post ). Hercules chose to challenge her; she merely stood up to the challenge.

Yes, she offers peace, as a leader to a follower. She could have said "we would choose to work with you" but didn't. Not a good opening move, because she hasn't done anything to earn respect in that regard. You could say that she then defeats him in battle, but it doesn't seem like that earned any respect from him either.

You, also, didn't answer your own question - so, how often do you physically attack others for their words?

I neither attack people for their words nor provoke angry people with mine.

I didn't say words have no importance. I am saying they are words. Your words do not control my reactions nor do my words control yours, wouldn't you agree?

How I react and how I feel are not always the same, and I have the option to use the edit button. If Hippolyta were as wise as she thinks here, she might have seen that Heracles is not going to be befriended by insults.

Hercules chose to bring an army with the intent on forcing his will on others through "brute" strength. She did not set the stage for violence; the choice for violence is his.

He brought the violent intent to her before she ever said a word. That's what really sets the stage. She would have been justified for killing him, but she never even uses the sharp edges of her weapons.

She would have been justified in killing him.

It's a terrible idea. France felt they were justified in imposing crippling sanctions on Germany at the end of the First World War. That didn't turn out so well for quite a lot of people in the long run. As Hippolyta's daughter knows, you can win the war but lose the peace.

That is why Diana is Wonder Woman, not Hippolyta.

[brettc1]

Thank goodness for the Internet, where I can say this line without sounding so painfully white!

"Don't start none, there won't be none."

Had Heracles not come the Themiscyra, there would've been no rapes and no deaths. Had Heracles come to Themiscyra and chose to approach Hippolyta with respect, there would've been no rapes and no deaths. Had Heracles had the moral fortitude of even the AVERAGE human being, there would've been no rapes and no deaths.

Compare all of this to "If Hippolyta had spoken more respectfully to the raping mass-murderer at her door, there MAY have been no rapes and no deaths." Especially when taking into account the fact that we KNOW there still would've been rapes and deaths even if Hippolyta had thrown herself at Heracles' feet, begging for hid mercy?

Yep. The fault was Heracles'. ALL Heracles'. Hippolyta being a little snide doesn't even move the needle on the Blame-o-Meter.

Perez, via the goddesses, does not seem to agree. Heracles is responsible for his crimes after the Amazons have been defeated, but the steps that lay to the conflict seem to stretch Bach further than the climax we are shown. Perez mentions this as well.

It's also interesting that very few people mention the grand architect of the disaster, Ares. If the fault is all Heracles, you are saying Ares is completely innocent.

[Awonder]

Cyber bullying has caused death, and that's just words. Emotional abuse is now a recognized form of domestic violence in some countries. Of course words can trigger violent conflicts. Any teacher who has spent time in the playground will tell you the same thing.

I do not wish to downplay the hurt of cyber bullying or emotional abuse. But, Herc is the bully here. He is not a child on the playground, he is an adult with a functional brain; the violent conflict is his choice.

Oh yes, he did. There is no question of that. But surpassing Heracles in emotional maturity is by your own admission not a particularly high bar to clear.

If there is no question that Hercules chose to start the physical violence, then why do you keep saying it was "both" of their responsibility? At best, her words can only trigger his initial emotions. His actions - actions of violence - are still his choice.

I am glad we agree about the Amazons superiority complex.

That is not what I said. I, also, don't think "superiority" is cause for violence. Michael Phelps is a superior swimmer to me. Usain Bolt is a superior sprinter. If either of them were to say so to my face, laughing and saying I would be "foolish" to challenge them, it would not cause me to attack them. Nor would a court say I would be justified in physically assaulting them for their word choice.

The choice she gives him, surrender or die, is also not a very good one. Gail Simone handled that much better, I think.

It's far better than he gave her and better than he deserves. She could have simply killed him on the spot.

Of course not. I am critical or her creating one.

She does not create the scenario. She did not march her army to his doorstep unprovoked. She offers him peace. He chose to attack. He creates the violence.

I said she could hardly have done it more successfully if she were trying to, so you need to use the whole quote Awonder. Her choice of words doesn't seem to malicious. Just foolish.

I know the whole quote and assumed you did, too. How does that change anything?

And, if she is so wrong for using the word "foolish," then why is it ok for you to use it? Or, should she physically attack you for unintentionally setting the stage for violence and causing her attack?

