Originally Posted by
Totoro Man
well, yes, superheroes ARE useless sadists and masochists if you actually stop to think about what they're doing. as you say, it looks even worse if they keep recycling the same characters and narratives over and over again. that's part of why everybody was tripping over themselves to praise Alan Moore's "Watchmen" comic. he made the cruel impotence of serial costumed superhero narratives the central plot-point and theme.
I'm not sure I would put torture and privacy violation at the same level as murder. seems like you're over-stating your case to make a point. I think I can respect where you're trying to go with this. but I disagree with you in the way that you wrote it.
torture and violating another person's privacy are not usually seen as more reprehensible than murder. this is reflected in the lower levels of punishment associated with those crimes.
however, in certain cases murder looks less evil to the average person because it's nearly impossible to excuse the act of torture or privacy invasion as 'crimes of passion': they are, by their very nature, always premeditated. so, from the perspective of motive, they tend to be harder for the defendant to worm their way out of it by making an emotional plea or begging for sympathy.
back on topic: some versions of Batman have killed. and sometimes it's even been accepted. people loved Burton's "Batman". even though in the final act he clearly knew that his actions would lead to the Joker's death at the end of the film. when I was a kid I strongly disliked that Batman murdered the Joker in that story. now, I don't object to it nearly as much. it's obviously not "my" take on the character - but the character is interesting and flexible enough to allow for alternate versions.
speaking of films: take "the Dark Knight" as another example. Batman obviously kills Harvey Dent - but he's let off the hook by most people because he was trying to save the life of a child. when the child declares "he didn't do anything wrong" it's supposed to be excused as the ignorance of youth. and, sure, if he was rescued from possible death by Batman killing Two Face it's all good.
Golden Age Batman (and Robin) killed with a regularity that would be considered alarming in this day and age. but most people didn't sweat it.
also, for the casual viewer, the impact of Batman killing is far less than it would be for that of a life-long and die-hard fan of the character.
there's still plenty of room for debate. personally, I think the notion that Batman doesn't kill is a flexible aspect of his character. it's not impossible for him to kill -- but it should be exceedingly rare.
and, obviously, the main reason Batman shouldn't be murdering the Joker is mostly because it would be a foolish editorial decision to allow one of the most popular characters in comics (aka the Joker) to get written out of stories. it's a fictional bit of entertainment with the intent of making money. Batman stories can be light-hearted and goofy or alternately dark and sadistic. it's part of why the character is so enduring and iconic... the concept is flexible enough to work in a variety of narratives and styles.
as an aside to darkseidpwns: what is this gibberish supposed to mean?
Contribute to what? this debate is settled. You're just strawmanning as usual. You just want to kill so thay he doesn't have any authority over some c lister you like .