Yes, she offers peace, as a leader to a follower. She could have said "we would choose to work with you" but didn't. Not a good opening move, because she hasn't done anything to earn respect in that regard. You could say that she then defeats him in battle, but it doesn't seem like that earned any respect from him either.

Does Hercules come up with the 12 Labors on his own? No. He follows the orders of a king. And, he doesn't respect her, not because of her diplomatic skills, but, because she is a woman. Did you not read the whole issue?

I neither attack people for their words nor provoke angry people with mine.

Are you sure about that last part?

How I react and how I feel are not always the same, and I have the option to use the edit button. If Hippolyta were as wise as she thinks here, she might have seen that Heracles is not going to be befriended by insults.

Heracles wasn't going to be befriended, because that isn't what he was there for.

She would have been justified in killing him.

It's a terrible idea. France felt they were justified in imposing crippling sanctions on Germany at the end of the First World War. That didn't turn out so well for quite a lot of people in the long run. As Hippolyta's daughter knows, you can win the war but lose the peace.

Hippolyta does not impose crippling sanctions on Heracles and his men, right? No, even after being attacked, she offers peace.

That is why Diana is Wonder Woman, not Hippolyta.

And, Diana would say that she is who she is due, in large part, to being raised well by her loving mother and peace-minded sisters.

[Awonder]

... It's also interesting that very few people mention the grand architect of the disaster, Ares. If the fault is all Heracles, you are saying Ares is completely innocent.

Is Ares physically or mentally controlling Heracles? If not, Ares is only able to manipulate Heracles, because Heracles allows himself to be a slave to his emotions. He lacks self-control; that is no ones fault but his own. Ares may push Herc's buttons, so to speak, but Herc still makes his own choices for his behavior. Did you not pay attention to the movie?

In this issue, what does Apollo say "mankind is ever blessed -- and cursed --" with what? What is the last, great human freedom?

[brettc1]

Is Ares physically or mentally controlling Heracles? If not, Ares is only able to manipulate Heracles, because Heracles allows himself to be a slave to his emotions. He lacks self-control; that is no ones fault but his own. Ares may push Herc's buttons, so to speak, but Herc still makes his own choices for his behavior. Did you not pay attention to the movie?

Provocative.

In this issue, what does Apollo say "mankind is ever blessed -- and cursed --" with what? What is the last, great human freedom?

Stupidity.

Perhaps Hippolyta's choice to exchange barbs is evidence of her own lack of self control. But your argument would effectively render the Greek men not in any way responsible for the subsequent murderous rampage of the Amazons, and I don't agree with that.

As to your question about provoking people - well, they are only words, no? I am not responsible for how people react, you have said. My feelings above are nothing to do with you, apparently.

But at least I can saw with confidence that I have never provoked an obviously belligerent demi-god with an army of trained warriors when the lives of those I was responsible for was in the balance.

[Vanguard-01]

Perez, via the goddesses, does not seem to agree. Heracles is responsible for his crimes after the Amazons have been defeated, but the steps that lay to the conflict seem to stretch Bach further than the climax we are shown. Perez mentions this as well.

It's also interesting that very few people mention the grand architect of the disaster, Ares. If the fault is all Heracles, you are saying Ares is completely innocent.

Then Perez proves that he is a human being and thus capable of making mistakes. If he was trying to convey that Hippolyta had ANY culpability in what happened, he did not succeed. Not to me. Not to plenty of other people, I'd wager.

It's all about how you view the material. I will NEVER believe that talking some smack at the guy who is invading my home and bragging about his intentions to rape and enslave me is in any way a bad or wrong thing. If you're coming to hurt me, hurting your feelings is the LEAST that I'm going to try to do. Given any opportunity, I'm going to try my best to kill you. Preferably in the most painful way available to me.

The goddesses may be better portrayed in Perez's run than they were in classical mythology, but they were still fallible beings who are perfectly capable of being wrong. I do not accept the goddess's judgement on Hippolyta, with the exception of the part in which she deliberately disobeyed a direct command from them. If you prefer to believe that a woman defending her home and everything she holds dear has no right to try to strike back at her attacker by any means available to her, then I guess we have nothing else to discuss.

EDIT: Oh, and Ares? Awonder already covered it. Unless Herc was mind controlled, Ares didn't MAKE anything happen. He put an idea in Herc's head. Herc chose to act on it. The fault is his.

[Vanguard-01]

But at least I can saw with confidence that I have never provoked an obviously belligerent demi-god with an army of trained warriors when the lives of those I was responsible for was in the balance.

Are you, yourself, a superpowered warrior with excellent weapons and training and an equally well-trained and well-equipped army at your back? If not, then OF COURSE you wouldn't provoke him. You would literally be inviting your own death and the life of everything you held dear. Hippolyta, however, had every reason to believe she could handle Heracles.

And hey! Look at that! It would appear she was quite right.

[Awonder]

Provocative.

?

Stupidity.

Sadly, that is a common choice.

Perhaps Hippolyta's choice to exchange barbs is evidence of her own lack of self control.

Perhaps. Or she just doesn't speak as perfectly as you want her to, in part, because she isn't speaking to you? I have heard far worse than anything Hippolyta said just playing basketball at the gym - and no one attacked anybody.

But your argument would effectively render the Greek men not in any way responsible for the subsequent murderous rampage of the Amazons, and I don't agree with that.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Have I not been repeatedly saying that people choose their own actions?

As to your question about provoking people - well, they are only words, no? I am not responsible for how people react, you have said. My feelings above are nothing to do with you, apparently.

I don't understand what feelings your are referring to here.

But at least I can saw with confidence that I have never provoked an obviously belligerent demi-god with an army of trained warriors when the lives of those I was responsible for was in the balance.

And, I can say with confidence that you have never befriended an obviously belligerent demi-god either.

[Awonder]

... Herc chose to act on it. The fault is his.

A nice summary for the thread.

[brettc1]

Then Perez proves that he is a human being and thus capable of making mistakes. If he was trying to convey that Hippolyta had ANY culpability in what happened, he did not succeed. Not to me. Not to plenty of other people, I'd wager.

It's all about how you view the material. I will NEVER believe that talking some smack at the guy who is invading my home and bragging about his intentions to rape and enslave me is in any way a bad or wrong thing. If you're coming to hurt me, hurting your feelings is the LEAST that I'm going to try to do. Given any opportunity, I'm going to try my best to kill you. Preferably in the most painful way available to me.

The goddesses may be better portrayed in Perez's run than they were in classical mythology, but they were still fallible beings who are perfectly capable of being wrong. I do not accept the goddess's judgement on Hippolyta, with the exception of the part in which she deliberately disobeyed a direct command from them. If you prefer to believe that a woman defending her home and everything she holds dear has no right to try to strike back at her attacker by any means available to her, then I guess we have nothing else to discuss.

EDIT: Oh, and Ares? Awonder already covered it. Unless Herc was mind controlled, Ares didn't MAKE anything happen. He put an idea in Herc's head. Herc chose to act on it. The fault is his.

Well, all we can say for sure is that Wonder Woman and the Amazons agree with the goddesses judgment, and I agree with Wonder Woman and the Amazons.

[brettc1]

?

Yes. You see how easy it is.

Sadly, that is a common choice.

Again, yes.

Perhaps. Or she just doesn't speak as perfectly as you want her to, in part, because she isn't speaking to you? I have heard far worse than anything Hippolyta said just playing basketball at the gym - and no one attacked anybody.

Maybe because they knew they were not there to kill each other.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Have I not been repeatedly saying that people choose their own actions?

Yes, and the Amazons chose to kill all of those men as an act of vengeance. We can safely assume that by the end of the battle the defeated Greeks were either fleeing or trying to surrender, but they were killed to a man.

So you have said that people are responsible for what they do, and those they do it to are not. So if a Greek were trying to surrender to an Amazon he had ravaged, and she killed him anyway, that's all on her. Apparently.

I don't understand what feelings your are referring to here.

/\

And, I can say with confidence that you have never befriended an obviously belligerent demi-god either.

Belligerent demi-gods, 6 year olds... it's all the same except the height.

[brettc1]

Are you, yourself, a superpowered warrior with excellent weapons and training and an equally well-trained and well-equipped army at your back? If not, then OF COURSE you wouldn't provoke him. You would literally be inviting your own death and the life of everything you held dear. Hippolyta, however, had every reason to believe she could handle Heracles.

And hey! Look at that! It would appear she was quite right.

Actually, it is clear she massively wrong.